1 Monday, 20 July 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. We are, I believe, ready for the
6 next witness, Ms. Kravetz.
7 MS. KRAVETZ: Good morning, Your Honours. Yes, the next witness
8 is Dr. Eric Baccard.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
10 MS. KRAVETZ: While the witness is being brought in, I would like
11 to introduce a new face on the Prosecution team, one of our new
12 Legal Officers, Ms. Paige Petersen, who is sitting right behind me, and
13 she will be appearing before Your Honours later on in the case.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. We look forward to her continued
16 While we are waiting, I will mention that in June Defence counsel
17 moved to have admitted a document through Witness Richard Ciaglinski.
18 The Prosecution -- that was accepted, but the Prosecution subsequently
19 objected that the document should not have been admitted as Exhibit D165.
20 The Chamber indicated it would give its decision at a later stage. We
21 have considered it. In our view, the document is sufficiently relevant
22 to be admissible. It is true the witness was not able personally to
23 speak in verification of the document, and that is a matter which the
24 Chamber will take into account in assessing its weight; but the document
25 having been admitted without objection, it will remain admitted.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, sir.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Would you please read aloud the affirmation which
5 is shown to you now.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I shall say
7 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 WITNESS: ERIC BACCARD
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please sit down.
11 I believe Ms. Kravetz has some questions for you, sir.
12 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Examination by Ms. Kravetz:
14 Q. Good morning, sir. Could you start out by stating your full name
15 for the record.
16 A. My name is Eric Baccard.
17 Q. And what is your profession, Mr. Baccard?
18 A. I am a forensic pathologist, and I am currently in charge of the
19 scientific unit at the International Criminal Court.
20 Q. And as a forensic pathologist, what is your area of
22 A. As regards forensic medicine, I am specialised in forensic
23 medicine of the living and also specialised in the examination of dead
24 bodies. In particular, as it is indicated in my specialisation in
25 France, I examine bodily injury of the living and also I carry out
1 autopsies of cadavers. I am also a specialist in ballistic wounds.
2 Q. Before working for the International Criminal Court, were you
3 employed by this Tribunal, by the Office of the Prosecutor of this
5 A. Yes, indeed, Madam Prosecutor. I worked on a contract basis for
6 a determined period of time as a forensic doctor in 1989 [as interpreted]
7 in Bosnia and then in Croatia, and then as a forensic pathologist in
8 chief for the ICTY in Kosovo in the year 2000, and from 2001 until 2003
9 as a forensic consultation for the OTP of the ICTY.
10 Q. You mentioned that you work as a forensic pathologist in chief
11 for the ICTY in Kosovo. Could you give us a bit more information about
12 the nature of your work there.
13 A. Yes, indeed. My job consisted in -- at the beginning of the
14 year 2000 of setting up the infrastructure and procedures. I
15 participated in the choice of equipment for the morgue which was set up
16 in Orahovac, which is a few kilometres from a particular place, and
17 indeed this infrastructure was composed of a number of specialists in
18 various disciplines who worked within this morgue. To give you an
19 example, at one point in time I had up to ten forensic specialists, but
20 there were also anthropologists, odontologists, X-ray specialists,
21 photographers, and crime scene officers all working under my
23 Q. And as part of the task of supervising this team that you've
24 referred to, did you also review reports prepared by different
25 international forensic teams during your stay in Kosovo?
1 A. No, not during my stay in Kosovo, but after that, in other words
2 starting at the end of the year 2000 and then in 2001 until 2002, until
3 the Slobodan Milosevic trial began. Indeed, the OTP asked me to
4 re-examine, in terms of the methodology, the materials used and the
5 methods and the results, to re-examine as I was saying the expertise
6 carried out by numerous international teams who had intervened during the
7 year 1989 in Kosovo --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Correction: 1999.
9 MS. KRAVETZ:
10 Q. And as a result of this review that you conducted of the
11 expertise carried out by numerous international teams in 1999 in Kosovo,
12 did you prepare a report for the Office of the Prosecution of this
14 A. Yes, indeed, Madam Prosecutor, I did.
15 Q. We will get to your report in a minute. I just wanted to ask
16 you, have you testified before this Tribunal as an expert witness in
17 other cases?
18 A. Yes, indeed. I testified -- I don't remember what year it was,
19 but it was in the trial against Slobodan Milosevic. I testified for two
20 days and then again three days in 2002 I believe. I also testified in
21 the case Milan Milutinovic, and again in the trial against
22 Ante Gotovina et al.
23 Q. And have you qualified as an expert witness and been allowed to
24 express opinions and testimony before any domestic courts before coming
25 to testify in these proceedings today?
1 A. Yes, indeed, Madam Prosecutor. In my specialty of forensic
2 medicine I have 28 years of experience and I am registered on -- at the
3 Court of Appeals in Grenoble and also in the Court of Appeals, the
4 Cour de cassation, as from the end of the year 1999.
5 Q. And just approximately in how many cases have you testified
6 before these courts you have mentioned as an expert witness, if you
8 A. It's extremely different for me to say that because I don't count
9 precisely the number of times I've testified, but probably several
10 hundreds of times. Each year I carry out 200 to 300 expertise. I don't
11 always testify before a court, but I have testified very frequently.
12 Q. Thank you for that. Your updated CV is 65 ter 02784.
13 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, I'm not going to go into more detail
14 about the CV, as the document speaks for itself, but I will seek to
15 tender it at this stage.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, do you wish to tender it?
17 MS. KRAVETZ: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01138.
20 MS. KRAVETZ:
21 Q. Now, sir, we were speaking earlier about the report that you
22 prepared for the Office of the Prosecution of this Tribunal in relation
23 to exhumations conducted in Kosovo in 1999 --
24 MS. KRAVETZ: And this is, Your Honours, for reference
25 65 ter 01809.
1 Q. I would just like you to very briefly explain to the Court the
2 methodology you used in preparing this report.
3 A. I don't have a copy of the report with me here to refer to. It
4 stayed in the witness waiting-room, but I can describe it briefly. The
5 OTP provided a number of documents to me. There were autopsy reports
6 carried out by various teams of various different national origins.
7 There were photo albums, sometimes accompanied by police reports. And
8 these -- well, I examined these various documents. I examined the
9 qualifications of the experts who had carried out the expertise, whether
10 it was autopsies or anthropological examinations or dental examinations
11 depending on which report or which team.
12 I examined whether or not the methods used were in keeping with
13 internationally accepted standards. And when, for reasons of urgency did
14 not make it possible to implement international standards, it was not
15 possible, well I examined the conclusions to see whether they were
16 scientifically valid, in other words, whether in their conclusions they
17 had not sacrificed the essential elements that are required in such an
18 expert report.
19 I also compared the results of the forensic specialists with the
20 photographs, to see whether there are any discrepancies; and when and if
21 there were discrepancies, I took note of them. And in my report, in the
22 annexes of my report, there is a list of elements where I expressed my
23 opinion, where my opinion differed from that of my expert colleagues.
24 Again, they, however, had had the advantage of examining real cases, that
25 is, examining the bodies, whereas I was only examining documents which
1 give you an indirect presentation of reality in the form of photographs
2 and sometimes videos.
3 Q. So if I understand you correctly, the conclusions contained in
4 your report are based on your review and analysis of the forensic reports
5 that you were provided?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. And just to clarify, did you participate in any of the
8 exhumations at the sites that were referred to in these reports that you
9 analysed for the purpose of preparing your own expert report?
10 A. No, no, Madam Prosecutor, I did not.
11 Q. How long did it take you to prepare this expert report?
12 A. Several months. I do not have the exact duration in mind, but it
13 is included in the report -- but I don't have a copy of the report before
14 me just now and you can find that information in the report.
15 Q. I understand from your report that you examined exhumation
16 reports that referred to 11 sites and there was one site that had four
17 sub-sites; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. I would like to very briefly look at your conclusions regarding
20 some of these sites. We're not going to go through all of them but just
21 through some so that you can explain the methodology you used when
22 examining the underlying material for each one of these sites.
23 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could have up on the screen 65 ter 01809, and
24 I would like to first look at page 37 in the English.
25 Q. This is a section of your report. Do you have that before you,
2 A. Yes, indeed.
3 Q. And I'm looking at section 2.5 which refers to Djakovica,
4 Milosh Giliq Street specifically. Now, we see that 2.5.1 lists the
5 supporting documents. These, I understand from your report, would have
6 been the forensic material that you examined in order to reach your
7 conclusions regarding this site. Would that be a correct understanding
8 of what is listed there?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 MS. KRAVETZ: Now if we could go to page 39 under the heading
11 "Conclusion," and in the B/C/S this is page 42.
12 Q. Now, in this paragraph and under this heading "Conclusion," and
13 I'm looking at the second paragraph you say:
14 "For the same reason, it was impossible to determine the cause of
15 death or any injury."
16 I would just like to ask you to comment on that conclusion that
17 you reached with -- regarding this site. And if you could explain why
18 you considered it impossible to establish the cause of death for this
20 A. Yes. It's easy. This is directly related to the state of
21 conservation of the body remains. They were not in the form of complete
22 bodies but only fragments, and in addition these body parts were severely
23 burned and therefore it was extremely difficult to draw any forensic
24 conclusions from these body parts.
25 Q. Now, we see the first paragraph refers to a minimum number of 20
1 individuals found at this site. And it says:
2 "... one of them was male, and the rest female or
3 undetermined ..."
4 And could you explain to the Court, and having regard to your
5 answer just now about the body parts being severely burned, how the team
6 that conducted this examination was able to determine the number of
7 individuals concerned at this site or found at this site.
8 A. During the forensic anthropological examination, we took stock of
9 the various bones and prepared an inventory, and on the basis of that
10 inventory we were able to conclude the minimum number of individuals.
11 Sometimes some bones in the human body are found twice, in particular
12 limbs, that is, arms or legs, and in other cases like the ribs or the
13 vertebras there are many more in each body. And therefore, it's
14 sometimes difficult to describe precisely whether you have a fragment of
15 a radius or a cubitus, which are the bones in the lower arm and whether
16 it's left or right. And therefore anthropologists examine the bones that
17 are found in only one copy in each body, and therefore in this sample of
18 human remains all of the bones corresponded to that criterion.
19 In addition, some bones present significant characteristics, that
20 is, as regards the gender or the age of the individual. If you find
21 those bones in the inventory, you can then determine clearly the age or
22 the gender of the bones or bone fragments; in other cases, the bones
23 could belong to male or female bodies because there's no particular
25 For the information of the Court, the bones that are particularly
1 significant as regards the sex are the base of the cranium or the pelvic
2 bones, and those bones are particularly useful -- or rather, the bones
3 that are useful to determine the age is the pelvic bone, the pubic bone,
4 or the fourth rib, for example, or the skull bones. These -- if we find
5 such bone fragments, we can draw conclusions as regards the gender of the
6 body. If we don't find those bones, it's much more difficult and that
7 explains the relatively low percentage of discriminating factors in this
8 particular sample.
9 Q. Thank you for that explanation. We also see that in the
10 conclusion you have noted:
11 "... no blindfold or ligature was noted."
12 Why is it important to -- or why did you find it important to
13 note that in this case, and I note that you have also noted that for
14 other sites. So why is that information contained in the conclusions?
15 A. On the basis of prior expertise before 1999 when I was in Bosnia
16 or Croatia or in Kosovo in the year 2000, in some places, in some sites
17 and for certain victims, we did find such elements, that is, ligatures,
18 people's hands or ankles were tied or they had blindfolds on their eyes.
19 So that is part of the kind of screening that we carry out when carrying
20 out such a forensic examination in similar circumstances.
21 Q. We'd like to now move to a different site, and this is a site of
23 MS. KRAVETZ: And this is on page 44 of the English version and
24 page 48, I believe, in the B/C/S version.
25 Q. Now I understand, sir, and you have briefly referred to this in
1 an earlier answer that Izbica was an unusual site because you didn't have
2 forensic reports or forensic material regarding the bodies of the victims
3 there. Could you explain a bit what was -- what type of material did you
4 review to reach your conclusions regarding the Izbica site?
5 A. I did have forensic reports, but those reports had been developed
6 on the basis of a limited number of body parts, body remains, and
7 therefore these were written reports prepared by
8 Professor Dominique Lecomte and Dr. Walter Vorhauer. I also had the
9 crime scene examination report which was prepared by Officer -- the
10 "Commissaire Divisionnaire" Officer Dominique Gaillardon and his team.
11 And there was also a video and some photographs extracted from that video
12 which was produced by a witness shortly after the events. Therefore, I
13 used those three sources of information in order to carry out this
14 examination of the whole set of documents.
15 Q. Now, you've referred to a video and 1.078 photographs extracted
16 from the video. Could you explain how it is that you used those
17 materials to reach your conclusions regarding this site?
18 A. Of course, by way of introduction, we need to recall the fact
19 that this video was not shot by a forensic specialist. That was the main
20 obstacle. Indeed we could only see one side of the victims' bodies. In
21 addition, the clothing was not removed so that the bodies were clothed.
22 Sometimes there were blankets over them, and therefore you could only see
23 the face or the hands or body parts that remain visible. The quality of
24 the video itself was insufficient and did not make it possible to enlarge
25 the picture in such a way that it be usable, that is, we couldn't enlarge
1 it more than two or three times. That represents a limit, and I
2 mentioned this clearly in my report. In other words, only some of the
3 images were actually used, that is, where the wounds were clearly
5 The first task was to determine whether or not the video was made
6 up, whether it was not the way the bodies were actually positioned. That
7 conclusion was not probable because there were a number of forensic
8 details that we would never have had if the scene had been made up, if it
9 had been a picture of false victims. So once we determined that aspect,
10 the victims were examined one after the other on the basis of certain
11 photographs. In some photographs the same victims appeared -- there were
12 several victims, and therefore we had to examine them individually so
13 that we not count the same person several times because that same person
14 might have been found on several photographs.
15 Q. And just to clarify your answer, when you were saying whether --
16 you were trying to determine whether or not the video was made up, you
17 said that the conclusion was not probable because there were a number of
18 forensic details that you would have never had if the scene had been made
19 up. Could you explain what it is that -- what you meant by this, which
20 were those forensic details that you were referring to?
21 A. Well, mainly the way in which the body is set after death, for
22 instance, the bodily lividity, the colouring of -- the way in which the
23 blood sets under the pressure of gravity in some position -- some parts
24 of the body, the accumulation of blood in some areas means that the body
25 becomes red or dark red or purple in some places. The way in which the
1 bodily fluids seep out or so either blood or through the nostrils. This
2 is also something you can relate to the position of the body. The
3 pressure points also, the way in which the body was positioned meant
4 that -- means that there were pressure exerted in some specific points.
5 And these are elements that we always review and list during such
6 pathological review.
7 Q. And do you know why it is that the forensic team that went to
8 this site was unable to examine the bodies, the victims?
9 A. According to the information that had been collected, these
10 bodies had in fact been exhumed before these teams came on site.
11 Q. Now, was this method that you used of making your assessments on
12 the basis of a videos or/and photographs an accepted method in your
14 A. It often occurs that such photographical material is submitted to
15 pathologists for review, when indeed the body is not available or when
16 the body is available but only with a slight delay after the events
17 occurred. In such instances, the judge may request that the expert give
18 an assessment on the basis of photographs or video footage. I've had to
19 do that on a number of occasions indeed in front of -- before French
20 courts. This is something that I also had to do when I served as an
21 expert with the first UN investigation team in Cote d'Ivoire. So it is
22 an accepted practice.
23 We know, of course, for the reasons that I stated previously,
24 that there are limitations to operating in such a way. We know that the
25 best way to conduct an expertise is, of course, by examining the body
1 itself. It is not an expertise as such, as I expressed in this report
2 and in previous reports. What in fact we're doing in such circumstances
3 is expressing an opinion on the basis of documents.
4 Q. Appendix 5 of your report contains your conclusions regarding the
5 specific site and your assessment on the photographs. And I would like
6 to show you a page.
7 MS. KRAVETZ: Page 106 if we could have that up on the screen.
8 This is page 117 in the B/C/S.
9 Q. Just so you can explain to the Court how it is that you examined
10 these photographs.
11 MS. KRAVETZ: And if only the English could be displayed for the
13 Q. I want to ask you specifically about the language used in your
14 conclusions. We see the first sentence says:
15 "... on the front above the left eye brow, it exists an injury
16 consistent with a gun-shot wound ..."
17 If you could just comment on that and explain with regard to the
18 first photograph we see here how it is you made your assessment as to the
19 cause of death.
20 A. Well, let me first say that the stills that you see on your
21 screen are not the stills that I myself had to review. The quality of
22 these pictures is much -- was much better than what you see on the
23 screen. The ones I had, even though they were -- there were mistakes and
24 lax in quality was much better. There was the possibility of zooming in
25 and seeing specific details.
1 On each of these pictures, I reviewed the parts of the body that
2 were visible. I examined the wounds, injuries, the blood, whether we
3 were talking about bruises or fluids running out. I looked also at the
4 liver mortis that I mentioned earlier. I looked at the pressure points.
5 I looked at the possible plants that might have -- vegetables that might
6 have grown or been present, and I did not review really anything covered
7 by the clothes, but I did look at the clothes. And there were two things
8 that were interesting on the clothes, i.e., the defects, the ripping of
9 some of the clothes. Some of the tears and rips were specific of the way
10 in which projectiles might have impacted the clothes, and also
11 blood-stains on the clothes.
12 So this does not mean that I could come to absolute conclusions,
13 and that is precisely why in my report I reviewed a number of elements
14 that I felt I could supply the OTP with.
15 On the specific pictures we're talking about here, I was looking
16 at the environment of these bodies, the position they were in, the way
17 the head rested, for instance, the blood-stains, and the way this might
18 have matched blood clots that were visible on some pictures.
19 Q. So you said that based on your analysis you could not come to
20 absolute conclusions. Does that explain why you have used that sort of
21 phrasing in this page we're looking at of "consistent with gun-shot
22 wounds" when you're reaching your conclusions regarding these two bodies?
23 A. That's exactly what I'm saying, Madam, because you must
24 understand that an autopsy, a forensic examination, includes a number of
25 stages. First of all, X-rays, and then the overall examination of the
1 body even before you start proceeding with more detailed examination of
2 the body. Now, my inspection -- that inspection was something I could
3 only do through still photography. There was only one specific angle
4 that I could have for these bodies, and I didn't have the degree of
5 detail and access that forensic pathologists might have had in a morgue.
6 So there was some distance. And I couldn't really come closer to the
7 body, touch the body if I had to. I couldn't dissect the bodies. These
8 were the limitations I was subjected to.
9 Q. Thank you for that. I would like to now move to a different site
10 and this is a site of Suva Reka.
11 MS. KRAVETZ: And if he we could go to page 78 in the English and
12 this is page 91 in the B/C/S.
13 Q. Now, we'll again ask you about -- to comment on your conclusions
14 regarding this site. Now, we see in your conclusions that you refer to
15 two individuals who've been identified, and the last bullet point says:
16 "Causes of death of the four individuals of" a certain exhibit
17 which is mentioned there "cannot be determined."
18 Can you explain why it is that for these four individuals found
19 at this site the cause of death was not established?
20 A. I think I need to look at the report for a few moments, if you'll
21 allow me. I can only read one page of the report. Could I maybe get the
22 beginnings of that section.
23 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could go to page 75, 76 I believe is the
25 Q. You refer to the identification of three individuals and -- but
1 later in your conclusions you state that the cause of death for four of
2 them could not be established.
3 A. Yes, indeed. There were two anthropologists' reports. One
4 written up by Dr. Black and one by Ms. Roberts. And there were
5 discrepancies in the way some of the bodies were identified, and more
6 specifically Exhibit SCG
7 the same references in Dr. Black's and Ms. Roberts' reports. They were
8 listing different sets of bones under the same reference. Moreover,
9 there were two different conclusions they were coming to as to the gender
10 of the individual. Secondly, there was also a discrepancy with respect
11 to the presence or not of a left foot and to the height of the
12 individual. I therefore disregarded that specific case, given the lack
13 of certainty relating to that reference.
14 Q. Thank you. And if we could just look at one final site, this is
15 Krusha e Vogel.
16 MS. KRAVETZ: And I would like to go page 38 of the English, and
17 it's page 36 of the B/C/S. I'm sorry, it's the next page in the English,
18 33. I don't believe we have the correct page in the English. I'm
19 looking for page 33, and I see we have displayed page 39.
20 Q. And again, sir, I would just ask you to comment on the
21 conclusions regarding this site, this is Mala Krusa or Krusha e Vogel
22 which refers to four victims. And I'm specifically interested in the
23 last sentence where it says that:
24 "The status of these remains did not permit to determine the
25 cause of death."
1 If you could comment on that.
2 A. Could I, Madam, get a view of the previous page.
3 Q. Yes.
4 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could go to the previous page, please,
5 page 32 in the English.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay. The state in which the bodies were was in
7 fact the reason why I couldn't give an indication of the cause of death.
8 The bodies were in a skeletal state and had also been severely burnt, at
9 least partially burnt. There was, therefore, no way in which we could
10 establish what sort of wounds had they -- these bodies had suffered and
11 what the cause of death was.
12 Q. Thank you for that.
13 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, I seek to tender the report at this
14 stage this is 65 ter 01809, and I ask that that be received.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. It will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01139.
17 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, I do not intend to use court time
18 going through all the underlying material for each one of the sites
19 mentioned in the report. I have prepared a list of these documents which
20 I've provided this morning to the Registrar and also to Defence. And I
21 would just like to ask that at a later stage exhibit numbers be assigned
22 to the underlying reports which are -- have been examined by the expert
23 witness in preparation of his report.
24 JUDGE PARKER: And are you preparing a list of these documents to
25 assist the Registrar?
1 MS. KRAVETZ: I've already handed it this morning, it's been
2 prepared, and Defence has a copy as well.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
4 Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I studied the evidence admitted
6 in Milosevic and Milutinovic, and I noticed that some of the exhibits
7 were filed inaccurately. In Milutinovic, for instance, we had a pretty
8 clear situation, as we can see from the trial judgement, that the OTP
9 filed evidence related to Velika Krusa, whereas the questions asked of
10 Dr. Baccard were about Mala Krusa. It was established later only. And
11 in view of the fact that something similar can happen with other
12 evidence, I would prefer to go through exhibits one by one and establish
13 things clearly.
14 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber will not spend time at the moment on
15 this. Could I suggest that during the break Prosecution and Defence
16 counsel look at the documents which it is proposed by the Prosecution to
17 tender, and Mr. Djordjevic can indicate whether he has a specific concern
18 about the correctness of a particular document or not judging from his
19 consideration of the earlier cases. In the absence of a particular
20 concern, we will receive the documents. But I would like counsel to
21 first discuss them together.
22 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour. We will take care of that
23 at the next break.
24 Q. Sir, you mentioned that you have testified before as an expert
25 witness in several cases. Did you testify in connection to the report
1 that we've been discussing in the case of Milutinovic et al.?
2 A. I'm very sorry, Madam, but I cannot remember which specific
3 locations were mentioned in the Milutinovic case. I remember this
4 report --
5 Q. If I may stop you there. I'm sorry, maybe -- my question is very
6 simple. I'm just asking if you have previously testified with regard to
7 this report in the case of Milutinovic et al., just a simple question.
8 I'm not asking about the specific sites.
9 A. Well, in that case the answer is yes. I thought, Madam, that you
10 were asking me whether this or that location, this or that site, had been
11 mentioned in the Milutinovic case. Now that I understand, let me say
12 that, yes, questions were put to me vis-a-vis this report in both
13 Milosevic and Milutinovic cases.
14 Q. Before coming to court today, did you have the opportunity to
15 review the transcript of your testimony in the Milutinovic et al. case?
16 A. Yes, I did -- at least to a certain extent. I seem to remember
17 that the document I had only covered part of my witness -- expert report.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, interpreter's mistake.
19 MS. KRAVETZ:
20 Q. And having reviewed your transcript in that case, if today you
21 were asked the same questions that you were asked in your testimony in
22 that case, would you provide the same answers?
23 A. Very probably, yes, at least concerning the pathological events.
24 There's only one answer I could give for these specific pathological
1 Q. Thank you for that.
2 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, I seek to tender the Milutinovic
3 transcript into evidence this is 65 ter 05340, and I ask that that be
5 JUDGE PARKER: The transcript of evidence will be received.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be P01140.
7 MS. KRAVETZ: I would like to now move to a different exhibit.
8 This is 65 ter 05009. And just for -- to ease reference of the witness
9 to the document, I would ask that I be allowed to provide the witness
10 with a hard copy.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
12 MS. KRAVETZ: And if we could go to the next page of this
13 document in e-court.
14 Q. Sir, are you familiar with this document? Have you had the
15 chance to review it before coming to court today?
16 A. Yes, Madam. This is a document that you provided to me as well
17 as Mr. Sultan when we met.
18 Q. And very briefly could you tell us what this document is about?
19 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could go to page 4 on the English.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document is a portion of
21 several documents that you gave to me in order for me to read through
22 them dealing with autopsies that were carried out by my colleague,
23 Professor Peter Vanezis regarding 19 victims, I believe, 19 autopsies
24 which were carried out in the morgue in Pristina.
25 Therefore, these documents are an introduction, so to speak, to
1 the autopsy report that was to follow, I believe. You also gave me a
2 binder with photographs dealing with the exhumation of these victims.
3 The photographs were of poor quality. And another binder containing
4 photographs that were much better in quality which were taken during the
5 autopsy of part of those victims. I don't remember whether there were
6 eight or nine amongst the documents you gave me.
7 Q. Sir, and based on your review of this documentation regarding the
8 exhumation carried out regarding these 19 bodies and your analysis of the
9 photographs, could you provide your comments as to whether in your view
10 standards that are internationally accepted when carrying out exhumations
11 were followed in this specific case.
12 MS. KRAVETZ: And I'm sorry, in the English we have the wrong
13 copy -- page. I believe I want the next page. It's page 5. My
14 apologies for that.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed. As regards the autopsies of the
16 victims, my answer is: Yes, indeed. The opposite would have been
17 astonishing given the qualifications, the university and professional
18 qualifications of Professor Peter Vanezis. I therefore have absolutely
19 no doubt that international standards were implemented fully.
20 MS. KRAVETZ:
21 Q. You have referred now twice to Professor Peter Vanezis. Could
22 you tell us just briefly who he is.
23 A. Professor Vanezis is a forensic science and medicine professor.
24 I had the pleasure and honour of meeting him in Kosovo in the year 2000.
25 He's renowned in university circles, and if I remember correctly - I must
1 say I'm not totally certain - but I believe he works in Glasgow if I'm
2 not mistaken. But I'm not a hundred per cent certain of that particular
3 fact. But he is in England for sure, and I believe now he has retired.
4 Q. And based on your review of the documentation that was provided
5 to you regarding the site, was Professor Vanezis the person in charge of
6 these exhumations and autopsies?
7 A. As regards the autopsies, he signed the first page of each of
8 those reports, yes.
9 MS. KRAVETZ: I would like to have one of these reports up on the
10 screen. This is 65 ter 05005, if we could have that up on the screen.
11 Q. Dr. Baccard, could you explain to us what is this document that
12 we see up on the screen just very briefly.
13 A. This is the first page of the autopsy report, which includes the
14 summary of findings, the cause of death, and it is signed by the expert
15 forensic pathologist, in particular it is Professor Peter Vanezis. This
16 is the first page of a report which in fact contains several chapters,
17 several portions. This is a printed, typewritten report, which is
18 drafted later on. Initially a handwritten report is prepared by the
19 forensic specialist who carried out the autopsy, and it is the
20 handwritten report which is used to draft the printed, typewritten, final
22 In addition to this report there are a number of annexes which
23 include the anthropology and odontology report, but also annexes with
24 X-ray reports. You may also have an inventory of clothing and other
25 evidence that is filed, that is registered at the point in time when the
1 autopsy is carried out. There might also be the exhumation report which
2 is at the very last page of the report.
3 Q. And before reviewing the autopsy reports for this specific site,
4 have you had the opportunity to see reports in a similar format, using
5 this similar format before?
6 A. Yes, absolutely. This is a format which was developed as the
7 various exhumation and autopsy campaigns were organised by the ICTY, in
8 light of the series of autopsies that were carried out in Bosnia and in
9 Croatia in particular. The format was improved each year by the various
10 forensic teams who participated in the exhumation campaigns and
12 This is a report format which is particularly clear, that's an
13 advantage, and it can be used over and over again. It is presented in
14 standard form, and it was done this way because the forensic specialists
15 who come from various different countries, various different university
16 backgrounds agreed that it was acceptable. They all agreed to work on
17 the basis of this standard format.
18 Q. You had told us earlier in your testimony that you worked in
19 Kosovo in 2000 -- in the year 2000. Was this also the format that you
20 used during your work there, during the exhumations that you conducted
22 A. Yes, indeed.
23 MS. KRAVETZ: Now, if we could go to the next page of this
25 Q. We see, sir, in the top part under the section "A. Description of
1 Remains" that there is a reference to a piece of paper with the name of
2 the victim, Shehide Bogujevci, 66 years old. Based on your review of the
3 materials, could you -- do you know how it is that this individual and
4 others who are concerned in this site were identified?
5 A. On the basis of the information that I read in the documents that
6 you provided to me, these individuals were buried by their family members
7 and the tombs were marked, and therefore the identification had already
8 been carried out. Therefore, these pieces of paper which contained the
9 identification could be seen on the general photographs as well as on the
10 body-bag. There were two cases that you'll perhaps mention in a moment.
11 There was -- there were two identification tags that had been mixed up
12 for two victims.
13 Q. We will get to that in a moment. I would like to now scroll down
14 on this same page and zoom in on the section "E. Injuries." We see
15 there's a heading "Findings on fluoroscopy" and a reference to different
16 metallic fragments. If you could explain that information contained in
17 the report.
18 A. Yes. The fluoroscopic and/or X-ray examination, and sometimes
19 you just carry out an X-ray -- or rather, you carry out a fluoroscopy or
20 an X-ray which enables you to examine an image on a screen. You know,
21 you have an X-ray that is run over the body. This test which is used
22 under international standards has several purposes. The first purpose,
23 of course, as is stated here is to identify the precise location in the
24 anatomy where a particular element is found which could explain the cause
25 of death, for example, a bullet, a projectile fragment, a piece of
1 shrapnel. Even before you open the body-bag you can determine that, for
2 example, in the right shoulder there is a projectile. The forensic
3 specialist can therefore concentrate on that particular part of the
4 anatomy. That's the first goal. The second goal is to point out any
5 element that may make it possible to identify the body. For example, if
6 you have ante mortem information whereby the victim had had a fracture of
7 the tibia previously and if they had undergone osteosynthesis, well, the
8 very fact of finding the traces of osteosynthesis on the X-ray will be a
9 very positive element enabling us to confirm the diagnosis or any other
10 prosthesis, for example, of the hip. These are pieces of information
11 that contribute to identification.
12 The last purpose relates to the security of those who intervene
13 in the autopsy. It can occur, and this has occurred, that explosive
14 devices, grenades, for example, that were buried with the body or sharp
15 objects which could be dangerous for the person carrying out the autopsy.
16 Those are the three reasons why, before carrying out an autopsy, we carry
17 out fluoroscopic or X-ray examination.
18 Then you have the description of the injuries that were noted
19 after the external examination and during the autopsy, that is, the
20 dissection of the body. And to make things perfectly clear, the human
21 body is subdivided, the head and neck, the trunk, the upper limbs, and
22 the two lower limbs.
23 And lastly we examine the internal tissue, but very often in this
24 kind of autopsy, given the demonstration relating to putrification, it
25 provides much less information because the tissue has already decomposed
1 and putrefied.
2 Q. And you refer to the section on injuries. We see that there are
3 three boxes there: Probably - and to the right - probably ante mortem;
4 probably post mortem; and cannot tell. That's at the bottom of the page.
5 Can you explain that? We see here it's left blank on this specific ...
6 A. Yes, indeed. Some injuries might have occurred after death,
7 either because the dead body was damaged, injured, after death, there
8 could be an explosion nearby or injuries related to animal scavengers, or
9 any other origin -- injury that might have occurred during exhumation.
10 And these injuries can be identified by certain characteristics, and they
11 have to be distinguished from injuries that occurred at the time of death
12 or before the time of death. I must say that I really don't like the
13 term "probably ante mortem." I prefer the term peri mortem because if
14 you use ante mortem, that also includes any other previous injuries, any
15 other medical injuries. An old fracture, for example, would be included
16 in the term "ante mortem." I prefer the term per i mortem to refer to
17 injuries that occurred at the point in time of death or just before.
18 Q. If we could look at page 3 of this exhibit we see that there are
19 a number of injuries that are noted there, but again the boxes that refer
20 to whether the injury was ante mortem or post mortem have not been filled
21 out. Is this normal to not indicate whether the injury is ante mortem or
22 pots mortem, or would this be something that you would expect to find in
23 these type of autopsy reports?
24 A. Well, indeed. I don't know exactly why Professor Vanezis did not
25 check these boxes. I myself did insist that these boxes be checked off
1 when I myself in the year 2000 carried out autopsies with my team. It is
2 difficult to distinguish between ante mortem and post mortem injuries in
3 some cases, that's a fact, but I believe that if there is a difficulty in
4 that case then the forensic specialist should check the last box, that
5 is, "cannot tell."
6 Q. We saw when we were looking at the first page of this exhibit
7 that the cause of death, according to Professor Vanezis, was multiple
8 gun-shot wounds. What does that tell you with regard to the type of
9 injuries suffered by this person? And I'm referring specifically to the
10 fact -- I'm asking this specifically because these boxes have not been
12 A. Yes, indeed. I believe it was something that he simply omitted
13 to do. The very fact of declaring that the cause of death was multiple
14 gun-shot wounds signifies quite clearly that those wounds were of the
15 category either ante mortem or peri mortem, as I prefer.
16 Q. And if we can look at one more page of this report, this is
17 page 8, and this is part of the report which you had explained earlier
18 was the handwritten report that is prepared during the examination. And
19 I would -- just would like to draw your attention to the sentence which
20 refers to:
21 "Modified blood present in right chest cavity."
22 If you can comment on that observation which is contained in this
24 A. I also noted that sentence here, which emphasizes the ante mortem
25 or peri mortem occurrence of these injuries, of the fracture. In a
1 skeleton it's difficult to examine the semiology and determine whether
2 it's ante mortem or post mortem. But when you still have soft tissue,
3 body organs, and viscera, you can, in that case, if you had the
4 laceration of left lung, you had rib fractures, and also the area covered
5 by these ribs, that is, the lung was injured; and if you have blood
6 inside the thorax, it means that there was an injury that bled and that
7 the blood collected in the chest. And this proves that the injury was
8 either ante or peri mortem. And if -- upon examination of the autopsy
9 photographs that you gave to me, numerous pictures showed indeed the
10 presence of modified blood.
11 Q. We have spoken very briefly about the cause of death. Could you
12 tell us in -- just in very general terms the criteria that are usually
13 used to establish the cause of death during such autopsies as the one
14 we're looking at right now.
15 A. There are numerous criteria. You take inventory of the wounds
16 and some of these wounds did not cause death, for example, a fractured
17 finger is not going to be a cause of death. We examine the consequences
18 for the body of certain wounds. A multi-fragmented fracture of the
19 skull, a comminuted fracture, will lead to brain damage which cannot be
20 treated, and in that case the cause of death is obvious.
21 If you're talking about chest wounds, if you have a fractured rib
22 on one side and on the other related to a projectile, we know that in
23 anatomical terms the fracture surrounds very major organs, and therefore
24 any such fracture can lead to death. The heart is situated very close to
25 that area and major veins and aorta as well, and that can be a cause of
2 Third example, a vertebrae in the neck or in the back, if you --
3 if, for example, a projectile had shattered a vertebrae, this will damage
4 the bone marrow, which is essential, of course, for a number of the
5 bodily functions and this can be a cause of death.
6 In some cases, it may be necessary to carry out a more detailed
7 examination. For example, if you have a projectile wound of the femur.
8 If the trajectory goes in towards the front, it may hit the femoral
9 artery. This will not cause immediate death, but if there is no care
10 provided then the person can die haemorrhaging or of shock following the
11 injury of this artery which is a very large artery and which is very
12 close to the femur.
13 So, you see, all of these aspects are examined when we analyse
14 the cause of death. We go through all of the wounds that have been
15 discovered during the autopsy, and this is compared with the major
16 functions of the human body and that enables us to determine the most
17 probable cause of death, the most obvious cause of death. When you have
18 multiple projectiles, you will have several potential causes of death, if
19 you have a chest wound, for example, close to the heart and a wound in
20 the skull.
21 Death is something that doesn't necessarily occur immediately.
22 It may take several minutes, and therefore we define priorities, we
23 define a hierarchy of the potential causes of death. And therefore, this
24 analysis includes all of this information which leads to determining the
25 cause of death.
1 Q. And during the conduct of a forensic examination, who determines
2 the cause of death?
3 A. The forensic pathologist who is in charge of the autopsy.
4 Q. And --
5 A. And who is the expert who, in fact, coordinates the team of
7 Q. And what role, if any, does a forensic anthropologist [Realtime
8 transcript read in error "pathologist"] have when establishing the cause
9 of death?
10 A. The forensic anthropologist, over and beyond the work that he
11 provides during exhumation, he works with the archaeologist during
12 exhumation; but in the morgue the anthropologist, forensic pathologist,
13 works in cooperation with the forensic pathologist. The anthropologist
14 participates in the inventory of the body parts. The -- he will be
15 concentrating on skeletal remains, that is, where the soft tissue has
16 disappeared. He will take stock of the bones, in particular when you
17 have co-mingled bones, we already spoke of the concept of minimum number
18 of individuals. It is the anthropologist who will determine how many
19 individuals were to be found in a particular grave.
20 Secondly, and this is an important function, they contribute to
21 determining the gender if the soft tissue of the genital parts has
22 disappeared, it is anthropological criteria that are used to determine
23 the gender of the body. I mentioned earlier the discriminating value in
24 particular of the pubic bones or the skull that contribute to determining
25 the gender of the body, and that is the anthropologist's function.
1 They also determine the age of the victim. They work with the
2 odontologist because the determination of age is also based on the
3 analysis of the dental structure. The anthropologist will work hand in
4 hand with the pathologist to give an opinion on the cause of death. But
5 the main forensic expert is the forensic pathologist who takes account of
6 the opinions of the other specialists that work with him and takes on the
7 responsibility for drafting the report, for signing the report. It is
8 the forensic pathologist who signs the death certificate and therefore in
9 the eyes of the law, as is the case at national level, it is the forensic
10 pathologist who takes responsibility for determining the cause of death.
11 Q. Thank you for that.
12 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, I seek to tender Exhibit 05005 into
13 evidence. And I see it's time for the break.
14 Just one correction before that -- before we have the break with
15 regard to the transcript: I see page 30, line 1, my question was "What
16 role if any does a forensic anthropologist... " and the transcript reads
17 "pathologist." I would just like to correct that.
18 And I seek to tender the report that we have up on the screen
19 into evidence. Thank you.
20 JUDGE PARKER: This will be received.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01141.
22 JUDGE PARKER: It's a convenient time, is it?
23 MS. KRAVETZ: Yes, Your Honour. I have very little left in
25 JUDGE PARKER: Doctor, we must have a break now, which is for
1 30 minutes while the tapes are rewound. A Court Officer will assist you
2 during the break, and we resume at 11.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
6 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, while the witness is being brought in,
7 I had shown the witness Exhibit 05009, and I was just reminded by
8 Ms. Pedersen, I forgot to tender it into evidence, so I seek that that be
9 admitted. It's the report which the witness was commenting on earlier.
10 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01142.
12 MS. KRAVETZ: And while we're waiting, if we could have
13 Exhibit 05006 up on the screen.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Kravetz.
16 MS. KRAVETZ:
17 Q. Sir, we have another document up on the screen. This is again on
18 autopsy report for the same site, and we see this is case JS001/007B and
19 which indicates under "Cause of Death" a -- gun-shot injuries to the
20 chest and head injury. If we could move to the second page of this
21 exhibit, we see that under heading "A. Description of Remains" there's a
22 sentence that says:
23 "This information most probably refers to body JS001/008."
24 Is this what you were referring to earlier when you indicated
25 that there was a case that you had seen where the identification number
1 has been switched with another -- the remains of another victim?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. And we see here that the victim has been identified as
4 Shefkate Bogujevci, born in 1956, and under the age-range we have a range
5 of 17 to 19. If -- would the reason for this discrepancy between the
6 date of birth and the age-range that's indicated here be the fact that
7 this report actually corresponds to another body which is indicated there
8 under the description field?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, I seek to tender this report,
11 it's 05006.
12 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01143.
14 MS. KRAVETZ: And we could now have 05007 up on the screen.
15 Q. We see that this report refers to case number JS001/008B, and
16 under cause of death we have gun-shot wound to the head. Now if we turn
17 the page to page 2, and I would just ask you to comment on what -- on the
18 information contained under the "Description of Remains."
19 A. Description of remains, here it states that in addition to the
20 information relating to the position of the body, there was a piece of
21 paper with the name "Nora (Selatin) Bogujevci born in 1984." And this is
22 in contradiction with the age determined by anthropological measures
23 which gives an interval between 44 and 55 years of age. And as the
24 forensic specialist, Professor Vanezis, states, the information on this
25 piece of paper most likely refers to the body JS001/007 whose age
1 corresponds as well as the presence of an earring.
2 Q. And that was the report that we just saw, Case 007 was the
3 earlier report we just had on the screen; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, I seek to tender this exhibit.
7 It's 05007.
8 JUDGE PARKER: It too will be received.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01144.
10 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, there's -- there are a series of
11 other reports that correspond to this site. In the interests of saving
12 time, I do not plan to go through each one of these reports. They follow
13 the same format as the ones we've already seen. Earlier this morning I
14 provided the Registrar with a list of the different exhibit numbers for
15 those reports and the Defence also have a copy. So I would also ask
16 that -- to proceed with these exhibits being assigned exhibit numbers at
17 a later stage by a memo rather than have me read out all the exhibit
18 numbers in court.
19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received, and the Registrar in due
20 course will notify parties of the numbers assigned.
21 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you very much for that, Your Honour. And,
22 Your Honour, at this stage I have no further questions for this witness.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
24 Mr. Djordjevic.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Djordjevic:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Dr. Baccard. I am
3 Dragoljub Djordjevic, and I am the Defence counsel for the accused here.
4 I will have some questions for you, and I will try not to refer to the
5 matters that have already been admitted into evidence.
6 My first question for you is the following: When were you
7 engaged by the ICTY, or rather, the OTP of this Tribunal, when did this
8 happen the first time?
9 A. Could you specify your question, sir. Are you asking me when I
10 was first hired by the OTP or whether -- when I was hired to draft this
12 Q. Well, what I'm -- what I would like to hear is when was it the
13 first time that the OTP of this Tribunal actually hired you.
14 A. I first served at the OTP in 1999, and I went to Bosnia for a few
15 weeks in Visegrad. I cannot recall exactly what month that was, but
16 you'll find it in my curriculum vitae.
17 Q. The report that you've prepared is -- was prepared in accordance
18 with a contract that you entered into with the OTP of this Tribunal in
19 1999 or later? Because I note that this report is a report from 2001.
20 A. No, I then had short-term contracts with the OTP, and the review
21 of the documents that were submitted to me and the drafting of the report
22 occurred later, I think it was 2001. But I couldn't tell you which month
23 that happened.
24 Q. Thank you, Doctor. My next question will be about the team-work
25 of your colleagues, the work of the teams, forensic pathologists and
1 anthropologists, in the period between June up until the end of 1999,
2 which is when this work was done. You were in no way connected with them
3 at the time, and I'm referring to 1999, or were you?
4 A. I assume you are referring to the teams whose work I reviewed in
5 my report?
6 Q. That's correct.
7 A. Well, no, I had no specific contacts with any of them apart from
8 a number of contacts with Commissaire Gaillardon, who in those days was
9 the deputy head of the forensic police department at the French Ministry
10 of Home Affairs, and I had worked with him on the Mont Blanc tunnel
11 disaster investigation. We had both been members of the team trying to
12 identify the bodies and the remains that had -- that were in the tunnel,
13 but that was completely disconnected to what happened in 1999.
14 Q. The work that was done in 1999 by your colleagues from France,
15 Switzerland, the United States, Great Britain, and I see there were also
16 teams from White Russia, Finland, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at
17 the time, did these teams perform the work ad hoc - and I'm referring to
18 June and on wards, 1999 - or was there some kind of coordination between
19 the teams?
20 A. I don't know. I believe that those teams came together
21 beforehand, before the mission, and were brought together by the OTP of
22 the ICTY in order to give them certain instructions on the basis of the
23 reports that I examined that was not expressed clearly.
24 Q. To be honest, the interpretation that I received was such that I
25 am not clear on what your answer was. So my question is: Do you have
1 any knowledge as to whether these teams worked in coordination or not?
2 And the first question will be: Do you have any knowledge of that at
4 A. I don't know. I believe that there must have been some
5 coordination, but I cannot answer your question.
6 Q. But you will agree with me if I say that you have no knowledge of
8 A. According to what Commissaire Gaillardon stated, there was one
9 meeting they had in The Hague before they went to Kosovo on site, but I
10 can't tell you anything else about that.
11 Q. From your question [as interpreted] I assume and I conclude that
12 you don't have any knowledge as to whether there was a body in 1999 that
13 coordinated the work of these teams who worked on the forensic expertise
14 of the site that you later speak about and discuss in your report; am I
16 A. Yes, indeed, I don't know.
17 Q. My second question: You mentioned a list of some 20 different
18 experts, most of them were forensic pathologists, but there were also
19 anthropologists that participated in the expert work. And what I would
20 like to know is whether you contacted any of these individuals when --
21 while preparing this report and in connection with the report?
22 A. Yes, in order to ask for clarifications, that was the case for
23 one team, the French team, that is Professor Lecomte and Dr. Vorhauer.
24 Q. I suppose because you come from the same country, you and
25 Professor Lecomte, that you knew the professor from before; am I correct?
1 A. No, I didn't know that person. I had met the doctor at
3 Q. There were at least six or -- seven or eight teams that worked on
4 autopsies or simply on surveying the sites and so forth. In view of that
5 fact, did you have occasion to speak with the team leaders of each of
6 these teams that actually did the work on site, in connection with the
7 reports that they submitted and that you commented upon?
8 A. No. Either it wasn't necessary or for reasons of time there was
9 not enough time to do so.
10 Q. Whether that was necessary or not will be something that I will
11 come back to a little later and with reference to the report that you
13 What I would like to know now is this: Does your science - and I
14 mean primarily your speciality, in other words, in the most general of
15 terms I'm referring to forensic pathology and medicine - is there a
16 methodology that must be followed when expert reports or autopsies are
17 done on human remains?
18 A. Yes, there are main principles of methodology which are
19 universally accepted in scientific circles.
20 Q. From your colleagues, forensic pathologists, who have already
21 testified before this Tribunal, I heard that there are different
22 methodologies that can be used and that there were different schools in
23 this respect. Could you briefly just tell us whether that is true?
24 That's one.
25 A. Well, yes and no. There are consensus, conferences, if you will,
1 that have been organised as regards the way observations should be made
2 in order to carry out an autopsy, recommendations have been made within
3 the European Union, there's also a protocol handed down by the
4 International Academy of Forensic Medicine; and these schools, in fact,
5 have minor differences amongst them. There may be a different approach
6 depending on the origin of the forensic expert, in particular to give you
7 an example, the case of incisions. There are several ways of approaching
8 the dissection of the trunk and the neck and there are certain variations
9 depending on whether you're from Europe or from the UK or the
10 United States, but these are differences that do not call into question
11 the essential aspects. It is a question of habit.
12 Q. Well, what is important here is that this does not affect the
13 essential aspects. However, we have a Swiss team here - and you referred
14 to that in particular - then we have a US team and a British team here,
15 as well as Finnish, French, European teams in general. The several
16 observations that you made that deal with different approaches in
17 particular, were these observations made by you of such quality that they
18 may affect the final outcome of the autopsy reports performed on the
19 bodies in view of these forensic experts who come from various parts and
20 who conducted the examinations on site, on various sites?
21 A. As I mentioned, generally speaking, at the end of each annex
22 where I presented comments on each report, these comments do not call
23 into question the general conclusions made by the various different
24 reports. Although the approaches were different, the conclusions are
25 valid from a scientific point of view in my opinion.
1 Q. When reading your report in the instance, for instance, of Racak
2 or Vata sites, I noticed that you mentioned that there was no
3 identification done, either at Racak or Vata. What was the reason for
4 that? And I couldn't figure that out based on your report.
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Currently I do not have a
6 reference for the English version, but in the B/C/S version it is on
7 page 12.
8 Q. But in any case what it says there is that there was no
9 identification done at Racak or Vata. What was the reason for that?
10 A. Your Honour, I would like to ask your permission to be able to
11 refer to a copy of my report which I have in my briefcase because it's
12 very difficult to answer that question without examining the document
13 precisely that has just been referred to.
14 JUDGE PARKER: It would seem desirable, Mr. Djordjevic?
15 Yes, Doctor, please go ahead.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sir, could you please repeat the
18 paragraph that you mentioned in your question, please.
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Just a moment, Doctor. This is the portion of your report
21 relating to Vata, identification paragraph 22.214.171.124, and then on the next
22 page I noticed that where you discuss Racak it is stated here that:
23 "The identification process was not adhered to in the reports
24 about Racak and Vata."
25 And what I would like to know is: What does that mean, that the
1 identification process was not adhered to?
2 A. That does not mean that the identification work was not
3 continued. What this means is that I did not have, in the documents that
4 I was given, the results of the identification process which had been
5 carried out. In particular, the DNA
6 not mean that it hadn't been done.
7 Q. Thank you. That is quite clear, but what it says in your report
8 literally is this, and that's the last sentence before the paragraph
9 entitled "sex ratio," 126.96.36.199, it says:
10 "In addition, the identification process was not adhered to in
11 the reports about Racak and Vata at the time of the autopsies."
12 Do you have any knowledge as to whether the identification
13 process was completed later on for these two sites?
14 A. There is a footnote which states that at the point in time when
15 this report was drafted, according to the information that had been
16 confirmed to me, the percentage of identification of the Racak victims
17 was 100 per cent. But in the documents that I had been given and which
18 referred to the autopsy reports in particular by the Finnish team, at the
19 point in time when that autopsy report was drafted, they did not have
20 that information. However, at the point in time when I drafted my
21 report, we did have that information. However, I did not have access to
22 those documents proving the identification.
23 Q. You did give a partial answer to my next question when you said
24 that regarding Racak the identification was performed 100 per cent, so I
25 did not really understand this sentence at first, but now it's clearer.
1 I'd only like you to tell me: Do you know who finalised the
2 identification to the degree of 100 per cent, as indicated in the
3 footnote, because the footnote says that the Finnish team did not submit
4 this data, at least not at the time of your report.
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. My next and last question about this context is this: Why did
7 you enter this 100 per cent in this rubric? That remains unclear.
8 A. Well, that was because I got that information from the OTP.
9 Q. Did you receive a document confirming that to enable you to put
10 "100 per cent" there?
11 A. I cannot recall.
12 Q. Are you sure you received that information from the
13 Office of the Prosecutor, or are you unsure about that as well? Because
14 it's quite seriously illogical; that's why I'm asking.
15 A. No, I must -- I did get this information, information that was
16 sufficiently reliable for me to mention it in my report. Had there been
17 a reason to doubt, I would have said so.
18 Q. But you will admit and you'll agree with me that there is a
19 difference, discrepancy, between your claim that the identification was
20 not continued and the assertion that it is now finalised 100 per cent.
21 As far as I know, reports of this kind can be made only on the basis of
22 documented and certain evidence documented by experts, your colleagues,
23 forensic pathologists. So may I conclude and will you agree with me that
24 you in fact did not have the reports of the forensic pathologists who
25 identified these victims at the time when you entered this
1 percentage, 100?
2 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, two things. First of all, I don't --
3 it's not my recollection that the witness stated that the identification
4 was not continued. I understood him saying quite the opposite earlier up
5 in the transcript. And I believe also that he has already answered this
6 question to the best of his knowledge.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Like Ms. Kravetz, Mr. Djordjevic, I understood the
8 doctor to indicate that while he may not have had the identification
9 results, he understood that it had been conducted. And, for example, in
10 the case of Racak his report specifically states 100 per cent of victims
11 had been identified by the date of his report. So I think that premise
12 of your question is not accurate. And I agree with Ms. Kravetz that the
13 doctor's already answered what you're now asking.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree the doctor
15 has answered; however, I was trying to refresh the witness's memory
16 relating to the documentation -- in fact, the sentence that I read out,
17 but I will not insist any further. I appreciate what you said.
18 Q. In your report, Witness, you speak of the clothing found on the
19 victims. In some of the reports it is said that some of the victims had
20 military clothing or civilian clothing; in other reports no such
21 distinction is made. Does this discrepancy, this difference, mean that
22 there was no uniform approach at the time when making autopsy reports or
23 is there another explanation that I would like to hear from you?
24 A. I believe I answered that question by saying that I used the
25 documents and the material that I had received. I quite clearly
1 established a review of what was in these reports, and the fact is that
2 in the reports that I had been given it is sometimes indicated and
3 sometimes not. When it isn't indicated, there is -- there are a number
4 of photographs that allow us to see how the victim was dressed and what
5 the victim was wearing at the time of exhumation, and I quite simply
6 described what I saw on the pictures.
7 Q. You did say this before, but my question was: Can you agree with
8 me that the methodology applied on the ground was not uniform at the time
9 among the teams that provided expertise?
10 A. Well, on that specific issue what I am trying to tell you is that
11 in some reports we had indications and others not.
12 Q. I couldn't really follow the interpretation, but obviously you
13 did not understand the gist of my question. Would you agree with me that
14 at that time, in 1999, there was no structured methodology and a
15 uniformed method of performing autopsies by pathologists and
16 anthropologists; instead, each team worked as best they saw fit?
17 A. It is true that there are variations in the way the reports are
18 constructed, as I have said in my report.
19 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Now I have a question on page 17 in B/C/S,
20 items 1.4, 1.5, in the second paragraph, about Izbica. You say there
21 that on the videotape the corpses look fresh or with the earliest signs
22 of decomposition. Other bodies show signs of advanced decomposition.
23 Now, this video recording was made by Dr. Liri Loshi. I'm interested in
24 the recordings, the video footage, of those corpses in the field. Did
25 you really use the word that I heard in interpretation, "fresh" corpses
1 or corpses that were exhumed? Because the two don't go together. If
2 they were fresh, they couldn't have been exhumed.
3 A. So what's your question exactly?
4 Q. My question, did this video recording show, as you put it, as I
5 heard in interpretation, the corpses seem fresh or with some signs of
6 beginning putrefaction? Were these bodies indeed exhumed?
7 A. I think there are two elements in the video. I'm -- I can't
8 recall exactly, but I think I'm referring to two phases in the video. In
9 one of the -- in the first part there are fresh bodies or only initial
10 signs of decomposing, and then there's another part in which there are
11 bodies that have been exhumed apparently two months after they were first
12 buried, and are therefore in an advanced state of decomposing. I must
13 say, I can't quite remember the video. We should refer to it, in fact.
14 Q. What we established so far in these proceedings is that
15 Dr. Liri Loshi made that recording just a day or two after these people
16 had lost their lives, but that's why I'm asking you. I did not see,
17 although I watched the videotape, I did not see any bodies that had been
18 exhumed and in an advanced state of putrefaction. That's why I'm asking
19 you: Why did you mention this in your report? What is this assertion
20 based on? Can you look up your documentation because it would be really
21 important for me to know.
22 A. If we're looking at the second paragraph of item 1.4.5 where it
24 "Then these victims appear to be exhumed approximately two months
25 after the burial in an advanced state of putrefaction."
1 I think it refers to the moment when the bodies were exhumed and
2 therefore made available to the French forensic team. But please
3 remember, this happened a few years ago. I've seen many other videos and
4 been an expert in many other cases since then, and I can't remember
5 exactly that video.
6 Q. It's obvious that you can't recall this and even more confusion
7 is introduced in your report by the sentence in the same paragraph that
8 begins with the words:
9 "It seems that the cause of death was difficult to establish
10 judging by the fact that it was impossible to perform an external
11 examination in autopsies because of the disappearance of the bodies."
12 My question in relation to this --
13 A. Exactly, so it makes sense. There's no contradiction in what I'm
15 Q. Did you have before you the report of your colleagues from France
16 on these autopsies? Did they perform a complete autopsy, including an
17 external examination of the bodies? Because you say here that there was
18 a need to work on video images taking -- without respect of the standards
19 of scientific photography. What did they work on? Did they have any
20 direct contact with the bodies? What can we conclude from your report?
21 It sounds a bit equivocal on that.
22 A. I examined indeed the reports that were drafted by the French
23 teams. There was a crime scene report and a photography album entitled
24 Crime Scene Investigation carried out by Commissaire Gaillardon and his
25 team. And I also examined what was titled Autopsy Report by
1 Professor Vorhauer and Lecomte, as well as the video that was given to
3 As regards the human remains that the French team examined, these
4 were small body parts, human body parts, there were five bone fragments,
5 in particular skull bones and forearm bones and also skin fragments that
6 were found inside of socks and 21 tufts of hair.
7 Q. So we may conclude that your colleagues were not, in fact, able
8 to perform complete autopsies on the alleged minimum of 27 bodies; would
9 you agree?
10 A. Yes, indeed, and this has been stated on several occasions in my
12 Q. Now, regarding this video recording, you said in your report that
13 it was a video that was not made by a professional. It was made by one
14 of your colleagues, a pathologist. What did you mean when you said that
15 it was an amateur video? It was, after all, a doctor who made it.
16 A. Because these images were not carried out in -- with forensic
17 purposes in mind. As I explained earlier this morning, the bodies are
18 lined up, side by side. They were not mobilised in such a way to show
19 not only the side that is visible but the other side on which the body is
20 lying. The body has been covered with blankets, and therefore only
21 certain portions of the anatomy can be seen on the video.
22 In addition, the video is shot from a certain distance, and
23 therefore the image is not as clear as it would be had you done a
24 professional forensic video. And that's why I stated that this video did
25 not correspond to the professional criteria. What I meant was forensic
2 Q. Thank you, Doctor. I'd like to ask you now to try to remove a
3 contradiction, what I believe is a contradiction, in your report. And
4 that takes us back to the bodies seen allegedly on this video footage
5 that were in advanced state of putrefaction. It is supposed that they
6 were exhumed after lying in the ground for two months. This is not at
7 all consistent with the claim that your colleagues did not have access to
8 actual remains from the grave in Izbica. They only had access to body
10 A. I believe there's a misunderstanding. I remember exactly how
11 that sentence was drafted in my report. I was told that those bodies had
12 been exhumed after two months. The video includes pictures which are
13 referred to in my report, that is, bodies that have very few or no signs
14 of decomposition.
15 Q. Here we have a specific explanation and thank you for that. My
16 next question would have to do with the annexes to your report. They
17 begin with Racak. All I want to know is: Are you familiar with the
18 assertions of your colleague, Dr. Helena Ranta of Finland made several
19 years after the forensic expertise provided by a very broad Finnish team
20 of experts? Can you comment if you are familiar?
21 A. Dr. Helena Ranta is from Finland indeed. She's not Swedish;
22 she's Finnish. She has written a number of publications, but I'm not
23 familiar with her statements. I have no knowledge of her statements as
24 regards this case in particular.
25 Q. Thank you. Speaking of the differences and contradictions
1 between the reports of the Finnish expert team on the one hand and the
2 Yugoslav and Byelorussian teams on the other hand. Can you just give me
3 a general answer, because you named these differences and discrepancies
4 in your report, but can you give us a general comment as an expert on
5 these discrepancies between the Yugoslav and Byelorussian teams on one
6 hand and the Finnish expertise from the point of view of principle.
7 A. As regards these discrepancies, some are minor, related
8 essentially to terminology matters; others may be of greater importance,
9 in particular the number of shots or the number of projectiles, or
10 perhaps the distance from which the shot occurred. You can examine these
11 discrepancies one by one, but generally speaking I did list the
12 discrepancies that I discovered between the two reports. The two teams
13 had access to the same corpses at -- either at different points in time
14 or at the same point in time and it was interesting to see how this was
15 described in each of their reports.
16 Q. Regarding annex number 2 which is attachment number 3 -- sorry,
17 regarding another one of the annexes, annex number 3 regarding Bela Crkva
18 and Annex 4 concerning Padaliste as well as Izbica, I would have this
19 question: In view of the gravity of discrepancies and inconsistencies
20 you found, did you contact any of the members of these teams who provided
21 expertise on the spot to deal with these inconsistencies in your report?
22 A. These discrepancies are not all major, they're not all important.
23 In some cases these are minor differences; in other cases they're of a
24 greater importance. To answer your question, I had time constraints such
25 that I was not able to go through such a large volume of documents and to
1 make contact with each of the expert teams that had drafted the reports,
2 each from a different country. Therefore, as I explained, this was the
3 case only for the French team.
4 Q. More than once today you mentioned that you did not have enough
5 time at your disposal. How much time did you really have for making this
7 A. Until the beginning of the Milosevic trial. I don't remember the
8 exact date.
9 Q. That is not a very precise answer, but it's certain that you did
10 not have enough time. If you had had enough time, what more should have
11 been done to make your report more precise and to remove all the in --
13 A. As regards some of the more important discrepancies, it would
14 have been preferable to be able to contact the authors of those reports.
15 The matter was discussed at the time with the person in charge of
16 investigations, and this was not followed up on.
17 Q. I'm looking at your report on Padaliste. You say in item 2:
18 "In seems that in all cases the date of death was stated
19 incorrectly, the second half of May, 1999, although it did happen
20 sometime in May 1999."
21 How do you know, for instance, that it's not May but March?
22 A. Could you please give me a page number that you're quoting from?
23 Q. That's annex -- just a second. Annex 4, Padaliste, beyond page
24 100 certainly in English and in French because I can see that from the
25 B/C/S version. Annex 4, Padaliste, paragraph 2.
1 A. Well, if I state it it's quite simply because it appeared
2 somewhere else in a more reliable fashion in one of the documents that
3 had been given over to me.
4 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Now let's take a look at paragraph 3. It
6 "There is no precision concerning used methodology."
7 And then you say:
8 "It does not seem there was practice radiographic and/or
9 fluoroscopic examination nor samples taken."
10 The phrase that you use, "seem," is this your assumption or can
11 you actually ascertain that this was actually the case?
12 A. There was no mention of radiographic exams or of samples being
14 Q. It is claimed that there were at least 54 victims found on this
15 site. You will agree with me that this is a large number. This analysis
16 was performed by a British team. Does this bring into question the
17 competence of this team in view of what you state here, in other words,
18 there was no radiographic or fluoroscopic examination done nor samples
19 taken. There is no certain data as to the calibre of the weapons and so
20 on and so forth. Let's not go into the details of your report.
21 A. What is your question?
22 Q. The competence of the British team.
23 A. There is no reason why we should call into question the
24 competence of the British team because there was no specific information
25 relating to X-rays. X-rays cannot in any way replace the quality of a
1 human examination and dissection when projectiles are found in a human
2 body; you have it whether there was or wasn't an X-ray previously. The
3 only difference is that if there was no X-rays, maybe other projectiles
4 were overlooked. This being said, the conclusions of the positive
5 evidence of the presence of projectiles is valid and is -- remains valid
6 and there's no reason to call into question the competence of these
8 You must remember also that the conditions in which these
9 examinations were conducted are not those that you find in the morgues
10 and mortuaries of developed countries where you have a specific
11 time-frame, electricity, water-supplies. No. Remember that we were
12 working in an emergency situation. And similar to what you have in war
13 medicine or war surgery, with triage on the field, well you have exactly
14 the same here.
15 Once the safety of the teams has been assured and guaranteed,
16 these teams intervene, but the infrastructure and equipment they had was
17 not -- was maybe not optimal. In my view, there is no reason to be upset
18 by the fact that there was no mention of X-rays in the report. Again, to
19 conduct X-rays you have to have the right X-ray machines, to be able to
20 supply -- transport the machine, have electricity supplies, constant
21 electricity supply, protect the personnel and the staff against ionising
22 radiation. You therefore need sandbags or lead protection. You need to
23 protect the thyroids of the people.
24 So this is something you absolutely require to conduct X-rays.
25 There is no reason, again, why we should call into question the
1 competence of these experts, these well-renowned experts.
2 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Why are samples taken? You mention the word
3 "shocking," which I did not use. But why are samples taken, and why did
4 you say that samples were not taken on this case. What is the meaning of
6 A. Again, what I'm saying is that there is no mention in the report
7 that samples had been taken. The reason why biological samples are taken
8 are varied. One of the purposes of such biological samples is to have an
9 anthropological one. We may want, for instance, to look at specific
10 bones that will help us identify the age and gender of the victim. For
11 instance, the front of the fourth rib or the pelvic bone that can then be
12 interpreted - and indeed there are charts and tables that we can review
13 them against, but to do so you therefore have to prepare things. You
14 need to remove the cartilage, remove the soft tissue, and that is
15 something that cannot be done at the time of the autopsy. It must be
16 done later on.
17 There are other samples, other biological samples, that can be
18 taken, bones or teeth, that are examined from a genetic point of view, to
19 find the DNA
20 victim itself or of relatives of the victim. In terms of practices on
21 crime scenes and war scenes, this is -- these are the samples that are
22 usually taken, over and beyond the usual samples that might be taken in
23 other circumstances, for instance, samples to test on the toxicology, for
25 Q. Thank you, Doctor. It is much clearer now.
1 Now, you mention the very end of the conflict in Kosovo and --
2 which was a time when your colleagues arrived in Kosovo and what the
3 conditions were then. Do you actually have real information as to what
4 the conditions were in fact for conducting investigations in Kosovo at
5 the time in -- we're discussing here?
6 A. I have information on the place where the autopsies were carried
7 out, and that is included in my report. I have information on the dates
8 at which these autopsies were carried out. And when I referred to the
9 venue where these autopsies were carried out, I state whether it was a
10 mortuary or whether it was just a makeshift mortuary, with improvised
11 equipment, just a plank of wood on -- standing on chairs maybe, and this
12 is supported by evidence -- by photographic evidence. And indeed, you
13 can see that these are sub-standard conditions in which to conduct
15 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Did such conditions have essential effects on
16 the final findings of the examination and autopsies performed?
17 A. I think it did play a role, yes, I think it played a role. How
18 much of a role is another question. Look at the possibility of exhuming
19 a body that was buried directly in contact with the soil, therefore a
20 body that started decomposing. There was a transformation of the body
21 fluids, an intermingling of soil, of minerals, of plants, and no access
22 to water to clean, for instance, the skin of the body. If you have a
23 body that has already been damaged where there is lesions, when worms and
24 maggots have started doing their work, it will be increasingly difficult,
25 exceedingly difficult, indeed to identify the smaller lesions that you
1 could have identified had you been able to wash the body. But the major
2 wounds, the major lesions, the ones that actually cause death, quite
3 simply because they are big, visible, and have an impact on vital organs,
4 will be visible and identifiable.
5 So the answer is yes, but it has no impact on the main lesions
6 and the conclusions of the autopsy.
7 Q. What you've just said now, in that respect experts would
8 pronounce their views on the manner in which the lesions or wounds were
9 afflicted. They analysed the distance from which a shot was fired that
10 caused the death of an individual. They analysed the conditions under
11 all of this happened. Could you, please, briefly tell us, in various
12 degrees of putrefaction of a body, to what extent is it possible to
13 establish all those things under the conditions that prevailed at the
14 time when your colleagues performed these analyses and examinations on
16 A. I expect you are referring to the distance at which the shot was
17 fired. It is true that the determination of the distance of the shot --
18 of firing the shot is much more difficult to establish on a decomposed
19 body. As you know, the distance is established by taking into account a
20 number of criteria. When there are multiple projectiles, you look at the
21 way in which the projectiles are scattered; but when there's a single
22 projectile, it is true that you look at the dust and the way it is
23 scattered across the skin and clothes.
24 Now, if you have putrefied teguments, it becomes much more
25 difficult to identify these areas on the body where small debris and
1 particles have been imprinted in the body. And when indeed there has
2 been the beginnings of decomposing after burial, it makes it more
4 As for the analysis of clothing, it is true that clothes bear
5 these indications slightly longer. On -- when you have a shot fired at a
6 very short range, there will be an indication on the bones that are just
7 below the skin. There will be some kind of an imprint on the bone, an
8 imprint that you will not find these prints on the skin if -- if it is at
9 such a close range that the gun is standing on the bone, standing on the
10 skull, for instance, the imprints will be on the bone and not on the
11 skin. There are also other indications similar to that.
12 So, yes, it is much more difficult to identify the distance at
13 which the shot was made, but there are usually enough indications for the
14 expert to come to a conclusion.
15 Q. Thank you for this exhaustive answer. It will be of use to all
16 of us I'm sure. Now, discussing the expertise, which is not very common,
17 and that you have which is medical ballistics, you mentioned the shots
18 fired from the immediate distance, relative distance - and I understand
19 what a greater distance means. But what we haven't heard so far in any
20 of your testimonies was a distinction between absolute vicinity and
21 relative vicinity of shot fired. Could you just briefly explain it to
23 A. Well, when a shot is fired we tend to distinguish -- when we
24 discuss wound ballistics, we're talking about a shot from a very close
25 distance on contact, in other words, the gun is right on the skin or --
1 then you have other shots a few centimetres from the body, and then you
2 have a third category, a longer range. And I mentioned the criteria a
3 moment ago that is the imprint of the gunpowder and the -- the tattoo as
4 I call it.
5 There are a range of factors which will have an effect on the
6 size of this imprint on the skin, that is, the length of the gun; various
7 equipment used, a silencer, for example, to silence the noise will have
8 an impact; the use of a Magnum, for example, will leave more powder
9 traces at a longer distance than others. So a lot depends -- there are a
10 number of factors that come into play related to the weapon itself and
11 also the ammunition used. There is also the possibility of some sort of
12 a screen, some sort of object, in between the gun and the victim which
13 will also modify the impact.
14 Q. Briefly, in a physical sense what does it mean point-blank or
15 absolute vicinity; and close-range or relative vicinity? Is there any
16 measurable criteria or is this just a general distinction?
17 A. You mean in terms of distance in centimetres?
18 Q. Yes. What is "close-range"? I understand what point-blank is.
19 I understand that to mean that the weapon -- the muzzle of the weapon is
20 actually next to the body of the -- or in contact with the body of the
21 victim, but what do you mean by close range or relative distance?
22 A. Well, the term "relative distance" is not used in ballistics. We
23 talk about short range, close range, but the word "relative" is not used.
24 I'm not familiar with that term. I don't know if I've answered your
25 question or perhaps you need additional explanations.
1 Q. Thank you. You have given a full answer, because I have a
2 translation here and this is a term that was probably chosen by the
3 translators, "relative vicinity," but now after your explanation it's all
4 clear and I thank you for your reply.
5 Now, my next question will be this and it will have to do with
6 Annex 8, I believe, the Dubrava site. The investigation there was
7 performed by your colleagues from Spain, Spanish pathologists, and at the
8 very beginning in the general section of your comments you say that:
9 "One should take with some reservation the distinction made
11 Have you found this, Professor?
12 That there should be a distinction made between small and large
13 shrapnel which can distinguish between hand-grenades and aerial bombs.
14 Could you just explain this in some more detail in view of your
15 specialities. In other words, aerial bombs as opposed to -- and the
16 distinctions between aerial bombs and hand-grenades.
17 A. Unfortunately, not really because lesional ballistics deals with
18 projectiles, that is, ballistic studies, the movement of a projectile in
19 the air, but does not deal with explosives. The only thing I wanted to
20 mention in this report was that I, myself, did not accept the distinction
21 that had been made by my Spanish colleagues between small shrapnel and
22 large shrapnel for the simple reason that the size itself of the shrapnel
23 is only one factor amongst many, which enables you to determine the
24 origin of the explosive device.
25 When an explosion occurs, there is the generation of numerous
1 different shrapnels of various sizes, and it's not just the size but also
2 the thickness and the nature of the shrapnel which enables an expert to
3 determine whether it's a hand-grenade, a rocket. It's not the size
4 itself. It's the size plus a number of other factors.
5 Q. Thank you. In other words, your claim that it seems better to
6 have some reservations on this distinction, you will agree with me that
7 this means that there is no one safe-proof method in order to determine
8 what a person was injured by and what type of projectile or fragment
9 caused the injury?
10 A. No, I'm -- I beg your pardon. I don't accept that statement.
11 Each expert must limit himself to his own specialty. A forensic
12 pathologist must limit himself to those matters, a ballistics expert to
13 those matters, et cetera. And it is up to the ballistics expert to
14 examine the shrapnel, and it is only the conclusions drawn from that
15 laboratory that will enable you to determine the actual origin of this or
16 that shrapnel.
17 Q. That is precisely what I'm trying to show here, where you say
18 that it seems better to take this with some reservation. So this would
19 mean that -- you will agree with me that this means that each expert
20 should perform their own part of the job. For instance, you said that a
21 ballistics expert should determine what type of projectile and so on. Is
22 that what you meant by what you said?
23 A. Yes, absolutely. The forensic pathologist, if he or she has
24 knowledge of another field of expertise must nonetheless be very cautious
25 and limit his findings to certain aspects and not make comments outside
1 of his or her field of expertise.
2 Q. This same appendix, Appendix 8, under item 2 entitled
3 "Individual Remarks" mentions case number 9. And you say that the cause
4 of death there in the case that it's suicide but it seems to be an error
5 because the victim sustained two gun-shot wounds in the right anterior
6 lateral part of the chest. Could you tell us briefly if you can recall
7 this case; and if not, we won't dwell on it.
8 A. In the report, I noted that indeed for this case the cause of
9 death was given as suicide. This is very unusual in the series of
10 reports that I examined, and therefore I thought that it was a mistake
11 given that the victim had sustained two gun-shot wounds in a zone which
12 is unusual in cases of suicide. And therefore, I thought that it might
13 have been a mistake in interpretation or simply a mistake in the drafting
14 of the report.
15 Q. Is there any description - and I haven't seen it and that's why I
16 want to ask you - why is the word "suicide" mentioned at all? I see that
17 you were surprised by it too, and I am surprised by it as well. Why is
18 the word "suicide" used here at all? Was there some additional
19 information that had nothing to do with the expertise and the
20 examinations? Do you recall anything that could explain this?
21 A. No, I'm very sorry. I don't remember precisely that aspect of
22 the report. I don't know if we can get a copy easily. If the report is
23 available, perhaps I can give you a better answer. But with the
24 information that I have here, I can't give you a better answer.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would now like
2 to move to a topic that will take our full focus, and so I propose that
3 we take a break now so that I can deal with that topic in one go.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We'll have the break a few minutes
5 early and resume at five minutes before 1.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.
9 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, while the witness is being brought
10 in -- Your Honour, I just wanted to indicate that I had a discussion with
11 my learned colleague concerning the list of exhibits that I proposed to
12 tender as underlying materials to the report, and I understand that
13 Mr. Djordjevic now does not object to any of those documents. So I will
14 ask that all of that list be received.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that. They will be the subject of
16 notification in due course.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Baccard, I will continue with the questions
21 that the Defence believes to be important. Regarding all these reports,
22 I'd be interested to know whether within any report by any team if you
23 noticed that they had used crime investigation documentation prepared by
24 the Yugoslav authorities regarding the scenes of crime where forensic
25 expertise was done and autopsies.
1 A. I do not think I have made any mention and -- or reference to
2 documents coming from Yugoslavia -- or rather, I think there might have
3 been some relating to Racak. I seem to remember that Yugoslav
4 pathologists with the assistance of Byelorussian pathologists wrote the
6 Q. Thank you. The Swiss team did the Muslim cemetery in Kacanik and
7 worked in Kotlina and I believe also in another location Stagovo. Did
8 Swiss experts perform only the external examination or did a complete
9 identification because they noted the location, the origin, and types of
10 wounds and injuries, and did they try to establish whether the injuries
11 occurred before death or after death and which weapon was used?
12 A. Let me make sure I understood your question, sir. You seem to
13 want to ask me about the way in which the Swiss team operated in Kotlina
14 and Dubrava; is that right?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. Well, let me turn to my papers.
17 Q. Let me correct myself, Dubrava is actually not one of them. It's
18 Kacanik, Kotlina, and Stagovo, that's where the Swiss team worked.
19 A. Now, as concerns Kotlina, the team was a joint team under
20 Dr. Markwalder and Dr. Wyler from the Swiss disaster victim
21 identification team. These autopsies were conducted at the Kacanik
23 Q. Correct.
24 A. I must apologise, but I have to review these notes given the time
25 that has passed since these events and since I wrote the report.
1 Q. We'll wait.
2 A. What was the other case you mentioned?
3 Q. There are another two cases. One is Kotlina, Kacanik, and I
4 believe Stagovo. Kacanik, Kotlina, and Stagovo.
5 A. Well, I think what you're referring to comes up as Dubrava and in
6 brackets Kacanik.
7 Q. Dubrava was done by the Spaniards, if I'm not mistaken, Dubrava
8 prison and Dubrava cemetery.
9 A. I have it here, Dubrava, Kacanik case, and there are reports by
10 Dr. Markwalder and Wyler who were both members of the Swiss forensic
11 pathology teams dealing with Swiss disaster victim identification. And
12 in Stagovo I have it again that it's Drs. Markwalder and Wyler.
13 Q. [Previous translation continues]... that's what we are
15 A. What we have here are autopsies. Can you remind me what your
16 question was, sir?
17 Q. My question was: Would it be fair to say that they performed
18 only an external examination of the bodies and their autopsy reports are
19 very terse, without localisation of wounds, without establishing
20 entry/exit wounds, without determining whether the injuries occurred
21 before or after death, et cetera.
22 A. Well, I had them as being autopsy reports and not external
23 examinations. Let me turn to the annexes, maybe, if you'd be kind enough
24 to tell me which annexes we're talking about.
25 Q. To tell you the truth, no, because I thought you would remember
1 that because I see the documentation of the Swiss team is very terse.
2 The reports are incomplete and very superficial. And I think it's true
3 what I'm saying, that there was only an external examination of the body
4 and this autopsy report prepared by Dr. Markwalder had no localisation of
5 the wounds, no determination of what fire-arm was used, what projectile,
6 and whether the wound was inflicted before or after death. That's my
7 conclusion at least. It's -- I'd like to hear if you agree or not.
8 A. Well, I would like to be able to refer to a specific page of the
9 report, if you could assist me. You're saying that there is no specific
10 reference to points of entry and points of exit. What case specifically
11 are we talking about?
12 Q. Just a moment. Because there are general remarks concerning the
13 work of the Swiss teams without mention of any specifics, but I thought I
14 could elicit some more comment from you. It's not in the annexes.
15 A. [Previous translation continues]... not in the appendix, it
16 probably means that there were no specific comments I felt I had to make
17 about the methodology.
18 Q. That's precisely what I said. The autopsy report is very terse,
19 no localisation of wounds, no determination of the type of gun. That's
20 what I meant, if you remember something that could be helpful.
21 Now, regarding Kotlina and those wells, the persons whose bodies
22 were found inside the wells, do we know their age? Between 17 and 47?
23 Is that correct?
24 A. We are talking about 2.8 in my report, aren't we?
25 Q. Yes, yes.
1 A. I identified the fact that we were talking about the 21-30 years
2 old age bracket that was, in fact, most present and most represented in
3 the list of victims.
4 Q. Did the forensic reports describe the clothing of these victims?
5 I don't see that from your report.
6 A. I can't remember that, unfortunately.
7 Q. All right. There are quite a few idiosyncrasies here that I
8 found in other reports as well regarding these wells; however, on the
9 well-preserved parts of the bodies of these victims pulled out from the
10 wells, those who performed the autopsy described 26 gun-shot wounds. How
11 could we explain that the bodies were hit by 14 projectiles more than
12 casings found? And you say in your report that a total of 12 casings
13 were found around the wells. And how come there is such a discrepancy
14 between the gun-shot wounds and the number of casings found in the
15 vicinity of the wells? Can you explain that?
16 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, I don't mean to interrupt, but I would
17 kindly ask my learned colleague when he's citing from the report if he
18 could give more precise references. I for one am having a bit of
19 difficulty finding the passages that he's just referred to in his last
20 question. Thank you.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Can you help us there, Mr. Djordjevic?
22 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I am trying to provide a
23 reference. I found it in the reports related to Kotlina. And the
24 esteemed doctor was surely familiar with them. These reports describe
25 the work of the Swiss team precisely.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Where --
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] It's not stated in Dr. Baccard's
3 report, but that's precisely why I'm asking that it's not stated
4 specifically and there are certain inconsistencies, that documentation
5 prepared by the Swiss team, and that the doctor studied is not
6 specifically mentioned in his expert report. But there are a few
7 inconsistencies I wanted to point out --
8 JUDGE PARKER: Well, can you tell us what it is you are referring
9 to other than the report of the doctor so that we can follow the point
10 that you are making? Is it that you have studied the actual original
11 reports prepared by the Swiss team; is that what you are saying?
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] That's precisely the report I am
13 referring to. And the question that I had started to ask derived from
14 the fact that I looked at these reports together with an expert that I
15 engaged for our Defence team, also a forensic pathologist, and I looked
16 with him at these reports signed by Dr. Christoph Markwalder, the head of
17 the Swiss team, and we noticed those inconsistencies that I'm asking the
18 witness about. Unfortunately I don't have the reference handy. I just
19 thought that the doctor was very familiar with this report from his own
20 work. If he's not, I can't give him the reference right now and we'll
21 have to move on to something else.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Dr. Baccard may have great difficulty remembering
23 the content of the actual reports which are not before him at the moment.
24 He has only his own comments, and they contain nothing of what you're
25 referring to.
1 Are you in a position to give us the e-court numbers of the
2 original reports of the Swiss team to which you refer?
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I think it's 65 ter 371, if I'm
4 not mistaken.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] That's only Dubrava. However,
7 regarding other locations, I don't have the 65 ter number. And those
8 other locations are Kotlina and Stagovo.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Well, you will have to be very particular in
10 reminding the doctor of the matters to which you refer, and you will have
11 to hope then that he is able to remember something of what you're
12 speaking about, or else it is likely that the doctor won't be able to
13 assist you.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour. Then I
15 will ask the doctor if he remembers certain parts of this report; if not,
16 I won't be asking about the wells anymore.
17 Q. Doctor, do you remember there were two wells there, if you
18 remember the report of the Swiss team, there were wells with bodies
20 A. I had no specific recollection of this, but you will see that on
21 page 48 of my report, paragraph 2.8.2, I see here that in brackets after
22 they mention "crime scene 21-1," I indicated that we were referring to
23 the "upper and lower wells."
24 This would suggest that, yes, they were two wells, one slightly
25 higher than the other.
1 Q. Correct. And the reports further describe that the altitude
2 between the two wells was around 9 metres. Do you remember that the
3 bodies inside the wells were covered by earth, by soil? For instance, in
4 the upper well at the minimum depth of 7.2 metres and the maximum depth
5 of 9.3 metres.
6 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, if we're going to get into this level
7 of detail with regard to that report, I think in fairness to the witness
8 he should be allowed to at least review it or have it up on the screen.
9 I believe the 65 ter number of the Kotlina report is 00361 if that's the
10 report that my learned colleague is citing to.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
12 You're questioning about Kotlina at the moment?
13 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, correct, the two wells.
14 If we can see 65 ter 361. That's not it. That's the Austrian
15 team. How about -- no, no, that's not it. It's the Austrian report.
16 Can we see page 2, Kotlina, all right. Page 9, please. Do we have an
17 English version? Yes, it's all right.
18 Q. Are you familiar with this report, Doctor? You saw the first
19 page a moment ago. I'm asking this because it seems to me you did not
20 mention that the Austrian colleagues did this part of the work. That's
21 how the whole confusion occurred.
22 A. Well, if you read my report carefully at 2.8.1 I do say here that
23 this report is based on the report written up by the Austrian crime scene
24 group number 2. Now, I must say I cannot remember now whether the report
25 I'm referring to in my report is the report that is up on the screen, but
1 I do remember that this report existed, and I assume that this Austrian
2 report included the report of the Swiss pathologists, but I cannot
4 Q. Let me ask you now about the report of this Austrian team of
5 forensic pathologists regarding this particular incident and the well.
6 There is reference here to two wells with the victims thrown inside, and
7 it says the minimum depth was 7.2 metres and the maximum depth was 9.3
8 metres in the upper well. And in the lower well the minimum depth was
9 5.8 and the maximum 9.7 metres. Bearing in mind what the Austrian
10 experts underlined, namely, the minimal number of casings found around
11 the wells and a very small layer of earth inside the well, can we
12 conclude that the blast wounds occurred outside of the well, that the
13 bodies were in fact found in other locations, dragged to the wells, and
14 thrown inside, or do you believe that the people were actually killed
15 while standing inside the well? What is your conclusion based on the
16 report of this Austrian team?
17 A. I would not attempt to draw any conclusions at all at this point.
18 I would like to recall that my report was based essentially on the
19 autopsy reports carried out by my colleagues, and I do not have
20 sufficient recollection at this point in time of the events to draw any
21 conclusions on the basis of what I have here on the screen.
22 Q. Then I have to ask you a general question. Have you studied the
23 Austrian team's report in this case at all?
24 A. The report that I have referred to is the report that I have
25 entitled "Report of the Austrian Crime Scene Group 2." I do not know
1 here today what exactly was the composition of that crime scene group. I
2 was asked to study the forensic aspects and not to examine the crime
3 scene aspects as such.
4 Q. Then let me ask you this: Things being so, did the Swiss team
5 take into account those parts of the Austrian report that they deemed
6 indispensable to making a complete report? Did these two teams cooperate
7 in any way?
8 A. I don't know. I was not present when the examination took place.
9 Q. Very well. Let's talk about Cirez, the French forensic mission,
10 summer 1999. You said you spoke with your colleague, the professor who
11 headed the French team. Did you discuss this locality, Cirez?
12 A. I believe the answer is yes. Let me check. Cirez. Could you
13 give me the reference, please?
14 Q. Let me remind you, doctor, again there were wells in which female
15 bodies were found and it was suspected that the two women had been
16 sexually abused before death.
17 A. Yes, indeed. Let me correct my previous answer. The answer was:
18 No, I was not able to discuss with Professor Lecomte and Vorhauer for the
19 reason that that site was not included in the list of sites that I had
20 been asked to examine by the OTP. It was only afterwards when I
21 testified for the first time in the Milosevic case that I was asked to
22 examine the reports that had been drafted by the French team and to draft
23 an addendum to my own report. That means that it was after the beginning
24 of the trial and I had not had the opportunity to discuss with my
25 colleagues forensic specialists Lecomte and Vorhauer.
1 Q. If I'm not mistaken, we can agree that you're referring to the
2 addendum that you compiled as a synthetic reported dated the
3 31st of January, 2002?
4 A. The date that I have is May 23rd, 2002, which was one of the days
5 that I testified in the Slobodan Milosevic case.
6 Q. And you did that as far as I can recall at the request of my
7 learned colleague Dirk Ryneveld in relation to an excavation of eight
8 bodies from three wells in the Cirez village; correct?
9 A. Dirk Ryneveld, I can see in the addendum that I examined the
10 documents on May 22nd/23rd, 2002. And indeed there were three wells with
11 the reference SIP1, 2, and 3.
12 Q. All right. We just need to correct an inconsistency. Your
13 report says the forensic findings were the following. You said about age
14 between 18 and 60 -- yes, well, I can see it now, but it was not at the
15 very beginning but in the middle of this text.
16 Now my next question has to do with the stay in Vode for two and
17 a half months. Now, do you know what kind of methodology was used to
18 establish how long the bodies had been under water. Is there a method,
19 whereby one can determine exactly how long a body - a reliable method -
20 how long a body had been in water?
21 A. There are no scientific criteria which makes it possible to
22 estimate in a precise fashion. Findings can be drawn on the basis of the
23 compatibility of the overall aspect of the bodies, its state of
24 conservation, and the date at a given point in time. But we have to be
25 very prudent as regards these matters. It is not possible to make a
1 mathematical -- mathematically precise estimate in this type of situation
2 where the body has been in water.
3 Q. The estimation given here, the two and a half months, that can be
4 found in your addendum and we can see that this was the finding of your
5 colleagues Dominique and Dr. Walter -- Markwalder. Now, does this mean
6 that this assessment should be taken with some reservations and that this
7 means that those bodies could have been immersed under water longer or
8 for a shorter period before they were pulled out of the well?
9 A. No, no. The way my report is drafted is very clear and states
10 that the date indicates maceration and putrefaction which is compatible
11 of a stay in the water of two months. I said compatible with --
12 consistent with two months and a half.
13 Q. The reason I'm asking this is that I understood that there is no
14 reliable way to determine how long exactly a body had been immersed. Are
15 you trying to tell me that this can be established in general terms based
16 on the experience that the forensic expert has in this type of work? I'm
17 not clear on this because a few moments ago you said there was no
18 reliable method for determining this, or perhaps I misunderstood?
19 A. No, I believe you've understood. What I said was that there was
20 not a scientific method making it possible to determine on the basis of
21 reliable and mathematically rigorous criteria which would determine the
22 time of immersion in water, but the forensic pathologist is seeing the
23 signs of putrefaction can consider that that is consistent with a
24 particular duration of immersion. There's a big difference between
25 stating a precise date and saying that a set of signs are consistent with
1 a duration of immersion.
2 Q. Thank you. If a body was immersed for two and a half months,
3 what is the method to establish the cause of death in that person? In
4 other words, you understand what my question is referring to. It's
5 referring to how it is that it can be established that a person had
6 actually drowned and not been killed or lost its life before being thrown
7 into a well. What is the method to establish that?
8 A. The corpse is examined externally and then an autopsy is carried
9 out. The traumatic injury sustained will be modified by immersion in
10 water but will remain in varying degrees.
11 Q. In other words, if I can ask you even more precisely, is it
12 possible based on autopsy alone to determine that a body, which had been
13 immersed in water for over two months, the cause of death, and whether
14 the cause was drowning, and what are those indicators that could point to
16 A. As I stated in my report, I do not know what the French forensic
17 pathologists based themselves to draw on their -- to other conclusions
18 regarding the cause of death. I don't know whether they examined the
19 anatomy, the pathology, the toxicology such as the amount of strontium,
20 the presence of diatoma which are microscopic cells. None of this
21 information is included in my colleague's report. Therefore, I simply
22 indicated that on the basis of what was stated in their report they, on
23 the basis of the macroscopic findings, those findings were consistent
24 with the diagnosis of drowning.
25 Q. So you will agree with me that in fact you have no information as
1 to how your colleagues determined that the cause of death was drowning?
2 A. The -- that the data did not enable me to examine those reports
3 in order to check whether or not the findings they present are valid or
4 not, that data was not included in their reports.
5 Q. Thank you. My next question has to do with what we discussed
6 before the break, namely, do you know under what conditions the French
7 team, or rather, your colleagues, Dr. Dominique Lecomte and
8 Dr. Walter Vorhauer, under what conditions did they work, and where did
9 these autopsies occur, where were they conducted? I'm not familiar and
10 I'm not sure about Cirez specifically. And I assume because Cirez was
11 discussed in an addendum that it is an exception.
12 A. In my addendum, I did not indicate what the material conditions
13 under which my French -- the French colleagues worked. I indicated that
14 the team carried out exhumations and recovery and autopsy on the site of
15 Cirez on July 2nd and 3rd, 1999. I don't see any additional information
16 which would enable me to answer your question regarding the actual
17 material conditions at the time.
18 Q. Thank you. Doctor, after a body has been in water for over two
19 months, is it possible to distinguish from the body itself the changes
20 that were the result of putrefaction and the blood-stains; and if so, on
21 the basis of what can you determine what is in fact --
22 A. Indeed, there are putrefaction transudates and these putrefaction
23 transudates can be found in various cavities of the body. You can also
24 have blood in other areas trapped in tissue. Therefore, you have to
25 differentiate in terms of diagnosis between traumatic lesions which
1 causes the passage of blood into the tissue, haematomas, for example, and
2 other aspects which could lead to confusion which are related to false
3 putrefaction ecchymosis. That is part of the diagnosis that is carried
4 out by the expert. He must differentiate between these two.
5 Q. Tell me, in determining the difference between the fluid created
6 by putrefaction and blood, my understanding was that you need to use
7 certain special chemical compounds in order to determine that. Was that
8 possible under the conditions that prevailed in Kosovo, and especially
9 where we have a body which had spent over two months under water; or is
10 this whole endeavour impossible?
11 A. As I've stated, I do not have any information about the actual
12 material conditions of how those autopsies were carried out. In this
13 particular case, I would simply like to say that
14 Professor Dominique Lecomte and -- who is in charge of the
15 Paris Forensic Laboratory, she is an expert approved by the
16 French Cour de cassation. The same applies to Dr. Vorhauer. They both
17 have extensive experience in autopsies, including individuals who died by
18 drowning. And therefore I would tend to trust them as regards their
19 forensic examinations of individuals in such a situation, in particular
20 if they choose this particular diagnosis.
21 Q. All right. Let me ask you this then and that will be my last
22 question for today and I will not be very long tomorrow either. So let's
23 try and find an answer that could resolve this matter. If a body has
24 been under water, let's say, for two and a half months, is it possible to
25 determine with certainty whether the liquid is a blood-stain, in view of
1 the fact that in contact with water blood very quickly haemolysis, or
2 rather, decays? So that would be my question. Perhaps we can get the
3 answer now, regardless of under what conditions your colleagues conducted
4 this investigation.
5 A. Again, I'm afraid I cannot give you a general response to your
6 question. Each case is different and these cases have to be examined on
7 a case-by-case basis. What I can say is that over and beyond the
8 haematomas and the ecchymosis there are certain signs on the skin which
9 are not the result of putrefaction, and there is no confusion in that
11 Therefore, I would tend to consider that someone who has lengthy
12 professional experience and scholarly experience as the colleagues that I
13 mentioned are in an excellent position to make a decision as regards this
14 type of lesion in spite of the potential traps that I emphasized and that
15 other experts have mentioned regarding the interference of immersion in
16 water and the maceration that's caused by that, putrefaction, the
17 deterioration of tissue that is involved in all of this as well.
18 Q. Our time is up for today by over two minutes, so I will have to
19 complete my cross-examination for today. And I think that it won't take
20 us very long tomorrow.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have -- I'm done
22 with this portion of my cross-examination for today.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Djordjevic.
24 As you've gathered, Doctor, we must finish now. We continue
25 tomorrow. The court officer will give you specific guidance during the
1 break. We look forward to finishing your evidence relatively early in
2 the hearing tomorrow, which commences at 2.15. Thank you.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 21st day of
5 July, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.