1 Thursday, 5 July 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

10 IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor versus Ramush Haradinaj et al.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

12 Professor Aleksandric, may I remind you that you are still bound

13 by the solemn declaration you gave at the beginning of your testimony.

14 Ms. Issa, the Chamber encourages you to really focus on what will

15 be the matters in dispute and not to go through everything that is already

16 clearly there on paper. In view of the meanwhile-disclosed French report,

17 for example, I can imagine that that creates some issues which might cause

18 some dispute at a later stage. Some of the issues are known already, so

19 therefore instead of leading us through a lot of material which is, if not

20 the same, almost the same of what we've seen already and not very likely

21 to create great dispute, you're encouraged to focus on the matters I just

22 mentioned. Please proceed.

23 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour. I've actually attempted to rework my

24 examination-in-chief with that in mind. Your Honour, perhaps before we

25 begin I'd just like the witness to be handed up a copy of his 92 ter

1 statement which we have and given to Madam Usher.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MS. ISSA: As well as his attached reports which are annexes to

4 that statement to assist him in his testimony.

5 WITNESS: BRANIMIR ALEKSANDRIC [Resumed]

6 [Witness answered through interpreter]

7 Examination by Ms. Issa: [Continued]

8 Q. Now, just very briefly, Professor Aleksandric. We stopped

9 yesterday when you were explaining that -- that you found some electric

10 cables at the Ekonomija farm. Have you ever been to a farm or heard of a

11 situation in which electric cables were used to tie-up animals?

12 MR. HARVEY: Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Harvey.

14 MR. HARVEY: I'm sorry to interrupt. I understand that my client

15 is not receiving transmission.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Then it should be fixed. I take it that he is on the

17 right channel.

18 MR. HARVEY: Okay. We're back again. Thank you.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MS. ISSA:

21 Q. Professor Aleksandric, could you please answer that question.

22 A. If you're referring to whether I was there before the 11th of

23 September, 1998, no, I was never there before at the Ekonomija farm. As

24 far as the electrical cables are concerned, I recalled something as I

25 returned to the hotel room. I said yesterday that a piece of the cable

1 was found by the body marked as R-8. However, I also recall that there

2 was a piece of cable found by the body marked as R-13. It is general

3 knowledge that cattle is not tied up in the shed with the use of

4 electrical cable because it can harm them.

5 As far as the pieces of burnt paper are concerned, they were found

6 at the level at which the cables were found, and only the following

7 inference can be drawn from there. I was able to examine between 150 to

8 200 persons who were lucky enough to survive the camps in Bosnia. I heard

9 all manner of stories about how they had been tortured --

10 Q. I'll stop you there --

11 MR. GUY-SMITH: [Previous translation continues]...

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- Therefore, this image --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Go ahead, Mr. Dixon.

15 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, I was waiting to see where this would

16 lead. We do want to keep this to a minimum. But we've now gone through

17 the observations of the witness and if we're moving on to the stage where

18 conclusions are to be drawn in my submission those are outside --

19 JUDGE ORIE: The witness started telling us there was only one

20 inference possible and he didn't draw an inference but he started telling

21 us what he experienced in Bosnia which he is permitted to do. But the

22 inferences there seem not to be within his field of expertise.

23 Nevertheless, his experience in this respect might be relevant, so

24 therefore --

25 MR. DIXON: Certainly, but not the conclusions is my submission.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well --

2 MR. DIXON: -- what he's seen in the circumstances of this case.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he can tell us what we has seen in other cases.

4 MR. DIXON: Yes, the observations there's no objection to but not

5 the conclusions.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

7 MR. GUY-SMITH: The answer at this point is non-responsive to the

8 question asked; in addition, the question was dealing specifically with

9 issues concerning cables and the witness at this point is a bit far

10 afield.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I take it yesterday the question was already

12 about papers as well. So therefore that would be the next observation.

13 Let's try to proceed as efficiently as possible.

14 Professor Aleksandric, you may have noted that the Defence has

15 some difficulties in where you go -- where you would go beyond your own

16 expertise, I would say that the -- your experience as we have -- read from

17 your statement, your experience on what you see would be the physical

18 effect of -- of the situation you found there, certainly within your field

19 of expertise. Any further inferences to be drawn as to what caused people

20 perhaps to create a situation as you found it might not be within your

21 field of expertise. If you would please keep that in mind, then please

22 continue to tell us about what you were telling us, that is, your

23 experience in Bosnia. Please proceed.

24 MS. ISSA:

25 Q. Yes, if you can perhaps continue JUST to finish up your answer,

1 Professor Aleksandric.

2 A. I have already said that I had occasion to examine between 150 to

3 200 persons who survived torture in camps. On the basis of this

4 experience and on the basis of the facts found at the Ekonomija farm, I

5 wanted to present you with my expert opinion, if you'll allow me to; if

6 you deny me that possibility, then there's nothing I can do about it.

7 JUDGE ORIE: No, I do not deny you at all. Please tell us what it

8 is. And if anyone thinks that any opinion you express would not be within

9 your field of expertise, then we'll hear. But we do not know yet what

10 opinion you are going to express. So please proceed.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of the facts

12 established at the Ekonomija farm concerning the cables and pieces of

13 paper and on the basis of the fact that the same piece of cable was found

14 by the body R-13 and on the basis of my personal experience, it is my

15 expert opinion that the burnt paper and the fact that the people were tied

16 up by cables, it is my opinion that they had to put out the fire burning

17 by their own feet --

18 MR. GUY-SMITH: [Previous translation continues]...

19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's, I think, not something your expertise

20 would tell you, whether this happened. What your expertise might perhaps

21 tell us is that you found similar situations in which people had on the

22 basis of what then appeared later -- I mean, burning pieces of paper and

23 wire, I fully do understand that on the basis of your experience brought

24 into your mind similar situations in which, as I understand, it was

25 established that people had to put out the fire with their feet. Is that

1 how I should understand your testimony? Whether that happened here of

2 course is another matter.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is my opinion.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 Please proceed.

6 MS. ISSA: [Microphone not activated] Thank you.

7 Q. Just moving on then, Professor Aleksandric, you described the

8 methodology of recovering the bodies at the Lake Radonjic in quite some

9 detail in your statement and I'm not going to ask you to repeat that. But

10 you do mention in paragraph 36 of your statement that you -- you and your

11 team placed a number on -- and without the letter "R" on the outside of a

12 body-bag once a body was contained in the bag and -- and you also placed a

13 number on the inside -- the same number on the inside of the body-bag and

14 you say that there was no letter R placed on the outside of the bag

15 because the police labels were easier to use and the police did not use

16 letters and we used pieces of paper to label the inside of the bags. So

17 my question is: Why is it that labels were used both inside and outside

18 the body-bags?

19 A. As can be seen on the videos, initially when we marked all the

20 bodies that were visible from numbers 1 to 10, we used numerical markings.

21 And one -- a cardboard cone was marked with the number -- the letter,

22 rather, "R", which applied to that location. We opted for the dual

23 marking of the body-bags by putting the letter "R" and next to it the

24 number on the cardboard that was outside. This piece of cardboard was

25 then stuck to the body-bag. We were afraid that it would easily fall off.

1 That's why we placed the piece of cardboard inside since the police

2 markings did not have the possibility of marking them with the number --

3 with the letter, rather. That's why inside we placed the marking -- the

4 full marking with the letter and the number, and the other label was

5 placed outside.

6 This facilitated the transportation of the body-bags to Hotel

7 Pastrik, the fact that we had a label on the outside of it rather than to

8 have to open each one of the body-bags in order to know which bodies were

9 contained inside.

10 Q. And what was the purpose of placing the label inside the body-bag?

11 A. We did not place any labels inside. We placed a piece of

12 cardboard which contained the letter and the relative number. We didn't

13 put any stickers, and this was of course to facilitate the identification

14 of the corpse that was inside a body-bag.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, that is so obvious. I mean, whether any

17 mistakes were made is another matter. Why do you put a marker in a

18 body-bag? To know at a later stage which body we are dealing with. That

19 is so obvious and so self-evident, apart from whether any mistakes were

20 made or there could be a confusion. That is really a question, to say it

21 frankly, underestimates the mental abilities of this Chamber. Please

22 proceed.

23 MS. ISSA: It wasn't done for that reason, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Don't take me too seriously on that.

25 MS. ISSA: Certainly.

1 Q. Turning then to the bodies that you found in the Lake Radonjic

2 canal area, when you compiled the statement, when you signed your

3 statement, Professor Aleksandric, did you mark down the location of the

4 bodies found on the Lake Radonjic canal area?

5 A. Do you mean whether I marked the location of the bodies on the

6 map?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. Yes, I did.

9 Q. Turning to Exhibit P459, page 2, if you can look at your screen

10 and we can then enlarge -- just zoom in on the centre part to see the

11 markings, please.

12 Is that -- are those your markings of the location of the bodies,

13 Professor Aleksandric?

14 A. Apologies, I don't have the image on my screen.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, if you want to have it on the screen, you

16 can check under the e-court button whether it is -- or is it --

17 MS. ISSA: It's on the video, I believe.

18 JUDGE ORIE: It's on the video.

19 MS. ISSA: Thank you. I'm not sure if we're experiencing perhaps

20 a technical problem, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Usually exhibits are shown on the -- under the

22 e-court button, and Madam Registrar, since you have ...

23 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

24 MS. ISSA: We're actually showing the exhibits through Sanction,

25 Your Honour.

1 JUDGE ORIE: If you do it by your own system, you know that Madam

2 Registrar is able to show --

3 THE WITNESS: [In English] Yes, it's okay now.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay.

5 MS. ISSA: Okay. Thank you.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is the photograph on which

7 I marked in my own hand the approximate location of the bodies found and

8 marked with a specific number.

9 MS. ISSA:

10 Q. And how did you get the distances as to the location of the

11 bodies? You say the approximate location. Can you explain what you mean

12 by that?

13 A. I said the approximate location because I did not have the exact

14 location in centimetres. In my country the scene of crime investigation

15 and the diagram itself is done by the investigating judge and the scene of

16 crime officers. I produced these markings on the basis of what I had seen

17 on the site and on the basis of my recollections. And I believe that it

18 is not perhaps quite identical, but it is very much close to what was

19 found on the site, on the video, and on the photographs.

20 Q. All right. Turning then to P459, page 1, and we'll just zoom in

21 on the top part. Would you indicate, are those your markings,

22 Professor Aleksandric?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you've marked the bodies that were found in the natural part

25 of the canal; is that correct?

1 A. Yes, approximately. Again, this is the lower part of the canal

2 and you can already see the point where the water from the canal flows

3 into the lake.

4 Q. Okay. Turning then to P615 --

5 MR. DIXON: Your Honours, sorry.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MR. DIXON: Could I before that's taken off the screen just to

8 confirm for the record there is a date on the bottom of these photographs

9 but when exactly these markings were made so that -- that that is clear.

10 MS. ISSA: Certainly.

11 JUDGE ORIE: If you could clarify that, Ms. Issa.

12 MS. ISSA:

13 Q. Can you indicate, Professor Aleksandric, when you made these

14 markings?

15 A. Whoever can read can see that it says the 14th of June, 2007.

16 Q. And you actually made these markings at the same time that you --

17 you met with myself and others when you made your consolidated -- or 92

18 ter statement. Is that correct?

19 A. Yes. On page 1 of the report you gave to me, there is the exact

20 date of my stay in The Hague, and that's the last day of my stay in The

21 Hague, the 14th of June.

22 Q. Thank you. Turning then to P615. Now, we see an electronic

23 version of that which is also on the larger map that's set up in the

24 courtroom. Does that depict the markings that you've made, Professor

25 Aleksandric, in electronic format?

1 You can -- perhaps we can zoom-in.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Thank you. Then focusing on the first body which you've labelled

4 as R-1, you say in your statement at paragraph 63 that the body marked as

5 R-1 was found on the ground with a plastic sack pulled over the upper half

6 and a jute sack pulled over the lower half. Turning to Exhibit P600 at

7 photograph 102, can you just very briefly indicate what that photograph

8 depicts, please.

9 A. Where the cone is with the number 1 is the place where the body

10 was in the sack. When we turned over the sack, new bones appeared

11 underneath and then you can see the lower leg bone. And then we saw that

12 underneath the body marked as 1 there is another body. When we dug

13 further we didn't find just one body but two more bodies which we marked

14 with the numbers 11 and 12.

15 Q. You just mentioned two more bodies marked 11 and 12. Let me just

16 ask you this first: Were you able to see those bodies before you removed

17 body 1?

18 A. No, because the sack was over the bones. It was just like I said.

19 The sack was moved from the place and then these other bones started to

20 appear.

21 Q. Okay. Then just focusing on bodies R-11, which was ultimately

22 identified as the mother of Witness 4 and R-12 as we see depicted on the

23 screen. You describe in paragraph 72 of your statement --

24 MS. ISSA: And just for the -- for your Chamber -- for the

25 Chamber's reference, Your Honour, these photographs are also depicted in

1 the photo album that was passed on to the Chamber yesterday.

2 Q. You describe, sir, in paragraph 72 of your statement as two bodies

3 that were found with their heads next to each other, one left and right

4 shoe were found beside these bodies, as well as a rusty piece of barbed

5 wire measuring 2.5 metres that was tied in a sliding noose at one end.

6 Turning then to Exhibit 588, can you please indicate briefly what

7 that photograph depicts?

8 A. This is a later stage than the one shown in the previous

9 photograph. You can see the left foot here below the number. This is the

10 foot that was peeking out with the lower leg bone and it was pointing in

11 the direction where the other body parts were. Then we palpated when we

12 found the number 11 body, we palpated with that head another head and

13 concluded that there must be another body there. We continued to dig and

14 then that next body we marked with a number 12. There is the photograph

15 here which in a way shows the relationship between the two bodies.

16 Q. And just to -- just so that we're absolutely clear, the foot that

17 you refer to relates to body 11. Is that correct?

18 A. Yes, yes.

19 Q. And you also mentioned, Professor Aleksandric, finding a rusty

20 piece of barbed wire near these two bodies. I'm just going to show you a

21 short video-clip, Exhibit 452, please, which starts at 003024, for the

22 record.

23 [Videotape played]

24 MS. ISSA:

25 Q. Can you just indicate -- there's no transcript. If you can just

1 indicate what we're looking at here, please.

2 A. Looked at it from the way we shook the body off from the soil

3 because it was intermingled with the soil. We brought the body-bag close

4 in order to manipulate the body as little as possible, because if you take

5 hold of one part of the body the rest would fall away because it was

6 intermingled with the soil. So we just tried to turn over the body into

7 the body-bag as much as this was possible.

8 After that when we transferred most of the body - and you might

9 see that later - you will see how we are trying to shake loose the

10 remaining bones from the soil, because all the bodies were in an advanced

11 stage of decomposition. They were practically decomposed.

12 This is me in the green T-shirt, and I'm looking through the soil

13 to make sure -- to see if there are any other fragments of the body bones

14 that are left in the mud. The point was, first of all, to collect all the

15 human remains from the location and as much as possible to determine if

16 all of the remains belonged to one person or possibly to two, as you saw

17 from the previous footage.

18 Q. Well, we've just paused it at 0032129, and just for the record

19 shortly before that the witness has identified himself picking through the

20 bones and placing them in the body-bag. Perhaps if we can just continue

21 on until the end of that, please.

22 [Videotape played]

23 MS. ISSA:

24 Q. Now, you appear to be holding something in your hand at 003236,

25 what is that?

1 MS. ISSA: Pause it there, please.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A little bit earlier, if you noticed

3 when I jerked away, I got pricked and then perhaps if you saw the

4 translation I asked for a stronger pair of gloves. And then as we went on

5 we found the barbed wire and then you can see the barbed wire. We took

6 out the bodies already, so we came with the barbed up -- found the barbed

7 wire with the remaining parts of the bodies. So we really couldn't

8 determine with which body the barbed wire went. In any case, we found it

9 closer to body number 12 and that is why we put it together later with the

10 body in body-bag 12.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 MS. ISSA: And for the record, the screen paused with the barbed

13 wire is at 003243.5.

14 Q. And when you say, Professor Aleksandric, you couldn't determine to

15 which body it belonged to, you're referring now to -- between body 11 and

16 12. Is that correct? Just to clarify.

17 A. Practically in between.

18 Q. And just turning then to Exhibit P506 --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Ms. Issa, one clarifying question.

20 You're talking about barbed wire between the two bodies. Was the

21 barbed wire just loose of the bodies or would, for example, the barbed

22 wire be around a body part? Do you understand what I mean, just to give

23 you -- it could be around an arm, it could be next to the arm. Did you

24 find at any moment that the barbed wire would have been in a position to

25 go around a body or a body part?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you saw, the body was in the soil

2 first. We took out most of the body, and then as you see with my bare

3 hands just in gloves, I was searching for the remaining bones. And then

4 at the end I felt the barbed wire. It's very difficult to determine

5 whether the barbed wire was wrapped around a body part or not. We didn't

6 see that. But as I said, it was found next to the body and you saw me

7 taking out the remaining parts of the bones. And while I was searching

8 for more, I got pricked on the barbed wire and that's how I found the

9 barbed wire.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Did you notice anywhere nearby a barbed-wire fence, I

11 understand barbed wire often used to keep cattle or animals within a

12 certain area. Did you notice anywhere nearby a barbed-wire fence?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The barbed wire was close to the

14 farm. There were fruit orchards around the farm, a large area of land

15 covered with plums or other fruit trees, and those land sections were

16 wired off in order to prevent the cattle from getting in there and from

17 destroying the fruit trees.

18 JUDGE ORIE: And the nearest spot where you saw any such barbed

19 wire fence, could you tell us at what distance that would have been?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was practically next to the farm,

21 next to the farm building.

22 JUDGE ORIE: That's at least a couple of hundred metres; is that

23 correct?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About 300 metres from what I can

25 recall. That's what I said yesterday.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Issa.

2 MS. ISSA:

3 Q. Professor Aleksandric, when you mentioned just a moment ago

4 that -- that it's next to the farm, are you able just to have a look at

5 the aerial map that is behind you and just indicate the location of the --

6 of the farm and perhaps the fence that you've just described?

7 MS. ISSA: And that's an enlargement of Exhibit P615, for the

8 record.

9 Q. You can actually --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --

11 THE WITNESS: [In English] This is Ekonomija --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Aleksandric, we have problems if you do not

13 adjust the microphones when you are standing, the interpreters might have

14 difficulties to hear you. So if you would please keep -- stay as close to

15 the microphone as possible.

16 MS. ISSA:

17 Q. So you're just pointing now -- or you just pointed a moment ago

18 for the record to the upper left-hand corner of the enlargement of P615 --

19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: The upper right-hand corner.

20 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry.

21 MR. GUY-SMITH: I do apologise, I wasn't able to see where he did

22 it also.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please point at the farm again where you

24 said you saw barbed wire fences with the pointer, could you please point

25 at it on the photograph.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to give a broader

2 explanation. This is the access road. This is the location where we

3 found the group of bodies, and this road leads to the farm, and this is

4 the farm building. The orchards are all around here and behind here, and

5 from what I can recall I think there is a sketch of all this in the

6 evidence material, and I think that exhibit is probably marked with the

7 fruit trees that are planted there. In any case, the Ekonomija farm

8 building is here.

9 JUDGE ORIE: So you are now pointing to the fruit trees planted

10 from the building of the economic farm in the direction of Lake Radonjic,

11 close to the farm buildings. Is that where you saw the barbed wire or did

12 you see it any closer to the place where the bodies were found?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The barbed wire was in this area

14 here, around these fruit trees. But here the fence was destroyed. It

15 wasn't practically -- none of it was left. Perhaps it was standing there

16 at one point, but when we got there, there was hardly any of it left.

17 JUDGE ORIE: The witness now also pointed at the area upstream

18 from the economic farm where we find a pattern of stripes more or less of

19 plantation.

20 Please proceed.

21 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

22 Q. You can have a seat again, Professor Aleksandric, please.

23 Now, just turning to Exhibit 506 very briefly, the middle

24 photograph, please. Can you indicate what that photograph depicts?

25 A. The photograph shows a body in a sack with barbed wire.

1 Q. And you indicate --

2 A. And I can see also table legs; that means that the bag was opened

3 in the improvised autopsy room at the Pastrik Hotel when we were carrying

4 out the autopsies. And you can see the tables here.

5 Q. If we just look at the top photo of that exhibit, we can see that

6 the label on that in relation to that body is 12?

7 A. Yes, yes, that is body 12.

8 Q. So just to clarify, you said earlier, Professor Aleksandric, that

9 you didn't know which -- which body to attribute the barbed wire to. Is

10 there any particular reason you decided to attribute it to body 12?

11 JUDGE ORIE: He just told us that it was closest to that body.

12 MS. ISSA: He only --

13 JUDGE ORIE: If you are seeking any other explanation, fine, but

14 if that's what --

15 MS. ISSA: I'll --

16 JUDGE ORIE: -- your question was about --

17 MS. ISSA: That's fine. I'll move on.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

19 MS. ISSA:

20 Q. In paragraph 257 of your statement, Professor Aleksandric, you say

21 that bodies on the surface were likely present at the spot for a couple of

22 weeks, but the bodies underneath the surface were probably there for a few

23 more weeks than those found on the surface. This means that the bodies

24 underneath the surface had likely been there for a few months.

25 Firstly, can you indicate what is the basis of your conclusion

1 that the surface bodies had been there for a few weeks?

2 A. First of all, the degree of decomposition, the advanced stage of

3 the rotting of the bodies; secondly, the position of the bodies, they were

4 either mixed in with the soil at the surface but they were not covered

5 over completely by the soil. Compared to, for example, body number 14 and

6 number 15, where we only found the bones underneath a pile of stone which

7 was not naturally there. Because if the water had brought the pebbles in

8 a natural way just to clean the bodies, I'm talking about bodies 14 and

9 15, there was a difference in the degree of decomposition changes. The

10 bodies that were on the surface were mixed in with the soil and the other

11 bodies were deeper in the soil. Being familiar with the process of

12 decomposition and in view of the fact that it was summer with high

13 temperatures and the area where rains are frequent, I believe that the

14 bodies on the surface had been lying there for several weeks and those

15 that were deeper and where the mortal remains were just bones had been

16 there for several weeks longer than the other ones.

17 Q. Thank you. Were there any other bodies that you found that were

18 underneath a body similar to the situation that we just saw which is R-11

19 and -12 being found underneath R-1?

20 A. A new body was found underneath R-3 marked as R-13. And when we

21 were digging at the end, just to probe the terrain to see if there was

22 anything else there, then we found body 16 some 30 centimetres deeper, and

23 then even deeper than that we found body number 17.

24 Q. But just to clarify, bodies 16 and 17 were not underneath other

25 bodies; is that correct?

1 A. No.

2 Q. So dealing then with R-13 and -3 --

3 A. But I just explained that 17 was underneath 16, in that sense was

4 what I said. Otherwise, they were not underneath other bodies.

5 Q. And 16 was below the surface; is that correct?

6 A. That is correct. It was 30 centimetres below the surface.

7 Q. Just to -- focusing then very briefly on R-3 and R-13, R-3 was

8 identified as Misin Berisha and R-13 identified as Idriz Hoti. Can you

9 first indicate, was R-13, Idriz Hoti, visible underneath R-3 before having

10 removed R-3, Misin Berisha?

11 A. No. Even R-3 from what I can recall only had parts of his

12 trousers showing, and of course parts of the leg bones in the trousers.

13 Q. Just turning then to P594 very briefly, photograph number 33.

14 MS. ISSA: You can focus in on the label, please.

15 Q. Just very briefly, can you indicate what -- what that photograph

16 depicts?

17 A. It shows our method of work or a part of it, and that is the

18 marking of the body-bag at the end before it was closed up.

19 Q. And this is -- this is taking place at the scene in the canal; is

20 that correct?

21 A. Yes, yes.

22 Q. Now, Professor, I want to talk to you about finding a noose, an

23 electric cable, and a metal wire in the -- in the --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, before you continue, let me just try to be

25 very clear to you. The other report has now been disclosed to the Chamber

1 that is not in evidence but of course we read what is in there. And it

2 turns out in relation to R-14 specific reasons are given why other experts

3 have a different opinion on the time the body was there. Why not ask this

4 witness whether he paid any attention to those circumstances which seems

5 to be relevant for the other experts because that most likely will be a

6 matter that will be in dispute rather than to have the witness just

7 repeat -- well, clarify a tiny little bit what is already in his report.

8 That was -- I just give you this one example of what most likely will be

9 the core of the dispute between the parties.

10 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please try to focus on where we could expect --

12 I mean, I expect the Defence to focus on the matters you consider solid.

13 At the same time, it's not that I'm asking your attention to what the

14 Defence might raise at a later stage. But also, of course, I would expect

15 the same from the Defence. And I do not know, but I can imagine that this

16 French report which was made on the request of -- of the Prosecution,

17 sooner or later if this case continues might ever become evidence, if

18 that's the intention then we could already perhaps anticipate on it. I

19 mean, it has been disclosed also to the Chamber because it was late

20 disclosure, not to be blamed, but it was late disclosure and therefore it

21 has been -- so therefore I would very much like you to focus on these kind

22 of things rather than to ask: Is this the marking of the bodies in the

23 canyon? Because of course that is not the concrete part of the canal;

24 that is the canyon. We have heard that approximately 70 or 80 times by

25 now. We're perfectly able to see when markings are about the lower

1 stream, that that's the canyon and not the concrete part of the canal.

2 Please proceed.

3 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

4 I wonder if I might finish up a couple of --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --

6 MS. ISSA: And I do take Your Honour's direction.

7 Q. If we can refer to paragraph 98 of your statement,

8 Professor Aleksandric. You say in paragraph 98 that a black cable was

9 found, you just mentioned that yesterday and today as well, that this

10 cable was the same type as the one found at the Ekonomija farm. And I

11 just want to refer you to an exhibit, P604, number 154, please. Just

12 briefly, can you indicate what that photograph depicts?

13 A. This photograph depicts a coil of alpinist or climbing rope and

14 then in the middle you can see the stiff electrical cable which has the

15 same characteristics as the cable found at the Ekonomija.

16 Q. Thank you. If we can then just go to body R-8, just if we can

17 focus on that. Now, you mention in paragraph 111 of your statement that

18 you found a body marked R-8, a majority of it was covered by earth so that

19 only pieces of clothing and bones were visible. The body was carefully

20 uncovered together with all its fragments that could be found. We found a

21 tight noose made of mountain-climbing rope surrounding the neck area.

22 This rope was approximately 1 centimetre thick and its circumference

23 corresponds to the circumference of an average neck on a normal adult.

24 Turning then to Exhibit 452, I just want to show you a very brief

25 video-clip which begins at 005249.7.

1 [Videotape played]

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We found one end of the rope here.

3 That is my knee. Next to my left knee you can see skulls. This is a

4 little bit further away. This is something else. This is in the canal

5 itself.

6 MS. ISSA:

7 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

8 A. You see I am trying when we cleared away the soil from the skull

9 and freed the rope, I tried to pull out the rope that was around the neck

10 area, and here you can see already a part of the noose. So we were

11 practically working in the same way as an archaeologist would work. And

12 then when we pulled the noose out, perhaps that is also shown to -- that

13 the noose is the size of the neck of an average adult. And this is the

14 position in which we found the noose.

15 Q. And just for the record we are now -- the noose that you're

16 referring to is at 005333.2. And I'm just going to ask that this be

17 played and fast-forwarded slightly.

18 [Videotape played]

19 MS. ISSA:

20 Q. Now, if we can pause it there, please. Whose arm is that that we

21 see depicted holding this noose as you described earlier at 005355.1?

22 A. That is my arm.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, would the case be any different if it would

25 be someone else's arm, one of the assistants or one of the colleagues?

1 MS. ISSA: No, Your Honour, it wouldn't be.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

3 MS. ISSA: I was simply asking him to identify the clip.

4 Q. Turning to bodies R-14 and R-15, just focusing on those bodies, in

5 paragraph 134, Professor Aleksandric, you say that about 2 metres to the

6 right of body R-10 from the direction of the canal at the end of the

7 concrete wall of the canal from its outer side, there was a pile of gravel

8 on which there were no pieces of human bones. However, since there was

9 projectile damage on the wall above this wall, there was a possibility

10 that a body was located underneath the gravel so we carefully removed the

11 gravel.

12 My question is: Why did the projectile damage on the wall cause

13 you to search underneath the pile of gravel?

14 A. Because the damage was inflicted by projectiles; secondly, we had

15 a large pile of gravel there. At the end of the day, this wasn't the

16 first time I was performing that job. I have extensive professional

17 experience. We had our suspicions that there were bodies beneath the pile

18 of gravel, and indeed we found some.

19 Q. Okay. And just turning then very briefly to Exhibit 452, that's

20 another clip.

21 [Videotape played]

22 MS. ISSA:

23 Q. At 010617.8, can you just indicate briefly what we're looking at

24 there, please.

25 A. This is the projectile damage on the wall marked with arrows.

1 MS. ISSA: If we can play that, please.

2 [Videotape played]

3 MS. ISSA: And just if we could briefly stop there, please.

4 010637.5.

5 Q. Just indicate briefly what we're looking at there, Professor

6 Aleksandric.

7 A. The entire footage shows that beneath the projectile damage on the

8 wall and beneath the gravel which we removed, we found some footwear and

9 parts of bone that cannot be seen that well. And another thing that one

10 cannot see very well there is number "R".

11 Q. But we do see a label there marked 14. Is that correct,

12 Professor Aleksandric?

13 A. Yes, yes.

14 MS. ISSA: You can just continue that --

15 JUDGE ORIE: What if the witness would have said: No, we do not

16 see a 14. Ms. Issa, we can read, we can look, we have eyes, we have even

17 some brains. Please.

18 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I appreciate that, but I noted it for the

19 record.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 MS. ISSA: It's for the purposes of the transcript, ultimately.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I think you mentioned exactly what

23 picture we are looking at. Okay, then if that's necessary, then I might

24 have been too quickly, but please proceed.

25 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

1 We can continue that, please.

2 [Videotape played]

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the other pile of bones

4 marked with number 15.

5 MS. ISSA:

6 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

7 A. Again with shoes and parts of bone. You can see that the bones

8 are entirely without any soft tissue.

9 Q. Okay. And that's at, for the record, 010651.3.

10 We can then just move on turning to Exhibit P596.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Ms. Issa, a very practical way if there's

12 such an obvious thing to see, then I don't think that the Defence would

13 oppose if Ms. Issa herself would see we are now looking at -- we see 15.

14 MR. GUY-SMITH: That would be fine.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that goes quicker. Please proceed.

16 [Prosecution counsel confer]

17 MS. ISSA:

18 Q. Just going back to what the image that we just saw, Professor.

19 What was the significance of finding the bare bones under the concrete

20 wall at the body labelled 15?

21 MR. DIXON: Sorry, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 MR. DIXON: I know we're now heading into an area where once again

24 the testimony could be outside of the expertise of --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could be --

1 MR. DIXON: -- of the witness.

2 JUDGE ORIE: But let's wait and see what the witness says.

3 MR. DIXON: Yes.

4 JUDGE ORIE: But it's on the record, yes.

5 MR. DIXON: -- Out of caution. Thank you.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MS. ISSA:

8 Q. Professor Aleksandric, are you able to answer that, please?

9 A. I apologise, could you please repeat your question.

10 Q. Can you indicate, Professor Aleksandric, what was the significance

11 of finding the bare bones that you just noted in that video that was

12 attributed to body 15 underneath the concrete wall?

13 A. The general significance that any recovered body carries. We

14 found bodies 14 and 15 behind the pile of gravel, which could not have

15 ended up naturally there. It could not have been washed-up there by the

16 water. It was quite evident that the pile was man-made.

17 Q. Is there any significance to finding those bones on the pile of

18 gravel as to your ability to assess the time of death for that particular

19 body?

20 A. Do you mean specifically in relation to number 15? But let me

21 tell you first, generally speaking, in relation to the damage inflicted by

22 the projectiles. We can see on photograph 76 and 74 the mutual

23 relationship of the bodies and their relationship with the projectile

24 damage. You can see the --

25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

1 A. -- the position of the bodies 14 and 15 in relation to the

2 projectile damage on the wall.

3 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, we have gone into that area. In my

4 submission this witness is not an expert in ballistics, in projectiles, in

5 the direction that bullets take, where they might have been fired from,

6 whether or not are any bodies were therefore in a line of a projectile.

7 And the ultimate conclusion which we have objected to in his report at

8 paragraphs 47 to 49 that this was some kind of execution site, those are

9 all conclusions that he doesn't have expertise to --

10 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know --

11 MR. DIXON: -- in my submission.

12 JUDGE ORIE: -- whether he has drawn any conclusions. He made

13 observations of the position of the bodies in relation to the bullet marks

14 and that is -- as a witness he is -- certainly may have seen.

15 MR. DIXON: These are his observations but as to where the bullets

16 may have been fired from is the next step.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dixon --

18 MR. DIXON: I'm anticipating that.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's wait what the next step will be and not

20 always guess on what the next step will be, then object against the next

21 step. If there comes an area where you say the witness could not have

22 made this observation or could not have made, on the basis of his

23 expertise, made this inference, then we'll -- I would first like to hear

24 such an inference being made rather than to anticipate what will -- I

25 mean, and then the objection might stand just as good as the anticipatory

1 objections which certainly disrupted the flow of evidence.

2 Please proceed.

3 MR. DIXON: Yes, I'm basing it on the statement which, I think, is

4 what Ms. Issa is going to be taking the witness through.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see what happens.

6 Please proceed.

7 MS. ISSA:

8 Q. Yes, Professor Aleksandric, you just mentioned that by looking at

9 this array, if we can perhaps focus on picture 75, please. Now, we see

10 what's depicted in that photograph, bodies labelled as 3, 4, 5, and 7,

11 which are immediately below the concrete wall in which you've described

12 there were bullet-holes. Focusing on body R-5 for the moment, who was

13 ultimately identified as Xhevat Berisha, I would just like you to have a

14 look at Exhibit P601 at 106. Can you indicate, Professor Aleksandric,

15 what that photograph depicts there, please?

16 A. This is a body in trousers and a blue sweater, and it is

17 positioned just as it was when we saw it first. And you can see in that

18 piece of clothing bullet marks. It's bullet-riddled.

19 Q. And when you say that piece of clothing, you're referring to the

20 blue sweater, for the record; is that correct?

21 A. Yes, yes.

22 Q. Was there any significance about this -- these -- these

23 bullet-holes in the blue sweater, given the location of the -- of the body

24 when you found it? What was significant about that to you?

25 A. First of all, the bullet-holes; secondly, an autopsy of the body

1 established that there were -- there was damage inflicted to the bones as

2 a result of these bullets. All the nine bodies, therefore, from 1 to 10

3 that we found on the surface of the earth - and don't forget number 6 was

4 marked with a slipper - only 9 didn't have damage to the bones. If you

5 look at this body, number 5, their mutual relationship, their positioning

6 in relation to the wall -- well, I'll leave it up to the Chamber to draw

7 their conclusions, whether such persons with such injuries and such --

8 with the bullet-holes and the damage that can be seen, whether they were,

9 indeed, executed there on the spot or not.

10 Q. I refer you, Professor Aleksandric, you mentioned that -- that in

11 the autopsy there was an indication that there was damage to the bones to

12 all these bodies, and -- including body 5. I just want to draw your

13 attention to Exhibit P672 [sic]. This was the autopsy report prepared by

14 Professor Hoff-Olsen --

15 MS. ISSA: Which is not in dispute, Your Honours.

16 Q. Just to refer to the summary on the very first page of the report

17 were you aware that Professor Hoff-Olsen determined that the cause of

18 death was, in fact, gun-shot wound to the head and that the additional

19 finding it would be possible that the victim died from a gun-shot wound to

20 the trunk. Were you aware of that, Professor Aleksandric?

21 MS. ISSA: We can zoom in on the second paragraph.

22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, this is the first time I see or

24 hear this.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, Madam Registrar has some difficulties in

1 understanding P672 because she's aware, I think, up till 615, or at least

2 not up to 672. So you're now using --

3 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry, we've actually recently -- more recently

4 added that exhibit and it's P617.

5 JUDGE ORIE: 617, yes.

6 MS. ISSA: And it's 65 ter number 913, page 8, if that assists

7 Madam Registrar.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 MS. ISSA: Yes. Thank you.

10 MS. ISSA: Just -- I just want to indicate, Your Honour, that in

11 view of the time I am about to proceed -- to move to another area but I'm

12 in Your Honour's hands as to when you'd like to take the break.

13 JUDGE ORIE: The break is usually at 10.30. Let me just -- you

14 showed now the autopsy report -- yes, now we know that

15 Professor Aleksandric for the first time hears this. What's the -- I

16 mean, I'm just asking myself what to do with this answer.

17 MS. ISSA: I was just going to ask a follow-up question.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then please put the next question to him.

19 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, if I can clarify there are a number of

20 autopsy reports done by international forensic experts at a later point

21 and these are the subject of agreed facts, so there's no need to go

22 through each one of these.

23 JUDGE ORIE: We don't know what Ms. Issa would like to ask him

24 about. It could be whether --

25 MR. DIXON: To save time, Your Honour, that's all.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand.

2 Ms. Issa, there seems to be no dispute as to the correctness of

3 that report, but I do understand you might have other reasons why you put

4 it to the witness. So please proceed.

5 MS. ISSA: Yes.

6 Q. Is -- are those findings, Professor Aleksandric, consistent with

7 your observations of the bodies that were found below the wall,

8 particularly body number 5?

9 A. I can't say in this way, ad hoc, whether they are consistent with

10 our findings. I would have to examine thoroughly both sets of findings to

11 be able to tell you that. However, I specifically note that on body

12 number 5, we found projectile damage. But I can't tell you anything more

13 than that. I would have to consult the documentation and compare. I told

14 you that we found out of the nine bodies on the surface only on bodies

15 number 7 and 9 we did not find any damage caused by projectiles.

16 Q. Thank you. Moving then to body number 9, specifically Exhibit

17 605, number 158. Can you indicate just briefly, Professor Aleksandric,

18 what that photograph depicts.

19 A. Where the cone number 8 stands, you see the white piece of stone.

20 And beneath it you can see parts of body and pieces of clothing

21 protruding. That was body number 8. To the left, practically on the

22 surface of the earth, is another body that we subsequently marked with

23 number 9, or rather, not subsequently. It was already marked at that

24 point in time but it must have been removed. And the photograph was only

25 then taken. Why did we take the number away? Because it was more

1 practical for us to remove body number 9 in order not to interfere with

2 the digging out of the body number 8.

3 Q. Okay. Turning then to Exhibit P469, this is the autopsy report

4 from 1998, which I believe you've signed, as you indicate in your

5 statement, you signed all the autopsy reports that relate to the recovery

6 of the bodies in Lake Radonjic. If we can then just turn to page 2,

7 paragraph 7, of that statement -- of that report. I draw your attention,

8 Professor Aleksandric, to the middle of that paragraph --

9 [Prosecution counsel confer]

10 MS. ISSA:

11 Q. -- the clothing that was found on -- on body number 9, who was

12 ultimately identified as Pal Krasniqi, was described as -- in part as

13 trousers in a blue track suit with vertical patterns in the shape of

14 stripes with one stripe in the middle. I'd just like to draw your

15 attention to Exhibit P559, having that in mind. And if we can -- you see

16 from that exhibit the middle photograph refers to label R-9, it's a piece

17 of clothing. If we can just zoom in on the top photograph, please. Just

18 very briefly can you indicate what that depicts?

19 A. I believe the earlier photograph would have been more appropriate

20 because one would be able to see clearly the stripes on the track-suit

21 bottoms. You can see the longitudinal stripes and the letters "OSE".

22 MS. ISSA: If we can then go back to the middle photograph very

23 briefly, please.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see here in the top part, you see

25 the multi-coloured stripes, and it says "USA."

1 MS. ISSA:

2 Q. Thank you.

3 A. This photograph was taken once the clothing had been washed and

4 dried. You have to understand that we dared not to wash the clothing

5 thoroughly because it had already partly disintegrated and decayed. We

6 tried to wash the clothing to rid it of mud and to preserve it in such a

7 condition as would allow for identification.

8 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I do want to indicate that I'm about to

9 move into another area which can be --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just ask: Is the identity of R-9, is that in

11 dispute?

12 MR. DIXON: No, it's not. It's part of the agreed facts that the

13 DNA analysis, certainly for the Defence of Mr. Haradinaj, is that of

14 Pal Krasniqi.

15 MS. ISSA: The purpose of that -- those questions, Your Honour, is

16 that the Chamber may recall that Witness 6 provided a description of the

17 -- of the clothing when Pal Krasniqi was last seen.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 MS. ISSA: And therefore, it's relevant for the purposes of when

20 he was last seen after he disappeared entirely, not for any identification

21 per se.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say that the clothing in which he was

23 last seen is the clothing he had on his body when his body was retrieved?

24 MS. ISSA: That's correct.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that clarification.

1 Then perhaps you could help me out as far as body number R-5 is

2 concerned. What was the issue there? The two autopsy reports to -- well,

3 at least the one autopsy report where it says could have been shot in the

4 head but could have been the shot in the other body as well.

5 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, as you may have gathered from my

6 friend's objections, there are a series of paragraphs which -- in the 92

7 ter statement which we've agreed to lead orally with the Defence precisely

8 because they are --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but we have not been informed about that yet.

10 So that's -- or did we?

11 MR. RE: That was -- I interject here. That was the letter I

12 forwarded to the -- or the e-mail I forwarded to the Trial Chamber and the

13 Defence yesterday where we set --

14 JUDGE ORIE: At what time?

15 MR. RE: Morning sometime.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then --

17 MR. RE: After we met with the Defence and wrote and read in the

18 e-mail those parts we would lead orally after objection.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, then I apologise for that. Please proceed.

20 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour, I was just indicating that it's

21 almost 10.30 and I was about to go into a bit of a longer area.

22 JUDGE ORIE: If you need a longer area, then perhaps we'll first

23 have a break. We'll have a break.

24 Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, I was noting that there had been some

1 invitation to deal with the French report and I don't know whether or not

2 that's going to occur or not in terms of the issues to focus upon. There

3 it was something you had raised earlier.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is what I suggested, Ms. Issa --

5 MS. ISSA: Perhaps it's something I can address, Your Honour,

6 after the break.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then we'll hear from you after the

8 break.

9 We'll have a break until five minutes 11.00.

10 MS. ISSA: Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 MS. ISSA: Perhaps before we break, since Mr. Guy-Smith just rose

13 in relation to that suggestion, perhaps he can indicate which bodies

14 concern him in particular with respect to the -- to the French report

15 or -- and if the Trial Chamber has any specific --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I expressed already that not only for one body

17 that conclusions are drawn from the -- let me say then rather vague words,

18 on the presence of certain matters on the bodies and the development of

19 vegetation.

20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Correct.

21 JUDGE ORIE: These are two issues that appear again and again and

22 which seem not have been dealt with by -- by this witness.

23 Let me now just check.

24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Precisely.

25 JUDGE ORIE: So that's not limited to one body, but that appears

1 for several bodies.

2 We'll have a break and we'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.

3 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

4 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

5 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, first of all, before -- I missed, as a matter

7 of fact, the yesterday e-mail. I've got it in front of me now with all

8 the paragraphs. I think I did not pay sufficient attention to it because

9 it was introduced to us by our staff as points of agreement, eight points

10 still remaining as not agreed upon. I also noted that the issue of the

11 bullet-holes on R-5 was -- the objection was withdrawn. So therefore,

12 that seemed not to have been an issue anymore.

13 I have got the list in front of me, Ms. Issa. So whenever we are

14 talking about any of the paragraphs listed here please draw my attention

15 to it and I will try to be more friendly to you.

16 MS. ISSA: [Microphone not activated].

17 MR. RE: Before the witness proceeds, there's just one matter -- a

18 proposal I would like to make to the Trial Chamber, and that's in relation

19 to how we deal with Professor Lecomte's report and how this witness deals

20 with it.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MR. RE: The difficulty we have at the moment is, although the

23 report is dated the 15th of June the translation into English is not

24 complete. We hope to have it done -- we're told-- either today, tomorrow,

25 or early next week. The proposal I would make -- I hope that it would

1 address the Trial Chamber's concerns -- would be to go as far as we can

2 today with the witness, maybe another half an hour, provide the English

3 version, the witness speaks pretty good English, the English copy as soon

4 as we get it, give it to the witness, the professor won't be available

5 until August. And then when he comes back, we briefly resume for whatever

6 time it takes, maybe up to half an hour, to put the matters that are of

7 concern which are the most relevant matters in dispute to the witness and

8 finish the re-examination -- sorry, the examination-in-chief then and he

9 moves straight into cross-examination with the Defence.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Before I ask the Defence to respond to this, wouldn't

11 it then be better to ask this expert witness to comment in writing because

12 if that is led in additional examination-in-chief, then I know almost for

13 sure that the Defence will say: We need to consult our experts on it and

14 we can't immediately cross-examine. Usually on expert reports there's

15 some time available. Would that be an option -- well, let's say, one week

16 prior to the beginning of cross-examination, would that be sufficient?

17 MR. GUY-SMITH: It would.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey?

19 MR. HARVEY: [Microphone not activated]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dixon.

21 MR. DIXON: Yes, Your Honour. I could say in the remaining time

22 if any of the findings of this expert as they stand in his report at the

23 moment could nevertheless be explored, that may be relevant to the issues

24 that the time could be usefully used in that regard in addition to a

25 further reported being prepared.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 Mr. Re, therefore the amended suggestion now is that as soon as

3 the English version is available it will be presented to Professor

4 Aleksandric and that he has an opportunity to comment in writing that

5 would be kind of an additional expert report to be presented to the

6 Defence not later than one week before the start of the cross-examination.

7 Yes. Then I take it that on the basis of all of this that at

8 least one of the parties will tender the new report, the French report,

9 into evidence.

10 MR. RE: We will tender that, if it's in e-court, we'll certainly

11 tender it.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, fine. No, that's just that it's clear, because

13 otherwise the Chamber might call that evidence --

14 MR. RE: Just in relation to that -- we would ask that there be

15 some time available, if necessary, for us to examine the professor on his

16 additional report when he returns.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If -- if his comments are there in writing, I

18 think that clarification of some of these issues could be done orally as

19 well. That's -- seems to be fair. Yes, it's so decided.

20 Then, Ms. Issa, please --

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, may I ask a question?

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not going to be in my country,

24 in Belgrade, until August the 13th. I will be away, so I would be able to

25 reply in writing only after that date and I kindly ask to be given an

1 adequate amount of time to respond.

2 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that that should not cause major problems,

3 in view of the schedule of the Chamber. So that's -- that's understood.

4 Also, I take it that where usually there should be no communication

5 between the party calling the witness and the witness, once he has given a

6 solemn declaration, that under the circumstances the Prosecution could

7 send an English version of the -- that's then understand. We'll deal with

8 it at the very end.

9 Ms. Issa, please proceed.

10 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. Professor Aleksandric, I want to ask you questions about body

12 R-20 --

13 MS. ISSA: And for the reference of the Chamber, I believe that

14 that's referred to in paragraph 166 in the statement and we've indicated

15 that we would develop the material in that paragraph.

16 Q. Can we just -- if we can just -- actually, before we go there I've

17 forgotten. There's one more thing I wanted to just wrap up from the

18 previous portion of your examination-in-chief, which is, if we could

19 briefly return to Exhibit P506, just to clarify something. That is the

20 photo which should be on your screen, Professor Aleksandric. That was the

21 photo that was the autopsy photo of body 12 with the barbed wire. Can you

22 describe the intermingling of the barbed wire with the body and indicate

23 why the barbed wire was placed on the body in that manner?

24 A. I've already explained that the bulk of the bodies were turned

25 over into the bags, and then as you saw in the photographs shown

1 previously we searched by hand to see if any of the bones remained behind

2 and then searching over the fragments of the bones or the bones, we found

3 the barbed wire. So first we placed the body in the body-bag, and then we

4 didn't bother again to lift the body to place the wire underneath. We

5 would just place the wire or whatever we found on top of the body that was

6 already in the bag, and that -- that is why the order of the things in the

7 bag is like that.

8 Q. Okay. But just for the record, the barbed wire appears to be

9 around the huge part of the -- of the bones sticking out and it appears to

10 be intermingled with the body as it was placed in the bag. And you're

11 saying that that was the reason was because that was how you placed it in

12 the bag. Just then turning to body R-20 --

13 MR. DIXON: Your Honour --

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. From what I can see, it

15 was just put there. Maybe it looks like that in the picture, but it was

16 actually just placed on the body.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whatever is the case it was put there at a

18 later stage --

19 MS. ISSA: Yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: -- and it doesn't reflect the position in which the

21 barbed wire was when the body was found.

22 MS. ISSA: That's right, Your Honour.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.

24 MS. ISSA:

25 Q. If we can focus on R-20, please, and who was ultimately identified

1 as Ilija Antic. Professor, I just wanted to refer --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps just for the record it now reads -- but

3 perhaps I have been -- perhaps I had a bad pronunciation. It now says:

4 "It doesn't reflect the position of the body when it was found," it is:

5 "On the body -- the barbed wire on the body when the body was found."

6 Please proceed.

7 MS. ISSA:

8 Q. Professor, you refer in paragraph 168 to the process of

9 saponification and you define saponification as a particular process of

10 putrification which occurs in moist areas, and you say that it is a

11 process of decomposition where the soft tissue of a body converts into

12 soap. So just focusing on R-20, you indicate in paragraph 164 that this

13 body was found "500 metres downstream, behind a small lake, on the dry

14 part of the canyon, 1 metre above the water surface ... and the body was

15 covered by mud, and in part by large pieces of clay rock."

16 I'd like to show you a clip from P452, a short clip, and I'd

17 like you just to watch that for a second. It starts at 014437.4, and

18 afterwards I will ask you some questions.

19 [Videotape played]

20 MS. ISSA: If we could stop there for a moment, please that's at

21 014522.5.

22 Q. Can you indicate, Professor, what -- can you just describe the

23 previous image that we just saw as to the location in relation to the

24 canyon of body 20?

25 A. The body was stuck underneath a rock but it's not a stone rock,

1 it's a clay rock, that kind of soil. So it's placed in the direction of

2 the flow of the water. That's how it lay.

3 Q. Okay. If we can --

4 A. It was very stuck together and pressed by the clay rock from what

5 I can remember, and we were unable to pull it out, get it unstuck from the

6 rock. So we had to cut the rock that was overhanging the body in order to

7 be able to get the body off from the soil. And if I can recall, the body

8 lay stuck in the direction of the stream, of the water, the current.

9 MS. ISSA: If we can then just continue with the video-clip, and

10 I'll ask you a few more questions.

11 [Videotape played]

12 MS. ISSA:

13 Q. Is that the body we're looking at now, at 04530?

14 A. Yes, yes.

15 Q. And --

16 A. You can see that the part of the rock is overhanging the body, and

17 that is why we had to cut away a part of the rock in order to be able to

18 get to the body and pull it away.

19 MS. ISSA: For the record that's at 014546.1. Please continue.

20 [Videotape played]

21 MS. ISSA:

22 Q. Now, is that -- just if we can stop there briefly, please.

23 Just -- shortly, just a bit before 014617 -- yeah, 0146137, is that the

24 lake -- the small lake that you describe in your statement?

25 A. Yes, this is about 500 metres downstream from the beginning of the

1 natural part of the canyon.

2 Q. Okay.

3 MS. ISSA: If we can then go to the next clip, please.

4 [Videotape played]

5 MS. ISSA: This is - stop for a moment, please - at 015048.7,

6 Exhibit 452, for the record.

7 Please continue.

8 [Videotape played]

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can see how we cut the clay rock

10 that was overhanging the body in order to be able to get to the body, and

11 now you will see how we are trying to get the body unstuck from the

12 surface that it was lying on.

13 MS. ISSA: That's at 05128 [sic].

14 [Videotape played]

15 MS. ISSA: Now, if we can stop there for a moment, please, at

16 015158.2.

17 Q. What is that bluish/greenish colour that we see on the screen?

18 A. The surface under the body became that colour in the process of

19 putrefaction and saponification which is a different stage of

20 putrification so the putrefaction liquids were seeping into the bottom

21 surface of the body so that the colour of the clothing also seeped into

22 the clay and it coloured the surface soil which was a clay type of soil.

23 This seepage of the body would indicate that the body had been there for a

24 long time, that it had been in this place for a long time.

25 Q. Why is it that this seepage of colour indicates it had been there

1 for a long time?

2 A. When the colour seeps into the soil for a long time, it soaks into

3 the surface for a long time, the soil becomes discoloured. If it had been

4 there for just a short amount of time, the soil or the surface would not

5 have been discoloured to such an extent.

6 Q. And can you indicate for how long --

7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I'm at this point going to interpose an

8 objection that this is outside of the expertise of the witness. It's

9 dealing -- there are a whole series of factors that exist here. We are

10 now dealing specifically with what we call dyeing of external materials,

11 which is something there is no indication this gentleman has any expertise

12 in, specifically dealing with the issue of clothing and the colour of

13 clothing having been the causative factor for the colour of the soil.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, perhaps if we could have any additional

15 information as to -- for example, the colour of the clothing, whether

16 perhaps you could explore with the expert whether there are any other

17 explanations he could think of, that's not to say that if he can't think

18 of them that they do not exist, but still to be explored. Could you

19 please explore this matter.

20 Mr. Guy-Smith, I do not agree that it's -- it's partly within --

21 partly perhaps outside of the field of expertise, that is, specific how

22 colour sticks to underground might not be the core of the expertise of

23 this witness; nevertheless, the colour of certain body liquids leaking out

24 of it might well be. So therefore, we are at a juncture of two fields of

25 expertise, where I -- I would allow the witness to -- to explain why he

1 came to certain conclusions.

2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Very well. To the extent it goes outside of his

3 expertise, my concern remains the same.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 Ms. Issa.

6 MS. ISSA: It might actually assist Your Honour if we play the

7 video a little longer and then I'll ask the witness a few more questions.

8 [Videotape played]

9 MS. ISSA: You can stop there --

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I can explain this now --

11 MS. ISSA:

12 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

13 A. You can see that the surface of the soil is coloured exactly

14 within the boundaries that were covered by the body. Can there be any

15 other logical conclusion other than that the colour came from the

16 putrefaction matter and from the clothing of the body?

17 MS. ISSA: And for the record that's at 015250.7. And perhaps we

18 can play just slightly longer till the end.

19 [Videotape played]

20 MS. ISSA:

21 Q. And as you -- as the body was being placed in the body-bag where

22 we see that there at 05307 [sic]. Did it become disarticulated in any

23 way?

24 A. You could see for yourself when we were lifting the body that what

25 was contained inside the clothing we could transfer into the body-bag in

1 one piece, but in places where the clothing was decayed and very delicate,

2 that place we were not able to pick up with the rest of the body. So it

3 stayed behind so then we were able to turn it over into the body-bag

4 later.

5 Q. Okay. And again just for the record the last image we are seeing

6 is a label being placed inside the body-bag at 015326.0.

7 Professor Aleksandric, are you able to give an estimate as to how

8 long this particular body was stuck underneath the rocks, given your

9 findings and observations?

10 A. The body had been there for several weeks, definitely. Don't

11 forget that this was a partly humid and partly dry climate. When there

12 would be water or the current was bigger because of the rain, the body

13 would be wet. And then when -- and that was when the process of

14 decomposition went much faster than it would be if the body was in a dry

15 place. The temperatures also were high. It was the end of the summer, so

16 all of these factors indicate to me that the body had been there for

17 several weeks.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, I'm -- still have some -- a few questions

19 here.

20 Do I understand you well that the colour of the clothing enters

21 into the body and that then the body loses that, perhaps, then mixed

22 liquid and passes it to the soil? Is that how I have to understand?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think you said something that was

24 not correct. The putrefying liquids because of the gravity seeped to the

25 bottom and they would wet the part of the clothing that was underneath on

1 the surface and that that putrefaction liquid dilutes the dye in the

2 clothing and then it is -- it seeps out. As for whether an expert had a

3 view about this or not, what I'm saying is that the body -- the dye comes

4 from that because it corresponds to the contours of the body. I don't

5 think that you need to have much other expert knowledge to be able to

6 deduce something like that.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Your reasoning is that only there where the body was

8 directly on the clothes and on the soil, that only there the colour of the

9 clothing taken by the putrefaction liquid would then come on to the soil.

10 And now have you considered the possibility that the colour of the

11 clothing, without the -- well, let's say without the help of the body

12 liquids, the putrefying liquids could enter the soil. You link -- you

13 link the- could I say- the drainage of the colour of the clothing to the

14 putrefying process. Do you have any knowledge about similar drainage of

15 colour from clothing without a body on top of it? I mean, if I would just

16 put, for example, jeans somewhere in the same position without a body on

17 it, would the colour of the jeans not enter the soil underneath? Do you

18 have any knowledge of that or any experience of that?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have experience from other such

20 exhumations. When, however, the clothing is not pressed down by something

21 heavy, it would not leave such a clear contour of, let's say, jeans as we

22 do have. Where you have the clothing adhering to the ground firmly, you

23 would also have probably some dyeing or perhaps not. However, in this

24 case where the body was firmly pressed to the ground by the rock, we got

25 this clear coloured contour of the body.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it seems to me that apart from the weight

2 on the clothing and weight on the body, that it allows you also to give us

3 a time estimate on how long it should have been there. Could you explain

4 to me whether -- why this would have taken such a long time, why it would

5 not have been possible to have the same result in a couple of days or --

6 what makes you conclude that this colouring of the soil must have taken

7 the time you mentioned?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not gauge the time only on the

9 basis of the colouration, also on the basis of the decomposition of the

10 body when the water-levels, for instance, rose and then when they dropped.

11 Based on the estimation of the putrefaction of the body and on the basis

12 of the colouration of the soil beneath the body, I provided my opinion

13 that the body had been there for several weeks.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time the colouration of the soil

15 seems to be one of the relevant factors. What basis have you concluded

16 that the colouration of the soil supports the conclusion that the body

17 must have been there for a longer time?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that this was indeed an

19 important element, the colouration of the ground, but it -- there are also

20 the other factors. Don't forget that the rock was over the body, not to

21 the full extent but to some extent indeed and it firmly pressed the body

22 on to the ground, so much so that we were forced to cut part of the rock.

23 Colouration is an important element for this evaluation, but not only

24 that. We also took into account all the other factors. And I'm referring

25 specifically to this case at hand, this particular body.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I understand that, at the same time colouration

2 being an important factor, what is known? Is there anything known about

3 the speed of colouration of soil on which a body with some weight on it is

4 located?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know anything specific about

6 it. My conclusion was based on the experience I had at the time and on --

7 and the experience I gained later on when I was participating in the

8 exhumation at Batajnica, as well as some exhumation processes I performed

9 during the war in Bosnia.

10 JUDGE ORIE: May I then take it that when you're referring to your

11 experience, that you're telling us that in similar situations where it was

12 known that the bodies had been in situ for a longer period of time that

13 you saw similar colouration of the soil. Is that how I should understand

14 that?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let's put it that way, yes.

16 JUDGE ORIE: And also that in situations where it was known that

17 bodies had not been for a long period of time in that situation that the

18 colouration of the soil was less or perhaps non-existent?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In -- it was present only in some

20 places and not as was the case in this particular instance where it

21 reflected the -- the contours of the entire body.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

23 Please proceed, Ms. Issa.

24 MS. ISSA:

25 Q. Just to follow-up a bit. Professor Aleksandric, you indicated

1 that the -- the saponification process and the discolouration of the body

2 was one indicator of the length of time that the body had been stuck

3 under -- near -- underneath the rocks. I just want to draw your attention

4 to paragraph 168 of your statement --

5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, I believe Ms. Issa's misspoken herself,

6 not the discolouration process, but rather the decomposition process,

7 which is a distinct issue.

8 MS. ISSA: I believe the witness's testimony was in part that the

9 discolouration caused by the saponification is an indicator -- perhaps I

10 should use the word saponification, Your Honour, of the length of time

11 that the body had been present underneath the rocks.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I don't know what was discoloured, the clothing

13 or the body, at least fluids play a role there but perhaps you clarify

14 that so that there's --

15 MS. ISSA:

16 Q. The saponification process which ultimately led to the

17 discolouration of the soil underneath the body as you described earlier,

18 you've indicated was one indicator to you as to the length of time that

19 the body had been stuck underneath the rocks. I draw your attention to

20 paragraph 168 of your statement, and in part you say, when you're

21 describing saponification --

22 A. Just a moment, please. I don't know if the interpretation was

23 good or not. It seems to me you said the discolouration of the soil.

24 There was no discolouration. In fact, there was colouration.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Issa, you used the word "discolouration,"

1 which I understand is to -- that the colour disappears. I also can

2 imagine that discolouration would mean that the colour changes. So

3 discolouration seems to be not an unequivocal term, and that might at this

4 moment cause the confusion.

5 MS. ISSA: I'll be more specific.

6 Q. What I'm referring to, Professor Aleksandric, is the process that

7 you -- that we've seen earlier in the video and that you describe whereby

8 once the body was removed the -- the colour on the clothing had been

9 transferred to the soil, which -- depicting a bluish/greenish colour, as

10 you've earlier described, and you've indicated that that was one indicator

11 as to the length of time that the body had been present underneath the

12 soil. I also just would like to draw your attention to the bottom part of

13 paragraph 168 in which you are describing the saponification of body 20

14 and you also say that this: "Is a process of decomposition where the soft

15 tissue of a body converts into soap, but if it get wets and you touch it,

16 it begins to foam which is why we get remains which represent a more

17 shapeless mass which still shows a leg and which has not been moved from

18 its previous position."

19 I'd just like to refer you to Exhibit P -- P513.

20 While we wait for the correct exhibit to come up - that's not the

21 correct exhibit - I just want to ask you if you can explain and just

22 elaborate on that statement. Why is the fact of a more shapeless mass an

23 indicator that assists in identifying the length of time that -- that the

24 body was present?

25 A. If you recall the first photographs, for instance, this one, yes,

1 excellent, you can clearly see the contours of the body here.

2 Q. For the record, that's P512.

3 Yes, please continue.

4 A. You can clearly see the contours of the body. The process of

5 saponification is such where the matter in the tissue transforms into

6 soap. When you try and when you start manipulating such a body, it

7 becomes a slimy mass. And you can see that clearly in the earlier

8 photographs where you had bodies on a table, where you weren't able to see

9 the clear contours of the body.

10 Q. And why is it that this process is an indicator of the length of

11 time that the body was present underneath the rocks?

12 A. Taking into account the process of putrefaction or of

13 saponification, taking into account the weather conditions, the external

14 temperatures, whether the body was partly in moist conditions or partly

15 perhaps in dry conditions, as I've already explained, on the basis of our

16 experience we make an assessment as to how long that body could have been

17 at a particular site, and that was the assessment I gave --

18 MR. GUY-SMITH: [Previous translation continues] ...

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

20 MR. GUY-SMITH: We were initially discussing the process of

21 saponification and the question was directed towards saponification. The

22 answer has now taken into account a number of different factors, including

23 putrification, which is, if I'm not mistaken, a different process which

24 creates different issues. And I'm hoping we can get some clarification in

25 that regard.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, the attention has been drawn to

2 paragraph 168 by Ms. Issa, which reads: "Saponification is a particular

3 process of putrification ..."

4 So therefore to say that it's a different matter seems not to be

5 correctly on the basis of the --

6 MR. GUY-SMITH: I appreciate what is in the 92 ter statement,

7 however I think with regard to this issue because there are so many

8 different actual scientific factors that are going to contribute to the

9 Chamber's understanding of what's going on, that it may be of some

10 assistance to see whether or not there is some clarity that can be drawn

11 with regard to the issue of saponification as opposed to the generalised

12 notion of putrification when dealing with a body found in the kind of

13 condition that this body was found. If you don't find it to be of

14 assistance, so be it, but I think ultimately it's going to be of some

15 concern, to not only the Chamber but also to an understanding of the

16 ultimate issue which we need an answer to which is: How long this body

17 was in situ.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, two observations. First, if you

19 consider what the witness in his 92 ter statement said, that is, that

20 saponification is a specific part of the process of putrification, then

21 you can put that to him in cross-examination. Further, the circumstances

22 the witness describes are, to some extent, directly known to him because

23 he has been on the spot and can, for example, see whether it was dry at

24 that time or whether there were any marks of a higher water-level at an

25 earlier stage whether -- I mean, there are a lot of matters, perhaps not

1 everything. The witness might not have been fully aware of the climate

2 and the water-level at any moment. But certainly I can see the matters

3 you're raising, they are perfectly suitable for cross-examination, but not

4 at this moment to object to the questions.

5 Please proceed.

6 MS. ISSA: Yes.

7 Q. And just to wrap up this point, Professor, you've indicated that

8 it was your assessment that this body had been there for a long time. You

9 also said it had been there for several weeks. Can you be more specific

10 as to what you mean by "long time"?

11 A. When I said, "long time," I meant several weeks. One cannot be

12 more precise than that, but certainly not less than four or five weeks

13 under the conditions in which the body was found. I don't think I have to

14 go into that again. I've explained that already.

15 Q. Yes. Thank you. Moving then on to bodies R-18 and R-32. R-18

16 was ultimately identified as Ilira Frrokaj and R-32 remains unidentified.

17 You say in photograph 229 of your statement that R-32 was found at about

18 200 metres downstream in the water stuck in the mud. And in paragraph 231

19 of your statement you describe that next to the car where body 18 was

20 found, you found a big part of a skull but at the time you didn't know

21 whether they belonged to body 18, "so we placed them in the same

22 body-bag". After the autopsy and anthropological analysis, you say that

23 you conclude that this part of the skull did not belong to body 18, so you

24 marked it 18-I or 18-1 because it was packed together with 18. I'd like

25 to just show you a couple of short clips and then I'm going to ask you a

1 few questions. Exhibit 452, starting at 013537.1, if you can indicate

2 what is that first image that we are looking at.

3 A. This is the best view of the right leg of the body. The entire

4 position is marked with number 18, that's at the beginning of the natural

5 part of the canyon. Next to a vehicle that was found near the body, if

6 you played the footage you'll see that clearly.

7 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

8 A. On the other side there was a part of the skull which --

9 MS. ISSA: We're not receiving any interpretation, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: No. I don't hear the witness speak at this moment

11 either, so I don't know --

12 MS. ISSA: I think he stopped at which --

13 Q. Can you just continue what you were saying --

14 JUDGE ORIE: The last thing we heard from you was: "On the other

15 side there was a part of the skull which ..."

16 Can you please continue from there.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which can be seen if we play the

18 video.

19 MS. ISSA: [Previous translation continues]... Footage.

20 [Videotape played]

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There you see number 18, and here in

22 the centre of the still we can see the top part of the skull.

23 MS. ISSA: That's at 013553.5. If we can then just continue

24 playing, please. There.

25 If we can then go to the next clip, which starts at 013728.6.

1 [Videotape played]

2 MS. ISSA: Stop there, please.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The skull was placed into the same

4 body-bag with the body. The number was moved from the car on to the

5 ground here in order to be clearly visible in the video.

6 MS. ISSA:

7 Q. And just shortly before 013733.2, we see you taking what appears

8 to be a skull and placing it there on the ground. Can you just indicate

9 what you did there and why?

10 A. Precisely the part of the skull that you saw on the other side of

11 the vehicle, I placed next to the body in order to transfer it together

12 with the body into the body-bag. Subsequently this was done.

13 Q. Okay. And if we then --

14 MS. ISSA: If we can just continue playing that.

15 [Videotape played]

16 MS. ISSA: Okay.

17 If we then go to Exhibit P511, please. Just the middle

18 photograph.

19 Q. Can you indicate what that photograph depicts,

20 Professor Aleksandric?

21 A. The skull that you saw placed together with body number 18 in the

22 earlier still. After a forensic and anthropological analysis, it was

23 concluded that the isolated part of the skull did not belong to body

24 number 18. During the autopsy we gave it a new label, 18/1. During the

25 autopsy of the body marked R-32 - and this is something we did with the

1 other bodies as well - we established that parts of the bone of the skull

2 belonging to body 32, and this is the body that you saw marked as R-32 and

3 which is shown by this tweezer, that the part along which there was a

4 fracture is fully matched with the part of the skull marked R-18/1. In

5 other words, the two parts of the skull belong to the same person, and

6 that's R-32.

7 Furthermore, this means that the body marked R-32 was initially at

8 the beginning of the canyon that a part of the skull, since it was

9 crushed, remained in the beginning part of the canyon and that the water

10 current bore with it most of the bodies so that the body of R-32 along

11 with some parts of the skull were found down there at the very end of the

12 natural canyon.

13 Q. Thank you. If we can just very briefly then go to --

14 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask one thing. You have, therefore,

15 excluded that part of R-32, that small portion of that bone, has been

16 moved by any other means upstream a couple of hundred metres and then was

17 found -- you understand what I mean? You are taking the natural cause of

18 the body being taken by the water as the explanation and you have excluded

19 another possible explanation, that is, that part of the body found

20 downstream was transported by whatever means to a place higher up?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course this cannot be ruled out,

22 absolutely. However, under the circumstances in which you have some body

23 parts found at the end of the canyon, you can conclude that R-32 was

24 washed down. And this is more logical than concluding that somebody took

25 a part of the skull of R-18, which was together with body R-32, and took

1 it upstream in order to leave it at the initial part of the canyon.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that answer.

3 Please proceed, Ms. Issa.

4 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

5 Q. Turning then to Exhibit P544, and we can just look at the middle

6 photograph, that obviously depicts R-32. And I just -- just to -- if you

7 can just confirm that for the record, Professor Aleksandric.

8 A. Yes, and you can see a wire that goes through the body -- through

9 the damage which was established in the autopsy and which was inflicted by

10 the passage of a projectile. We did not have a large probe to show this

11 and we used a piece of wire instead.

12 Q. Thank you. And it appears that this body is only partly

13 decomposed and seems to have some flesh remaining on it. Are you able to

14 provide an estimate, approximate estimate, as to how long the body was --

15 was in the water?

16 A. It is difficult to estimate that, and the question is whether the

17 body was in the water, immersed in the water all the time. It may have

18 been on dry land and then ended up in the water, it is difficult to give

19 an estimation but definitely it must have been there for several weeks.

20 Q. And can you be -- you're unable to be specific as to what you mean

21 by several weeks?

22 A. Again, at least four to five weeks, perhaps a week less. We can't

23 assert with any certainty that the body was in the water all the time. It

24 may have been on dry land for some time and then two weeks prior to its

25 recovery it was thrown into the water.

1 Q. Thank you. I'm just going to move on to a group of bodies, R-21,

2 -22, -23, -24, and -25 which are described as shoes.

3 MS. ISSA: And for Your Honours' -- just for the record -- for

4 Your Honours' information, paragraphs 174, 176, and 189, 190, in the

5 statement are -- appear to be objected to and are at issue by the Defence.

6 Q. Now, we see the locations of these bodies as focused on the

7 screen. I'd like to just turn to the video, 452, and I'm going to play it

8 through and then ask you some questions. That's at 015659.3.

9 [Videotape played]

10 MS. ISSA: Okay. We can just pause it there.

11 Q. At 015730.5, we see a label of number 25. Can you just indicate

12 briefly where that was found in relation to the canyon.

13 A. You saw from this footage that we had first a very steep vertical

14 part of the canyon some 20 metres high and then another part which stood

15 at an angle of roughly 45 degrees, which is overgrown by vegetation and

16 also some 20 metres high. Immediately before the part of the canyon which

17 is free of vegetation and which means that occasionally water flows

18 through there, some 10 metres beyond this shoe a group of bodies was

19 found. You will see as you will play the video that the shoe was found

20 some 3 metres away from the bottom, and down there the other shoe was

21 found, the shoe belonging to this same pair.

22 Q. Okay.

23 MS. ISSA: If we can then just continue playing the footage,

24 please.

25 [Videotape played]

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the group of bodies.

2 MS. ISSA: Stop there, please. Just rewind it slightly. Okay.

3 [Prosecution counsel confer]

4 MS. ISSA: So this is the group of bodies. We can perhaps just

5 continue playing it, that's at 05746 [sic].

6 [Videotape played].

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I can start explaining right

8 away, this is the lower part of the body in trousers, this is number 24.

9 To the right of the body is number R-23, but you cannot see it very well

10 and that's a whole body --

11 MS. ISSA: [Previous translation continues]...

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We can continue.

13 MS. ISSA: That's at 05756.1 [sic].

14 [Videotape played]

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now there is the next body and at

16 the beginning you can see a cone at the top with a number 22 meaning that

17 is a another body. I think that they are zooming in now so that you would

18 be able to see the number.

19 MS. ISSA: Thank you. That's at 015811.1. We can continue.

20 [Videotape played]

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And if you followed, you will see

22 that the group of bodies is in the direction -- the same direction as the

23 pair of shoes that were found. Now that's what's being indicated here.

24 MS. ISSA: We can stop there, please, that's at 015829.5.

25 Please continue.

1 [Videotape played]

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And now you will see --

3 MS. ISSA: [Previous translation continues]...

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the right of this group of

5 bodies, there was the upper part of the body marked R-21. And if you

6 continue showing this, I think you will be able to see it better because

7 the shot was interrupted when the camera focused on upstream, so then we

8 will see what the situation was downstream.

9 [Videotape played]

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the upper part of the body

11 marked R-21.

12 MS. ISSA: That's at 015917.2.

13 Q. And when you refer to the upper part of the body, just to clarify,

14 in your statement you state that it was found that R-21 and R-24 were, in

15 fact, the same person. Is that correct?

16 A. At the site we found the upper and the lower part of the body at a

17 relatively small distance apart, 2 to 3 metres. So the association at the

18 location was that the top or the upper part of the body marked as R-21 and

19 the lower part of the body R-24 possibly could belong to the same person.

20 After an analysis and an anthropological analysis, we concluded that the

21 two -- the upper and the lower part of the body do belong to one and the

22 same person.

23 Q. Okay.

24 MS. ISSA: If we can then please continue.

25 [Videotape played]

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And now you can see the relationship

2 of the other bodies to each other, 22, 23, and 24.

3 MS. ISSA: Okay and that was at about 015924.2, just for the

4 record.

5 If we can then go -- start.

6 [Videotape played]

7 MS. ISSA: We could stop there for a moment, please.

8 Q. Is that -- we're looking at body 23. Can you just indicate, is

9 that -- did you just mention earlier that that was a whole body or part of

10 a body?

11 A. 23 and 22 were whole bodies. 21 was the upper part of the body

12 and 24 was the lower part of the body.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MS. ISSA: We can then just continue.

15 [Videotape played]

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if you heard my voice

17 where I was dictating my findings into a Dictaphone. I heard it.

18 MS. ISSA:

19 Q. Thank you. And the video -- just that clip stopped at 020018.0

20 for the record.

21 Now, Professor Aleksandric, you say in your statement, in your 92

22 ter statement, at paragraph 176 that the video shows: "The shoes I

23 mentioned which led us to believe that at least one person was thrown down

24 from the top of the hill and also a body could be seen downhill from where

25 the shoes were located. The shoe was marked with R-25."

1 In 177 you say that: "We believed that the shoe found higher up

2 belonged to the body parts of which were separated, 21 and 24, because

3 body 21 had a shoe on. This shoe was marked R-25. Next to body R-23, one

4 shoe of a different type was found."

5 My question to you is: Can you elaborate or further explain based

6 on your observations and the steepness of the canyon and the vegetation if

7 -- if this is consistent with or inconsistent with bodies being pushed or

8 thrown down the canyon?

9 A. I want to say right away that there is a mistake here. Paragraph

10 177 says because there was a -- body 21 had a shoe on, but it actually

11 should say body 22 had a shoe on.

12 Q. Okay. Well, thank you for that correction.

13 A. You can see that when you read the later paragraphs where it is --

14 says that 22 had one shoe on, but body 21 had shoes and next to body 23 a

15 shoe was found very near the actual foot. So I'm speaking about our

16 impressions in situ. And then later only we came to the conclusion that

17 body 21 and body 24 were one and the same body. In situ that was just our

18 working hypothesis. Now, bodies 22 and 23 had shoes on and above in the

19 growth you found shoes. We went by the logic that those shoes could have

20 belonged either to body 24 or body 21. I repeat at that time we had not

21 yet come to the conclusion that those two parts belonged to the same

22 person.

23 The other thing is since a pair of shoes was found higher up in

24 the vegetation, it's evident that the water never reaches as far as that

25 vegetation. And under the assumption that nobody took the shoes from the

1 actual location and threw them up into the grass, it would be logical that

2 the body was first in that vegetated area and then later it dropped lower.

3 In other words, the body from the top of the canyon, from the top of the

4 slope, that's where it came from. If you find the whole group of bodies

5 in the same place and one body has lost its shoes, then our conclusion was

6 that perhaps the whole group of people at that point in time, we were

7 thinking whether it was three or four bodies because it could have been

8 logical also to think that the water, the stream, the current, took the

9 top part of 24 or the lower part of 21, so it could have been two people.

10 So it was just our working hypothesis only that 21 and 24 were part of the

11 one and the same body. If you came up to that image, it could easily have

12 been assumed that the whole group of bodies had come down from the top of

13 the canyon and that it first dropped to the part that was covered with

14 vegetation where one of the bodies lost its shoes, and then later they

15 rolled down to the place where the bodies were found.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 A. And what particularly indicates to this is practically the

18 straight line from where the -- of where the bodies were found and where

19 the shoes were found.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Do you mean the shoes were not together?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were not together. One was

22 found 3 metres away from the one where we zoomed in on the shot. It would

23 be the other shoe of that same pair.

24 JUDGE ORIE: And where you say the straight line, you mean the

25 line where the body was found -- or at least part of the body was found,

1 the first shoe, and the second shoe?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The second shoe and then all the way

3 to the top. If you noticed, I didn't say that they were thrown or pushed.

4 I said that they ended up in the place where they were found from the

5 top of the canyon. How they got there is something that I do not know.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Issa.

7 MR. DIXON: Sorry, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dixon, yes.

9 MR. DIXON: I didn't, as Your Honour indicated, raise an objection

10 before the explanation was given but that was the reason for the objection

11 initially was the speculative nature and the assumptions --

12 JUDGE ORIE: I think the witness himself already said a couple of

13 times that he doesn't know certain matters.

14 MR. DIXON: Yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Which means he sticks fairly well to what his

16 expertise tells him and what was working hypothesis or assumptions. So

17 the Chamber will certainly clearly make a distinction between expert

18 findings and assumptions.

19 MR. DIXON: Yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 Ms. Issa, I'm looking at the clock.

22 MS. ISSA: Yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: I know that you have in mind one hour for the next

24 witness. If we would have a break now, there would remain another 70

25 minutes so you would well stay in your estimate. But I just draw your

1 attention to it that we are coming close to the moment where after the

2 break there would be only one hour left.

3 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour, I'm actually -- I just have maybe

4 about 10 or 15 minutes left.

5 JUDGE ORIE: But then you have not an hour left for the next

6 witness. You're aware of that.

7 MS. ISSA: Actually, I'll try and wrap up very quickly.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because you said after the break, half an hour.

9 I know I interrupted you a couple of times, but certainly not for

10 three-quarters of an hour.

11 MS. ISSA: I'll try and wrap up. Thank you.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

13 MS. ISSA:

14 Q. Professor Aleksandric, just very briefly and quickly at paragraph

15 244 of your statement, you discuss the fact that there was a missile that

16 exploded on the 15th of September, 1998, at the Lake Radonjic canal area

17 where you were working. And then you say at the end of that paragraph

18 that: "We had the impression that somebody saw us working in the canal,

19 positioned us precisely, and informed those who then shelled us at our

20 exact location."

21 Can you just indicate what is the basis of that opinion or

22 conclusion? Why do you say that?

23 A. Because somebody who fired at us from a mortar, and we were told

24 that it was a mortar by the experienced policemen who had been in combat

25 there for months, if somebody determines the exact position where a large

1 number of us were, a large group of people, and fortunately for us the

2 shell overreached and missed us and it hit higher up above us. But it was

3 enough to see the dust flying up. Then it would be logical to assume that

4 nobody was just firing indiscriminately or at random but they had the

5 exact coordinates that they could have received from someone who could

6 have determined the exact coordinates where we were by observing us.

7 Don't forget that it's a forested area up there. It's not a nice forest.

8 It's more like a jungle and it's very easy to take cover and conceal

9 oneself up there.

10 Q. Thank you. Just a couple more questions. Was there anything

11 about the crime scene itself when you were working over the course of

12 those days, Professor Aleksandric, that indicated to you that it was

13 either staged or set up as a crime scene and that it was not a true crime

14 scene?

15 A. No, it's exactly the other way around. Everything indicated that

16 the location next to the canyon, the dry part of the canyon on the slope

17 was precisely the place of execution.

18 Q. Did you observe anything out of the ordinary, either in the

19 behaviour of the police or anything else that indicated to you that this

20 could have been a staged scene and not a true crime scene?

21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

23 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm going to object to the question as asked. It

24 calls for speculation. It's certainly outside the qualifications of the

25 witness. He's not a psychologist.

1 JUDGE ORIE: No --

2 MR. GUY-SMITH: It also deals with how many -- you know, how many

3 police officers, where were they located, what time of the day --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's all fine, but Ms. Issa is entitled to ask

5 whether the witness observed anything out of the ordinary. And then she

6 gives a clue as to what kind of out of the ordinary, which is I would

7 say -- is not inadmissible because it anticipates on the position clearly

8 taken by the Defence.

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: It also makes -- it also makes it leading.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Not inadmissible.

11 Please proceed.

12 Could you tell us whether there was anything out of the ordinary

13 which you focused -- which you observed.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nothing unusual. Nothing special,

15 either in the behaviour of the people, nothing in particular. But it

16 was -- there was some degree of horror at what we had found. The bodies

17 were not piled on top of one other. As you were able to see from the

18 degrees some bodies, like 2 and 9, were on the surface, but the majority

19 of the other bodies were intermingled with the soil, probably due to the

20 course of time and because of rain and -- because when it rains there, it

21 rains quite hard. Stones and pebbles moved, soil moved, and that's how

22 the bodies came to be intermingled with the soil. And as I said, we found

23 piles of gravel. When we found them, it was evident that those mounds of

24 gravel were formed by hand. It was not something that was formed

25 naturally.

1 MS. ISSA: Thank you --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Just for me to understand, is that what you usually

3 find if you find bodies, that -- I do not fully understand what you mean

4 to say by this was made by hand, by man, rather than --

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The mound of gravel where we found

6 body 14 and 15, that mound could not be naturally formed by atmospheric

7 occurrences. The same thing would also apply to body 10. 14 and 15 were

8 completely covered by gravel in the form of a cone or a mound. Body 10 as

9 well. Perhaps the earth had washed away from the gravel because of the

10 rain, so with body number 10 you were able to see the bones through. So

11 they were obvious immediately when you looked there.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

13 Ms. Issa.

14 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

15 Q. And finally, Professor Aleksandric, did you observe anything about

16 the crime scene that indicated to you that the bodies had been placed

17 there deliberately by the Serbs or Serbian authorities?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Very composite question. Whether the bodies were put

19 there, by whom they were put there, these are separate questions,

20 Ms. Issa. By the way, if the first question is answered in a negative,

21 the second question -- there's no need to put it anymore.

22 Please proceed.

23 MS. ISSA:

24 Q. Did you observe anything about the crime scene that led you to

25 believe that the Serbian authorities had anything to do with the creation

1 of the crime scene?

2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Same objection --

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's not up to me to establish

4 that or to think about that.

5 MR. GUY-SMITH: [Previous translation continues] ... outside of

6 his expertise and is leading.

7 JUDGE ORIE: It's not necessarily outside of the expertise of the

8 witness. It depends also a bit on his answer, Mr. Guy-Smith.

9 But, Ms. Issa, the question is put perhaps in a too limited way.

10 Because you asked whether the witness observed anything about the crime

11 scene that led him to believe, I would rather ask him whether he noticed

12 anything at the crime scene which could have been understood as an

13 indication that the bodies had been moved to this place rather than that

14 the bodies were bodies of persons that died at the place where the bodies

15 were found, apart from, of course, the water stream.

16 If you heard my answer, could you please answer it -- my question,

17 could you please answer it.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're talking about the place that

19 was outside the canal. It was on the slope or are you asking generally?

20 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking generally, but you don't have to respond

21 to the possible replacement dislocation of bodies due to the water because

22 we have dealt with that. So that is bodies being put there by any other

23 means.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Taking into account the wounds

25 determined by the autopsy - and I said out of the nine bodies found on the

1 surface or immediately below the surface, we had seven with projectile

2 wounds, and in view of the fact how the bodies were intermingled with the

3 soil and taking into account the damages from the projectiles on both

4 walls of the canal, my conclusion would be that the majority of the bodies

5 were liquidated there by fire-arms. But you cannot determine whether this

6 happened at the same time. However, body number 1, which was partly in a

7 nylon bag and partly in a jute bag, and there was no projectile damage on

8 either of the bags, you could conclude that that body had been brought.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm specifically asking for indications for bodies

10 brought there, not for conclusions on how people may have died in that

11 place. But the you say this -- the bodies that were in a bag you would

12 consider it a -- an indication for the possibility that the body was put

13 there. Do you have any other indications for bodies to have been put

14 there when not alive anymore?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I could say that definitely

16 only for body number 1. As for the other bodies, I could only speculate.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's refrain from speculation.

18 Ms. Issa.

19 MS. ISSA: That concludes my examination-in-chief, Your Honour.

20 Thank you.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 Professor Aleksandric, I have one question for you, and you don't

23 have to say a lot about it. A simple yes or no would do. During your

24 investigation on site, did you pay any attention to the presence of insect

25 or -- I take it that you call it larvae of insects on the bodies or on the

1 clothing? Did you consider that? Did you describe that because we have

2 not perhaps received all the information. Was that part of the

3 investigation? If you say yes, then we'll -- or if you say no, we would

4 just like to know without further details at this moment.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't say yes or no. We did

6 not find any larvae or worms or flies or anything like that. If we had

7 found any, we would have also included that in our autopsy report.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Aleksandric, for various reasons this

11 Chamber has decided that cross-examination, that is, examination by the

12 Defence, will take place at a later stage. The date still has to be

13 arranged. So therefore, unfortunately, we have to ask you to come back

14 when you are there -- when the time is there. At the same time, as you

15 may have noticed, there is a report from French experts. As soon as an

16 English translation is available, it will be sent to you. Would you then

17 be so kind to, as soon as possible, to respond in writing or to comment in

18 writing on the findings and the reasoning in those reports. Would you be

19 willing to do that? And we note that you are back only on the 13th of

20 August.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, but I will be able to do

22 that only in late August.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We understand that.

24 Then, Professor Aleksandric, I'd first of all like to thank you

25 very much for coming to the Hague and to answer all the questions that

1 were put to you. At the same time, I would like to instruct you not to

2 discuss with others, even talk with others, about the testimony you have

3 given or you are still about to give because cross-examination still has

4 to follow. You understand that instruction?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. Thank you.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Then thank you very much. You are excused and you'll

7 further hear from the Tribunal.

8 THE WITNESS: [In English] Thank you.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, we'll have a break for 20 minutes and then

10 there are 55 minutes remaining for you for the next witness.

11 MS. ISSA: [Microphone not activated] -- Just to indicate,

12 Mr. Dutertre will be taking the next witness.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I'll then tell him that he's got 55 minutes.

14 We'll have a break.

15 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

16 [The witness withdrew]

17 [The witness entered court]

18 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Dunjic, would you please sit down for a

20 second because I have to deal with a procedural issue before we start.

21 The Chamber has studied the lengthy or the huge number of matters

22 in which the parties could not disagree. Some disappointment came into

23 our mind, but we have reviewed the 92 ter statement. Where this statement

24 contains an opinion which - and I'm talking about the 92 ter statement of

25 Professor Dunjic - which goes beyond his direct experience and is

1 prejudicial to the Defence or if it's purely speculative or it represents

2 hearsay upon hearsay that is obviously of no value whatsoever, then we

3 have struck the passages and the remaining passages of the questionable

4 evidentiary value may be clarified in direct examination or in

5 cross-examination and will be given the weight they deserve in the

6 Chamber's discretion, which could well be no weight at all.

7 I give you the passages which are struck. Paragraph 77, the

8 highlighted portion; paragraph 122, highlighted portion; 131; 339; 365;

9 454; 480; 481; 579; last two sentences of 710, starting: "One of the

10 victim's bodies had a ring ..." Until the end of that paragraph; and 713.

11 This is not to say that a proper foundation could not be laid during the

12 examination of the witness, but there's insufficient basis in the -- in

13 the statement. On one point we had some doubts, that's 57: "The body was

14 dumped and hidden in a cement sewage canal situated between the hangars of

15 this Ekonomija farm."

16 The Chamber reading and understanding this portion as this body

17 was found in a not easy visible place in a cement sewage canal situated

18 between the hangars of this Ekonomija farm, that's how we understood this

19 and not as a direct -- an expression of direct knowledge of dumping or an

20 intent to hide. And this might guide the parties as well in how the

21 Chamber reads, that is, not only literally but always contextually.

22 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's quite helpful, thank you.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 And, Professor Dunjic, before you give evidence in this court, the

25 Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration

1 that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

2 The text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher. Would you please make

3 that solemn declaration.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

5 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Professor Dunjic. Please be seated.

7 You will first be examined by Mr. Dutertre, who's counsel for the

8 Prosecution.

9 Mr. Dutertre, you may proceed.

10 WITNESS: DUSAN DUNJIC

11 [Witness answered through interpreter].

12 Examination by Mr. Dutertre:

13 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Professor.

14 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. As regards

15 Professor Dunjic, the Prosecution has prepared a consolidated statement

16 with a number of annexes, and I should like to tender this under Rule 92

17 ter today. Perhaps the version as is can be tendered, and then once the

18 text is redacted we could then substitute the amended version instead of

19 the previous version. I'd like to add that we have prepared an index

20 which will enable you to find the various annexes along with the ERN

21 numbers and --

22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... The Chamber,

23 isn't it. Then there's no need to explain that it does exist. Please

24 proceed. And perhaps why just not put the 92 ter statement to the witness

25 and seek the attestations needed?

1 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, that is exactly what I

2 intended to do. The binder has been positioned on the witness's desk by

3 the usher.

4 Q. Professor Dunjic, you have given a consolidated statement in June

5 of 2007. The document that you have before you, does this correspond to

6 the consolidated statement that you made?

7 A. It does.

8 Q. Professor Dunjic, could you indicate whether this reflects

9 faithfully the testimony that you gave?

10 A. It does.

11 Q. Professor, if the questions that were put to you at that session

12 when you presented your consolidated statement were put to you again

13 today, would you respond in same fashion?

14 A. Yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the 92 ter statement --

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit Number P618,

17 marked for identification.

18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer].

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was initially 65 ter number ...?

20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The number was to be determined.

21 It has not been determined as of yet.

22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... at a later stage.

23 Please proceed.

24 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

25 Q. Mr. Dunjic, we have a limited amount of time, and therefore I

1 would like to ask you to be concise and to respond specifically to my

2 questions, which is the only way that will enable us to deal with the

3 essential questions that I would like to ask you in the time that is

4 available. My first point that I'd like to discuss with you for reasons

5 of context is as follows.

6 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] And for that I would like to ask

7 that the Exhibit 1517 be put on the e-court. This is Professor Dunjic's

8 resume, his curriculum vitae.

9 Q. Professor, as you read through this resume, as well as paragraphs

10 of your statement, it's clear that you have been involved in the

11 identification of war victims in the former Yugoslavia --

12 JUDGE ORIE: We have limited time. Is there anything on the

13 curriculum that is in dispute?

14 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] No, it was just to introduce a

15 question.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, if you just put the question. If

17 there's no dispute about the curriculum, then just put the questions in

18 addition to what is already on paper.

19 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I shall ask the question,

20 Your Honour.

21 Q. You are a professor of forensic medicine. How many forensic

22 medicine professors are there at the University of Belgrade?

23 A. Of the ones currently working at the institute, there are six of

24 us professors.

25 Q. Thank you very much. In paragraph 10 of your statement, you

1 indicate that you have published a recent article with Mark Skinner

2 entitled identification of victims from two mass graves in Serbia. Could

3 you tell us who Mark Skinner is?

4 A. He was an anthropologist who I got to know at Batajnica, or

5 rather, at the Batajnica site where we exhumed large numbers of victims.

6 He was there as a representative of the international organisation for the

7 missing persons, and he was assigned to us as an assistant. He's an

8 anthropologist from Canada, I believe.

9 Q. Are you aware, Professor Dunjic, that Professor Skinner was an

10 expert for the Defence in this case, Haradinaj et al.?

11 A. My colleague, anthropologist, Professor Marija Djuric who worked

12 with us at Glodjane, Batajnica, and elsewhere told me that she had been

13 informed by Mr. Skinner that he was going to be a consultant in the

14 Defence team -- for the Defence team.

15 Q. Thank you very much. I'd like to go on to a second point that

16 will involve a series of questions related to the crime scene in Radonjic

17 in 1998. Was that the first time you had been to that crime scene in

18 1998, was that the first time?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Professor, you have stated that the forensic operations began at

21 the canal on September 11th, 1998. This is indicated in paragraph 52 of

22 your statement, and you left the canal around 3.00, 4.00 in the afternoon,

23 as it is stated in paragraph 60 of your statement. My question is as

24 follows: When you were at the canal at that time, given your former

25 experience, given the fact that you're a specialist in forensic medicine,

1 did you notice anything that might have made you think that this crime

2 scene had been fabricated?

3 A. If I understood you well when you said "fabricated," do you mean

4 it had been staged in any way? No. If my understanding is correct, it

5 had not been staged in any way. This was a locality where body parts

6 could be seen next to the canal wall leading to Lake Radonjic. The bodies

7 were partly covered by soil and other parts could be seen. It was not

8 staged in any way. It was a site where the bodies were exhumed, recovered

9 and exhumed.

10 MR. GUY-SMITH: I will interpose --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 MR. GUY-SMITH: I will interpose the same objection interposed

13 before with regard to the issue of fabrication and staging.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 Mr. Dutertre, at the same time if you're talking about the crime

16 scene and staging, then that could mean a lot of things. It could mean

17 that it was suggested that the people died over there or that -- it could

18 be a lot of things. So if you want to know whether there's any staging

19 involved, you would have to know what then was staged. I mean, certainly

20 I take it that it was not staged that these were dead bodies. But please

21 proceed.

22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. In paragraph 35 of your statement, which has been contested might

24 I add, you have indicated -- and I shall read it in English, if we could

25 perhaps have it on the screen as well using Sanction, you say: [In

1 English] "In my opinion, I am sure that the MUP or the VJ, prior to our

2 arrival at the site, had not removed any of the bodies or mortal remains

3 from the site."

4 [Interpretation] Could you tell us what led you to draw that

5 conclusion, Professor?

6 A. The corpses which were visible were to be found at the very bottom

7 of the canal and were largely covered by soil and mud. These body parts,

8 which were subsequently exhumed, clearly showed that the bodies had been

9 down there for long -- for a long time. It was quite visible that none of

10 the forces present approached them, and the bodies could be seen from that

11 part of the road which overlooked the canal wall.

12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nobody approached the bodies in

14 that --

15 JUDGE ORIE: May I stop you there, but it might be my insufficient

16 knowledge of the English language. How I understand 35 is that the

17 witness -- in the opinion of the witness, the MUP or the VJ, prior to

18 their arrival, had not removed any of the bodies or -- so that some of

19 them were taken away and therefore not there anymore. That's how I read

20 35. If that's the case, then the answer of the witness is not focusing on

21 what 35 says.

22 Do you have any knowledge of whether there had been more dead

23 bodies there and that were removed before your arrival by the MUP or the

24 VJ?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The bodies were there when we

1 arrived at the site, and they were visually uncovered by the MUP forces

2 which had informed the competent bodies --

3 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just talking about bodies that were not there

4 anymore removed by anyone before your arrival. Do you have any knowledge

5 of such a removal of bodies not being present anymore when you arrived?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have any such knowledge of

7 bodies having been removed. We removed them once we exhumed them.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 Does this clarify paragraph 35?

10 MR. DIXON: Yes, Your Honour, that was the reason for the

11 objection, what was the basis of the prior knowledge.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MR. DIXON: Thank you.

14 JUDGE ORIE: If we can move on, Mr. Dutertre. This has been

15 settled.

16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

17 Q. I should like to go on now to the issue of autopsies, and I will

18 have several questions. In paragraph 60 of your statement - and if we

19 could use Sanction to have it on the screen, please, you state, and again

20 I'm going to read it out in English: [In English] "I had originally

21 planned to do this work in Decane but the situation was too dangerous

22 there. The UCK was very present in these areas which would have made our

23 work very perilous."

24 Could you tell us why it is that you made that statement. Where

25 did you get that information?

1 A. We received that information from the organs which were constantly

2 present with us, that's to say the MUP. When we were supposed to do the

3 exhumations, since I was in charge of that, I had to establish and choose

4 the location where we would perform autopsies. The -- initially, Decani

5 was chosen as the place where autopsies were to be carried out. However,

6 as we arrived at the site in vehicles, representatives of the court and

7 the MUP, we established that the situation was quite dangerous. It was

8 impossible to secure the general area in order to be able to carry the --

9 carry out the exhumations there.

10 As we arrived at the police station in Decani, we were told by the

11 officers there that no suitable location could be found locally where

12 autopsies could be performed. We decided to go to Djakovica, where in

13 consultation with the local people we -- I apologise. Let me just add

14 that throughout that time we had police escorts with us and that there was

15 restricted movement after 1800 hours. We were able to move only with the

16 police escorts, and that allowed us only to go to the site itself and back

17 to where the autopsies were performed.

18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... regarding autopsies, and here

19 I'd like to refer to paragraph 43 and 49 --

20 JUDGE ORIE: You started speaking before the translation was

21 finished. That creates gaps in the transcript. Would you please keep

22 that in mind.

23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Apologies, Your Honours.

24 In paragraphs 43 and 49, you have explained, and again I'd like to have

25 these paragraphs on the screen with Sanction, you describe your method for

1 the numbering of the bodies on site, that there was a label in the bag and

2 outside the bag. My question relates to the traceability of the bodies

3 during the autopsy. In paragraph 85, you say the following, and again I'd

4 like to have that paragraph on the screen with Sanction: [In English]

5 "Before opening a bag, we would first re-label the bag."

6 [Interpretation] Could you tell us what you mean by "re-label."

7 Does that mean that you're copying the same thing that was on the previous

8 label or was the numbering system a different one. Could you please tell

9 us that and then secondly explain why you proceeded in that way.

10 A. In order to maintain custody, the continuity of custody over the

11 bodies, I explained to you already how we added the letter "R". We would

12 put a certain number attached to the body inside the body-bag and into the

13 pocket on the body-bag. In order to take a photograph of the body-bag, we

14 would take the number from the pocket and place it on the body-bag before

15 opening the body-bag itself in order to see and to show that the numbers

16 matched. This was done so that once the body-bag was opened, whatever

17 could be found there, pieces of clothing and personal effects, that they

18 all be labelled with the same marking that was chosen for that particular

19 body.

20 Q. Thank you very much. I'd now like to discuss the various elements

21 that were found with the bodies, found in the bags with the bodies. As

22 regards body R-12, which is the sister of Witness SST07/04, which has --

23 has been proposed -- well, there's been a genetic examination in agreement

24 with the Defence. I would like to call the 65 ter Exhibit number 867 on

25 page 66.

1 MR. GUY-SMITH: We have not agreed to genetic examination with

2 regard to R-12. That's an issue that's still open because we haven't

3 received all of the underlying information.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As a matter of fact, how relevant is it for the

5 questions to be put now?

6 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Well, the question does not relate

7 to the identity. The only purpose of mentioning that was to identify the

8 body for all parties.

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: [Previous translation continues]... It's not. At

10 this time, I think there's another way that he can get to the same

11 information.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, what you're seeking,

13 Mr. Dutertre, is to get an explanation of these pictures and that's on the

14 identity -- whether there's any agreement on the identity seems at this

15 moment to be rather irrelevant for the questions you wanted to put, isn't

16 it? First, I think it should not have been mentioned; second, it should

17 not have been objected to at this moment, it could have been done at a

18 later stage.

19 Please proceed.

20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Fine, Your Honour.

21 Q. Professor, could you confirm, or rather, tell us what you see in

22 the middle photograph. Perhaps we can have it enlarged for you.

23 A. This is a piece of barbed wire found next to the body R-12, and as

24 we look at the top left-hand corner, we see the so-called sliding noose

25 where one end is slipped through another one, a shorter one. In the

1 bottom part of the photograph we can see a tangle of sorts. What you are

2 showing now with the cursor is the sliding noose, and in the bottom part

3 of the photograph we can see -- yes, exactly that part, we can see the

4 remains of human hair. The remains of human hair that can be seen here

5 are similar to the remains of human hair found on body marked as R-12.

6 Q. Thank you, Professor. Could you tell us what that means, that

7 there be hair entwined in the barbed wire?

8 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, I rise briefly to say paragraph 339 is

9 out. I'm just making sure Mr. Dutertre knows that that's the case.

10 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, I also said that if the -- this is

11 not proper for introduction through 92 ter. What could still be asked and

12 the question was rather unclear to me --

13 MR. DIXON: Yes.

14 JUDGE ORIE: -- what it means --

15 MR. DIXON: That's the point I make.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, if you put -- the objection against

17 339, of course, was what it led the witness to believe. If there's any

18 inference to be drawn within the area of his competence, of course you

19 could do so. But as it stands now, it certainly is an opinion which is --

20 as far as presented on paper is rather speculative. So therefore, if you

21 can make it anything else, then please do so. But the question is not

22 very appropriate to seek anything more than speculation. So therefore, if

23 you would reformulate your question.

24 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Professor, how could you explain the presence here of hair on this

1 barbed wire?

2 A. It can be explained in the following way. This wire, especially

3 with this form of sliding noose, must have been in contact with a person;

4 or a person may have even been tied up with that barbed wire. That's the

5 only possible explanation.

6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: May I ask a question.

7 Professor, you spoke about the hair being similar to the hair of

8 R-12. What did you mean by "similar"?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By saying that, I meant that the

10 quality of the hair, its length and colour, matched the hair found on

11 barbed wire here. This was established in an autopsy. We then checked

12 whether this was the hair of R-12 or whether this hair was found here

13 accidentally. What we established, however, was that the hair was of the

14 same quality and of the same colour, and our conclusion was that it was

15 similar.

16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. I would object to this point, outside of his

19 expertise, and I'm dealing with the issue of matching, for him to say the

20 hair is similar, it's one issue; for him to say the hair is matching is an

21 entirely different issue. There's an entire field of science that deals

22 with hair samples and matching --

23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm aware of that. Matching could mean several

24 things, Mr. Guy-Smith, so therefore I would like to first explore it

25 further.

1 You said length, colour, and I think you said structure were

2 similar. Was there anything you found which was not similar? So apart

3 from the positive findings, was there an absence of any negative findings?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really cannot recall now any

5 negative findings. We were looking for things that approximately match

6 one another. So based on similarity, this is the usual method of work in

7 forensics. So it is an assumption. We did not determine the

8 physiological origin or the DNA composition to be able to say: This does

9 belong to the same person. But visually, macroscopically, which is part

10 of the forensic expert's duties, led us to the conclusions that I have

11 just presented to you. Thus there is similarity, but we are not asserting

12 that it does come from that same person.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 Mr. Guy-Smith, that means that within the criteria investigated

15 there was a match, which means that identity may not have been established

16 and at the same time there are no reasons at this moment to assume that

17 they were not from the same person.

18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well --

19 JUDGE ORIE: These are the conclusions, logical conclusions I

20 would say, from this and I would like to invite Mr. Dutertre to continue

21 but the word "match" --

22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Has a very specific scientific meaning.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Well --

24 MR. GUY-SMITH: A very, very specific scientific meaning. One of

25 the most.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would appreciate.

3 JUDGE ORIE: At a later stage we will discuss the meaning of the

4 word "match".

5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I appreciate that. I would appreciate obtaining

6 the professor's working notes with regard to microscopic examinations

7 which we have yet to receive.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, that's clear to you. I don't know

9 whether it's anywhere in the exhibits, but please proceed.

10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

11 Q. I would like to, continue discussing the various elements found

12 with the bodies. Body R-3 I don't believe there is any objection here. I

13 think we've finalised. This is the body of Misin Berisha under -- under

14 Count 19 and 20 of the indictment. You have indicated the following as

15 regards this body: [In English] "There was a piece of yellow sticky tape

16 found next to the corpse.".

17 [Interpretation] I would like to call Exhibit 65 ter 856, page 21.

18 Could we have this on the e-court, please.

19 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated]

20 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated]

21 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] 867.

22 Could the usher perhaps -- it's annex 186 of the witness

23 statement.

24 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated]

25 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Professor, is it -- is the yellow sticky tape that you referred to

2 in paragraph 212 that we can see here on the screen?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Could you describe this sticky tape in further detail, please.

5 A. The sticky tape that was found with the body R-3 close to it is

6 similar, even to say identical to the tape found next to body R-4. It's

7 plastic sticky tape stuck several times, which in the middle part at the

8 bottom where you can see, is a little bit thinner or worn down. So if I

9 were to show you this paper, it's pinched together in its central part. I

10 don't know if I'm being clear. Comparing the sticky tape and the other

11 sticky tape from R-4, we concluded that the victims were both bound with

12 the tape -- that their mouth was bound and the narrow part, worn-down

13 part, in the middle of the sticky tape would correspond to the place where

14 the victims bit down on it.

15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Professor.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Same objection: Outside of the expertise of the

18 witness, calls for a conclusion, and is speculative. With regard to --

19 with regard to not anything other than lines 9 through 13. The other part

20 of the answer I have no difficulty with.

21 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record.

22 Please proceed.

23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. I would like to discuss now, now that we've discussed the objects

25 found with the victims, the injuries that you found on the bodies. R-4,

1 first of all, and here I don't believe there are any objections as regards

2 this body. I think that we're finalising, it's Zenun Gashi, this is Count

3 19 and 20. On paragraph 233 you stated that both arms were broken, were

4 fractured, at the same level.

5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Could we perhaps have this passage

6 on the screen using Sanction.

7 Q. In paragraph 234, you indicated that these injuries could not have

8 been caused by a fall from the top of the embankment at the bottom of

9 which the body was found. So I'm referring to paragraphs 233 and 234.

10 While you're reading these paragraphs I would like to call Exhibit 1518

11 under Rule 65 ter. And perhaps we can go back to the e-court if you've --

12 if everyone has had time to read those two paragraphs.

13 THE WITNESS: Next.

14 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] It's not that page, it's the next

15 one, please.

16 THE WITNESS: Next, next.

17 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Again, the next. Again the next --

18 sorry, that's not the page I'm looking for. I apologise for wasting time,

19 Your Honour. While we're looking for the right document, perhaps I could

20 ask a question to the witness, which is as follows.

21 Q. What is the meaning, from your point of view, of the fact that

22 both arms were fractured at the same level?

23 A. I'm going to answer this question directly, and, Your Honours, I

24 would just like to say that I am in a position as an expert -- expert in

25 this field in my country and questions are being put to me and I'm

1 expected to provide my expert opinion. But in view of a question which is

2 being put to me in this way by the Prosecutor, I'm going to respond as an

3 expert and I would not like that to be associated with any kind of free

4 thinking of my own.

5 Thus, with this witness we found fractures in the distal parts of

6 both arms, as I'm indicating that now. In several cases that we had there

7 that we processed, we found similar cases, similar fractures, identical,

8 symmetrical fractures which led us to conclude, since we all discussed

9 this: How could such a fracture be accused at the same height? And we

10 came to the conclusion that it was probably a matter of the victims having

11 their hands bound and then a strong blunt instrument acting at the same

12 level at the same place. This is not a manipulation, it's an expert

13 opinion in view of the nature of the injuries and in view of the fact that

14 the body was found at a slope -- well, there is a slope. There is a

15 concrete wall of the canal. The body was found at the bottom of the

16 slope. A body falling or rolling down this slope cannot cause this

17 injury. This injury can be caused only upon the direct action of a heavy

18 blunt instrument as we would describe it.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, I'm looking at the clock. At the same

20 time, I said yesterday the Chamber would very much like to conclude with

21 this witness. I have asked the staff to see whether there's any

22 possibility to have additional time.

23 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

24 JUDGE ORIE: The feedback from those who would have to assist us

25 to continue later today has not been received yet. But for practical

1 purposes, Mr. Dutertre, how much time do you think you would still need?

2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we had asked a total

3 of an hour and a half. I think -- well, a good half-hour will enable me

4 to finish with this witness if I am concise and perhaps set aside a few

5 questions.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Half an hour is too much at this moment to continue,

7 and apart from that it would need consultation with the -- the Chamber who

8 would be in this courtroom. Therefore, I think we are at least going to

9 adjourn, Professor Dunjic, but the Chamber would very much like to see

10 whether there's any possibility for that remaining half-hour to find the

11 cooperation of all we would need to finish today rather than to -- to ask

12 you to return at a later date.

13 Because, as you know, Mr. Dutertre, the planning was to have the

14 examination-in-chief done before we adjourned today, especially since the

15 next hearing day would be the 16th of July. If there's no possibility to

16 find another half an hour or one hour today, we need courtroom, we need

17 interpreters, we need security, we need transcribers, et cetera, then the

18 Chamber will consider whether the examination-in-chief will be completed

19 just prior to the examination -- cross-examination. So therefore, whether

20 we would ask the witness to come back now and then again for

21 cross-examination, that might be a bit too much.

22 Therefore, Professor Dunjic, you will be informed about what will

23 happen. So there are three possibilities: Either we continue today, and

24 that would mean that we would finish your examination-in-chief today, you

25 would then be later called for cross-examination, that might take

1 considerable time. Another possibility is that we would like to see you

2 back soon to finish, to complete your examination-in-chief, and then later

3 to be called for cross-examination. That is not an attractive way of

4 proceeding. And finally the last option would be that just prior to being

5 cross-examined that you would complete your examination-in-chief. You'll

6 hear this afternoon what will be the case.

7 Therefore, we adjourn at this moment, but usually one says sine

8 die, without a date, but even without a time at this moment. If we will

9 not continue today and -- then we will resume at Monday, the 16th of July,

10 9.00, Courtroom III.

11 Mr. Re.

12 MR. RE: There's no problem from the Prosecution's point, but we

13 have -- I checked with the witness before. He's not actually available to

14 come back because of vacation until the 20th of August for the

15 re-examination -- the cross-examination and the examination-in-chief.

16 JUDGE ORIE: We are aware of that.

17 Then finally whatever course we'll take, Professor Dunjic, I would

18 like to instruct you not to speak with anyone about your testimony, the

19 testimony given and still to be given. Is that clear to you?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll adjourn.

22 --- Recess taken at 1.48 p.m.

23 --- On resuming at 2.49 p.m.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, good afternoon. This is case number

1 IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor versus Ramush Haradinaj et al.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

3 I had the case called again because it was uncertain when we would

4 resume.

5 Professor Dunjic, fortunately - and I say this with some

6 gratitude - we found all the staff we need to have this court session. So

7 we can conclude your examination-in-chief today. I usually remind

8 witnesses that they are still bound by the solemn declaration, but since

9 you testified this morning I think it goes without saying. I see you are

10 nodding yes.

11 Mr. Dutertre, please proceed.

12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

13 Q. Having examined the various objects, Professor, that were found

14 near the victims and the non-deadly injuries, I'd like to discuss now the

15 deadly injuries, in particular the case of body R-9, which is dealt with

16 under Counts 31 and 32. If there are no objections on the part of the

17 Defence, I can give the name of the victim --

18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... That's not

19 relevant. R-9 sufficiently identifies the body we are talking about.

20 Please proceed.

21 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Fine. Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. In paragraph 291 of your statement, you indicate the following,

23 and this will be coming up on the screen under Sanction and I'm going to

24 read it out as well: [In English] "There was an entry injury and an exit

25 injury to the head."

1 [Interpretation] I would like to call exhibit under 64 [as

2 interpreted] ter number 867, 867, page 48. This is annex 49 of the

3 consolidated statement. Once the photograph comes up on the screen,

4 Professor, I would like to ask you to tell us whether the photographs you

5 see are, indeed, in relationship to body R-9. It's annex 49. It seems

6 there's a technical problem here. I don't know whether the Defence has a

7 copy of this document.

8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters do not have a copy of this

9 document, however.

10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] For the interpreters, it's three

11 photographs, in fact.

12 [Microphone not activated]

13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Your microphone, Your Honour.

15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

16 Q. The quality of these -- of the document is not excellent, but you

17 do have it in front of you now. Can you confirm that these three

18 photographs relate to a body R-9?

19 JUDGE ORIE: If you look at the --

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes --

21 JUDGE ORIE: We have the picture now on our screen. What page is

22 it in this document?

23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I can't see any image -- it's page

24 48 of 867 under Rule 65 ter.

25 JUDGE ORIE: There really seems to be a technical problem to get

1 it on our screens.

2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Here it is.

3 Q. So you have confirmed that these pictures do relate to body R-9.

4 Now, I'd like to ask you to look at the picture in the middle, in the

5 centre.

6 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Could we have a zoom on this one,

7 please.

8 Q. And, Professor, I'd like to ask you to comment on this picture.

9 What does the arrow represent?

10 A. This is a picture of the base of the skull, and could I please

11 look at the top photograph?

12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Could we take a look at the top

13 photograph.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a shot of the right half of

15 the skull, and this is an injury characteristic of a projectile exit

16 wound. And the one at the base of the skull we noted down as the entry

17 wound.

18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

19 Q. When you say "entry" and "exit wound," you're referring to a

20 projectile?

21 A. Yes, it's an injury caused by a projectile from a side-arm or a

22 hand weapon, and the injuries which were caused while the person was still

23 alive probably led to the person's death.

24 Q. Thank you very much, Professor.

25 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I would like to have Exhibit 65 ter

1 913, I repeat, 913, page 17.

2 [Microphone not activated]

3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone. Microphone, Mr. Dutertre.

4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

5 Q. This is an autopsy report dated 2003 by Dr. Gasior by UNMIK --

6 from UNMIK.

7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Could we enlarge the part that

8 refers to the summary and the cause of death, please. I would like to

9 note that it has not been contested that this autopsy report relates to

10 body R-9.

11 Q. Could I ask you, Professor, to read this document. I'm also going

12 to read it out so that you have it in your language translated, and the

13 text states under "cause of death:

14 [In English] "It is my determination that the cause of death in

15 the case number R-RE08/001B was multiple gun-shot injury (to the head,

16 trunk, and upper limbs)."

17 [Interpretation] Professor, my question is as follows: Are these

18 conclusions in agreement with your own conclusions having examined this

19 body?

20 A. I apologise. Since I don't see that this report has any direct

21 link with R-9 but since the multiple gun-shot injury is indicated as the

22 cause of death, I can confirm, since I have before me the findings that we

23 arrived at which was the gun-shot wound to the head, as you were able to

24 see and to the trunk and limbs. Based on that, this conclusion would be

25 consistent with our own findings.

1 Q. Thank you, Professor. Well, indeed, just for information, for the

2 information of the Chamber, although the reference here is R-RE08/001B

3 there is no disagreement amongst the parties that this autopsy report

4 carried out in 2003 does, indeed, correspond to the body R-9.

5 Generally speaking, Professor, could you tell us how many bullet

6 wounds have you discovered in the autopsies that you carried out between

7 the 12th and 19th of September, 1998, or rather, on how many victims did

8 you find bullet wounds -- gun-shot wounds, rather?

9 A. I don't know the exact number out of the 39 victims because some

10 of them had two gun-shot or fire-arm wounds. Most of the victims had also

11 gun-shot injuries. On the remains of the bones we were able to examine,

12 there were clearly visible injuries caused by fire-arms and those which

13 were not caused by fire-arm projectiles. This was clearly indicated in

14 all the records, but I cannot give you the exact figure and tell you how

15 many of the 39 victims had gun-shot wounds.

16 Q. Thank you very much. I'd like to go on to another issue which is

17 the identification of victims. I'd like to refer to paragraphs 110 and

18 113, where you explain the identification procedure. In paragraph 113,

19 which we could perhaps have on the screen with Sanction, you state that

20 the clothing had been washed and dried and laid out on tables. Could you

21 tell us why the clothing was washed, the clothing that was discovered with

22 the bodies, why was it washed?

23 A. In order to clearly identify such parameters as were able to be

24 found on the clothing, such as colour, pattern, possible damage to the

25 clothing and which would help in identification. Most of the clothing was

1 affected by mud and by the decay to which it was exposed. In order to

2 bring up the colour and pattern of the clothing, we washed every piece of

3 clothing, dried it, and laid it out in order to facilitate the process of

4 identification.

5 Q. I've just been told that we can't switch to Sanction right now,

6 which is why the paragraph has not been put up on the screen. I'd like to

7 call up 64 [as interpreted] ter 867, I repeat, 867, page 10.

8 Professor --

9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] And first of all, could we perhaps

10 have a zoom on the upper right-hand picture, please.

11 Q. Professor, could you tell us what you can see on the small label

12 that's attached to the piece of clothing on the right-hand side of this

13 screen?

14 A. This is a female dress with buttons. It is marked with the same

15 number, R-1, as the body we autopsied. Most of the clothing was washed.

16 At the top and at the bottom there's the darker colour, and this was the

17 discolouring of the clothing caused by the putrification liquid,

18 therefore, caused by the changes in the stages of putrification. But as I

19 said, this is a piece of a female dress.

20 Q. Thank you, Professor, for those details regarding these pieces of

21 clothing. My question relates now to traceability. How could you provide

22 for the traceability of these pieces of clothing while they were being

23 washed? How did you proceed to provide for traceability once the piece of

24 clothing was removed from the bag and you had it washed, how could you be

25 absolutely certain that the right piece of clothing had the appropriate

1 label?

2 A. From the very outset the procedure was such that every stage of

3 the process was photographed. First the body was photographed in the

4 body-bag. As soon as the body was taken out of the body-bag it was

5 photographed again with the same label. Then the clothing and personal

6 effects, if any, were photographed with the same label. Once they were

7 washed and dried - and you have to know that in the area where we left the

8 clothing - we would also leave the corresponding labels so that once the

9 clothes are washed and dried up, they are also labelled and laid out for

10 the relatives to look at in the process of identification. Thus, there

11 was a continuity from the labelling of the body in the body-bag, taking

12 out the body out of the body-bag, washing up and drying up the clothes and

13 their subsequent preservation for identification.

14 Q. Thank you very much.

15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] For the Court's information the

16 reference of R-1 is the body for which request of amendment of the

17 indictment has been requested.

18 Now, Vukosava Markovic was identified by traditional means by the

19 family. This is in paragraph 304 to 309 of the consolidated statement. I

20 would like to see video V0006012. I don't know if it's going to work.

21 For technical reasons, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to show this

22 footage.

23 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know what to say, Mr. Dutertre. If you

24 manage to do it, we'll look at it; if you don't manage to do it -- or is

25 it a problem with the registry?

1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

2 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that it's a technical problem at the

3 side of the registry, so therefore then let's proceed with what we can

4 show.

5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Certainly, Mr. President.

6 Q. So I'll go to another topic, and that will be my last point. My

7 last point is what the fate of these bodies was, after the autopsies what

8 was done with them. Bodies from Dasinovac, their remains were identified

9 by your team, Professor, as being Milos Radunovic and Slobodan Radosevic.

10 This is in paragraph 705 of your statement. Paragraph 709 you indicate

11 this and I shall read it in English: [In English] "At the insistence of

12 the families, bone fragments were laid in caskets with the clothes

13 identified as those as Milos Radunovic and Slobodan Radosevic to avoid

14 burying clothes alone without any remains. All the bones were separated

15 equally into the caskets that were provided by us, that is to say, the

16 remains from at least three individuals."

17 [Interpretation] Professor, on this specific point, that is

18 putting the remains of Dasinovac, showing them to the families, giving

19 them back to the families, could you develop a bit and give more details

20 on the way these remains was -- were given to the families. Could you

21 elaborate? And more specifically, were you in a position to determine

22 which bones belonged to which body or where you in a situation- that's

23 what I think I understood, I'd like to clarify- where you just had to make

24 a choice between the bones?

25 A. No, we did not make the choice ourselves. The bones were brought

1 together with the clothing, the clothing, therefore, of three males and

2 one female. We received the bones that were recovered in the area of

3 Dasinovac village. We marked them with letter "D". One person had with

4 it the ID documentation to the name of Milos Radunovic, the other to the

5 name of Slobodan Radosevic. And as for the third person, we found

6 trousers that weren't identified by anyone. The fourth person was a

7 woman. We were told that over a very small area the remains of the bones

8 and clothing were found. The -- at the insistence of the sons and

9 relatives, all the clothing and bones that belonged to Milos Radunovic and

10 Slobodan Radosevic were placed in the casket. And the clothing that was

11 together with some small fragments of bone which we were unable to

12 identify to establish the height or anything else, it was agreed with the

13 relatives that these bones as well as this third pair of trousers nobody

14 knew who belonged to would be put together with the remains of these two

15 persons in the casket.

16 Q. And what was the fate of this casket? Could you let us know if

17 you know what became of this casket with small parts -- small bones which

18 you mentioned?

19 A. I have to indicate that all the bodies, both the identified and

20 unidentified one, we saw them being placed into individual caskets. We

21 were present as this was being done. For those who were not identified,

22 the casket was closed and marked with the same label that we used to mark

23 the body, the clothing, and everything else, the same number. That's to

24 say, the remains were put into a bag and the bag was placed in a casket.

25 The remains of all these unidentified persons were transferred two

1 or three days after we finished our job to a place outside the Orthodox

2 cemetery in Djakovica and were buried there. The required number of

3 graves was dug out, and each of the caskets was placed in the individual

4 grave-sites, which were then labelled. Initially, it was thought that a

5 cross would be placed on the graves; however, since we were unable to

6 establish the ethnicity of the victims the cross was removed and what

7 remained were only vertical pillars labelled "R" and then the

8 corresponding number of that particular body. The same labels were also

9 placed on the caskets themselves, and all of that was photographed.

10 Q. Thank you very much, Professor. Professor, if I do understand

11 what you say - and I stand corrected if I'm not right - the remains which

12 were handed to you as coming from Dasinovac, part of them were given to

13 the families, that the family of Milos Radunovic, the other one to

14 Slobodan Radosevic, and the third part was put with the unidentified

15 bodies. Is that so?

16 A. No, no, no. All the three bodies were placed in a casket because

17 we weren't able to distinguish between the different parts of the bones.

18 We weren't able to establish what belonged to Radunovic, save for the

19 clothing. We couldn't establish which of the remains of the bones

20 belonged to his body. It was all put together. All the bones were put

21 together in a casket.

22 Q. And what was then given to the families along with the clothing,

23 did that include bones or not to the families of Slobodan Radosevic and

24 Milos Radunovic?

25 A. The contents were bones and clothing. I repeat, we could not

1 establish which of the bones belonged to Radunovic and which to Radosevic.

2 We, therefore, only divided the bones equally -- we separated them

3 equally into the caskets, together with the clothing, and we marked them

4 as D-1, D-2, and D-3.

5 Q. Thank you. How did you know what became of the non-identified

6 caskets, or rather, the caskets containing the non-identified remains?

7 Were you there when those caskets were taken away and buried or were you

8 told what happened by someone else?

9 A. This is what I was told. The second time I arrived again for the

10 five bodies that were subsequently uncovered, I was taken to the place

11 where these unidentified bodies were buried and there a photograph of

12 that. There is the photograph of the place where they were buried and

13 there's a photograph showing the way in which this was done. I, myself,

14 wasn't present at the burial of these remains.

15 Q. Thank you very much, Professor.

16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] That was my last question, Your

17 Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Dutertre.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ORIE: This concludes your examination-in-chief, Professor

21 Dunjic. I'd like to give you the same instruction as I did this morning,

22 since cross-examination is still to be awaited.

23 I have a question to the parties in relation to the 23rd of April

24 -- in relation to the French report of the 15th of June. Is there any

25 wish to have the comments of Professor Dunjic as well? Because I noticed

1 that as far as the cause of death is concerned that there seems to be less

2 controversy than in relation to the time and the time is -- especially the

3 time the bodies were there. Nevertheless, Professor Dunjic is now here.

4 So if there would be any wish I could consider to ask Professor Dunjic.

5 Mr. Dixon.

6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we have about ten seconds to confer?

7 MR. DIXON: That's what I was also --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

9 [Defence counsel confer]

10 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, thank you for the opportunity. There's

11 no particular request on the part of the Defence for that report to be

12 given to Professor Dunjic or any comments from him to be requested at this

13 stage.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, I take it you have thoroughly studied

15 the French report. Is there any wish from the side of the Prosecution to

16 have Professor Dunjic comment on the findings in that report?

17 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I will trust

18 fully the Court to -- in that respect. No particular request.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

20 Then, Professor Dunjic, you'll receive information on when we

21 would like you to appear again in order to be cross-examined. For the

22 time being I would like to thank you for having come to The Hague and for

23 having answered the questions put to you until now. I wish you a safe

24 trip home again, and looking at the clock it seems to me that you'll make

25 it to be in time at the airport.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I'm grateful

2 to you for your patience in hearing me out.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to thank you for waiting and coming back

4 this afternoon. It's highly appreciated that you made yourself available

5 also this afternoon. Thank you very much.

6 Then, since we have a couple of minutes left -- yes,

7 Professor Dunjic, Madam Usher will escort you out of the courtroom.

8 [The witness withdrew]

9 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, I would like to read a rather short

10 decision. I do understand that the booths have been provided with the

11 text.

12 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

13 JUDGE ORIE: This is a request for the parties concerning

14 witnesses -- two witnesses for which the Trial Chamber issued subpoenas on

15 the 6th and the 7th of June, 2007, subpoenas ad testificandum.

16 On the 21st of June, 2007, memoranda of service were filed in

17 which the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Montenegro confirmed that

18 the witnesses had received the subpoena and while prepared to

19 testify videolink -- via videolink from Montenegro, they were unable or

20 unwilling to travel to The Hague. The applications for subpoena of 1 and

21 6th of June provide information about the family situation of these

22 witnesses.

23 While it is generally preferable that testimony should be given in

24 court, the Chamber is nevertheless mindful of the need to -- not to place

25 an undue burden on the needs of family members of a witness and believes

1 that in these cases there may be good reasons why the witnesses may be

2 unable or unwilling to travel to The Hague.

3 The Chamber would, therefore, invite the parties to make

4 submissions on whether these two witnesses, of which I do not know whether

5 there will ever be any application for protective measures, should be

6 heard by videolink from Montenegro; and if so, on what -- on which date.

7 The parties are invited to make the submissions orally or in writing -

8 orally might be difficult - within 48 hours.

9 This concludes the request of the Chamber to the parties.

10 Finally, I'd like to inquire into whether the lists of exhibits

11 tendered through the last witnesses, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Guy-Smith, and Mr.

12 Harvey -- oh, Mr. Troop, whether they have been provided to the registry.

13 MR. DIXON: Yes, Your Honour, they have and I believe they are

14 complete.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that these exhibits, there were no

16 objections to them when presented to the witness. I urge the parties that

17 since final decisions are made once the witnesses have left The Hague,

18 that if there would be any objection they should be raised at the moment

19 when the exhibits are presented to the witnesses. Because if there are

20 any objections at a later stage, then of course we are unable to ask

21 further questions about it to the witness.

22 MR. DIXON: Yes, Your Honour. As far as the exhibits shown --

23 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's just a reminder on the procedure rather than

24 -- rather than pointing at any specific problem.

25 Mr. Re, Mr. Dutertre, Ms. Issa not being there, no. I overlooked

1 her last time and I'll not make the same mistake again. Is there -- have

2 similar lists been prepared for inspection by the Defence and for adopting

3 this material in the e-court system?

4 MR. RE: Yes, we have a list of the exhibits for both witnesses.

5 I think the Defence has it. Mr. Guy-Smith's nodding. We'll certainly

6 provide it to the registry if we haven't.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that we can deal with them as soon as we are

8 sitting again.

9 That means, if there are no other procedural matters to be raised,

10 they should be raised now because it's until the 16th that we are not

11 sitting.

12 MR. DIXON: Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dixon.

14 MR. DIXON: There is one brief matter and that is in respect of

15 the last witness, Professor Aleksandric, there is some tidying to do on

16 his Rule 92 ter statement. Your Honour will recall there were some

17 objections and the Prosecution conceded some of those but there were

18 others that were left and there was testimony given in chief and

19 objections heard. And based on the guidance given by the Trial Chamber,

20 the proposal would be to attempt between the parties to tidy up that

21 statement and then to have it presented. It has been marked for

22 identification but then presented to be formally tendered once that has

23 been done.

24 JUDGE ORIE: The final one --

25 MR. DIXON: If there are any outstanding issues, those can then be

1 raised, hopefully, it can be done through agreement.

2 JUDGE ORIE: As you know disagreement about 92 ter statements are

3 dealt with at 10.00 at night.

4 MR. DIXON: Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Just to encourage you to resolve the matter during

6 the day.

7 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

8 JUDGE ORIE: There's one matter I would like to briefly raise and

9 that's the following.

10 Mr. Re, the expert report by Mr. Visnjic, that was annex 63, I

11 think, to the -- to the last witness of fact, Mr. Avramovic. We did not

12 admit that. Is there any application to -- or are you preparing any

13 application to call Mr. Visnjic as a witness?

14 MR. RE: We have filed an application for his report to be

15 accepted under Rule 94 bis as an expert. The implication of that would be

16 if the Defence wish to cross-examine him, he would be called to testify

17 we --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Just to remind me, when was this filed? Is this the

19 early series in 12th of January --

20 MR. RE: It was last week.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Last week. Okay. Yes.

22 So you do not intend to call him as a witness?

23 MR. RE: Well, yes and no. In the sense that he would be a

24 witness for the Prosecution, yes; but in the sense of him actually coming

25 to court and testifying, only if the Defence requested to -- requested

1 that he be cross-examined. If that's the case, they've got the 30 days.

2 I assume they do. If they do want him to be cross-examined, we would

3 apply to have him as a witness.

4 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, I do understand that further

5 submissions will be made by the -- by the Defence on this matter. If, of

6 course, now we have to wait for the 30 days whether or not to accept the

7 report, qualifications, et cetera, if you -- I take it that you have to

8 file anyhow an application to have your witness list amended because from

9 what I understand you had forgotten one witness on your most recent

10 version. Is that correctly understood?

11 MR. RE: A witness disappeared in the proofreading, yes, and put

12 back on.

13 JUDGE ORIE: I would strongly suggest that in addition to a

14 request to have the Visnjic report admitted under Rule 94 bis, also

15 perhaps as an alternative, to apply for an amendment of your witness list

16 so that Mr. Visnjic would appear as a witness. And then of course the

17 Defence could respond to that motion, to that request, and then include

18 whatever it would like to say in respect, both of Mr. Visnjic as an

19 expert, to comment on his report -- well, whatever is relevant in relation

20 to Mr. Visnjic and the report that was originally attached as annex 63 to

21 the 92 ter statement of Mr. Avramovic.

22 MR. RE: I'll file that by Monday. Is that --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Monday's fine. Yes.

24 Then if there's no other matter, we'll adjourn until the 16th of

25 July, 9.00 in the morning, this same courtroom.

1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.38 p.m.,

2 to be reconvened on Monday, the 16th day of

3 July, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25