1 Monday, 15 December 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 3.06 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon.
6 Madame, could you call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
8 This is the case number IT-05-88-R.77.1, in the contempt case of
9 Dragan Jokic.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
11 For the record, the accused is present in the courtroom, and so
12 is his counsel, Ms. Isailovic.
13 I understand, Ms. Isailovic, that you have got some
14 preliminaries. Please go ahead.
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning [sic] President.
16 Good morning -- good afternoon, Judges.
17 First, a preliminary question, a motion under Article 73 or
18 Rule 73 of the Regulation on the public character of court proceedings.
19 Today, we came into the courtroom and the curtains -- the room
20 was closed to the public. The curtains were down. And there are other
21 factors impeding the access of the public to the proceedings. Your Court
22 has made a ruling which was not notified to the Defence. Otherwise, the
23 Defence would have responded to that motion that today's proceeding would
24 be held in closed session.
25 I realised that in today's schedule, it is said, "Closed
1 session," but the number of the case was not mentioned; neither was the
2 name of the accused, Mr. Dragan Jokic.
3 I asked a question through the web site which publicizes the
4 content of the court sessions, so through the internet, in other words,
5 and they said that they had received that very schedule, and this
6 prevented them from announcing today's session on the internet.
7 Therefore, the general public has not been informed, hence all my
8 colleagues. I'm wondering why I'm here today, and I'm also wondering if
9 I can answer them, in view of this implicit order. Or this is the way I
10 view it, because I have not been formally provided with such an order.
11 Now, if you look at the Rules, at Rules 78 and 79, everything
12 which is to do with the publicity of the proceedings is governed by those
13 Rules. And if you look at Article 79, the principle of the publicity of
14 the proceedings can be changed for reasons of public order or morality,
15 safety, or non-disclosure of the identity of the victim and protection of
16 the interests of the justice. Now, I wonder if such a factor exists,
17 such a reason exists. And, anyway, whether we are working in open
18 session or not today, the curtains are up now, I can see, but if you look
19 at the matter of the fact of this, the curtains are up and the public
20 cannot follow the debates.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: We are wasting a lot of precious time, Madame.
22 Yes, the transcript has seized, anyway, the transcript has seized, so
23 let's deal with that first.
24 It's working now.
25 Let me cut this short.
1 You will recall for sure that there was one stage in the course
2 of these proceedings, going back to the time when they had just started,
3 then we had taken the decision that what was ex parte till then was to
4 become public; namely, that contempt proceedings were instituted and were
5 underway vis a vis or against your client. That was months ago.
6 When we came to the evidentiary stage, I recall that precisely
7 because we were asked by you and because of the details of the evidence
8 that we were expecting or you were expecting, particularly on personal
9 matters relating to your client, we decided that that evidence will be
10 heard in closed session. So that evidence was heard in closed session,
11 but essentially the proceedings themselves, namely, the contempt
12 proceedings, are public proceedings. They have never been considered to
13 be something secret, and they were never treated as something secret; nor
14 are they going to be treated as something secret now.
15 What will happen today is precisely what happened when you had
16 your witnesses and when you brought over your expert and questions were
17 put to your expert. In those occasions, we heard testimony in closed
18 session, and that's what's going to happen today. So you don't need to
19 worry, but of course until we start with the testimony, the session has
20 to be in open session. And then as soon as the witness comes in and you
21 start with your cross-examination, we go into closed session, and we will
22 continue and finish in closed session unless there are reasons which
23 would prompt you to ask that proceedings be conducted in open session.
24 So I don't think I need to be more clear than I have been, and
25 I think if you have got other preliminaries, you can move to your other
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge, and thank you
3 for the suggestion, but I do still insist on my request. I had actually
4 not finished, because you are saying that at any time I can ask for the
5 proceedings to be held in closed session.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: No. Stop one moment.
7 The proceedings will be in closed session. They will be in open
8 session only if you ask or if we decide that they no longer need to be in
9 closed session. But otherwise, they will be -- your questions to the
10 expert, to the psychiatrist, will be in closed session.
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. This is what I had
12 understood. But the Rules are clear, so the Rule is public session, and
13 the closed session is an exception to the Rule. So today we'll have a
14 session for which the public was not informed, so de facto it will be a
15 secret session, and the Defence opposes this.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: [Previous translation continues]... waste time on
17 these minutia. The public was informed there were going to be
18 proceedings today. I agree with you that in the timetable or in the
19 schedule, court schedule, the name of the case was not announced. That
20 doesn't change a thing. It's open now. Everyone knows that the
21 proceedings that are taking place now are against your client, so let's
22 start, please.
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I do not mean to show
24 you any disrespect, but for me there is something serious going on.
25 The principle of open sessions has been infringed, so I do
1 persist and I would like to make a request under Article 73. I wanted to
2 postpone the session and to summon another session at a -- for a later
3 date, for which the public character would be secured and for which the
4 public will be notified and informed about this session being held, or
5 you can make a decision and notify it to the Defence under Article 79 of
6 the Regulation. So whatever your decision will draw the consequences
7 from it.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Before we deliberate on this. Is it your intention
10 to cross-examine the witness today, the psychiatrist appointed by the
11 Trial Chamber, in closed session or in open session?
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: My intention is to ask the majority of questions
13 in public session. It's only those questions which are to do with the
14 mental health of the client, but there will be very few of them, which,
15 with your permission, will be in closed session and if you so decide it
16 will be closed session. But the majority of the questions should be
17 asked in public session, in my view, and this is why I am bothered by the
18 fact that the public has not been warned of this session taking place.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the whole of the ex-Yugoslavia will be
20 waiting anxiously, gazing at their TV sets to see what this case is all
21 about today.
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour ...
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
25 Madame, the publicity requirement attaches to when the sitting
1 takes place and not necessarily to the way the schedule of the Tribunal
2 is announced. Anyone who is interested in knowing what is taking place
3 today at the Tribunal will be able to follow these proceedings.
4 The proceedings will be held in public, save when you need to --
5 need us to go into closed session, at which time we will go in closed
6 session, as we did on previous occasions when you also had your own
7 expert here.
8 So anything else? This chapter is closed, so if you have any
9 further preliminary submissions, speak now, please.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Since a part of the cross-examination will be highly technical,
12 and since the expert report is partly very technical as well, I would
13 need to call the Defence expert, Ms. Ana Najman, who appeared in court on
14 the 10th of December last year, and for that purpose I would need to have
15 a telephone line between 5.00 and 7.00 p.m. If you can plan the
16 proceedings and breaks accordingly so that I can ask, if necessary,
18 I've already talked to my expert and warned her, but I would need
19 a telephone because I'm not sitting in the office here and I don't have a
20 protected line to talk to Ms. Najman. From the Defence room, it's
21 impossible to make phone calls abroad, so I'd like to have this telephone
22 line at some stage during about 20 minutes, so I ask the Chamber to order
23 the services of the Tribunal to make a protected phone line available to
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Madame, we were given advanced notice of this
1 request of yours, and we were also informed that you were, in turn,
2 informed by the administration here that you are paid administrative
3 costs to cover such contingencies. So if you have the need to telephone
4 or call your expert, this is your problem. You should make your own
5 arrangements and not expect the Chamber to make them for you, nor I
6 understand will the Registry be prepared to make these arrangements for
7 you. That's number 1.
8 Number 2 is this question of between 5.00 and 7.00 p.m. We will
9 have a break as required, but it all depends on the time. It will all
10 depend on where you will need -- when we will need the break.
11 So let's start, and I think you have to find ways and means of
12 contacting your expert, if you really need to do so.
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 It's not a question of costs, because I'm willing to refund the
15 costs of that telephone conversation using the expenses I receive from
16 the Registry. The problem is I don't have a protected -- a secure
17 telephone line, because I only have my mobile phone. So, technically, I
18 do need a land line which is secure, and I will refund the expenses to
19 the Registry.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: You need to sort this out with the Registry, not
21 with us, actually.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Madame, see if you can contact the Registrar and
24 see if this can be arranged for Ms. Isailovic. Otherwise, we cannot
25 involve ourselves in this.
1 Anything else? Can we bring in the witness?
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] A final thing, Your Honour.
3 How long do I have for the extra closing brief? You gave me four
4 days, but I reserve the right, at the end of the closing brief, in view
5 of the outcome of the proceedings, to apply for an extension of that
6 deadline, which seems to me very short. That's all.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: You will tell us later on how much time you
8 require, and we will adjust our decision accordingly.
9 Let's bring the witness in, and we remain in open session for the
10 time being.
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before the witness
12 is brought in, I prepared copies of the reports. I don't know if you
13 have copies of Mr. Vermetten's report and Ms. Najman's report, because I
14 have prepared the copies and I can give them to Mr. Vermetten.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: We may need one copy for one of my colleagues,
17 that's all, if you have one available.
18 Good afternoon to you --
19 THE INTERPRETER: And a copy for the interpreters, if that's
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you hear me?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
24 Good afternoon to you, and welcome to this Tribunal.
25 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: We've summoned you here because we thought it would
2 be in the interests of justice in this case that Madame Isailovic, who is
3 appearing for the respondent, be given the opportunity to cross-examine
4 you on the contents of your report and findings. So before you start
5 giving evidence, our Rules would require from you that you enter a solemn
6 declaration to the effect that you will be testifying the truth. Please
7 read out that statement, that declaration aloud, and that will be your
8 solemn undertaking with us.
9 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
10 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 WITNESS: ERIC VERMETTEN
12 JUDGE AGIUS: And I take it you're comfortable giving evidence in
14 THE WITNESS: That's fine, thank you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: That's great. Madame Isailovic, he's all yours.
16 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic:
17 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Vermetten. I'm Branislava Isailovic,
18 attorney for Mr. Dragan Jokic, and I'm an attorney with the Paris Bar,
19 but I will speak in B/C/S, the language spoked [sic] by accused, to just
20 avoid much translation of your speech and mine.
21 [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will distribute the copies --
22 I'll give the copies to Mr. Usher. These are the reports of
23 Mr. Vermetten and of Mrs. Ana Najman.
24 I will now ask Mr. Vermetten the following: [In English]
25 [Previous translation continues]... hard copy of your -- yes.
1 [Interpretation] But, Your Honour, I was just wondering if I
2 should give Mr. Vermetten right away Ms. Najman's report, because I would
3 like to ask him a few questions regarding that report. If you agree with
4 this, with your permission, maybe Mr. Usher could hand him this report.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Yes, of course, that would be very
6 useful, and in the meantime perhaps, Mr. Vermetten, are you familiar with
7 this report that had been prepared by Ms. Najman?
8 THE WITNESS: I would assume the report was just given me?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
10 THE WITNESS: Well, haven't been able read it, but I think is --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: No, whether you're familiar with it, whether you've
12 seen it for the first time today or whether you had seen it before.
13 THE WITNESS: Based on the first page, I have not seen this
14 report before.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
16 Yes, Ms. Isailovic.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. As I have announced, Mr. Vermetten, I shall be asking questions
19 in the B/C/S language, and I shall speak slowly in order to enable the
20 interpreters to do their job and in order for Mr. Dragan Jokic to also be
21 able to hear all the questions that I'm going to put to you.
22 I should like to start with your CV, because unfortunately I did
23 not have the honour of getting one and seeing what is this that you do
24 and what your domain of expertise is, but I will ask you questions slowly
25 and one by one.
1 First of all, I should like to ask you about your educational
3 A. My educational background is: I studied medical school in
4 University of Maastricht
5 that I did in the Netherlands
6 sorry, and in the United States, where I was further trained as a
7 neuroscientist, before I returned back to the Netherlands in the year
8 2000, where I'm working as a psychiatrist and the head of a research
9 department in the University Medical school at Utrecht.
10 Q. Thank you. Can I suggest something to you? If we were to make a
11 distinction between the field or work in psychiatry, in psychology and as
12 a neuropsychiatrist, a neurologist and a neuropsychologist, as far as I
13 understood, you are a psychiatrist, that is where you put yourself, and a
14 neurologist; right?
15 A. No, let me correct this. I am a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist in
16 the Netherlands
17 medical doctor, contrary to a psychologist, who has no medical license.
18 So in addition to my medical license, I have a registration in the field
19 of psychiatry, so that's four and a half years of specialisation in
20 addition to medical school training.
21 In addition to that, I studied the field of neuroscience, which
22 is an open field for everybody, psychologists or psychiatrists and other
23 related disciplines.
24 Q. Would you then agree with me if I say that neuropsychology falls
25 within a special separate domain of these neuropsychological sciences,
1 and that for the work of a neuropsychologist, it is necessary for him to
2 be specifically educated in order to be able to work in that field?
3 A. Well, it is so that a psychiatrist usually leans or lends his --
4 or gets his domain of expertise from various disciplines that can be from
5 neurologists or psychologists, but it is not so that -- so I would say
6 that psychiatry is a discipline that is integrating a lot of specialty
7 fields. And in the old days we'd have in the Netherlands one specialty
8 that covered neurology and psychiatry itself, doctor of nerve medicine or
9 so, if you want to translate it, since about 20 years that has been
10 disintegrated into a field of neurology and psychiatry. So it's the
11 medical branch that studies issues that are related to the brain in
13 Q. Can I conclude that you have no training as a psychologist, then?
14 A. I wasn't trained as a psychologist, so let me answer that in that
15 way. No. Can I add something, because that may be helpful.
16 The field of psychology is dedicated to, where it is applicable,
17 the normal health and normal behaviour of people that are sane, and where
18 it leans to psychiatry, psychiatry is a field that deals with people who
19 have some kind of illness, and the explanation for the illness needs to
20 be taken from elements of other disciplines. So disease is the central
21 item that we're dealing with, where the knowledge base might be helpful
22 to get that from other fields, for instance, like neuropsychology or
23 other related disciplines.
24 Did I specify my question rightly for you?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we all know the distinction between
1 psychologists and psychiatrists, and that is one reason why we chose, as
2 an expert, a psychiatrist and not a psychologist.
3 Let's proceed, please.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Does that mean that you do not analyse practically personality
6 disorders, but just disease?
7 A. Well, personality disorder is also a disease in psychiatry,
8 dealing a lot with personality disorders, so I would consider that, too,
9 one of my expertises.
10 Q. Thank you. Would you be so kind as to enumerate exactly, as
11 briefly as possible -- or, rather, to define exactly, as briefly as
12 possible, the particular field of your expertise?
13 A. Well, my field of expertise specialised in traumatic stress; that
14 is to say, everything that is related to the exposure of stress or
15 trauma, and you can differentiate that in severe violence, or war, or
16 other domains where people are environmentally challenged, and the
17 expertise of my field is to look at what that does to the human brain and
18 the mind or the body and the mind, as that it compromises capacity.
19 In the field ever since I left the Netherlands, I started to work
20 with Vietnam
21 University School
22 Vietnam war on specific functions like health and disease, in particular,
23 in people who are affected because of the Vietnam war, and that continued
24 to be my special expertise. So my PhD that I did in university, in
25 medical school, was about this issue. I did my PhD in the field of
1 post-traumatic stress disorder, with the subtitle "Neurobiology and
2 treatment," and I published extensively on this issue.
3 I can give you all the references. Well, I could give you --
4 I think they are in my CV that I gave you, or that you might have a list
5 of peer-reviewed journal articles that are on this matter.
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since I never saw
7 the CV of the witness, I believe that it would be very useful if we could
8 have a copy of the said CV in order to continue in the proceedings.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: You can give her mine. She can have a look at it,
10 and in the meantime then you can make a photocopy and you give her.
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
12 This is very useful, in fact, for the proceedings. It would have been
13 useful to get it before, but I will continue.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: [Previous translation continues]... surprised that
15 you didn't have a copy. It's roughly three times or four times as long
16 as the two reports put together.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
18 Better late than never, as one says.
19 Q. Mr. Vermetten, I shall now like to deal with your experience as a
20 court expert. Within the framework of your particular domain of
21 expertise, what is your experience as a court expert? Is that also
22 contained in the curriculum vitae, or can you refer me to that, or can
23 you, yourself, give me a brief answer?
24 A. Let me try to define what a court expert is, if that means the
25 cases in which I testified for court, I would assume so. That is not in
1 my curriculum vitae. I have given two prior reports that started in the
2 year 2008.
3 Q. Were those reports before this Chamber, this Court?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you are referring to some other cases, not this case, the
6 Jokic case, but some other two cases in which you provided your
8 A. One is the Jokic case, and the other one is another case.
9 Q. I believe that I noticed a mistake in the Jokic case, where
10 another name, the name of somebody else, was revealed because it was
11 contained in the Jokic report. It was from another case, but these
12 things happen. But at any rate, that is your court experience, in terms
13 of you giving your expertise before a tribunal?
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Let's make this clear, because the
15 interpretation that we got specifically makes reference "before a
16 tribunal." I think you should give an answer which is much more
18 As regards this Tribunal, you have already told us that this is
19 the second time.
20 In the Netherlands
21 the Netherlands
22 tribunals, have you ever had the opportunity to be a court-appointed
23 expert or an expert appointed by some party during proceedings?
24 THE WITNESS: I've been a member of one additional moment. This
25 was for the court in Arnhem
1 been consultant, but not for a court in a situation like this.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, thank you.
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. If I can sum up. So your experience as a court-appointed expert
5 in your specific domain of your expertise that you have just defined
6 would practically be confined to Jokic and to this other accused before
7 the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia, and this one
8 case when you were a consultant in -- excuse my pronunciation if it is
9 not good, Arnhem
10 A. Correct, A-r-n-h-e-m.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 A. Yeah, to the best of my memory, that's correct.
13 Q. Mr. Vermetten, I should now like to deal with another topic of my
14 questioning which has to do with the circumstances of your appointment as
15 expert, as a psychiatrist expert in the Jokic case, in which capacity you
16 are also sitting here today. I, as Defence counsel, have been given two
17 of your reports. Is that it, is this all that you submitted?
18 A. Let me clear -- "I have been given two of your reports."
19 Q. Excuse me. Perhaps it is not quite clear. Let me repeat.
20 I, as Defence counsel for Dragan Jokic, have received one report
21 that you submitted to the Registry of the Court on the 30th of May, a
22 signed version, that is, and then unsigned version of the 29th of May,
23 and I received another report which you submitted to the Registry on the
24 29th of July, current. Are these documents -- is that all that you
25 submitted to the Registry in connection with your expert testimony in the
1 Dragan Jokic case?
2 A. [No audible response].
3 Q. Thank you. Did you, before you started working on these reports,
4 did you see any documents which have to do with the order of the Court
5 for an expertise to be undertaken?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Before you answer this question, the
7 transcript doesn't show what your question [sic] was to the previous
8 question -- what your answer was to the previous question. The previous
9 question was as follows, referring to the two reports:
10 "Are these documents -- is that all you submitted to the Registry
11 in connection with your expert testimony in the Dragan Jokic case?"
12 Did you submit anything else, apart from those two reports?
13 THE WITNESS: In that formulation, the answer is "no."
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. It's okay, let's proceed. We've got it
15 clear now.
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, maybe there's a
17 slight confusion here, because you've rephrased the question in a
18 different way, because the initial answer was, "Yes," but now it's, "No."
19 JUDGE AGIUS: It's clear. Don't worry about it.
20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Vermetten, my next question was whether you had occasion to
22 see Court orders whereby the examination of the accused in the
23 Dragan Jokic case was actually instructed to be undertaken.
24 A. Yes, I think in the question that was addressed to me to perform
25 my expertise, I was given this information sent by somebody from
1 The Hague
2 don't know how specific your referring to that information was.
3 Q. Let me be clear. Do you recall that someone asked you for the
4 first time to, as soon as possible, state your --
5 [In English] [Previous translation continues]... "up to and after
6 the service of subpoena on him"?
7 A. I'm trying to read the script here on the monitor, but I was
8 asked to give a psychiatric expertise on the case, so that I did and was
9 my report that you're referring to was dated the 29th of March, with an
10 accompanying letter of March the 30th. And then later I was asked again
11 with a specific question; that I was asked to revisit Mr. Jokic for a
12 specific question that I addressed in my report on July 29.
13 So the first was rather general, a psychiatric evaluation, and
14 the second one was specific regarding a specific question.
15 Q. Would you agree with me that there were two questions the second
17 A. Not exactly. I'm reading it aloud, and I'm giving answer to
18 those two questions in my report.
19 Q. Please be so kind as to tell me who it was that you got in touch
20 the first time, when you were asked to make a general psychiatric
21 assessment of Dragan Jokic.
22 A. The name of the person who contacted me for that or --
23 Q. Frankly speaking, I'm more interested to what particular body of
24 this Tribunal that person belonged. You can also give me the name. I
25 believe that there is no problem with that.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: [Previous translation continues]... because
2 obviously you can't put direct questions, while we can.
3 From the moment you were approached to undertake this task, who
4 did you deal with? Did you deal with the Judges or did you deal with
5 members of the Registry and members of the Detention Unit?
6 THE WITNESS: Members of the Detention Unit.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And whom did you give the report to,
8 the two reports, when they were ready?
9 THE WITNESS: I have sent the report to (redacted)
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
11 THE WITNESS: And I may have c.c.'ed it, too, in reverse order,
12 but according to his instructions.
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. When you got these two specific questions after your first
15 report, did anyone explain to you why that was and what the difference,
16 practically, was between these two reports?
17 A. Well, the questions were pretty much self-explanatory, that these
18 were the specific issues that needed to be dealt with that a report, as
19 such, didn't give an answer to.
20 Q. I'm asking you this because in the first question, and I have the
21 court order here before me, you were supposed to reply to -- or, rather,
22 I shall read it in English, the decision, that is:
23 [In English] "[Previous translation continues]... appoint him or
24 her to examine Jokic in accordance with professional practice and to
25 report to the Trial Chamber as soon as possible on the mental condition
1 of Jokic prior to and after the service of the subpoena on him."
2 [Interpretation] And after that, you got a second question, and I
3 insist on the second because there were two; namely, that you were to
4 state your opinion, [in English] "His," [Interpretation], meaning
5 Dragan Jokic, [Previous translation continues]... [in English] "in mind
6 when he refused to testify in Prosecutor vs. Popovic et al."
7 [Interpretation] My question as a layperson is the following:
8 How did you personally perceive the difference between you specifying the
9 mental condition in the first case, which you did, and in the second case
10 defined his state of mind? Please clarify for us what the difference is
11 and how you perceive that difference.
12 A. Our profession is really difficult in this case, to report on the
13 mental condition that somebody was where the psychiatrist in consultation
14 was not present, so in retrospect to judge about that is really a
15 difficult one. So you can rather only be circumstantial and find
16 circumstantial evidence to prior reports or psychiatric consultations
17 were by others to build a construct of what could have likely been the
18 case. And I understood or maybe that was the interpretation of the
19 people who read this, that they would try to formulate the questions so
20 as to be more specific that they could help the Court to narrow it down.
21 So, therefore, I took it as a normal sequence of events, that they would
22 try to get more specific information on this issue -- on these issues
23 that were asked.
24 Q. Later, I shall dwell more on the substance of the report itself.
25 But if I can summarise, it was quite clear to you why they first asked
1 for this one assessment, which to me, as a layperson, is almost identical
2 to this other assessment, and why later they asked you for this different
3 second opinion which was formulated as a specific question put to you.
4 A. Nothing is quite clear, but this was clear enough for me to take
5 it on and to reply to the question that was asked with more specificity
6 than I could in relation to the first one.
7 Q. But Mr. Vermetten, in your expertise in assessing the state of
8 mind or the traumatic stress experienced by a person and how that
9 affected human capacities, you actually gave that expertise by submitting
10 your first report, did you not?
11 A. Oh, yes.
12 Q. I should now like to move on to your methodology of work. This
13 is the kind of questions that we also asked the previous expert, and I
14 believe that to be very useful.
15 Firstly, I'm not quite clear. From your reports, I guess that
16 there were three visits to Dragan Jokic, but regrettably I could not find
17 in your report the date of the third visit. So please kindly tell us how
18 many visits were there and when.
19 A. I think in my report, in the first report -- for the first
20 report, I visited Mr. Jokic on two occasions; April 15 for two and a half
21 hours, and April 22nd for two hours at the Detention Unit. And for the
22 second report, I visited Mr. Jokic once on -- let me see where it says.
23 Q. Unfortunately, it is not written there. That is why I'm asking
24 you. Perhaps you have it in one of your notebooks.
25 A. Yeah, I can't read it here in the -- in the second report, so I
1 must have it somewhere in my notebook. I'm sorry that that wasn't
2 clearly stated in the report, yeah.
3 Q. But you do assert that you were there for a third time?
4 A. Definitely, yes, and I can say the duration was about the same;
5 about two, two and a half hours.
6 Q. Please tell me now who was present during these examinations.
7 A. I'm sorry, I can't remember their names, but every -- every
8 visit, I was accompanied by a translator for the whole duration of that
10 Q. Shall I then conclude that these examinations took place with the
11 aid of an interpreter, that you did not communicate directly with
12 Dragan Jokic?
13 A. Well, let me rephrase that. We communicated by verbal as well as
14 non-verbal behaviour. But the verbal part, yes, I could only -- I know a
15 little bit of Serbian, let's say, but I was helped by the translator.
16 Q. If you were to assess now what was the portion of the
17 participation of the interpreter in these six and a half or seven hours
18 that you spent there, how would you apportion this period to
19 interpretation, because as I understand it, you put a question, then an
20 interpreter translates it to Jokic, Jokic answers it, and then the answer
21 is interpreted back to you. Was that how this communication went?
22 A. Correct. I must then say there was a -- I had the opportunity to
23 continuously observe the verbal and non-verbal behaviour of Mr. Jokic all
24 through the time, as well he responded or not responded. Let me be
25 clear. In the profession, it's important also to look at somebody when
1 he's silent and not saying anything. So both accounts. But let me put a
2 figure. The speech was rather slow, because at times it was difficult to
3 grasp the material that was asked. So it's roughly to put a percentage,
4 but 40 per cent -- no, more than that. So it's the same as here. When
5 you communicate, there are pauses and silences, and I don't know whether
6 actually everything is translated well. And sometimes when it gets
7 emotional, you have to go back to the issue, which therefore can take
8 quite -- consume quite some time before I'm confident and satisfied with
9 the answer that I was -- that to me was given.
10 Q. Can you please clarify to me what you mean when you say
11 "satisfied"? In what sense?
12 A. In the sense that I could sort of sum up all the observations
13 that I have made over that period of time. So the -- let me say -- so
14 the advantage of having been able to examine somebody on two prior visits
15 surely definitely facilitated me in my third -- in my third visit to
16 Mr. Jokic.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at this particular
18 point in time, I would like to request something.
19 I realised that in the evidence 7A and 7B, in those reports, and
20 those are the reports of Ms. Ana Najman, I've noticed a mistake in the
21 translation regarding -- it's actually on page 55 of our file. The
22 mistake regards the time that Ms. Ana Najman spent with Mr. Jokic. In
23 the original, we can read that she examined him for two days, five hours
24 a day, whereas in the English version we can read that she spent five
25 hours all together with him. So that's actually half of the time spent
1 with him in reality, so I would kindly request that you order a
2 modification or correction of this mistake.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll take judicial notice of it. Thank you.
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Mr. Vermetten, in your report, at the very beginning, make
7 references to certain documents that you had used, and also to some
8 persons that you had consulted during drafting your reports for the
9 Chamber, and I can read that now. We can read it together, actually.
10 So in your first report, you make reference to the consultation
11 with Dr. -- I think the name is Vera Petrovic, Mr. Jokic's psychiatrist.
12 Do you have that before you?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Then a neuropsychiatric report prepared by Dr. Vera Petrovic,
15 submitted by her on the 22nd of April, 2008; then a communication with --
16 and I may mispronounce this name, that's Ms. Remelzvan [phoen], a
17 nurse --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: [Previous translation continues]... Madame, because
19 our attention is being drawn to the fact that a witness's report is
20 confidential, was filed by the Registrar confidential. Now, you're
21 making a specific reference to parts of the same report, or one of them,
22 for the time being in open session, so there are two options. We either
23 go into private session or closed session, when you are making specific
24 references to the report, or I consult with my colleagues whether they
25 are prepared to lift the confidentiality at least for the purpose of
1 these questions. But I don't know what the follow-up questions will be,
2 so I would be hesitant in lifting the confidentiality; I, personally. I
3 mean, I don't know what my colleagues would do. Let me consult them.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: If your client is prepared to lift the
6 confidentiality, then we can proceed in open session; lift the
7 confidentiality of the report, obviously, for the purposes of these
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it seems to me that
10 the questions that concern the methodology of the work of the expert do
11 not fall within the realm of confidentiality. But just to reassure you,
12 I will reformulate my question; that is, that I will put direct
13 questions, because it doesn't concern the content of the report but
14 precisely the method of work, and I will just put the question to the
15 expert and have him answer on the basis of what he referred in drafting
16 his report. Aside from the examination of Mr. Jokic, of course all the
17 data concerning the mental health and Mr. Jokic's family, of course,
18 should remain confidential.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, that's fine with us. Let's proceed.
20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Vermetten, you have understood what the problem was. I would
22 just like you to remind yourself on what basis, apart from the
23 examination of Mr. Jokic, you drafted your report?
24 A. So it is in the first report, on page number 3, and I don't think
25 I have to read it aloud, but you were commencing on the consultations
1 that I had made prior to my first visit of Mr. Jokic.
2 Q. I'm going to explain it to you now. Please, do not mention the
3 report. I'm only interested in this as the methodology of your work.
4 Whether it is written in the report or not, we know about that. And just
5 to avoid going into private session, please tell me that, and you can
6 just explain to me what else you did, apart from examining
7 Mr. Dragan Jokic; who you talked to, what materials you read, without
8 going into what they told you. Please just tell me, who did you
9 communicate with prior to drawing up your report?
10 A. I had a consultation with his treating psychiatrist or the
11 psychiatrist that had known him from the past by e-mail, and I requested
12 permission by Mr. Jokic to consult. I don't know whether I did that
13 after my -- I must hesitate. Usually, I do that, and I think I did it in
14 this case also, that I requested -- yes, I requested permission to
15 consult this person, after my first visit, to -- one way to corroborate
16 what was told, whether that was true, and then to request additional
17 information, since there were no neuropsychiatric reports that I could
18 use in my report. So that was a source of information, right, so a part
19 was, as it says, the consultation, part was the neuropsychiatric report,
20 and to -- since there was medication involved in the treatment of
21 Mr. Jokic, and there was no record of when -- what medication was, and I
22 know that some medication may impair somebody's capacity to judge or his
23 mental capacity can be impaired because of a compromised function by
24 medication, I wanted to know at what time what medication was prescribed
25 for what. And since some medication had started, I needed to have that,
1 which I learned was quite unusual. But I thought it was essential for me
2 to have that information, and therefore I consulted with the unit nurses
3 that were available to me at that time.
4 And then the third part of information, but this is just for
5 general information, is there is a web site where I could contextualise
6 the information about the case and about the further procedures and
7 situation of the procedure of this Court, so the web site that I referred
8 to in the report was also a valuable database for me.
9 Q. Let me stick to your first report. You say here, [Previous
10 translation continues]... which I learned was quite unusual. Could you
11 please clarify that for us?
12 A. I'm sorry, the --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you need to explain, because I, for myself,
14 did not understand your question.
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. While you were answering my previous answer [as interpreted], and
17 I'm reading from the transcript, that was how it was translated, line 18,
18 you can see it yourself:
19 "I needed to have that, which I learned was quite unusual."
20 And I would kindly ask you to explain to us why was that what you
21 received unusual?
22 A. I learned that Mr. Jokic was given either the Bromazepam or some
23 medicine that had started on a specific day, and I wanted to know prior
24 to giving this, if you give somebody a certain medication, there needs to
25 be something you give it for, so what was the incident that was --
1 happened prior before. And since I didn't have a medical record, my
2 usual practice, how I do that with patients, is go to other charts. And
3 what I learned from the research nurses and the unofficial part is that
4 they say, "Oh, we don't get a lot of requests for -- for this." So it
5 may not be necessary by other consultants before to have that
6 information, but in this specific occasion I thought it was important for
7 me to have that information. And I was referring to one of the quotes
8 that the nurses made when I asked permission to look into the medical
10 Q. We have these medical documents as part of the case file, and we
11 have already commented on this with Ana Najman, the expert. When you
12 were preparing your second report, did you rely on any additional
13 information as well?
14 A. No. For my second report, I only relied on information -- since
15 I already had access to enough information for the first report, I could
16 base my report on the interview that I had with him for that single
17 visit, and it was not essential or needed -- necessary for me to spend
18 another visit or request additional information.
19 Q. Are you sure about that?
20 A. Oh, yes. You said, "Did you rely on any additional information?"
21 I said, "No, I relied on the information that was in the second visit.
22 That was sufficient for me."
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, because I'd like to
24 refer to the content of the report, I would therefore ask you if we could
25 move to closed session.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, by all means.
2 Let's go into closed session.
3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Private session, yes.
5 [Private session]
11 Pages 99-139 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
8 Madame, how much time do you require for your additional brief?
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] At least ten days, because I have
10 other commitments with my law firm in Paris.
11 Let me just explain things to you. This is even more important
12 for me than the first one.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We are giving you more than that. We are
14 giving you up to the end of the recess, that is, up to the 12th of
15 January. That should be ample time for you to present us with your
16 additional Defence brief, final brief.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Many thanks.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: And I also want to take this opportunity to wish
19 you the very best for the festive season, Madame. Thank you.
20 One moment.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Madame, before we rise, would you like to consult
23 with your client and ask him whether he wishes to make any further
24 statements? Actually, he has heard us.
25 Mr. -- no, he doesn't wish to make further statements. I saw
1 him. All right, thank you.
2 So we stand adjourned. We'll wait for your final brief, and then
3 we will come down with our judgement in due course.
4 Thank you.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
6 7.00 p.m., sine die.