1 Friday, 23 November 2001

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 1.00 p.m.

6 JUDGE HUNT: Please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-32-T, the Prosecutor versus

8 Mitar Vasiljevic.

9 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet.

10 MR. DOMAZET: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 WITNESS: RADOMIR VASILJEVIC [Resumed]

12 [Witness answered through interpreter]

13 Examined by Mr. Domazet: [Continued]

14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vasiljevic, good morning.

15 A. Good morning.

16 Q. Let us resume where we broke off yesterday, and that was - let me

17 remind you - when we were discussing the way in which records are kept of

18 your patients at the health centre; do you remember that?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] I should like to ask the usher to

21 show the witness D26, the original, in other words. Could this document

22 be shown to the witness, please.

23 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, will you please have a look at the book and tell

24 us whether you recognise it, and tell us what kind of document it is.

25 A. I do recognise this book. It is a protocol of patients, as we

1 call it, and it is kept in the departments of our health centre in

2 Visegrad, and we have already explained what kind of data is entered into

3 this book of records.

4 Q. Is that the book that you referred to, protocol covering a

5 definite period into which the names of patients who were treated at the

6 centre are entered?

7 A. That is indeed the book that we discussed and I spoke about, but I

8 must point out that, in the health centre, we have a number of these

9 books, and I have brought some of them with me which have still not been

10 shown to the Court. My motive was to show Their Honours that such books

11 are still kept, as this is an old method of keeping records of patients,

12 so it may be rather difficult to understand that this -- in this day and

13 age, medicine is still practised in this way in some part of the world.

14 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, did you bring to The Hague this book that is

15 before you as well?

16 A. Yes, I did.

17 Q. Before we continue discussing this book further, you just said

18 that you have in your possession several such protocols. My question to

19 you is whether there is any other book of records covering this same

20 period of time or are you referring to protocols relative to other time

21 periods?

22 A. You see the books I have brought with me mostly relate to the

23 period of 1992, 1993. As for the other books, they are in the health

24 centre and if Their Honours would need to consult them, they are at their

25 disposal.

1 Q. Yes, but Mr. Vasiljevic, I'm asking you whether those protocols

2 relate to other time periods or to the same time period covered by this

3 particular book?

4 A. Other time periods. Other time periods.

5 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, I don't think you've elicited any idea

6 of when this book, this book that the doctor has in front of him, the

7 period to which it relates. Is it to the relevant period?

8 MR. DOMAZET: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vasiljevic, will you please tell us what

10 period does the book in front of you cover? Which patients were entered

11 in this book, for what period of time?

12 A. This book covers the period from the 20th of April, 1992 until the

13 4th of July, 1992.

14 JUDGE HUNT: I think we've got to get to this a little bit more

15 quickly.

16 What patients does it relate to, the first aid patients or the

17 ones that are admitted into hospital? Are you able to answer that,

18 Doctor? What patients do they relate to?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I didn't know that the

20 question was addressed to me. This protocol contains information on all

21 patients that pass through the health centre, the first aid, or emergency

22 department, regardless of whether they were sent home after that to be

23 treated at home or whether they were sent on to a hospital to be

24 hospitalised.

25 JUDGE HUNT: Does that mean that there is a repetition, to some

1 extent, of the details in the book that we saw yesterday?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, I don't understand what

3 you're asking me.

4 JUDGE HUNT: The book that we had yesterday, we were told, were

5 the first aid department patients. Now, you said this book relates to

6 every patient that goes through the health centre, regardless of what

7 happens to him. So that the people who were in the book yesterday, they

8 should also be found in that book that you've now got in front of you. Is

9 that what you're saying.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understand you correctly, the

11 people you are mentioning were entered in some other book. That probably

12 means that they came to the health centre on another date, and not on a

13 date that is covered by the dates indicated on the cover of this book. So

14 their names should not appear in this book and in some other book, unless

15 you're referring to some other kind of protocol because --

16 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if I may assist the Court --

17 JUDGE HUNT: I give up. But Mr. Domazet, let's get on to what

18 this book is about. Can you tell me what it is?

19 MR. GROOME: It's the same book, Your Honour. He has just been

20 shown the exhibit --

21 JUDGE HUNT: The same book. It's not yet an exhibit, by the way.

22 MR. GROOME: Yes, I thought, as the very last piece of business --

23 JUDGE HUNT: What are we going back to it for? Why are we going

24 back to that book? We have heard a lot about it. Why do we need to hear

25 from the doctor more about that book?

1 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted the

2 witness to identify the book. He brought the book to The Hague. He is

3 the current director of the health centre, and I wanted him to recognise

4 it as a document covering the relevant period of time.

5 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry, Mr. Domazet, but this is becoming

6 ludicrous. We have got to move on. Now, he has identified it. Ask your

7 next question, and let's leave the book to one side. There's something

8 we'll have to deal with about that anyway. But let's get on with the case.

9 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, will you please open the book and find the number

11 5.353.

12 A. Could you please repeat the number.

13 Q. 5.353.

14 A. I've found the number.

15 Q. Will you please tell me, in view of the book you have in front of

16 you, what date this refers to, what is the name of the patient, and what

17 information has been entered about the patient?

18 A. Under number 5353, the name Mitar Vasiljevic was entered, born in

19 1954, a native of Visegrad, a member of the Territorial Defence. He came

20 to the health centre because of a fracture. An x-ray was made. The

21 doctor advised Trodon of 50 milligrams, and 50 percent glucose, 20 cubic

22 millimetres was administered by the nurse. After, he was dispatched to

23 the orthopedic ward of Uzice hospital.

24 Q. Thank you, Doctor. The only thing you didn't tell us was the date

25 this entry was made.

1 Can you see the date?

2 A. Yes, I can, but I was making the pause, as you advised me to. The

3 date is the 14th of June, 1992.

4 Q. Will you please look further on, under the number 5.461.

5 A. I found it.

6 Q. Will you tell us what the date is when that entry was made, what

7 person it refers to, and very briefly what it is about.

8 A. The entry under number 5461 is for a person called Mitar Knezevic

9 from Visegrad, a member of the Territorial Defence and it is ulno se

10 laterum regionalis, it's an injury of his right lower arm, a cut of his

11 right lower arm when the tendons were cut in that same area. He -- his

12 injury was bandaged and he was sent on to the surgery ward in Titovo

13 Uzice. The wound was dressed, and another patient was sent together with

14 him in the same ambulance, and this is noted down here.

15 Q. Who is this other patient, as you can see from the book?

16 A. The other patient is Nebojsa Kovac, also from Visegrad, but his

17 date of birth has not been noted down here.

18 Q. Was that patient sent to the Uzice hospital as well?

19 A. He was sent together with Mitar Knezevic.

20 Q. Thank you. Will you please look at entry number 5488.

21 A. Under this number 5488, we have the name Mitar Mosic, 5488, Mitar

22 Mosic, a member of the Territorial Defence from Visegrad. His diagnosis

23 is under code 724, he received a vial of novalgetol.

24 Q. Will you please -- I made a mistake with the number. Will you

25 look at 5484. 5484, please.

1 A. 5484. The name of Novo Rajak has been entered, a member of the

2 Territorial Defence, and it was a shot wound of his lower left leg. He

3 was also sent to Titovo Uzice.

4 Q. And the one before him, please, 5483, is it again an injury and a

5 case when a patient was sent to Uzice? Will you tell us who it was?

6 A. 5483, we have the name of Stanko Trifkovic, a member of the

7 Territorial Defence. Again, he had -- he was wounded. He was wounded by

8 firearms in his upper arm. Aminofilin [phoen] and dexazon [phoen] were

9 administered and he was also sent to the hospital in Uzice.

10 Q. Will you tell us the dates; were they sent to the hospital in

11 Uzice on the same date and on what date?

12 A. I don't know which two you're referring to.

13 Q. Novo Rajak and Trifkovic. They are together in this protocol.

14 A. Novo Rajak and Stanko Trifkovic were sent to the hospital in Uzice

15 on the same day, and that is the 18th of June, 1992.

16 Q. Thank you. Would you please tell us, in the book that you have

17 before you, were the entries made in that book by one and the same person

18 or by different persons? I'm talking about the whole book, not that

19 particular page.

20 A. The entries are mostly made by different persons, mostly different

21 persons. It may happen that one entry may be made by one nurse or one

22 doctor or several people. Usually, the doctor enters the diagnosis, where

23 the rest is entered by a nurse, but this is not a hard and fast rule, and

24 it is possible to deviate from it.

25 Q. So the question, my question is: Is it possible to see different

1 handwritings for the same day? Could the entries have been made by

2 several nurses or does it always have to be one and the same nurse?

3 A. It does not necessarily have to be the same nurse. In that period

4 of time, several nurses were working. So for us, it was quite unimportant

5 whether this nurse or another nurse or a doctor would enter this or that

6 piece of information in the book.

7 Q. Just one more question about that book. Apart from this book for

8 this period - and I'm talking about the period from the 20th of April

9 until the 4th of July - is there any other book of records when you admit

10 patients to your health centre?

11 A. As far as this period is concerned, in the centre, we also had a

12 department for occupational medicine, and they may have a protocol of

13 their own, an occupational medicine protocol, but that book did not

14 contain these patients that are registered in this book.

15 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, you brought this book with you. Is that the

16 original book from 1992 in which the names of patients were entered?

17 A. This is the only book covering that period and it is absolutely

18 original, yes.

19 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

20 Exhibit D11.1. These are potential witnesses, and I am referring to a

21 letter of the health centre sent by the health centre to attorney

22 Tanaskovic. Could the witness look at it and identify it, if possible.

23 Could the B/C/S original be shown to the witness, please, because

24 this is a translation, as far as I can see.

25 I apologise. This is the English translation.

1 Q. So I won't ask you to identify it. I will just ask you whether

2 you remember, at the request of attorney Tanaskovic, that you did send him

3 a report about Mitar Vasiljevic, or rather, telling him when and where he

4 was treated at your institution.

5 A. At the request of the attorney Mr. Radomir Tanaskovic, in the

6 course of the year 2000, we issued and wrote a letter addressed to

7 Mr. Tanaskovic in which, on the basis of the protocol in our possession,

8 we wrote down the dates and the injuries and the treatment given to Mitar

9 Vasiljevic, including dressing of his wound, transportation, and so on.

10 And I think we also listed the checkups that Mitar Vasiljevic came for.

11 Tanaskovic asked us to cover a fixed period of time. He didn't ask us to

12 cover the whole wartime period, and that is what we did.

13 We sent the -- an identical letter to the office of the liaison

14 officer of Republika Srpska at his request. And in a telephone

15 conversation with the liaison officer, we agreed that I could provide him

16 this information but, because of the reasons mentioned yesterday, I could

17 not give him the protocol itself. And his opinion was that such a letter

18 would be quite sufficient to establish the relevant facts. And he did not

19 insist on us sending the protocol books to his office.

20 JUDGE HUNT: It's not clear to me, Mr. Domazet, who the "he" is

21 there. Was it the liaison officer of the Republika Srpska or was it

22 Mr. Tanaskovic?

23 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my understanding is

24 that, in addition to a report being sent to Mr. Tanaskovic, a similar

25 report was requested by the liaison officer of Republika Srpska. And I

1 was just going to ask the witness to explain that.

2 Q. So am I right? In addition to Mr. Tanaskovic, similar information

3 was requested from you by the liaison officer with The Hague Tribunal of

4 Republika Srpska?

5 A. Yes, your understanding is correct. That is what I was saying.

6 In addition to sending a letter to the attorney Mr. Tanaskovic, the

7 liaison officer requested the same information and was given the same

8 information.

9 JUDGE HUNT: I'm still not clear. The doctor has said, We agreed

10 that I could provide him this information but, because of the reasons

11 mentioned yesterday, I could not give him the protocol itself, and his

12 opinion was that such a letter would be quite sufficient to establish the

13 relevant facts. Now, who is the "he"? Is it what is now said to be the

14 liaison officer of the Tribunal? I'm not sure that can be accurate, but

15 it might be the liaison officer of the Office of the Prosecutor. I want

16 to know the "he" is with whom the agreement was reached.

17 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Can you explain that, Mr. Vasiljevic? I think you understood the

19 question of His Honour Judge Hunt.

20 A. Yes, I understood it, but I'm referring to the liaison officer of

21 Republika Srpska with The Hague Tribunal. I'm almost certain that that is

22 what it said on the memorandum of his letter. The title may not be a

23 hundred percent right, but I'm sure that that is what he was, a liaison

24 officer with The Hague Tribunal.

25 Q. Do you happen to remember what you were asked to do, as the

1 director of the health centre?

2 A. Well, I've already said that I was asked for the protocols, and

3 that after telephone conversation which I had with the liaison officer, we

4 reached an agreement that it would be sufficient if we were to write a

5 paper similar to this paper and send this letter with the facts relevant

6 to the treatment of Mr. Vasiljevic, Mitar.

7 Q. And did you, indeed, send the document of that kind to the liaison

8 officer with The Hague Tribunal and Republika Srpska?

9 A. Yes, we did send that document to the officer.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 Could you now explain why you didn't send the originals of the

12 protocol, if that was what you were asked for?

13 A. Well, we didn't send them, and they were the reasons that I

14 brought up yesterday. I wasn't able to send them for the simple reason

15 that we are duty-bound by law to safeguard these documents. And we have a

16 realistic need for them, a practical need, because people come to us and

17 often seek information from the protocols.

18 Q. I'm not quite sure I understand. You mean you have to keep the

19 documents and -- to ensure that they are not lost, or is the reason that

20 you need the document for further reference?

21 A. Well, both, both reasons. We don't want the document lost, and

22 also the liaison officer explained that he did not know whether the

23 protocols could be returned to me. And as I say, we need the protocols

24 and these documents in the health service for further reference. People

25 sometimes need information from those books.

1 Q. Was that the reason why you didn't give the original protocols to

2 Mr. Tanaskovic either, up until now?

3 A. Yes, they are the only two reasons why we were not able to hand

4 the protocols over to Mr. Tanaskovic.

5 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, you have brought the original protocols with you.

6 Now, in addition to this book, have you brought another protocol book?

7 JUDGE HUNT: He has told us that he brought several to show us

8 that it was -- the same system is still being used in this day and age.

9 Do we really need to go into that? They're not for the same period,

10 you've already established that.

11 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. For the period up

12 until the 4th of July, 1992. But in the witness report, we can see that

13 in July and August, a record was made of the examination given Mitar

14 Vasiljevic in the health centre, and I think that that is relevant period

15 because it is three medical examinations that were recorded. So I should

16 like to ask the witness to find those recorded in the book.

17 I will give him the pages in photocopy, the pages where that

18 medical examination occurs and is recorded. I will also ask that the

19 photocopies be tendered into evidence, admitted into evidence.

20 Q. Would you please find the book which records the examination of

21 the 29th of July, 1992.

22 A. Under number 90, and the date is the 29th of July, 1992, we have

23 Vasiljevic Mitar, that's what it says, member of the Territorial Defence.

24 The diagnosis is a fractura cruris l. sinistra, which means a fracture of

25 the left lower leg. The doctor accorded Mitar Vasiljevic sick leave and

1 sent him to a medical examination with an orthopaedic specialist.

2 Q. That's what it says in the book in front of you. Now I should

3 like to ask you to take a look at the photocopy of the pages from that

4 book, whether it is the same thing, and then I should like to present D27

5 to be admitted into evidence.

6 The previous page was photocopied because of the date and then, on

7 the next photocopy page, you will find number 90 which we're talking

8 about.

9 A. Yes, I can note that the photocopy corresponds in all ways to the

10 original.

11 JUDGE HUNT: Now you are tendering the photocopy and not the

12 original; is that right, Mr. Domazet?

13 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that there are

14 two relevant dates from that book, and yes -- but I would like to tender

15 the original into evidence as well.

16 JUDGE HUNT: Well, we better get the other entry from that book

17 first.

18 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes.

19 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, in that same book, do you have the 21st of August,

20 1992? Would you take a look at that date? If not --

21 A. Yes, it's in the same book. Yes, it is.

22 Q. Would you then take a look at that date as well. Under number

23 520, the record says, "Mitar Vasiljevic, member of the Territorial

24 Defence," and the diagnosis is psychosis etilismus and fracture of the

25 cruris dextra and sent to Uzice.

1 Could you explain the diagnosis that you read out in Latin, what

2 does it mean, what was the diagnosis?

3 A. Psychosis is a psychiatric diagnosis and it is a disorder of the

4 consciousness. Etilismus means drunkenness or alcoholism as well, you can

5 use that translation too. And fractura cruris dextris means fracture of

6 the right lower leg.

7 Q. I should like to ask you to look at the photocopy and the pages

8 for that date, 2C, if it is a photocopy of the original, if it is true to

9 the original.

10 A. I haven't got that photocopy.

11 Q. It will be given to you in just a moment.

12 A. This photocopy is true to the original as well.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone please, counsel.

14 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Would you take a look and see whether the date the 25th of August

16 is in that book.

17 A. The 25th of August is in this book.

18 Q. Is Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic recorded on the 25th of August as well?

19 A. Yes. He is recorded under number 605, Vasiljevic, Mitar, and the

20 diagnosis is psychoneurosis reactiva, and he was administered a moditendum

21 depot [phoen] injection, one, and was also given a medicament axa, 50

22 milligrams, with recommendations that he take it three times one tablet a

23 day.

24 Q. Would you please take a photocopy of that page now, the page on

25 which you find number 605, and would the usher please hand the witness the

1 copy.

2 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, I don't want there to be some problem

3 later with the suggestion that there's been a wrong translation, but in

4 relation to the injury of the 21st of August, the doctor told us that it

5 related to the fracture of the right lower leg.

6 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes.

7 JUDGE HUNT: It's recorded on the 14th of June as being the left

8 leg, left lower leg.

9 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes.

10 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that's the way it's recorded; as long as

11 there's no later dispute about the accuracy of the translation. That's

12 all.

13 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] The interpretation is correct. I

14 noticed that, and I want...

15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just to correct the transcript, I don't

16 believe that it's recorded "lower left leg" on the 14th of June. The

17 entry says nothing more than --

18 JUDGE HUNT: Well, on the document that is not in evidence, that

19 talks about the left lower leg.

20 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Which he said had been taken from the books.

22 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

23 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]

24 Q. First of all, let me ask you, Mr. Vasiljevic, whether you

25 recognise the photocopy as being the photocopy of the 25th of August date

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 you read out. Is it a true copy?

2 A. Yes, the copy corresponds to the original.

3 Q. Would you now take a look at the 21st of August, 1992 date where

4 you read out that, in addition to two diagnoses, one was a psychiatric

5 one, and one was with respect to the leg, and you said -- read out that it

6 was a control examination of the fracture of the right leg.

7 A. That's what it says here.

8 Q. Do you happen to know who entered -- who made the entry? Who

9 entered that information into the book?

10 A. Judging by the handwriting and signature in the column where the

11 "comment" column remarks, we can conclude that it was my colleague,

12 Dr. Nebojsa Moljevic, who wrote in the facts.

13 Q. Nebojsa Moljevic was one of the doctors who worked in your health

14 centre at that time. Is that right?

15 A. Yes, he was.

16 Q. And judging by the handwriting, you would say that it was his. Is

17 that right? Is that right?

18 A. Yes, I would say that it was his handwriting, Dr. Moljevic's.

19 Q. Can you explain why it would say "right leg" if the basic fracture

20 information previously speaks of the left leg?

21 A. The only explanation for this case is that it was miswritten, that

22 it was written in haste, and it was a slip.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] May I now propose, Your Honour, that

25 this protocol with the photocopies be admitted into evidence as D27.

1 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Groome?

2 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. We'll note, for the record, that I

3 received the photocopies yesterday, and I have never seen the actual

4 book. I will ask for an opportunity to examine it.

5 JUDGE HUNT: We'll deal with that with that motion that you

6 filed. Very well. Exhibit D27.

7 The photocopies are only for our own use, if I understand. If the

8 original goes in, then the original is the one that is the exhibit. Do

9 you want the photostats separately marked in some way?

10 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I don't know why. I'm just trying to think why

12 we need two copies of the same document as an exhibit. We have got a

13 photostat copy of Exhibit 26, for example, the earlier book, which is not

14 a separately marked exhibit; it's just for our own use. We are very

15 grateful that you provide them because we can mark them, but they are not

16 separate exhibits.

17 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understood that each

18 piece of evidence and exhibit must be prepared in six copies, and so the

19 protocol, which is D26, was photocopied in six copies, whether you will be

20 using it for your own use or whether it will be attached to the book

21 itself, which should be returned when it is no longer required, when the

22 Tribunal no longer requires it, whereas the photocopies would probably

23 remain as evidence in the records. So that is the only reason why I

24 prepared the photocopies of that book and submitted them in six copies.

25 JUDGE HUNT: You are required to provide copies for the use of the

1 Judges and a spare copy plus one as the exhibit itself, quite often, and

2 for the Prosecution. But bearing in mind that the doctor wants the book

3 back, you are right. It may be best if we note one of the photocopies as

4 a separate exhibit so that it can remain after the book is finally

5 returned.

6 But we will need one, then, that has not been marked for 26 as

7 well. It may be there is a copy we can use. I'll just check with the

8 Court deputy.

9 I gather you've got an extra copy of Exhibit 26. If you can give

10 that to us, it will be marked 26/1. And one of these copies you've handed

11 out now will be Exhibit 27/1.

12 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, do you happen to know whether Mitar Vasiljevic, on

14 any other occasion afterwards, had an injury of any kind?

15 A. Well, judging by the dates mentioned, Mitar Vasiljevic had a

16 number of injuries.

17 Q. Do you happen to have records of a fracture of a leg which

18 occurred after the 1992 one that we discussed?

19 A. Yes, I do. I have a protocol which encompasses that time period

20 as well.

21 Q. Could you take a look and see if, under the 6th of May, 1993,

22 there is an entry for Mitar Vasiljevic as a patient of the health centre.

23 A. Under number 3053, we have a record of Mitar Vasiljevic from

24 Visegrad with the diagnosis refractura cruris l. sinistra, but it doesn't

25 say here where Vasiljevic was sent to for treatment, but the only possible

1 place he could have been a patient of this type at that time could have

2 been the Uzice hospital. That was the only place he would have been

3 referred to.

4 Q. Could you translate the Latin diagnosis, the one you just read

5 out, and tell us the date under which the entry was made?

6 A. The date is the 6th of May, 1993, and the diagnosis refractura

7 cruris l. sinistra means repeated fracture of the lower leg of the left

8 leg -- of the lower left leg.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vasiljevic.

10 Now, I should like to ask you a question with respect to entries

11 into the book you just read out. For many of the names in the book, it

12 says that they were TO, Territorial Defence, or it said the name of the

13 company; first, second, third or fourth company. Can you tell me

14 something about that? How did this entry come to be included? Do you

15 know on the basis of what the patients were classed as either TO or as

16 belonging to one of the four companies? How were the patients that came

17 to you recorded in that fashion?

18 A. Well, this type of entry was the result of necessity of the

19 command staff in the army so that they were able to know where their

20 soldiers were at any particular moment. That is why they required us at

21 the health centre to indicate, in addition to the name and surname, the

22 affiliation. Sometimes it is a platoon, sometimes it is a company to

23 which these people belonged, and for a time, the commanders of the units

24 would come to the health centre if they needed any information, usually

25 towards the end of the day, towards evening, and they would take note that

1 their soldier under such and such a name was being -- was on sick leave

2 for such and such a reason or was in hospital in some other place for

3 treatment. They would be able to see this in the records.

4 So it was at the request of the officers, commanding officers,

5 that we kept records of this kind with entries of this kind denoting the

6 company or detachment or platoon the individuals belonged to, and we also

7 kept records on the basis of these statements of the patients. We asked

8 them which unit they belonged to. We would say, "Which unit do you belong

9 to?" he would give us an answer, and we would write in the entry for our

10 records.

11 Q. Does that mean, the last comment you made, that you didn't check

12 whether, in fact, that soldier belonged to that particular company or some

13 other? You didn't verify that fact.

14 A. No, we did not verify whether a person belonged to a particular

15 unit or not.

16 Q. And the entry "TO," does that also mean that a person belonged to

17 one of those companies? In other words, could you just put the generic TO

18 and sometimes the actual company?

19 A. These were members of the same army and the same brigade, and the

20 companies are lower-level units within brigades, that is, within the TO,

21 within the Territorial Defence.

22 Q. If I understand your answer correctly, if only TO is indicated

23 without further details regarding the company, that would not be a mistake

24 because it meant that the person belonged to the same army. If an

25 indication is given of the number of the company, that is just a more

1 detailed indication of the unit that the person belonged to within the TO;

2 am I right?

3 A. Yes, you understand what I am saying well. You have put it well

4 so I have nothing more to add.

5 Q. I was asking you this because I noticed in these protocols, in the

6 same column, sometimes membership of the TO is indicated, and sometimes a

7 particular company, so I think you've cleared that point up now.

8 A moment ago, you told us who you assumed it was that signed --

9 that entered -- made this entry. Am I right in saying that it was not

10 noted down in the protocol which particular doctor examined a patient?

11 A. Under the column "notes," or "remarks," the signature of the

12 doctor should figure, but it is not something that is decisive. This is a

13 small medical establishment. All the doctors and staff members know one

14 another, and I am probably able to recognise the handwriting of all my

15 colleagues so that no one ever insisted on the necessity of a signature

16 figuring in the protocol, though, in my opinion, that would be desirable.

17 Q. As far as I can see, at least, in the protocol, nowhere do we find

18 the time indicated, the hour; only the date. Was this customary in the

19 periods before this period and for this period or was it applicable to

20 this period only?

21 A. I do not know that the exact time or hour of the examination was

22 ever, in any period of time, entered in the protocol.

23 Q. One more question. You mentioned your colleague Nebojsa Moljevic

24 as the physician who may have made these entries. In those days, that is,

25 in 1992, do you recollect how many years of service Dr. Nebojsa Moljevic

1 had, that is, what was his status?

2 A. I can't tell you exactly how many years of service he had, but I

3 do know that Dr. Moljevic, at the time, was a trainee, which means that

4 after graduation from medical school and that period of time. It was

5 under one year between the time he had graduated and the time that we are

6 talking about. It was less than a year.

7 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Vasiljevic. I have

8 no further questions for the examination-in-chief of this witness.

9 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome.

10 Cross-examined by Mr. Groome:

11 Q. Dr. Vasiljevic, I would like to take you back to the time you

12 spent with Mr. Vasiljevic in jail. Can you tell us what your precise

13 diagnosis of him was after you examined him?

14 A. I didn't note down the exact diagnosis anywhere. As this visit

15 took place quite late, I had to go back to the emergency department after

16 that, so that that diagnosis hasn't been entered anywhere. If I had

17 entered the diagnosis, again, it would be a psychoneurosis reactiva, a

18 reactive psychoneurosis, a condition following intoxication and

19 exhaustion.

20 Q. What, if any, medical therapies did you apply to him at the jail?

21 A. I know that we put him on a drip of 5 percent glucose solution, a

22 sedative, and some vitamins. And I don't recall anything else, whether we

23 treated him in any other way.

24 Q. Now, what was the purpose of putting him on -- you say, I think, a

25 drip of 5 percent glucose? What was the purpose of that?

1 A. I think that I already said that I was informed by Captain

2 Kovacevic and also by Mitar himself that he was refusing to eat, that he

3 hadn't been eating for two days. And I was also told that when he was

4 brought to the jail, he was inebriated. And I assumed that the glucose

5 level in his blood had dropped. And judging by his appearance, too, that

6 was the condition I found him in. So I decided to administer 5 percent

7 glucose solution.

8 Q. And you said you gave him a sedative. What sedative did you give

9 him?

10 A. I can't be sure, but probably Diazepam. But I'm not sure of

11 that.

12 Q. Now, we've heard some description of problems with his stomach,

13 failure to eat. Did you give him any kind of medication to settle his

14 stomach?

15 A. No, I didn't give him any medication for his stomach. Because I

16 probably didn't have anything on me anyway. And also Kovacevic said that

17 Mitar would be released from jail, so I assumed that the next day or the

18 day after, he would come to the medical centre or that I would be called

19 again if he had any serious stomach trouble.

20 Q. Did you suggest to him that he should come to the medical centre

21 for some follow-up treatment by some people at the centre?

22 A. I don't remember advising him to do that or not advising him to do

23 that.

24 Q. If a person in his condition hadn't eaten for a number of days,

25 would a single drip or intravenous bag of 5 percent glucose, would that be

1 enough to reconstitute the person, or would they need additional drips?

2 A. It is absolutely insufficient. A single, one-time drip cannot

3 resolve the condition that Vasiljevic was in, permanently. But if

4 Vasiljevic started to eat from then on, then one should not expect further

5 problems along the lines of a drop in glucose level or any other stomach

6 problems.

7 Q. Did you remain in the jail until the full bag of intravenous fluid

8 entered his system?

9 A. I had to stay because, as we doctors say, we have to switch off

10 the drip, that is, remove the needle, clean the spot where the needle was

11 placed, and clean it with alcohol and put a bandaid over it.

12 Q. Now, you've told us that your diagnosis at that time was in part

13 psychoneurosis reactiva. Can I ask you to tell us what are the symptoms

14 of that condition and which symptoms you observed in Mr. Vasiljevic?

15 A. In addition to a change in his mental state, one could clearly see

16 fatigue and exhaustion. I'm afraid I can't remember anything more as to

17 exactly how it all looked.

18 Q. You've mentioned, I believe, a change in the mental state or a

19 change in his mental state. Can you be more precise about what it was

20 about his mental state that you observed?

21 A. Vasiljevic was visibly agitated. I remember that his hands were

22 trembling, the fingers of his hands. He was disinterested, indifferent,

23 he didn't feel like talking. I remember he only just managed to talk to

24 me, which was something quite unusual for Mitar Vasiljevic. It was not

25 like him at all.

1 Q. The symptoms that you observed inside the jail, were they

2 consistent with somebody who was an alcoholic and had been deprived of

3 access to alcohol for the previous day or so? Were they consistent with

4 that?

5 A. It could be said that the symptoms were close to symptoms of

6 abstinence, and one could say that you are right.

7 Q. Are there any symptoms that you observed in the jail that were

8 clearly not symptoms of somebody going through withdrawal from alcohol but

9 indicated some more serious or greater problem, any additional symptoms?

10 A. It is necessary to point out that Mitar was extremely depressed.

11 I told you a moment ago that it was very difficult for me to establish

12 contact with him, which is not typical of an abstinence crisis, and one

13 might say that he also had some other psychological problems. He would

14 not talk about his problems, at least, not in that environment.

15 Q. Would you say he had other psychological problems? I mean,

16 granted now that you are in a gaol and -- I'm sorry, I withdraw that.

17 There was a nurse with you when you saw Mr. Vasiljevic; is that

18 correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And were there other people present when you were treating him?

21 A. There were other people present, but we asked them, if possible,

22 to move away until we finished what we had come to do.

23 Q. His failure to discuss problems with you in the presence of the

24 nurse, in and of itself, does not indicate any psychological defect, does

25 it?

1 A. No, that was not what I was trying to say. I wasn't saying that

2 the nurse was an obstacle to him talking about his problems. He refused

3 to talk at all. He didn't want to talk about his condition. I only just

4 managed to draw from him an explanation as to why he was in prison.

5 Q. You've mentioned that he had other psychological problems. What

6 I'm trying to get to is: What are the concrete observations that you made

7 at that time in the cell that leads you to describe that conclusion to us

8 here today?

9 A. I've already told you that Mitar Vasiljevic's behaviour was

10 absolutely opposite to the kind of behaviour he had as I knew him before.

11 He was much quieter, much more anxious, though I don't know the reasons

12 that prompted this anxiety.

13 Q. Other than this being quieter and being what you perceived as

14 anxious, any other symptoms that you observed that led you to an

15 assessment of his mental state? Anything else you want to add?

16 A. In view of the time distance, I'm finding it hard to recollect all

17 these things, and it is very difficult to give you any additional details

18 about that particular incident.

19 Q. Can you describe briefly for us what, if any, specialised training

20 you have in the diagnosis of psychiatric illnesses?

21 A. Well, you see, the specialisation I have completed has very little

22 to do with psychiatry, though it has some points in common. But in those

23 days, I was a GP, I was not a specialist. And the terms of reference of a

24 general practitioner is not the treatment of mental conditions, but he is

25 expected to be able to recognise and identify such conditions, and to send

1 the patient -- refer the patient for consultation with a

2 neuropsychiatrist.

3 Q. So can you tell us what neuropsychiatrist you referred

4 Mr. Vasiljevic to for your observations or diagnosis of him on this day?

5 A. On that day, or that evening, or that night, Vasiljevic was not

6 referred anywhere, though I have already said that it was suggested that

7 he come for an examination the next day, and then probably he would be

8 referred on. As this was not an emergency, travelling at night, in those

9 days, was unsafe and that was probably the reason for delaying referring

10 Vasiljevic to additional examination. Such an examination could only have

11 been done in Uzice.

12 Q. But what you seem clear about is you suggested to Mr. Vasiljevic

13 that he come to the health centre after he was released from Uzamnica and

14 to be further examined and for further action to be taken with regard to

15 his condition; is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, at the time you spent with Mr. Vasiljevic, did he comply with

18 your instructions when you needed to put in the IV and when you took other

19 steps to examine him? Was he able to understand and comply with the

20 instructions you gave him?

21 A. Yes, he was able to comply with such instructions, at least, that

22 was my opinion.

23 Q. Now, Doctor, I'd like to ask you a few questions about this --

24 some of the medical books. Before I do, I would just maybe ask the Court,

25 or ask Mr. Domazet through the Court, does he intend to tender the 1993

1 ledger? If not, I would seek to tender that so that I may examine it.

2 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I had not intended to

3 tender the 1993 protocol as this is not the period relevant for the

4 indictment but I just asked for these entries because of other witnesses,

5 but of course, I would not object if Mr. Groome should wish to tender this

6 ledger.

7 JUDGE HUNT: This document which is D11 does refer to an item in

8 1993, the 25th of February, 1993. It seems from the context in which it

9 appears that it does relate to the injury with which we are dealing. The

10 fact that it doesn't concern the relevant period of the indictment, if I

11 may say so, doesn't deny the relevance of this material.

12 Anyway, you want to see it in order to determine whether you want

13 to tender it, I suppose, first, Mr. Groome.

14 MR. GROOME: Whatever mechanism is going to be most logical.

15 JUDGE HUNT: But you want to look at it.

16 MR. GROOME: Yes, certainly.

17 JUDGE HUNT: Well, in my view, you are entitled to look at it.

18 How long do you think you'll be in cross-examination? I'm only trying to

19 work out when we should deal with this motion of yours.

20 MR. GROOME: I would think approximately an hour, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. We'll have to deal with this motion today.

22 From the point of view of time, we've got to deal with it today. So at

23 some stage we will, if necessary, have to stop the examination of the

24 doctor in order to do so because I think it's a matter of considerable

25 importance in the case.

1 Very well. We'll adjourn now and resume again at 3.00.

2 --- Recess taken at 2.30 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 3.08 p.m.

4 JUDGE HUNT: I'm afraid technical problems overcame us.

5 Yes, Mr. Groome.

6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I spoke with Mr. Domazet during the

7 break. And given that the Defence will seek the return of these exhibits,

8 it seems that it may facilitate that future eventuality if it is tendered

9 as a Defence exhibit rather than a Prosecution exhibit.

10 JUDGE HUNT: I think so, but we can't force Mr. Domazet to tender

11 it. They still get the return of documents of theirs which you have

12 tendered.

13 MR. GROOME: He has agreed to tender it as a Defence exhibit.

14 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Okay. That will be Exhibit 28. What are

15 the dates on it? I don't think we ever got them.

16 MR. GROOME: It's a '93 ledger, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE HUNT: Is that sufficient?

18 MR. GROOME: I believe it's May '93, but I'll rely on Mr. Domazet,

19 if I'm incorrect.

20 JUDGE HUNT: That will be Exhibit D28, the May 1993 protocol

21 book.

22 Yes, you proceed then, Mr. Groome.

23 MR. GROOME:

24 Q. Dr. Vasiljevic, I want to ask you a few specific questions about

25 these records. First is there's an ordinal number that appears which

1 appears in the first left-handed column of the records. Can you please

2 describe for us how a particular patient is assigned that number?

3 A. Well, the ordinal number is very simple. At the beginning of each

4 protocol book, you have number 1. It starts off with number 1. And then

5 it follows on, according to the order. Each patient get a number, 1, 2,

6 3, 4, and 578, for example, patient number 578. It's very simple. It

7 goes by the patients coming to the health centre. When they come, they

8 get a number following on from the order.

9 Q. So the numbers aren't continued from the book before, but every

10 book begins afresh with the number 1. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes, that's correct.

12 Q. Can I ask you to look at the first page in D26, and that's the

13 book that covers the period April to July of 1992. I believe it's the

14 brown one that's in front of you, the brown-covered one. If you would,

15 would you tell us the first number in that book.

16 A. The first number, 3.881.

17 Q. So is it still your testimony that each book begins with the

18 number 1, or are the books consecutively numbered?

19 A. Well, obviously in this case, it is consecutively numbered,

20 following on from the previous document. Otherwise, you couldn't have

21 such a high number at the beginning of this particular protocol book.

22 Q. Now, after this book, though, the other records you refer to --

23 I'm sorry, I don't recall the exhibit numbers, but the ledger or the

24 protocol book from August of '92, that is renumbered. Correct?

25 JUDGE HUNT: Exhibit 27.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. I ask you to take a look at Exhibit 27. It's the other book from

3 the summer of '92.

4 A. Yes, that starts with number 1.

5 Q. So D26 from April to July continues the numbering system that was

6 in place from the protocol book from before; but the book after D26, D27,

7 the numbering is restarted. Is that correct?

8 A. In this particular protocol, the numbers start out from 1.

9 Q. And that is in D27, the book from July and August of '92.

10 Correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, I want you to go back to D26, the book from April to July,

13 and I want you to look -- would you look up the date 20th of April. It's

14 near the beginning of the book. If it helps you, the ordinal number will

15 be 2833. Now, I would ask you, do you have the page that I'm asking you

16 to look at, Doctor?

17 A. The number you said is 2833.

18 Q. Okay. I'm not asking you to look at that specific entry. I'm

19 actually asking you to look at the entry, I think it's 2836 downward, and

20 the question I have for you: Isn't it true that on this page the times

21 are indicated on the protocol sheet. Isn't that correct? For example,

22 2846, there's a date 20/4/92 and then there's 1600.

23 A. I apologise, but I seem to have the wrong protocol book.

24 Q. It's D26, it's the brown-cover one, I believe, sir. Not the

25 yellow-cover one, the brown-colour one.

1 A. Could you give me the number again, please?

2 Q. 2836, it's the 20th of April. Doctor, again, I believe it's in

3 the brown-covered book. I apologise, I might perhaps be reading the three

4 as a two but it's the 20th of April, 1992. That's the day whose records I

5 want you to take a look at now.

6 A. I have found the 20th of April, 1992.

7 Q. Now, the time is indicated to the -- on the left-hand side of the

8 protocols of the patients at the bottom of that page; correct?

9 A. Yes, I have to agree with you that, looking here, I see that in

10 some of them there is the time, but why that is so, I really cannot

11 explain.

12 Q. Doctor, I don't want you to review the thousands of protocol

13 records at this stage, but would you agree with me that, in some cases,

14 the time is recorded when patients arrive at the health centre? And I can

15 point you to several other examples, if you wish, or will you agree with

16 me that the time is indicated in some of the records in this protocol

17 book?

18 A. Yes, I agree with you.

19 Q. Now, Mr. Domazet asked you about Exhibit D11, which is a letter

20 from you to Mr. Tanaskovic, and it was, I believe, your answering an

21 inquiry by Mr. Tanaskovic regarding the times that Mr. Vasiljevic was

22 treated in your hospital. Now, I believe you've testified that when

23 fulfilling such inquiries about past treatments of patients, the only

24 document that you rely on is the protocol book; is that correct?

25 A. I don't know whether I'd put it that way. The protocol book need

1 not be the only source. The information that is sent at the request of

2 courts, for example, or at the police or at the personal request of the

3 patient can derive from a card, an index card of the patient, or patient

4 card so that the protocol need not be the sole source of information.

5 Q. I thought it was very clear now yesterday that the primary record,

6 the only record that you have on a patient is this protocol book and that

7 the card was given to the patient to carry around; is that not correct?

8 A. I don't think you understood me, quite obviously. In view of our

9 working hours, from 7.00 in the morning to 3.00 p.m., patients who come in

10 after 3.00 p.m. cannot get his card because it is stored in the cards

11 index of the health centre, which is closed after 3.00 p.m., so that

12 patient doesn't have access to his card.

13 If he comes for an examination between the hours of 7.00 in the

14 morning and 3.00 in the afternoon, which are the working hours, the

15 patient is able to access his card and then takes the card to the doctor

16 examining him. But once again, let me stress that we're talking about

17 normal times and not war. All patients and members of the army did not

18 use cards at all regardless of whether they had them didn't have them.

19 They didn't use them.

20 Now, whether cards for a patient were opened or were not opened,

21 no patient used a card as a means of record keeping.

22 Q. Doctor, let me ask you, let's confine ourselves to the case of

23 Mr. Vasiljevic. When you answered Mr. Tanaskovic's request for

24 information regarding his treatment dates, did you regard other records

25 aside from the protocol?

1 A. No, we used the protocol.

2 Q. So in fulfilling that request, you checked the different books

3 that you now have in the courtroom here. That's how you fulfilled his

4 request, by consulting the three different ledgers that you have in this

5 courtroom now; correct?

6 A. Yes, correct.

7 Q. Now, I want to read you the first paragraph of the letter that you

8 wrote to Mr. Tanaskovic. I believe that there is not a -- the original is

9 not available in court, or so I'm informed. So I'll trust that the

10 translation of what I read will refresh your memory.

11 On the 14th of June, 1992, Mitar Vasiljevic came from medical

12 examination of fracture left lower leg, diagnosis: Fractura cruris

13 l. sin. The above-mentioned person was sent to general hospital in Uzice,

14 orthopedic department.

15 Now, Doctor, can you tell us which of the protocols did you rely

16 on to write that paragraph in this letter?

17 A. The protocol on the basis of which that paragraph was written has

18 already been seen here and is known here. It is only part of the

19 diagnosis that was introduced into the letter. Now, if I remember, in the

20 letter, it only says "fracture," and it should have the complete diagnosis

21 written out.

22 Q. Can I have an agreement from Mr. Domazet that I am correctly

23 reading the official translation of the original letter that we do not

24 have here in court?

25 JUDGE HUNT: I don't know if it's an official one. If it's an

1 official one, they usually say so.

2 MR. GROOME: I apologise; the translation that the Prosecution was

3 provided, D11.

4 A. The translation is probably correct. I don't have the B/C/S

5 version in front of me at the moment, but I do believe that the

6 translation is correct.

7 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I think I can say that Mr. Groome certainly

8 read the English version correctly, and it is the translation that you put

9 forward of the original B/C/S.

10 MR. GROOME:

11 Q. Doctor, I would ask you to open up to the entry for Mr. Vasiljevic

12 on the 14th of June. And again, that is ordinal number 5353. That would

13 be in the brown ledger. After you read it, I would ask you to leave it

14 open. I'll be asking you several questions about it.

15 It's 5353 in the brown-covered book, 14th of June. You have

16 Mr. Vasiljevic's entry in front of you now, Doctor?

17 A. Yes, yes.

18 Q. Does it say anywhere on -- in that entry, that it was a fracture

19 of the lower left leg?

20 A. No, not in the protocol. The location of the fracture is not

21 stated.

22 Q. In fact, Doctor, it doesn't even say "leg"; it simply says

23 "fracture." So looking at that entry alone, it could have been a

24 fracture of any bone in Mr. Vasiljevic's body. Correct?

25 A. Well, you could draw that conclusion.

1 Q. Before I ask you how you drew your conclusion, I want to ask you,

2 we've referred now to three other entries from the medical protocol book

3 in 1992. And if my memory serves me correct, there's only one reference

4 to where the fracture occurred, and that was to the right leg, an

5 incorrect reference. Do you agree with that?

6 A. I agree that, in one place, it talks about the fracture of the

7 right leg. As to the other facts, I don't remember them. I don't

8 remember what it said, whether it said left or right.

9 Q. Doctor, I'm going to have to ask you to review those records if

10 you don't recollect. The first entry you refer to was on 729 of '92. I

11 would ask you to leave the brown book open to the page you have it on.

12 These other entries are all in the yellow book. And the ordinal number is

13 90.

14 A. Yes, under the ordinal number 90, it does say fractura cruris

15 l. sinistra, which is a fracture of the lower left leg.

16 Q. Doctor, how were you able to determine when you filled out

17 Mr. Tanaskovic's request -- given conflicting information, one entry

18 saying the right leg and one entry saying the left leg, how is it that you

19 determined which was the correct statement of Mr. Vasiljevic's condition?

20 A. We have to clear up one point. Mr. Tanaskovic did not ask me to

21 copy out the protocol. He asked me for information about treatment. So I

22 could have written this out also on the basis of my own recollection, and

23 on the basis of the statement of my colleague who was present at the time

24 Mitar Vasiljevic was brought to the health centre and x-rayed and, after,

25 transported to Uzice.

1 Q. Who would that be?

2 A. Mr. Loncarevic, Dr. Goran Loncarevic. He was present just then in

3 the dispensary.

4 Q. Is it your testimony now that you didn't fill out this request

5 based on the protocols alone, but you spoke to the Dr. Loncarevic before

6 drafting the letter to Mr. Tanaskovic? Is that what you're saying now?

7 A. I cannot claim with certainty that I actually spoke to

8 Mr. Loncarevic himself, but I must have spoken with someone to come to

9 this conclusion which I wrote out and signed. As regards the protocol, as

10 soon as I saw it, I noticed the shortcoming in the protocol. But there's

11 nothing that can be done now. That is how it was written, and what

12 happened happened.

13 Q. Now, Mr. Vasiljevic [sic] asked you about a request that you

14 received through the liaison officer for the Republika Srpska regarding

15 the Office of the Prosecutor's request to you to provide a copy of

16 Mr. Vasiljevic's medical record from the 14th of June, 1992, and do you

17 remember receiving that request?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. We now know from what you've brought to us here in court that

20 fulfilling that request would have required you to make a photocopy of a

21 single page from that protocol; is that correct?

22 A. No, no. I was required to send all the protocols of the health

23 centre -- maybe not all of them, but the protocols relating to a

24 particular period in time. I was not asked to write a letter of this

25 kind, but in a subsequent conversation with the gentleman, the liaison

1 officer, we agreed that I could send him a similar letter to the one I had

2 sent to Mr. Tanaskovic and that that would be sufficient, and that there

3 was no need for me, in that case, to send him the protocols as well.

4 Q. Well, we now have four photocopied pages before us. If you

5 understood the request to be copies of medical records for a greater

6 period of time, we are still talking about a very few documents, aren't

7 we?

8 A. If I understood correctly the letter of the liaison officer -

9 unfortunately, I do not have it on me - photocopies were out of the

10 question. They were not admissible. In the first letter, the originals

11 were requested, the original protocols.

12 Q. Doctor, you did not answer the Prosecutor's request to send a copy

13 of the medical entries that you've now shown us in court. That's correct,

14 isn't it?

15 A. I've already said that, in a telephone conversation with the

16 liaison officer, it was agreed that it would be sufficient for me to write

17 a letter of this kind to the liaison officer.

18 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome, it may be that the doctor's belief that

19 there is a liaison officer who speaks on behalf of the Tribunal is wrong

20 and that there is somebody from the OTP who writes with the name of the

21 Tribunal on the top of it. But do you know anything about this liaison

22 officer of whom the doctor speaks?

23 MR. GROOME: I know a request was made through a person designated

24 in the Republika Srpska government to receive requests from the Office of

25 the Prosecutor.

1 JUDGE HUNT: And is it somebody within the RS government who is so

2 designated or somebody from here who's been sent down there?

3 MR. GROOME: Somebody from the RS government, Your Honour, that

4 has been designated.

5 JUDGE HUNT: I'm glad to hear that, that it wasn't somebody from

6 the Tribunal. Anyway, let's assume that the doctor has this confusion.

7 Was the request sent through this liaison officer?

8 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE HUNT: That's where the problem arises, I think.

10 MR. GROOME:

11 Q. Now, can you tell us, during this period of time, how long would a

12 shift be for medical personnel? How long would a doctor be expected to

13 work during this period of time?

14 A. We touched upon that matter yesterday, the question of working

15 hours. Once the war broke out, all of us under the principles of work

16 obligation were assigned to the work places that we held before or similar

17 places within the health centre. But in view of the requirements of the

18 job, as far as the emergency service was concerned, the wounded, and the

19 injured, either civilians or military, the requirements were such that we

20 had to be present as much as possible at the health centre.

21 Say it was decided, you know, I use the word "self-organised," but

22 I didn't mean that the health centre was self-organised. We just agreed

23 amongst ourselves, in agreement with the director of the health centre at

24 the time, and probably the municipal authorities or the military

25 authorities, we arranged that we should be present at the health centre

1 for 24 hours, round the clock. There was space provided for sleeping and

2 for rest, and we took a rest when we had time. We took our meals at the

3 health centre too. And roughly once a week, we would go home, and that is

4 how we worked.

5 However, in the administration of the health centre, the working

6 hours were prescribed by the military authorities. I think it was from

7 7.00 or 8.00 a.m. until 4.00 p.m., something like that. I'm not quite

8 sure. I know it was somewhat longer than the normal working hours before

9 the war.

10 Q. Doctor, let me see if I understand that a bit bitter. From what

11 you've told us, it sounds that it was expected that doctors be on call 24

12 hours a day so that they were available close by in the hospital if they

13 were needed; is that correct?

14 A. Yes, quite so.

15 Q. Now, having said that, am I correct in thinking that let's say one

16 particular doctor would work a certain number of hours while another

17 doctor was resting, and absent any emergency, that doctor would be allowed

18 to rest and, at a particular time, he would be expected to come and

19 relieve the first doctor? Am I correct in thinking that?

20 A. One could accept the way you put it. If there's work, we have to

21 work, regardless of working hours. Sometimes there was just one of us

22 working, sometimes both of us, because what would happen that you would

23 have to deal with several wounded at the same time. On one occasion,

24 there were 12 wounded men that were brought in in two ambulances at once.

25 This wasn't so frequent that we had so many wounded people to deal with at

1 once, but we worked in the way I just told you. We worked when necessary

2 and we rested when the workload allowed us to rest. Whether it was in

3 daytime or night-time, it depended on the influx of the sick and wounded.

4 Q. Doctor, if I were on duty and there was no more than one patient

5 coming in at a time, how many hours would I work before somebody would

6 come and relieve me and take over from my duties?

7 A. You would work until you finish.

8 Q. And what I'm trying to understand is -- what I'm trying to

9 understand is you, as the director of the medical centre, what hours did

10 you establish that I would work until I finished? Was it two shifts per

11 day or three shifts per day?

12 A. First of all, let me tell you that, in those days, I was not the

13 director of the health centre. And I repeat again: There were no fixed

14 working hours. We were present at the health centre, which doesn't mean

15 to say that we worked 24 hours a day, 360 [as interpreted] days a year.

16 We were working when it was necessary. We were not when there was no

17 patients. Whether we worked five hours or three hours or 13 hours, it was

18 quite irrelevant.

19 Q. Let me ask you this, Doctor: When you look in the medical records

20 or the protocol, it seems that the handwriting filling in the protocol may

21 be similar for six or ten entries, and then we see a different handwriting

22 and that handwriting seems to follow for the next six or ten entries.

23 What I'm trying to get at is would that indicate to us that there

24 was a shift in personnel in the medical centre? Is that why there seems

25 to be a difference in the handwriting on the same day of a protocol

1 sheet?

2 A. I don't know what you mean when you say whether there was a change

3 in shift. I'm repeating again, if the three of us were in the health

4 centre, we wouldn't spend all our time in the area where we admitted

5 patients and examined patients, in the emergency department. And it was

6 quite irrelevant whether I would go down to the emergency service or my --

7 one of my colleagues or the other. Working hours did not play a part at

8 that point in time. I don't know how to explain that to you.

9 The fact that you see a change of handwriting, your theory could

10 be accepted. Maybe one colleague took care of ten or so patients, and

11 then another colleague would take over. Any such combinations were

12 possible. But they don't change anything substantially.

13 Q. Well, would you agree with me that the most probable explanation

14 of a change in handwriting is that the person who wrote the first ten

15 notes went and took some rest, and somebody came and began to see

16 patients, and it was their handwriting that we see from that point

17 forward? Would you agree with me that that is the most probable

18 explanation of this shift in handwriting?

19 A. One could accept such an explanation, too.

20 Q. Now, going back to the day of the 14th of June, '92, I've counted

21 25 entries on that day. And please count them for yourself if you wish.

22 A. There's no need, if you have counted them.

23 Q. Now, Mr. Vasiljevic's entry is the third from the last. Is that

24 correct?

25 A. Yes, that's correct. He's third from the front and third from the

1 back.

2 Q. You say third from the front. I know that there's a 14/6 on the

3 top of the page; but if you flip back one page, there are more patients

4 that were seen on the 14th. Correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So there were only two patients seen after Mr. Vasiljevic on that

7 day. Correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And what we can conclude from that is that either Mr. Vasiljevic

10 was seen late in the day or in the night, or that it was very slow, there

11 were very few patients seen during the night of the 14th. That would

12 indicate one or the other. Is that correct?

13 JUDGE HUNT: I'm not clear why you say the night.

14 MR. GROOME: Late in the day, I should say.

15 JUDGE HUNT: But will this not depend upon how many entries there

16 are generally for each day?

17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE HUNT: Have you done an exercise on how many entries there

19 are usually for each day?

20 MR. GROOME: Obviously we can't, Your Honour. We're just

21 confining ourselves to that day. Out of the 25 entries, it's the third

22 from the last. And logic would tell us that either it was a very slow

23 latter period -- if we were to divide entries, 25 entries by 24 hours, it

24 would be approximately one per hour. It was either a very slow evening,

25 or Mr. Vasiljevic was seen late in the day. Attempting to have the doctor

1 agree to that proposition.

2 JUDGE HUNT: Or it was an accident-free afternoon.

3 MR. GROOME: Correct. It was a very slow day in Visegrad.

4 Q. Doctor, would you agree with that proposition, that the fact that

5 there were only two patients seen after Mr. Vasiljevic, indicates, absent

6 any indication of what time is in that protocol, that he was seen late in

7 the day of the 14th, or that there were very few patients that required

8 care after Mr. Vasiljevic came into the health centre?

9 A. I told you a moment ago that one day, we received at the same time

10 12 wounded men. But then on the other hand, there would be 12 days go

11 back without a single wounded. And I can tell you in this period,

12 civilians didn't come for examination so often, realizing what the

13 situation was, the risk of moving around. So one cannot claim on that

14 basis that the examination took place late. I must say that there's no

15 rule regarding the number of patients. So it would be more acceptable to

16 say that it was a quiet day in Visegrad, or slow day.

17 Q. Well, we can't say that the entire day was slow because, prior to

18 Mr. Vasiljevic being treated at the hospital, there were 21 patients

19 seen. Is that correct? I'm sorry, 22.

20 A. I agree with you, if that is the number you have counted. As far

21 as I can see, judging by the diagnoses, these were not injuries or wounded

22 people but examinations. And even today, it's a rather strange habit

23 people have. You can look through the other protocols, more recent

24 protocols. People like to do their examinations, blood tests,

25 electrocardiograms as early as possible so that the number of patients

1 before Mitar Vasiljevic was admitted does not surprise me. Even today,

2 people tend to behave in that way, and they did so then, too, to finish

3 these examinations and doctors visits as early as possible. So there are

4 more early in the morning and in the afternoon.

5 Q. Doctor, yesterday you described for us the procedure for making

6 corrections in that book, and I believe what you described was a rule of

7 the health centre was that, in the event of a mistake, a line is to be

8 drawn through the entry so that the old entry can be still seen, and new

9 correct entry is to be done underneath it. Is that correct?

10 A. That was the rule. That is how people should have acted. Now,

11 whether the rule was observed, that's another matter.

12 Q. Well, let's look at the first entry for the 14th. Was the rule

13 observed in that particular case?

14 A. Obviously it was not. Somebody put a question mark right here.

15 Q. Would you agree with me that, in addition to the question mark,

16 somebody has, in a different pen, changed the family name of that patient?

17 A. Yes, that's what can be seen.

18 Q. You have the original. We're all working from photocopies. Can

19 you tell what the family name of the person was prior to it being changed?

20 A. One can assume that it was Lukic or ...

21 Q. So from looking at the first entry on the 14th, it appears that

22 the original entry was a patient by the name of Sredoje Lukic. Is that

23 correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And altering that name is a violation of the rules as you've

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 described them for us; correct?

2 A. Yes, yes.

3 Q. Can you tell us where is this book maintained precisely in the

4 health centre?

5 A. The book is kept in one of the rooms of the health centre which is

6 locked, and the key to the room is held by the head nurse, and she has

7 access to it. I also can gain access to it upon request from the head

8 nurse.

9 Q. Are you talking about books that have been completed and are put

10 up for storage or are you talking about the books that are being used on

11 the day that the patient is being seen?

12 A. I'm talking about the books that have been completed and that are

13 kept in storage. Those books that are still in use are kept in the

14 surgeries of the health centre.

15 Q. Let's talk about the books that are currently being used.

16 Dr. Loncarevic told us that the book is accessible to all the doctors and

17 nurses working so that they can make notes in the protocol as they are

18 seeing patients; is that correct?

19 A. Yes, quite so.

20 Q. So would I be correct in thinking that this book is on a table

21 somewhere in a central part of the health centre, where the doctors and

22 the nurses can both get to it and make notes in it?

23 A. This book is in the central part of the dispensary it belongs to

24 because the other departments also have their own protocols. And this

25 protocol was kept in the emergency department.

1 Q. So would it be fair to say that, aside from the doctors or the

2 nurses, other people would be able to have access to this book while it is

3 lying out in this central place; isn't that correct?

4 A. The place where the book is, someone is always present, be it a

5 doctor or a nurse, so that I don't know that these premises are sometimes

6 without people in them, though, of course, one cannot exclude the

7 possibility that they may be accessible for a brief period to someone.

8 Q. And when patients and nurses are attending to -- I'm sorry, when

9 doctors and nurses are attending to patients, the book is simply there for

10 them to return to and to write in after they've finished seeing the

11 patients; correct?

12 A. Yes, roughly so. Sometimes if there are several nurses, one nurse

13 will make the entries and the other nurse will do something else, or once

14 the treatment or the examination has been completed, the entry will be

15 made subsequently.

16 Q. Now, I believe you told us yesterday that one of the reasons the

17 books are stored is that so that in the future, somebody may need to have

18 a certificate drafted to certify that they received a particular injury or

19 a particular treatment previously; is that correct?

20 A. Yes, that is what I said, more or less.

21 Q. Now, is there a secretary or an administrator who is assigned to

22 this duty of receiving requests for certificates, looking up the protocol,

23 and drafting out the certificate? Is there a specific person whose

24 responsibility that is?

25 A. The requests are usually addressed either to the director or the

1 secretary of the health centre, and then they are usually forwarded to the

2 head nurse and she either brings the protocols and, together with the

3 secretary or the director, finds the information, writes it out. Then is

4 checked with the protocol and a certain -- a certificate is issued.

5 Q. So in addition to yourself, the nurse, and there's also this

6 secretary who has access to the old protocols; correct?

7 A. Only when the head nurse who has the key of this room allows the

8 secretary access. Only then does he have access to the protocol.

9 Q. Doctor, are you able to tell us with absolute certainty that in

10 the nine years between when the 1992 protocol was drafted and now, in the

11 over nine years, that that book was never outside of that locked room

12 unless it was in the possession of the head nurse? Can you tell us that

13 with certainty?

14 A. No, I can't.

15 Q. So you will agree with me that it is -- it has been possible in

16 the last nine years for somebody to gain access to the place or to the

17 protocols from 1992. Not that they have, but that it is possible.

18 A. That assumption and possibility exists, but I can't claim that

19 something like that actually happened either.

20 Q. Now, let's look once again at the specific entry for

21 Mr. Vasiljevic, and that's the entry of the 14th of June. I'm sorry,

22 Doctor, I wanted to ask you a question before I go to that specific

23 entry.

24 Let's take the entries made on the 14th. Would you agree with me

25 that, in the box indicated for diagnosis, that on the 14th alone, four of

1 those boxes were left blank?

2 A. I see that too.

3 Q. Now, can you tell us what type of circumstance would a doctor or

4 nurse face that they would leave the diagnosis blank? Are there

5 particular types of cases which you would expect to see no diagnosis

6 recorded for the patient?

7 A. I'm not sure I understood what you were asking me.

8 Q. Let me give you an example. If a patient comes and they're

9 diagnosed, and they are asked to return for treatment, is it possible that

10 the doctor or nurse would neglect to rewrite the diagnosis and simply

11 write what they did for the patient, if they gave them certain medicines

12 or they did certain therapies, that that would be one reason why the

13 diagnosis box would be left blank?

14 A. You mean to forget to write in the diagnosis?

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. Well, that's the only way one can explain the absence of a

17 diagnosis here. I don't see any other reason why a diagnosis for

18 Mr. Slavko Semsic [phoen], for example, wasn't written in.

19 Q. Doctor, let's look at the column, and it's the second column from

20 the right.

21 MR. GROOME: And just to assist the Court, the column I was

22 referring to is the fourth column from the right, Diagnosis.

23 Q. The second column from the right is used to indicate referral. Is

24 that correct?

25 A. Number 12, or the second column, whom they were referred to and

1 when.

2 Q. Now, would you agree with me that, of the records from the 14th,

3 21 of those spaces have been left blank?

4 A. It hasn't been filled in, no.

5 Q. Now, is there any rule of recordkeeping in the Visegrad health

6 centre that requires the doctor or nurse to draw a line through unused

7 boxes so that nobody can go later on and fill in information into those

8 boxes? Is there any rule prohibiting or requiring that?

9 A. I don't know about a rule like that. I really can't say. I don't

10 know. As to the columns about referral, they have remained empty because

11 the patients weren't referred anywhere. There was no referral, and a

12 patient with an empty column, for example, Cilindra Misin [phoen], a

13 patient in Visegrad, was given this particular medication. I can't read

14 the third thing, but he wasn't referred anywhere from Visegrad.

15 Q. Now, Doctor, I want to go specifically to the entry for

16 Mr. Vasiljevic, and I want to draw your attention to column 11. And I

17 believe that column is to describe what therapies are administered to a

18 patient. And my question to you is I see three items listed there. I

19 would ask you to explain the first line. What was the first therapy that

20 was administered to Mr. Vasiljevic?

21 A. Vasiljevic on the 14th of received Reglan, Trodon, and 50 percent

22 glucose solution, 20 cubic centimetres of that, CCM. Reglan is a drug

23 against vomiting. Trodon is an analgetic, which means a painkiller. And

24 the glucose is quite simply a sugar solution. In a high concentration of

25 this kind, it is administered so that a drip would not have to be used,

1 which would be a lengthy process, an IV. But it would enable a large

2 quantity of sugar to be injected directly into the circulation.

3 Q. Now, when a person breaks their leg, is it ordinary to give that

4 person -- is it the standard protocol of treatment to give that person an

5 anti-vomiting drug?

6 A. If it is exclusively a fracture to the leg, there's usually no

7 need to administer Reglan. But if there is something else, a diagnosis

8 in addition to the actual fracture, if a patient feels nauseous and is

9 prone to vomit, whether it is the result of alcohol intake or intoxication

10 or a stomach disorder or a stomach upset, then Reglan would be

11 administered in order to ensure more easier transport. Like I say, it is

12 difficult if somebody is vomiting and has to be transported in an

13 ambulance where the space is restricted and it makes it difficult to

14 manipulate the patient. We would have to use various kidney-shaped

15 receptacles for the vomiting.

16 Q. Doctor, let me see if I understand you correctly, that the

17 administration of Reglan in the instance of Mr. Vasiljevic was not related

18 to his broken leg but rather related to his alcoholism. Correct?

19 A. I can't say for sure. I wasn't present on the occasion. I just

20 said, generally, Reglan is administered to stop vomiting, generally

21 speaking, and not for a leg fracture, for example, alone.

22 Q. Now, the high concentration of glucose that was given to

23 Mr. Vasiljevic, would that fulfill the same function as the glucose drip

24 that was given to Mr. Vasiljevic in the Uzice jail?

25 A. It had the same function but a poorer one, because 50 -- 20 cubic

1 centimetres, 50 percent glucose, the glucose is sometimes given as a

2 solution in intravenous application of Trodon. So perhaps it was given

3 for that purpose. I can't say why. I can't tell you why my colleague,

4 the doctor, determined upon a therapy of this kind. I just assume. I can

5 just assume.

6 Q. Would you agree with me that the administration of a glucose serum

7 is not a standard protocol for somebody who has broken their leg?

8 A. Well, standard practice it is not, strictly speaking, but there

9 are different states attending trauma, great pain. The patient may be

10 experiencing great pain, and they lead to a drop in the level of sugar in

11 the blood, and it is recommended that glucose is administered in some

12 states of shock, and a fracture of the leg would be a state of shock,

13 although it is not compulsory.

14 Q. Now, this middle medication, Trodon, you described that as a

15 painkiller. Does it have a sedative effect when administered to a

16 patient?

17 A. No.

18 Q. So are you saying that -- let's say the doctor who treated

19 Mr. Vasiljevic had no sedatives available, that he would not -- it would

20 be impossible for him to use Trodon to reduce the amount of agitation

21 that he -- that Mr. Vasiljevic might have. Are you saying that's an

22 impossibility?

23 A. No. Trodon cannot replace a sedative.

24 Q. Doctor, nowhere in the therapy described for Mr. Vasiljevic does

25 it say that his leg was immobilised and prepared for transport to Uzice,

1 does it?

2 A. No, it does not.

3 Q. Would you agree with me that if on Mr. Vasiljevic's record, if

4 column 10 was blank and column 12 was blank, and you were asked to simply

5 read the record with those two columns blank, that you might very well

6 draw the conclusion that Mr. Vasiljevic was returning to Visegrad health

7 centre at your suggestion in Uzamnica gaol to continue his treatment for

8 his alcoholism, if you did not have the benefit of column 10 and column

9 12?

10 A. No, I don't think I could agree with you there. If I were to

11 conclude only on the basis of column 11, the therapy, this is something

12 that in the treatment of psychological problems doesn't function, doesn't

13 fit.

14 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome, I'm very conscious of the fact that we

15 would all like to get the doctor back to his home, but I am also conscious

16 of the short amount of time left this year for these examinations to take

17 place. How long do you think you will be? I'm not trying to hurry you

18 up, I'm just trying to figure if I should deal with the motion now and

19 take our chances.

20 MR. GROOME: I think that it would be impossible for me to finish

21 and do the motion before 4.30.

22 JUDGE HUNT: I think that might be so. Well, don't go away,

23 Doctor, we may be able to come back and spend some more time on you, but

24 there is a much more urgent matter at the moment, I'm afraid, that we have

25 to deal with.

1 Mr. Domazet, you've got this motion, do you, for a forensic

2 examination?

3 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE HUNT: And as I indicated earlier, both of the exhibits, I'm

5 not sure there's any suggestion about the third one yet, but Exhibits 26

6 and 27 would be included within the application. What do you want to say

7 about them?

8 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if the subject of the

9 expertise is the second and third, then I have nothing against having all

10 three documents being examined. But as the books were brought in by the

11 witness who is present here, and in view of the reasons he presented, I,

12 too, consider that it is necessary for those books to stay here for at

13 least some time, but I also believe that he would be satisfied if he were

14 to receive a photocopy which he could take back for the other cases, the

15 cases he says he needs to have records of because the patients might make

16 requests or somebody else might make requests for that information,

17 because the photocopies that he would take back with him could make the

18 absence of the original easier to cope with.

19 JUDGE HUNT: That's a very sensible suggestion, if I may say so,

20 and I gather there are a number of spare copies so there can be one made

21 up for the doctor to take back. But I'm not quite clear where you say,

22 where you started off your remarks with the expression, "If the subject of

23 the expertise is the second and third..." What do you mean, "second and

24 third"? Of the three documents or -- because, at the moment, it's the

25 first and second of the three documents.

1 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, Your Honour, D26 was

2 mentioned, which is the protocol of the 20th of April to 4th of July. As

3 far as I can see, that was the one to be examined, and some dates are

4 stipulated here.

5 Now, if the proposal is that there be a forensic examination of

6 D27, which is the protocol book dating back to July and August, that was

7 the second document I had in mind. And when I said the third, I meant the

8 third book, which I have not seen, it is the 1993 book, on the basis of

9 which the witness today found some facts dating back to 1993. They were

10 referred to.

11 So if Mr. Groome's proposal is that that third book be examined in

12 the same way as the others, I said that I had nothing against it.

13 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then, what you're asking for is some dates to

14 be specified in relation to Exhibit D27 and you want to know whether

15 Mr. Groome is proposing that the third book be examined as well and, if

16 so, the dates. Is that what you're raising?

17 MR. DOMAZET: It is, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE HUNT: Otherwise, you would have no objection to the orders

19 being made.

20 What use do you think will be needed to be made of these books

21 with your other witnesses, or can they use the photostats as well?

22 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] I think that if the need arises,

23 they will be able to make use of the photocopy if we are to hear anything

24 about that.

25 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.

1 Well, now, Mr. Groome, I think we have to take a fairly realistic

2 appraisal of where we stand. There are two weeks left of this term. The

3 last three days of the second week are Plenary Meeting of the Judges to

4 which we are required to attend. I'm not altogether certain that I

5 wouldn't mind an excuse, but I think we are obliged to attend. So that

6 gives us seven days left this year for hearings. Fortunately, we have a

7 period of the first two weeks of next term when we'll be able to continue

8 the hearings. But what happens after that, I'm not quite sure what we're

9 going to do.

10 How long do you think this examination will take? You've had one

11 experience with the Dutch authorities. I don't know whether it was a good

12 or a bad experience. But how long did it take?

13 MR. GROOME: At that time, we had to wait for the person who does

14 this to return from his vacation. But once he had the book, it took him

15 one work week to examine and just a couple of days to do the report.

16 JUDGE HUNT: Perhaps you better find out whether he would be able

17 to do it, for example, in the week commencing the 17th of December, when

18 we're not sitting at all, or at least if he started on the 12th of

19 December, when we go into the plenary meeting of the Judges, to see

20 whether it could be done so the book is here in case it's needed during

21 the course of the hearing.

22 And the other matter that Mr. Domazet has raised, what are the

23 dates or the periods -- we don't want the whole book examined.

24 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, as you know, I've never seen these

25 books. Under my original application, I've specified, I think, six days.

1 I would ask that maybe on Monday, I could take a look at the other two

2 books and then notify the Court, if at all, we intend to ask --

3 JUDGE HUNT: It looks as if we can do it early next week.

4 MR. GROOME: Right.

5 JUDGE HUNT: Then I suggest we proceed with the doctor and see how

6 we go. There's at least eight minutes left. I know you won't finish, but

7 let's keep going.

8 MR. GROOME: Yes, just trying to see what makes sense.

9 Q. Doctor, when talking about the record, Mr. Domazet referred you to

10 a record, a protocol record for Mr. Vasiljevic on the 21st of August of

11 1992. And you recognised that that entry had been signed by a

12 Dr. Moljevic. Correct?

13 A. If I remember correctly, that is so.

14 Q. Can you tell us what relationship is this Dr. Moljevic to a doctor

15 by the name of Dr. Alexander Moljevic?

16 A. Well, I can't tell you with any certainty. Judging by the

17 surname, they might be some degree of kinship. But I don't know what

18 relationship. I assume that they might be distant relations of some kind.

19 Q. The Dr. Moljevic who signed that entry, I believe you said his

20 name was Nebojsa Moljevic. Is he from Visegrad?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Now, I want you to take a look at the entry for the 29th of July.

23 And it's protocol number 10 in the yellow book. And I ask you, do you

24 recognise the signature of that entry?

25 A. If you mean the ordinal number 80 of the 29th of July, 1992, is

1 that what you're referring to?

2 Q. I'm sorry. I believe it's ordinal number 90 now. The number

3 before was 9, but upon further reflection, it looks like the tens digit

4 was omitted. So I believe it's ordinal number 90 of the 29th of July.

5 It's an entry for Mitar Vasiljevic.

6 A. Mitar Vasiljevic, under ordinal number 90.

7 Q. Whose signature is indicated on that entry, if you recognise it?

8 A. I think this, too, is Dr. Moljevic's signature.

9 Q. And then the final one that I would ask you to look at is ordinal

10 number 605.

11 A. 605.

12 Q. Do you recognise the signature on that entry?

13 A. Yes, this is my signature.

14 Q. Now, on the record from the 14th of June, nobody signed that

15 entry. Is that correct? And that's in the brown book.

16 A. That's right. It's not signed.

17 Q. Now, Doctor, as you were looking through D27, the yellow book, it

18 appears that there are various cards and slips of paper. Are they simply

19 bookmarks, or are they also medical records from the hospital? Some of

20 them are sticking out above the pages, some are --

21 A. No, no. They are not medical records. The bit pieces of paper

22 serve as bookmarkers or patients might forget these pieces of paper, and

23 then we keep them in the protocol book, and then sometimes the patients

24 come back for this. So usually it would be at the back of the book by the

25 back cover. And if nobody comes to claim them, then they stay there for

1 an indefinite time. And I use these pieces of paper as a bookmarker to

2 find the page more easily.

3 Q. None of these extra loose pieces of paper are records connected to

4 the treatment of Mr. Vasiljevic, are they?

5 A. I don't know. I can check. I can have a look. I didn't really

6 look at them. For example, this is a prescription that was started and

7 written and left.

8 JUDGE HUNT: I think that it may be as well if the doctor has a

9 look at that over the adjournment. You want to have a look at the books

10 also, Mr. Groome, so if you sign a receipt for them and undertake to take

11 care of them, that will be appropriate.

12 Perhaps I should correct something I said earlier about there

13 being seven sitting days left. I had forgotten that on Thursday, the 6th

14 of December, for reasons beyond our control, we won't be sitting. So that

15 leaves only six sitting days. And I should perhaps emphasise that when

16 term begins on Monday, the 7th of January, we are going on that day, we

17 will resume on that day. We haven't got any time left for niceties and

18 holidays and things.

19 So the parties will be expected to use some of the vacation in the

20 preparation of their final submissions as well. We are now coming down to

21 a very, very tight schedule. It may be that we will be able to share a

22 courtroom with one of the other trials, and at least one of the Judges

23 presently sitting will have to sit on two trials at once. But I'm not

24 sure that's going to be very easy to arrange.

25 Yes, Mr. Domazet. If you're going to tell me about the Serbian

1 Christmases, I'm afraid you'll get a very dusty reply.

2 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Then I'll refrain from voicing my

3 question, because I was going to suggest that we begin on the 9th of

4 January so that we can be with our families on Christmas Day. But if you

5 feel those two days mean -- I will refrain from my request because you

6 have met my requests in the past on one occasion.

7 JUDGE HUNT: You make me sound like Scrooge, if that translates

8 very well.

9 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Well, it is precisely Monday, the

10 7th of January. And the -- it is 30 days after the Catholic calendar.

11 The 7th of January is the Orthodox Christmas, so I thought we would travel

12 on January 8th to begin on January 9th, but if that is not possible, we'll

13 spend Christmas here.

14 JUDGE HUNT: That does sound rather harsh but, Mr. Domazet, the

15 realities are that we were meant to finish at the end of this year. I'm

16 not sure that you would be able to give us any realistic estimate of what

17 is left in your case. Assuming that you have six sitting days left this

18 year, how much time do you think you will need for your case to conclude?

19 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] If I understood you correctly, Your

20 Honour, the six days that you mentioned, does that include next week or

21 next week plus another six days? Next week plus another six days.

22 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I'm sorry if I've missed out a week. We have

23 to cease sitting this year on the 11th. Tuesday the 11th will be the last

24 sitting day. Well, that may make it better. That's 11 sitting days. So

25 there are 11 sitting days left this year. Now, how much time do you think

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 that you will need to conclude your case?

2 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think we will be able

3 to complete it before that, that we will need actually less than 11 days.

4 JUDGE HUNT: Well, in those circumstances, and I'll hold you to

5 that, we will resume on Wednesday, the 9th of January, but I repeat what I

6 said; you will be expected to be working on your final submissions during

7 the vacation, I'm afraid. I can assure you that we will be working on the

8 matter as well, so you are not alone.

9 Very well, we'll adjourn now until Monday at 9.30.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

11 at 4.35 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

12 the 26th day of November, 2001, at

13 9.30 a.m.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25