1 Friday, 7 February 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Stanislav Galic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Is the Defence ready to call its next expert witness, and
11 that's --
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not quite, Mr. President, in
13 the sense that we told Madam Registrar that we wished to address your
14 Chamber for a couple of minutes, even less.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
17 There are two reasons for this intervention. The first one is to
18 try and reply to the Prosecution's worry about the transparency for this
19 witness expert, and this is what we wanted to say to make things
20 completely clear. An important part of the work of the expert was based
21 upon what we call the orality. And I will explain. There have been four
22 trips that this expert did and went to Sarajevo and to visit the sites,
23 and for those four trips, two happened with a group of experts. These
24 were other experts, that is, there was one expert who specialised in
25 military matters, and then there was another expert who was specialised in
1 forensic medicine.
2 When they were on the site, they discussed among them informally
3 in order to inform each other. But in all of that there was no minutes of
4 that. There was no trace, so to speak, about information in situ, as it
5 will be the case about a silent visit that could take in such-and-such a
6 place. That was more or less what took place.
7 Now, the second thing is that the expert took a number of
8 photographs that he used for his own ends, internal ends, to be aware of
9 the geographic situation when he was working in Belgrade or elsewhere, and
10 these photographs were not communicated to the Prosecution. Why not? For
11 a very simple reason: That the Prosecution themselves have photographed
12 everything, and therefore it would have been completely redundant to
13 communicate these photographs. However, if the Prosecution wish to have
14 these photographs, they are at their disposal. And I have asked the
15 expert to bring them with him. But we don't think that they are
16 relevant -- they are necessary. And the Prosecution knows about how we've
17 worked with the expert because one trip took place in Sarajevo with the
18 expert and the representative of the Prosecution. I believe that was
19 Mr. Ierace, who saw very well how these trips happened, that is, how the
20 examination took place.
21 Now, about the transparency, we have given everything -- we have
22 disclosed everything. The notes that are to do with the photograph, which
23 angle, which direction, and so on, do not seem to be sufficiently
24 informative to be communicated. But of course, if they're
25 necessary -- again, I've asked the expert to take his photographic
1 references if this was necessary. This is for the first part of the
3 For the second part of my intervention, Mr. President, we have
4 seen and we have understood the matter -- the issue of the Chamber in
5 terms of credibility. We do not wish to assist about credibility issues
6 being raised, and we trust that the Trial Chamber will be careful of this
7 matter. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I did not fully understand your last four lines,
9 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What I said, Mr. President, is
11 that we thank -- we thank the Chamber about the position that they
12 expressed about the way that the cross-examination was conducted on the
13 issue of credibility, and we hope that we will not assist at the same way
14 of treatment of the expert witness on the pretext of testing the
15 credibility of the witness, asking him questions like they were asked
16 yesterday, and we wanted to stress this because we believe this was one
17 way, if it's not, that this would destabilise an expert, and we don't
18 think that is the purpose of the exercise. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: To make it quite clear, the Chamber has expressed
20 itself yesterday clearly that positions taken in previous writings do not
21 as such in whatever way affect the truthfulness of a testimony given in
22 this court under oath. At the same time, if it's done prudently, an
23 expert witness may be confronted with earlier writings and the contents of
24 it. I hope that that's clear for all the parties, so it's also a matter
25 of the way in which it is done.
1 Mr. Ierace, is there any need to respond to the first part of
2 the --
3 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, we now learn that the witness who is
4 about to be called as an expert has been given information by persons so
5 far unnamed, has been party to discussions on the contents of his report,
6 or at least the background to preparing his report with persons unnamed,
7 conversations untaped. In other words, the Prosecution is not being
8 provided with all of the relevant material on which the witness based his
10 I also note that even within the body of the report the -- and
11 recent correspondence with the Defence, it is now clear that the opinions
12 of the witness are based not only on the evidence but on statements given
13 to him, including by persons who were not even called as witnesses.
14 So Mr. President, I think ultimately the issue of the
15 admissibility of this witness's evidence has to be reassessed. I'm in
16 your hands as to whether that's done now or at the end of his evidence.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In order to clarify for once
20 and for all and to avoid wasting time, it is not true to say that these
21 trips and examination took place with unmentioned persons. What I said is
22 that they are our experts, Dr. Cavoski and so on. And they were there.
23 There was a ballistics expert. And then there was also Mr. Radinovic and
24 Mr. Dunjic, all experts. And these are all names of experts that we are
25 talking about. The Prosecution cannot say that they did not know what was
1 going on. And the fact, in order to save time -- and we've organised
2 visits with several experts -- doesn't mean that the work that each of the
3 experts has done would have been invalidated [Realtime transcript read in
4 error "validated] by the fact that they were together. On the contrary.
5 I believe that this would allow more information. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
7 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, perhaps since it's now been referred
8 to twice, I should explain what happened when my learned colleague refers
9 to the Prosecution being aware of what was going on and being present
10 during examinations.
11 During a filming session of sniping incidents in September 2001,
12 the Prosecution invited Ms. Pilipovic to attend the filmings. She
13 attended, I think, two filmings. She appeared on the scene -- well, I
14 think she came with us from the UN building, in separate vehicles, and was
15 accompanied by some men. And at one of those site visits, she introduced
16 me to the men and that was it.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's --
18 MR. IERACE: That's hardly a matter of the Prosecution being
19 present during examinations by the Defence experts.
20 One also wonders what a military expert had to do with -- by way
21 of assistance with a ballistics expert. But again, I'm in your hands as
22 to whether the admissibility of this witness's evidence is determined now
23 on what we know, photographs undisclosed, notes undisclosed, conversations
24 with persons still not entirely named, let alone with notes, or whether we
25 do it at the end.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, first of all,
2 for the transcript, I did not say "validated" but "invalidated." That's
3 the first point.
4 The second issue is that we cannot -- I'm sorry about the time
5 that's passing, but the Defence cannot be reproached with wanting to look
6 for making the most of its work by making one trip with several experts
7 who are well known --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, let's just stop the discussion.
9 The most important thing for the Chamber to know is what sources of
10 information are used by the expert. And the Chamber will at the very
11 beginning of the expertise --
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will at the very beginning of the
14 testimony of this expert witness try to establish what is the basis of his
15 expertise. Of course, it's clear that even in the report, reference is
16 made to statements unknown to the Chamber. So therefore, there's a need
17 to know that. The Chamber does not think it to be dramatic if someone has
18 discussed, I mean, what -- that's something that might have happened often
19 while preparing a report, that you check with other experts, whether your
20 theoretical position is the right one, et cetera, et cetera. So as such,
21 we have to clearly distinguish the factual basis of the report of an
22 expert, which is not the same as the theoretical basis for it. But the
23 Chamber would like -- just like to be informed precisely on what happened.
24 Ms. Pilipovic, you were the first to stand up. Please proceed.
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
1 Good morning to everyone.
2 Your Honour, what I wish to do is to clarify the trip to Sarajevo
3 and also the examination, the visit of the sites by the Defence and by the
4 experts, and when Mr. Ierace was present, if that is necessary. If it
5 will be necessary, since I was there the whole time, I can explain. We
6 have the video recordings, video filmings. And of course, I've had the
7 escort from UN security, because I had asked for it for my experts. So it
8 wasn't a very brief visit to Sarajevo. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will put a few questions to the expert
10 right at the beginning of the testimony, as it has been done for some
11 experts of the Prosecution as well.
12 MR. IERACE: And in that regard, Mr. President, might I remind you
13 of the request yesterday that we have available to us a copy of all of the
14 materials that the Defence provided to the expert. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's how I understood your request of
16 yesterday, that at least we would know what written materials have been
17 put to -- at the disposal of the expert witness. And that's one of the
18 questions we'll ask him.
19 Then Mr. Ierace, are you interested to review the photographs
20 that, as we hear from the Defence, are taken by the -- yes. We'll then
21 ask the expert witness to make them available because that's one of the
22 possible sources of his report.
23 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
25 [The witness entered court]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I apologise. I take it that you are
2 Dr. Kunjadic?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Kunjadic, yes. Milan, yes. Doctor.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'll put the emphasis on the first part of your name.
5 Dr. Kunjadic, first of all, if you put on your earphones, can you
6 hear me in a language you understand?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you prefer to give your testimony in
9 your own language, which is what we call Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian, B/C/S?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to
12 make a solemn declaration before giving evidence in this court. The text
13 of that solemn declaration will be handed out to you now by the usher, and
14 I'd like to invite you to make that solemn declaration.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
16 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 WITNESS: MILAN KUNJADIC
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Dr. Kunjadic.
20 Before you'll be examined by the parties, I've got a few questions
21 for you. We've all read your report, and one of the things I would like
22 to know is where you say that you have received material from the Defence,
23 documents you say include photocopies of police reports, medical findings,
24 written statements, do you have a full list of the material or do you have
25 a full bundle of the material that has been put at your disposal and on
1 the basis of which you worked while preparing your report?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] While I was doing my report, I had
3 everything that the Defence had offered to me at my disposal, and these
4 were videotapes. These were --
5 JUDGE ORIE: May I stop you. I am aware the type of material that
6 was --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- Given to you by the Defence to work on. But do
9 you have a complete list of, for example, video A, B, C, and D, written
10 statement of Witness E, written statement of Witness I. So we'll try to
11 identify the exact sources you used.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I had -- and I have the list
13 here. I also have the expanded so-called working expert report which I
14 compiled before the trial. And in this expanded expert report, I also
15 included everything that I believed to be relevant to give my expert
16 opinion and the findings. But because this report was extremely large,
17 considerable, I was advised to shorten it because it was -- there were
18 also lists of documents. And what we waited for -- I was told to shorten
19 it. And what we waited for was to receive the transcript. So I compared
20 the transcript with the statements that I had while I was doing the first
21 expanded report.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But again, I do understand that you worked on it,
23 that you received material. Do we have -- for example, if you're talking
24 about transcripts. I take it that these are transcripts from the court
25 proceedings here.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But I also take it that you did not receive all the
3 transcripts of 12 months, 13 months, that you received a selection.
4 Therefore, we would very much like to know what exactly you received as a
5 basis for your work. Do you have a list or do you have a --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a selection of transcripts
7 here. In any case, what witnesses were heard, and these transcripts were
8 given to me by the Defence through a translator or through an interpreter,
9 and I processed this in the summer of last year, and I compared with the
10 previous statements that had been given to see if there were any
11 differences. However, because I understood that there were no
12 considerable differences, I then didn't quote them in any special way.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't refer to them.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. But of course it is up to the
16 parties and also to the Chamber to see whether there are any differences
17 and what -- if there are any differences, what the relevance is.
18 Would you be willing to -- to provide a list of exactly
19 those -- those transcripts you received so that the parties can check
20 exactly what you had available when you were working and what exactly you
21 had there to compare with earlier statements?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the Defence, in order to
23 prepare today's hearing, I was given the material that I compared to the
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the full set of material you received, apart
1 from videos?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are statements. These are
3 statements with the material inside, with photographs and the complete
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, that's the material as you received it.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I received it -- I mean, I had it
7 before, and I used it to write the first version.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had been issued for
10 confidentiality reasons, and then I returned it. And now when I was
11 preparing for this hearing, I asked to have a look at it again, the
12 sketches, the photographs, all the material that cannot be taken away.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that this is the material you received and
14 not your annotations you made. This is, may I take it, the -- did you
15 make any annotations in this material for yourself?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
17 JUDGE ORIE: So --
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: In order to give the Prosecution an opportunity to
20 verify the basis on which the expert worked, the Prosecution should be
21 allowed to inspect the material available. Whether it should be done now
22 right away or during the first break is a different matter. Perhaps
23 it -- but it should be put at the disposal for inspection to the
24 Prosecution so that you exactly know what material the witness has
1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I'd seek a short adjournment -- a very
2 short adjournment at this stage simply so that we can look through it in a
3 cursory fashion.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. IERACE: And then I would say --
6 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you need?
7 MR. IERACE: Fifteen minutes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Fifteen minutes.
9 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in order for
11 your Chamber to understand more fully why we didn't think that it was
12 useful to hand over these photographs, perhaps you can ask the witness if
13 he has these photographs with him and he can then submit it either to you,
14 your Chamber, or to the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have been informed that you also made your
16 own photographs of sites you have visited. Although there's not a lot
17 about your visits on the sites in the report, would you be willing to put
18 your photographs at the disposal of the parties as well so that they can
19 check whether there's any information on these photographs that is of any
20 relevance for them, either for questioning you or for the case as a whole?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As it happens, coincidentally I have
22 these photographs because I was reminding myself about certain details
23 from them. I didn't think that the Chamber needed them. And just like
24 some of the notes that Professor Dunjic and myself we took in Sarajevo
25 when we were marking from where the photographs was taken. That was on
1 the 15th of May, 2001. We were a second time in Sarajevo, when we
2 couldn't visit the sites at our leisure -- the incident sites at our
3 leisure. But what we did, we tried to remark -- to observe the streets
4 and the field and the conditions under which incidents could have
5 happened. We visited the demarcation lines, and that's when I made a set
6 of photographs, and I can of course submit them to be perused.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One additional question: How did you know
8 exactly where the demarcation lines were? Who told you?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was presented by the Defence to
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you receive any maps in that respect as to
12 where the confrontation lines --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We received a map of the city of
14 Sarajevo, yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Were the demarcation lines marked on it or ...?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The demarcation line was marked in.
17 That was presented to us by the Defence. That's the map that we received
18 from the Defence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you still have that map?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think I have that map here.
21 But I -- I'm not quite sure. I have a lot of material. I'll have to have
22 a look if you wish to have it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I've seen in the report that apart from mentioning
24 that a certain position was close to the confrontation line, without
25 giving any further position, I don't know whether the parties would need
1 it. But if you could find it, that would be good. So that you'll
2 understand what the parties and what the Chamber also seeks is to
3 establish clearly on what basis you have given your expert opinion.
4 Mr. Ierace.
5 MR. IERACE: On page 2 of the report, there's a reference to maps,
6 plural. Perhaps it would be appropriate to ask the witness if he was
7 given any other maps.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Was there one map or were there several maps
9 that ...?
10 And were these coloured maps with darker and clearer green lines
11 and red circles, or doesn't that ring a bell to you? Because that's a
12 type of map we've seen several times. I don't know whether these types of
13 maps are used.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was in Sarajevo, we used a
15 map to find streets and incident sites, because at that moment we didn't
16 know the incident sites. The sites, we only knew them exactly when the
17 investigator came. And in six or seven incidents we were for the same
18 time in September 2002. So when I'm talking about a map, I'm talking
19 about a map of Sarajevo. But of course I also know about the maps where
20 sniping incidents were marked. And I had those maps in front of me on
21 several occasions like at the time when I consulted the Defence when
22 Mr. Hinchliffe testified in July this year.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That clarifies, at least, that that's also part
24 of the material that you have seen, at least.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Pilipovic.
2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just would like to
3 ask you -- to ask Mr. Kunjadic also whether the video filming was done by
4 the Defence when we were in Sarajevo.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. You've told us about videos you've seen.
6 Ms. Pilipovic now refers to videos taken by the Defence. Did you only see
7 those videos, or did you also see other videos?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was talking about videotapes,
9 I meant the videotapes that the Prosecution presented. But according to
10 my brief, there were also videotapes that were made, that is, video
11 recordings, of incidents at the time when the investigator was there, also
12 in September. That is, in incidents number 5, 6, 17 -- 16 and 17. We
13 also filmed other things, because together with us there was the military
14 expert as well.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Pilipovic, I do understand that the expert
16 witness has been provided with videotapes produced by the Prosecution
17 with --
18 Is there a list what videotapes you exactly have viewed or -- or
19 all the videotapes?
20 Have you put at the disposal of the expert witness all the
21 videotapes or ...?
22 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, a precise list of
23 video cassettes that we received from the Prosecution is precise inasmuch
24 as all the incidents were on one videotape that the Defence received from
25 the Prosecution in November 2001, before the trial. And the video
1 material that the Defence filmed in September 2001, this is the video
2 material in edited versions, that is, in shortened versions, all in -- on
3 one tape, probably about an hour and a half duration. And to my learned
4 colleagues I disclosed three videotapes that are directly linked to four
5 incidents that the Defence visited the sites of together with my
6 colleagues and filmed with the cameramen of the Defence, who was also
7 present at those site where the cameramen of the filming crew of the
8 Prosecution were also at those.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Has the shortened edited version of the Defence video
10 recordings been put at the disposal of the expert, or have the -- has the
11 full version been put at his disposal? I mean, is there any difference
12 between what you disclosed to the Prosecution and what you gave to the
14 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] The full version.
15 Your Honour, certain details with regard to certain
16 incidents -- there's no difference. But from that part of the video
17 material, I made three video cassettes, and there are four incidents on
18 those video cassettes. The other video material has also been shown to
19 Mr. Kunjadic, and these recordings, which I disclosed to the Prosecution,
20 has to do with part of the material for specific incidents where that same
21 place was filmed which was filmed by my learned colleagues. But in this
22 case, the filming was carried out on order of the ballistics expert -- at
23 the request of the ballistics expert.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, there's one question I want to be sure
25 about: Is there any video material -- has any video material been given
1 to the expert which has not been given to the Prosecution? That's the
2 main question. Even if it would be one second or ten seconds or relevant
3 or irrelevant, is there any video material given to the expert which has
4 not been disclosed fully to the Prosecution?
5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on the video cassette
6 that was made on that day there are perhaps certain details that the
7 Defence filmed for itself.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, the question is whether any material
9 has been given to the expert which has not been disclosed -- if you made
10 videos for your own -- just for your own memory, for your own recollection
11 of what you personally saw, that's a different matter. But is there any,
12 even the smallest portion, of video which has been put -- which has been
13 given to the expert and that has not been disclosed to the Prosecution?
14 That's the precise question I'm putting to you.
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there is a part -- a
16 certain part of video material on one of the video cassettes, and I think
17 it was disclosed to the Prosecution and that has to do with the topography
18 of Sarajevo.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But you're now telling us that there was one part
20 that was disclosed. My question was whether there was anything given to
21 the expert which has not been given to the Prosecution. That's -- I think
22 it's a quite simple question.
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The expert has seen not one single piece of video
25 material which has not been available to the Prosecution.
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that video material
2 is accessible to the Prosecution. It's one video cassette on which the
3 entire topography of Sarajevo was filmed. Mr. Kunjadic was present at the
4 time too. And these three video cassettes we can be seen here, and that
5 is connected to the incidents. I just have to check to see whether it's
6 video cassette number 7 or 8. And the video cassette also shows the
7 command post of General Galic, and from that video cassette last year I
8 presented -- I showed to Mr. Indic a part that lasts for three minutes, in
9 which you can also see the command post of the general.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your answer is clear. There's nothing that has
11 not been disclosed to the Prosecution that might have been used by the --
12 by the expert witness.
13 Mr. Ierace.
14 MR. IERACE: That may be the case, Mr. President, but this is the
15 first time the so-called topography video has been indicated to the
16 Prosecution as being part of the material that was shown to this witness,
17 and it will take us a little time to locate that amongst the disclosed
18 material from the Defence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It at least was not quite clear what material
20 exactly was on the basis of the report.
21 Under the supervision of the registrar, the Prosecution will have
22 15 minutes from now on to check both the written sources that the witness
23 indicated have been provided to him when he prepared his report and also
24 to have a look at the photographs that you were so kind to put at our
1 We'll adjourn for 15 minutes.
2 --- Break taken at 9.43 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 10.02 a.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.
5 MR. IERACE: Thank you for that, Mr. President.
6 First of all, in relation to the statements, they appear in
7 bundles with a paper sleeve and on each sleeve is marked the incident
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. IERACE: Missing are the folders for incidents 3, 4, 11, 14,
11 and 15. That's the first problem.
12 Secondly, whilst, of course, I haven't yet had an opportunity to
13 go through the context -- the contents, I picked one randomly. Excuse me.
14 Incident number 9. The report reads in part, "There is no evidence that
15 fire had been opened from an AA machine-gun with exploding ammunition as
16 indicated in the official police record made by the Vogosca Public
17 Security Station officers." So I went to folder 9, and although we
18 haven't been able to organise our language assistant at such short notice,
19 it does appear to contain a statement by one of the witnesses, an English
20 translation of that statement. Excuse me. And some photographs and a map
21 but no police report. Therefore, in two respects to an unknown degree, in
22 relation to one of those respects, it appears on the face of it that the
23 material is incomplete.
24 Going to the photographs, there are something like about 40
25 photographs. A number of the photographs appear to be general views of
1 parts of Sarajevo which I'm able to recognise; others of buildings which I
2 don't recognise, some of which I suspect what they may be; others of
3 buildings, perhaps a few photographs of one building, that type of thing,
4 that I have no idea what it is or what the significance is. We were given
5 some notes in B/C/S. To the extent that we're able to translate those
6 notes, the information in the notes doesn't really assist us very much as
7 to their significance or lack of significance. Mr. Piletta-Zanin
8 generously offered to translate for me during the break. I'm grateful for
9 that. But I think we were able to get by sufficiently to identify the
10 defects in that.
11 Now, Mr. President, the danger with this is that in chief the
12 witness may be asked about something in the photographs. We haven't had
13 an opportunity to -- to check it out beforehand. Or even worse, the
14 photographs might be used in re-examination, giving us even less of an
16 JUDGE ORIE: If the photographs are of any relevance, then of
17 course they should have been disclosed to the Prosecution or at least the
18 Prosecution should have been notified about the existence of these
20 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. IERACE: Might I respectfully interrupt.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. IERACE: That is not the point that I seek to make. It's not
25 a question of disclosure. It's a question of understanding how this
1 witness came to his conclusions, how this material is relevant to those
2 conclusions, whether there is other material which contributed to those
3 conclusions. That's why, in my respectful submission, this material
4 should have been identified in the report in a way which transparently
5 conveys that process. So even if we had had these photographs two weeks
6 ago, that wouldn't have been of much assistance to us without an
7 explanation in writing from the witness explaining what they mean to him,
8 what their relevance is. Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we can see that
11 there's quite a lot of confusion here, no distinctions made between form
12 and substance. If the witness does not have all the elements in his file
13 that are necessary to him, according to the Prosecution, that would be
14 another matter. It would be necessary to verify to see whether he was in
15 a position to reach such-and-such a conclusion. That's another problem.
16 It concerns the form. But the fact, Mr. President, is that all the
17 information that was provided to this witness come from the Prosecution's
18 file, in fact, regardless of the form, with certain minor exceptions. I
19 will mention the photographs, the notes that I didn't offer to
20 translate -- I offered to explain the photographs to Mr. Ierace, if he
21 wanted me to do so. And it also concerns the topographic reports and that
22 concerns the notes in question.
23 Mr. President, the fact that photographs were taken is absolutely
24 irrelevant with regard to the problem that has been raised. Given that we
25 know that for each of these sites the Prosecution made 360-degree
1 photographs, and even certain computer projections, and the fact that the
2 expert wanted to take these photographs for himself in order to be able to
3 remember the situation when he -- when he was working. It's just an
4 indicator of good sense. It shows his professional concern with regard to
5 his manner of carrying out his task, performing his task. It's quite
6 simple and that's where it ends. To raise this issue is just an argument
7 that seems to us to be quite hollow, in fact, because we all know -- we
8 all have these sites in mind. They've been recorded, photographed, et
9 cetera. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to make two observations: The first is that
11 form and substance are often interrelated, so that it's not of great
12 assistance to say that it's just a form because forms have something to do
13 with substance.
14 The second issue is that things are hardly ever as simple as they
15 look at first sight. The Chamber has assisted the Prosecution as far as
16 it stands now to give at least some insight in -- at least a more precise
17 insight in the sources used by the expert witness. We'll ask the expert
18 witness about 3, 4, 11, 14, and 15. I just have to -- then we should not
19 forget that most of the conclusions of the expert tend in a direction
20 which say since we have no bullet found, we cannot establish what the
21 bullet was. The conclusions are very much in the negative sense. And
22 it's for most of these conclusions there seems to be not great puzzles as
23 to the basis on what these conclusions are drawn and those conclusions are
24 very often drawn on the basis of the absence of certain information and
25 the absence of reports on entry wounds, exit wounds, et cetera, et cetera.
1 Therefore, we should now start with the examination of this expert
2 witness. We should try to clarify those parts missing and whether on a
3 photograph at a distance -- a photograph that might just have been used
4 for the memory of the expert, whether it really is appearing at the
5 distance of three or four hundred metres or not might not have that great
6 relevance that would be a reason for great concern at this moment in this
8 Let's see where we get, and we'll first ask the missing parts of
9 the documentation.
10 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated. Dr. Kunjadic, the Prosecution has
14 just gone through your material briefly, and they informed us that there
15 seems to be no documentation on incidents 3, 4, 11, 14, and 15. Are you
16 aware of that, and what would be the reason of the absence of those five
17 incidents in your documentation?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I had all those
19 incidents earlier on, and I have now taken them from the Defence to remind
20 myself of what was contained in them. I explained that. But excerpts
21 from that material, I have it also written down in this version which I
23 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand you well that you gave back all the
24 documentation on all incidents to the Defence and that you now received
25 only the material that you have just provided to us?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This material was with the Defence.
2 I have now taken it. But earlier on I took it from them when I was
3 preparing my expert report.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then, of course, the next question would be to the
5 Defence where the documentation on these incidents -- I don't know whether
6 it's all relevant. I have to check that. But if there is a clear
7 response to that, I'd like to hear it. If it would be not easy at this
8 very moment, I'd prefer that the Defence tries to find it, the reason
9 during the break, and then inform us afterwards.
10 Mr. Ierace -- Mr. Piletta-Zanin, yes.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you for this respite.
12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. IERACE: In my respectful submission, it's important to
15 clarify something the witness has said. "I have now taken them from the
16 Defence." Could it be clarified whether this is the same material that he
17 initially received or at least part of the same material he initially
18 received or whether this is a copy of material that he originally
20 JUDGE ORIE: We could ask the expert witness to -- to verify that
21 during one of the breaks.
22 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I could perhaps answer
24 that, Mr. President. It's impossible to check everything. That's the
25 first matter.
1 And secondly, you know how the work is done. It's quite probable
2 that in such-and-such a series of documents the photocopy of a transcript
3 gets mislaid and then it's then withdrawn and put back into the
4 transcript. So it can't be guaranteed. You can't guarantee the strict
5 authenticity of the documents. But the identity of the documents, yes,
6 this can be guaranteed. But the originality -- the original nature of the
7 documents can't be guaranteed as such because it's possible for documents
8 to be mislaid, et cetera.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, let's not discuss at this moment
10 what could or not could be done. Let's first try and see what can be
11 done. And then we would afterwards discuss why the results are imperfect,
12 or perhaps perfect.
13 Ms. Pilipovic, we'll hear then an answer on the five incidents
14 after the break. You may proceed in examining the expert witness,
15 Dr. Kunjadic.
16 Examined by Ms. Pilipovic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kunjadic, good day. Could you first of all
18 tell us your full name.
19 A. My name is Milan Kunjadic. My father's name was Ilija. I was
20 born on the 20th of January, 1948 in Drvar. I live and work in Belgrade.
21 Q. Thank you. When you say that you live and work in Belgrade, can
22 you tell us first of all what your educational background is, which
23 schools you have finished. We have provided your curriculum vitae, but
24 could you briefly tell us which schools you have finished.
25 A. I finished the Faculty of Science and Mathematics, the section for
1 physical chemistry. Later I finished a specialised course in the police
2 for forensics and also a course for ballistics.
3 Q. When you say that you finished a course for criminological
4 technique and for ballistics, can you tell us when this took place and for
5 how long your professional career, so to speak, lasted in the police as a
6 ballistics expert.
7 A. I worked in the police from 1977 until 1994. I was involved in
8 affairs that had to do with forensic techniques, forensic ballistics. It
9 has to do with the interpretation of material traces caused by firearms.
10 I went through all the training stages. This involved practical work,
11 investigations. I carried out a large number of investigations into
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please approach the
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please come closer to the microphone, and
16 Madam Usher will adjust them.
17 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Kunjadic, you say that you carried out a large number of
20 investigations. Can you tell us, first of all, what you're currently
21 involved in.
22 A. I'm also involved in forensic ballistics. I have an independent
23 agency which is involved exclusively in this sphere. I work at the
24 request of courts. I attend hearings at courts, and I attend the
25 explanation, interpretation of findings at the court.
1 Q. Can you tell us, as an expert -- as a ballistics expert, how many
2 cases do you deal with, cases from the sphere of forensic ballistics?
3 A. That depends on the year. It varies from year to year. But it's
4 between 100 and 150 approximately, annually.
5 Q. You told us that you worked at the request of the court, and you
6 said that you also carried out investigations in the police force. Could
7 you briefly tell us the methodology used when carrying out investigation,
8 if we're talking about people who were wounded by firearms.
9 A. Investigations are carried out on the basis of criminological
10 principles. What is important for my work, it's the criminological
11 technique that is important. It secures and packs and provides material
12 traces. For my expert reports, sketches and photographs of the site are
13 important, and the precise measures of all the traces that are found on
14 the site. These traces identify the trajectory of the projectile and can
15 be used for an expert report which is to be drawn up at a later date and
16 to examine the trajectory of the projectile.
17 Q. You've mentioned the methodology. You've told us what is
18 necessary to be done when carrying out an investigation, and you've told
19 us what you, as a forensic ballistics expert, require when investigating
20 people who are wounded by firearms. Can you tell us whether in such
21 situations investigations are always carried out.
22 A. Investigation is always carried out. All police forces throughout
23 the world do this. They follow universal rules, and it is impossible to
24 draw up an expert report without following such rules. If you fail to
25 carry out an investigation, this can no longer be repeated, and that is
1 why in certain cases, given that certain traces -- the damage
2 caused -- the trace of the damage caused can't be taken, this is why the
3 expert in ballistics is often present when investigations are carried out
4 in order to record and detect the traces and in order to carry out certain
5 measurements on the site which have to be done and perhaps to carry out
6 what we call sighting, if this is necessary, and this means to identify
7 the trajectory through the air, and this is done on the basis of material
8 references, material points that are detected at the site.
9 Q. Mr. Kunjadic, can you therefore tell us what the purpose of the
10 investigation is now that you have told us about this.
11 A. The purpose is to ensure that the material traces are authentic
12 and to ensure that they have probative value, that is to say, that there
13 are elements that can be used to make a ballistics report later on. So
14 the purpose of investigating is to determine the material traces left by
16 Q. You've told us what the purpose of the investigation is. Can you
17 now tell us who orders an investigation to be carried out and who carries
18 it out.
19 A. Well, investigative organs order investigations to be carried out.
20 That means the courts in Yugoslavia. And it's usually the organ of
21 interior affairs that carries out the investigation with certain services.
22 Q. As a ballistics expert, what is your duty when carrying out an
23 investigation and later on when processing the case?
24 A. I have told you what the ballistics expert's task is. He has the
25 determine the material traces which are later used for his expert report.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 But criminological technicians are not in a position to understand these
2 traces or to detect these traces. Once these traces at the site have been
3 recorded, then they have to be processed in the ballistics laboratory.
4 First of all, this has to do with the identification of the weapon, of the
5 shell, of the projectile, of the clothes, the point at which the clothes
6 were torn open, et cetera.
7 Q. Mr. Kunjadic, you tell us that all the traces that are found at
8 the site are analysed. Can you now tell us what can be determined having
9 analysed a projectile or by analysing a projectile which is found at the
11 A. Well, by examining a projectile, it is possible to determine the
12 kind of projectile concerned. It's possible to determine its calibre.
13 It's possible to identify certain deformations either on the side or the
14 front of the projectile. It's also possible to identify the remains of
15 the surface it could have hit if we are talking about a ricochet. It is
16 also possible to identify traces of blood. That would be -- those would
17 be the main things.
18 Q. Mr. Kunjadic, as a ballistics expert, when you receive or have all
19 the necessary elements, can you tell us whether it is possible to
20 determine the distance from which fire was opened, or rather, the distance
21 between the point at which someone was hit from a firearm and the point
22 from which the shot was fired. You as a ballistics expert, when you have
23 all the elements you require, is it possible for you to determine this
25 A. If you have a sufficient number of elements, it is possible to
1 determine with great precision where the projectile was fired from, with a
2 great degree of precision. It can't be completely precise though. But in
3 addition to these material traces, you'd determine the angle of fall. And
4 on the basis of the calibre of the bullet and ballistics information, one
5 can determine where the shot came from with a great degree of probability,
6 providing that the trajectory -- that in the course of its trajectory, the
7 projectile did not ricochet or if the projectile was not slowed down when
8 penetrating some kind of an obstacle. If we're talking about wounds
9 inflicted on a person, then it is of great importance to carry out a
10 forensic examination, a forensic medical examination of those who died or
11 who were wounded or to carry out a forensic postmortem. Because in terms
12 of ballistics, this is part of the projectile's trajectory, which has to
13 be examined.
14 Since the energy of the projectile is proportional to the
15 penetration of the body, so this can be relevant information for
16 determining the distance from which the projectile was fired.
17 Q. Mr. Kunjadic, can you tell us, to what extent do you as a
18 ballistics expert - and you've told us what you require in order to make a
19 ballistics report - to what extent do you assess -- do you take into
20 consideration the statements of witnesses when you are compiling an expert
22 A. The witness reports are important, and it's one of the main roots
23 of investigation, because in open spaces we wouldn't be able to know from
24 which side a person was hit if this person doesn't tell us that. On the
25 other hand, the problem we have with witness statements concerns the
1 correct interpretation of these statements, and it also has to do with the
2 possibility of determining with precision the position of their body when
3 they were hit because even if -- if the position of the body is not
4 portrayed absolutely correctly, this can have an influence on the
5 determination of the direction of fire. But witness statements are
6 certainly important, but it is not possible to determine these factors
7 only on that basis, if we have no other elements which indicate how the
8 person was wounded.
9 Q. Mr. Kunjadic, after you've answered this question, I'm going to
10 ask you: If a investigation of the scene has not been carried out, the
11 one that you mentioned, either a police of a forensic, later on is it
12 possible to reconstruct and to ascertain the ballistics elements that
13 would be of assistance for a court to decide about the way that a person
14 has been injured, shot from a firearm, or to ascertain the distance from
15 which -- from the firing point in relation to the place where -- location
16 where the person was wounded?
17 A. The reconstruction of the events have to be followed not only by
18 the witness statement but also the examination of the body by a forensic
19 physician, an expert. In those cases that I have examined, this has not
20 been done in these cases. Now, we do not have the statement of the expert
21 about the identifications of the canals through the body of the injury, of
22 the wound. However, it is possible to do it now if these examinations can
23 be carried out or perhaps if there are x-rays in existence, particularly
24 with projectiles or fragments of projectiles inside a body. Then it will
25 tell a little more about the trajectory of the projectile, and probably we
1 can also tell about the direction where it's come from and the range.
2 Q. I'm going to ask you: As a ballistics expert, have you had
3 experience -- and if you have, can you tell us about your experiences
4 about determining the distance from the firing point of a firearm in city
6 A. In most of the cases, it happens in small areas, in closed areas.
7 However, while I was in the police, during celebrations or for New Year's
8 celebrations or sports results, people would fire into the air. And then
9 there would be a large number of projectiles that would then hit
10 apartments, and that's when there were injuries that would take place. On
11 one occasion there was a murder that took place as well.
12 Now, for 12 years -- for 12 New Years, every 1st of January I
13 would examine such incidents, and it was in this sense that I can say that
14 I have experience because I conducted sightings. I carried out the
15 determination of the distance from where -- from where the firearm was
16 shot, the size of the opening or the hole that the projectile left on the
17 window, on the glass, and how shall I put it, we've checked these findings
18 because in many -- on many occasions we carried out identifications. On
19 the other hand, I have also worked in cases in wounding injuries during a
20 hunting, with hunting rifles. That would be all.
21 Q. When you've told us that you've had experience in determining the
22 distance, the distance from where the firearm was shot or fired in city
23 surroundings, can you tell us, on the basis of those experiences, is it
24 possible to ascertain the distance in open or in an enclosed space?
25 A. It's obviously easier in an enclosed space because there are
1 several places that can be pierced through, and it is then easy -- it is
2 possible to establish the distance and that's how you ascertain the
3 distance. And in those cases where you are able to conduct the sighting,
4 the trajectory, then sometimes you can ascertain the exact point, that is,
5 the distance, if distances are not too large.
6 Q. Now that you've explained the methodology of work, can you tell us
7 the methodology of work in such circumstances - you've told us about the
8 methodology that you use in Yugoslavia so to speak - now, as a ballistics
9 expert, the methodology of work in situations in carrying out
10 investigations and giving your expert opinion, do you know about other
12 A. Well, victims suffer injury from firearms, whether it's peace or
13 wartime, and the police, they do their work either in peace or in war. So
14 the on-site investigations are carried out in all circumstances. Of
15 course, there are some circumstances when it is not possible for some
16 objective reasons. However, in the incidents that we have processed,
17 usually what was done was the kind of insufficient on-site investigation.
18 So only the operative officer would come out but not the forensic
19 technician or a ballistics expert. And there were probably no reasons for
20 this not to be done. I don't know.
21 MR. IERACE: I object to that, Mr. President. That's speculative
22 as to what may or may not have happened or why it may or may not have
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's a comment on the answer of the expert
1 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic. And perhaps you could find a
2 suitable moment for a break in up till two or three minutes.
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
4 Q. Mr. Kunjadic, while you were compiling your written statement that
5 you have submitted to the Chamber, did you have data on the conducted
6 on-site investigations?
7 A. In my expert report, I listed where the on-site investigations
8 were carried out and where the on-site investigation was carried out, then
9 there was a more successful ascertainment of distance, which I've also
10 explained, in which cases this was so. In all the other cases it was in
11 the beginning when I was explaining about the incident, I would put first
12 of all whether this was done or not, this on-site investigation, so that I
13 would point to the starting points and elements that are necessary for a
14 forensic ballistics analysis, because it is only carried out exclusively,
15 as I've already told you, on the basis of witness statements, on the basis
16 of material traces.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe this is a
19 good time for a break.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Since we had already 15 minutes off, we'll
21 adjourn until ten minutes past 11.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.41 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 11.11 a.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.
25 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick reference to
1 another matter: Mr. Radinovic. The Prosecution is unable to translate
2 the notes that we've been given due to legibility of the witness's
3 handwriting. I respectfully request a typed version of the notes, no
4 amplification, just the words which appear in the notes.
5 And secondly, this, of course, assumes that the Prosecution does
6 not succeed in its recent motion on Mr. Radinovic. The Prosecution seeks
7 from the Defence an indication of the -- that is, the identity of the ABiH
8 orders it proposes to tender, that is, beyond those which are attached to
9 the report by next Wednesday so we can arrange for them to be translated.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the Defence indicate what ABiH reports it
12 intends to tender, especially if they've not yet been translated.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think that it is not
14 possible to answer like this straight away. We have to see the documents.
15 We will check and as soon as it's possible, possibly even this afternoon,
16 we'll get in touch with the Prosecution to expand on the document or
17 documents that this is about.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So I take it that the Defence will, on shortest
19 notice, inform the Prosecution about the documents not referred to in the
20 report but nevertheless intended to be tendered.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And also, Mr. President, you
22 probably have noticed that if it is hard for the Prosecution to read the
23 notes done by the expert, it is also for ourselves. So we have to contact
24 the expert and ask him to do this work. This will take some time, of
25 course. And we will keep you informed or keep the Prosecution informed as
1 much as possible.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Since I do understand that the Defence is willing to
4 seek the cooperation of the expert witness --
5 Can't you read anything at all? Or is it just then and now a word
6 that you can't read?
7 MR. IERACE: I'm not sure, Mr. President. I'll have to speak to
8 the language assistant. But --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Because if it's --
10 MR. IERACE: Certainly, it's more than one or two words. I can
11 assure you of that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. But I don't know how
13 extensive these notes are. I don't know how many words are illegible or
14 not. So before -- and appreciating that the Defence is willing to
15 cooperate, before finally dealing with it, could you please see whether it
16 could be presented in such a way that -- I mean, typing out, especially if
17 it's a lot of text, might take a lot of time. And I don't know whether
18 the expert would have the facilities to do so. But keeping in mind the
19 willingness of the cooperation of the Defence, could we just see how to
20 solve that problem first between the parties before the Chamber gives a
21 final order on it.
22 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I'll make some inquiries or cause some
23 inquiries to be made during the course of today's session.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. IERACE: And update you at the end of the session.
1 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you, is the -- is the expert witness
2 already -- has he arrived in The Hague, Mr. Piletta-Zanin? No, not --
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as far as I'm
4 following the schedule that we compiled, Mr. Radinovic will arrive to be
5 heard only after the 20th of February.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I should have consulted my -- the schedule.
7 Let's then at this moment --
8 Yes, Mr. Ierace.
9 MR. IERACE: He's not due to give evidence until the 3rd and 4th
10 of March.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's then -- first of all, that gives more
12 time to prepare for both parties, and so therefore if this would result in
13 a better legible version of the notes, that would certainly be
15 And let's now ask the usher to escort Dr. Kunjadic into the
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my co-counsel will
18 continue with the examination.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
21 Please be seated, Dr. Kunjadic.
22 Examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, witness. Can you hear me?
24 A. Yes, I can. Good morning.
25 Q. Thank you. I'd like to clarify two or three elements of your
1 testimony. I saw that you did not answer a question that you were asked
2 by my colleague, page 33, and this question was about whether you knew how
3 things happened and proceeded in other police forces in the world, in
4 investigations that were necessary. At that time you were interrupted by
5 the Prosecution and you did not continue with your answer. And the
6 question was: What do you know about the techniques used by other police
7 forces elsewhere, apart from the former Yugoslavia?
8 A. In the territory of the former Yugoslavia, we all had the same
9 procedure that was followed as far as the police and forensic examinations
10 were concerned. So before the war, we had joint seminars that were held.
11 We held meetings, exchange of opinions, and matters of expert opinions.
12 As far as the forensic technique is concerned and conducting on-site
13 investigations, they were the same. The team is always made up of the
14 operative officer and a crime scene technician, that is, the basic team.
15 Q. Thank you. Witness, on this subject, you mentioned this need to
16 have experts, that is, specialists, not just technicians, on-site
17 technicians. And you told us that this was the only thing that would
18 allow as a rule to establish scientific conclusion, almost definitive, on
19 the matter in question, that is, the origin and the source of fire.
20 However, what can you tell us as a general rule about hypothetical absence
21 of such researches, examinations, investigations on site.
22 A. Well, if you don't have anything, if you don't have the basic
23 elements to come to any conclusions, expertly speaking --
24 Q. Okay. Well, if I'm going to ask you a more precise question, a
25 more specific question. What is it possible -- how is it possible to do a
1 reconstruction that happens much later, after the fact?
2 A. It all depends whether it is possible to identify, whether you're
3 able to show the exact spot where the event occurred, whether there are
4 relevant traces on the body, whether it is on the body that you can
5 identify where the bullet has entered the body -- the projectile has
6 entered the body, where it has exited the body, and that would depend on
7 as far as this aspect is concerned. However --
8 Q. Please proceed.
9 A. However, if you do not have this, then the reconstruction will
10 bear no results.
11 Q. Thank you. You spoke to us about canals, and I think we can
12 imagine what that is -- a channel, correction. And in relation to this
13 channel, what do you mean by that exactly? That is the first question.
14 And is it possible to examine it even under critical circumstances, that
15 is, medical critical circumstances, that is, in time of war? So there are
16 two questions in this one question.
17 A. In time of war, it all depends on the circumstances, on the
18 possibilities. Probably yes. As far as the channels of the entrance and
19 exit wound, I can only speak about as part of the entire trajectory of the
20 projectile. But this particular aspect is linked to the forensic medical
21 analysis, examination, and it's that expert that is able to give a
22 competent opinion on this.
23 Q. Thank you. You said - and I'm referring to page 31 - that the
24 position of the body, and that was found on the ground or on another
25 surface, can be determining. In any case, very important. Can you tell
1 us, why is that and how and so on?
2 A. If you wish to do a reconstruction of events, if there are
3 elements necessary to do this, then you start with the location where the
4 injured person is standing, and this location must be known. That is the
5 starting point of sorts.
6 Q. And why is that a starting point?
7 A. In relation to that point, this is where you can conduct the
8 examination, how was he turned in that moment, what was he doing at that
9 time, and so on. If you don't know the position, you don't know whether
10 he was in a valley, whether he was on a height or an elevated ground,
11 whether he was crouching or standing or in any other position.
12 Q. Thank you. Witness, I'd like you to listen to my question
13 carefully. Is there a distinction to be made, therefore, between a
14 location of the incident as such and the position of the body after the
15 incident? And if so, what is this distinction?
16 A. That is also a question that really is for a forensic physician,
17 for a medical expert to give. If a person is hit and if this person was
18 seriously wounded, then he would fall. He would fall next to the place
19 where he was standing. How he fell, that will also be important to see
20 whether there were witnesses or if the person was wounded and then the
21 person himself can tell us about it.
22 Q. Thank you. Witness, you spoke to us about what happens in -- at
23 New Year, which happens that sometimes in some parts of the world shots
24 are fired into the air and they cause accidents. That's page 32, line 14.
25 Now, simply, a precision. You said that you investigated several cases of
1 this kind. As a result of your investigations, was it possible to
2 establish whether this was done intentionally [as interpreted]?
3 MR. IERACE: I object, Mr. President. The question doesn't have
4 any probative value in terms of an event that the witness says happens
5 where he lives, and for that reason it should be withdrawn, in my
6 respectful submission.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the
8 transcript -- I believe that I was betrayed by the transcript, but I
9 said -- not intentionally, but that's just a detail.
10 May I just respond in the presence of the witness?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But let's first ask the witness whether your
12 expertise, which as I understand this, ballistic expertise, would allow
13 you to draw any conclusions as to whether wounds caused by firearms have
14 been inflicted intentionally or by error or by mistake. Would your
15 discipline allow you to draw conclusions?
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I asked the witness a question, and I invite him to
18 answer the question.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I never state, and that's not part
20 of my expertise to expand on intentions or lack of intentions. I'm only
21 talking about my expert opinion about trajectory of the projectile and all
22 the other elements.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, let's return to your
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] If I can rephrase. I do not
3 think that I've asked this witness to say whether the result of his
4 examinations would give him the intention. Whether the result of the
5 examination -- the investigation, that is, the police investigation
6 globally, would permit to establish, in terms of looking at forensic
7 ballistics facts, whether it was possible to establish whether this was
8 something that was an accident or done intentionally. That's all. This
9 is just if he knew whether in such-and-such case that he was involved in
10 other services managed to come to the conclusion whether this firing was
11 intentional or unintentional. That's all.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's now a different question.
13 Whether you are aware of other investigation, not primary
14 ballistics, that could establish whether fire at New Year's eve or -- what
15 festivities was that, Mr. Piletta-Zanin? I have to check that. Yes, that
16 firing in the air at New Year, that the -- whether other investigations
17 would have resulted in an opinion as to whether this was intentionally
18 done or not.
19 Is that -- I have some difficulties in understanding your question
20 precisely, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, because you are talking about shots in the
21 air. Did you expect the victims to be somewhere in the air or ...?
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No. Mr. President, it's very
23 simple. It is possible to imagine the Machiavellianism of someone who
24 would use these facts, for instance, to fire intentionally on a third
25 party, commit his crime, hoping that that will be seen as an accident.
1 And the investigation can prove this. It is also possible to establish
2 that shots were fired and they were fired in the air and they
3 unfortunately arrived later and caused victims. So this is a question of
4 stray bullets. So this is what I wanted to find out from the expert in
5 the cases that must be very numerous. What is the reason for these
6 injuries or for these victims, whether this was intentional -- alleged
7 intentional -- I'm sorry, I don't mean to --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- I'll put the question to you.
9 Mr. Kunjadic, you said that you were involved in expertise, injuries
10 caused by, may I call it, New Year's firing of firearms. Is there any
11 clue for you whether it's in your expertise or what you heard from others
12 that this fire caused anything else than accidental injuries but, opposed
13 to that, intended injuries?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not take part in such a
15 case. I was not involved in such a case.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. In these cases that you have mentioned of persons who were hit by
19 bullets during New Year's celebrations, is it possible to find out whether
20 these shots were direct shots or whether these were ricochets? Was this
21 something that you were able to examine?
22 A. There were cases of both kinds. I don't know individually when
23 and where and what. But in any case, when there is a large number of
24 shots fired, then you have a little bit of everything.
25 Q. Thank you. Is this something that occurs, these injuries or these
1 deaths, is this something they occur during New Year's celebrations? Is
2 it something that occurred before the war in -- regularly? That is, that
3 every end of the year or one out of two years, according to your
4 experience. How frequent was this?
5 A. You were not precise.
6 Q. I'll rephrase. You told us that you examined several cases of
7 these injuries that happened during New Year's celebrations, end of the
8 year celebrations. These shots, did they happen regularly every year and
9 every year you would have the same problems?
10 A. Every year there would be firing, but we didn't have injuries
11 every year. I mean, I don't know. We have data from 1994.
12 Q. Thank you very much.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, now we'd like
14 to have a look at a tape. But before -- before we do that, in order not
15 to start the machinery rolling, we would like to submit to the witness so
16 that he can recall two maps; the famous incident maps that we by now know
17 by heart. And the one that we're interested in are numbers 11 -- incident
18 number 11 and incident number 3. I would like the witness to have a look
19 at these maps again. He's already had a look at them. He spoke about it
20 earlier. And then we will have a look at tapes in relation to these two
21 specific incidents.
22 I don't know whether we can put these documents on the ELMO,
23 Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But they first have to arrive near to the ELMO.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we don't have
1 an image.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Neither have we, but -- could the technicians look at
3 it that we receive the ELMO picture on our screen.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. President, in
5 order to save time, I suggest that I continue.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] While we are waiting.
8 Q. Witness, could you have a look at these two maps -- take these two
9 maps, number 11 and 3, and tell us whether you can recognise them. And
10 could you also tell us whether you were provided with these maps for your
11 expert report, for your technical examination.
12 A. Yes. These maps were shown to me.
13 Q. Very well. Witness, the same question.
14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Since there are extra copies always available for the
16 Bench. And Mr. Ierace, may I take it that you've got a copy as well? So
17 although preferably we work from the ELMO, we'll try to do without and
18 solve the technical problem as soon as possible.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I don't think it's
20 absolutely necessary.
21 May I continue?
22 JUDGE ORIE: As soon as the Bench has received their spare copies.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have a
24 copy --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar always keeps a few of these maps
2 If you would start with 11, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if that would be
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Now?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's sufficient.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Q. Witness, would you -- could you take map number 11, please. Do
8 you have it in front of you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. So I have several questions that I would like to put
11 to you. In relation to this type of map, did you or did you not receive
12 for each incident that you analysed maps of this kind? I don't mean
13 identical maps but maps of this kind. Yes or no?
14 A. Yes, yes.
15 Q. We'll now discuss incident number 11. Did you go to the site of
16 the incident?
17 A. Not to the site of this incident.
18 Q. Very well. But did you go to other sites?
19 A. I went to all the sites that I had access to.
20 Q. Very well. Why didn't you go to this site though?
21 A. This site hadn't been identified.
22 Q. Very well. But the area that the map itself shows, did you visit
23 this area? Did you pass through it?
24 A. Yes, we passed through it.
25 Q. Very well. Thank you. Witness, what can you tell us about the
1 coordinates on the map in purely geographical terms?
2 A. Well, you can see that it's an elongated map, that the scale is
3 not the same. It's not correct.
4 Q. Could this cause problems for a technician carrying out an
5 investigation? And I'm referring to reading the map.
6 A. Yes. If you took measurements now, there would be problems
7 because of the scale. You wouldn't get the correct values.
8 Q. Very well.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, can we move on
10 to number 3?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Q. Could you take map number 3, please. Have a look at it. And I'd
14 like to ask you the same question about the site. Were you able to gain
15 access to the site?
16 A. No, I didn't go to this site.
17 Q. Could you tell us why?
18 A. Well, this site is in a yard, and when the sites were in flats or
19 in yards, we quite simply did not have the possibility of going there.
20 Q. Very well. But did you go to a site that was close or
21 sufficiently close to the site?
22 A. We passed through the street. We knew that it was the street
23 concerned, but we didn't know where the site was exactly.
24 Q. Very well. Witness, I would like you to now comment on a
25 cassette. It's cassette number 11 that is going to be shown to us now.
1 Could you watch the cassette carefully, and I will then ask you some
2 questions about it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: There still seems to be no signal on our screens for
4 the video.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, can you please indicate which
6 videotape you would like played. The video booth has two tapes.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It's the one that I provided
8 initially. It should have the number "11" on it. I no longer have the
9 number because the exhibit number is in the booth, but we'll be
10 watching -- we'll see number "11" below. It's incident 11, and that is
11 what we are referring to.
12 [Videotape played]
13 THE SPEAKER: Mrs. Bajraktarevic, I will now give you some
14 instructions. Please point to the location you were, to the best of your
15 recollection, when Mr. Bosnic was shot.
16 I will now mark an X in yellow paint on the pavement. And beside
17 the X, I marked a small arrow pointing to the top of the wall. Please
18 point to the best of your recollection to the location where Mr. Bosnic
19 was gathering wood when you heard the shot.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They have to stop -- they have to stop the
21 video. The tape is about a protected --
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. It's what
23 I wanted to verify. It's what I was verifying with my colleague. And I
24 suggest that we should go into private session.
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll first go into closed session.
2 [Closed session]
12 Page 19257 – redacted – closed session
11 [Open session]
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Witness, with regard to this cassette, the type of information
14 provided by this person in response to the questions that the investigator
15 put to her, in your opinion, is this information sufficient to determine
16 something in terms of ballistics?
17 A. The witness didn't precisely indicate the position of the injured
18 party. She only pointed to an area which she didn't define precisely.
19 She just pointed in the direction of that area. So even if we wanted to
20 reconstruct the event, it wouldn't be possible for us to place the injured
21 party in the position where he was, not even approximately. So the
22 information required for a ballistics expert report is lacking.
23 Q. Thank you. Are there any other technical observations that you
24 could make about the procedure such as it was demonstrated in the video?
25 A. Well, I don't know what you are referring to. All you can see is
1 that the site has been covered by vegetation. Whether it was the case
2 when the incident occurred itself, I don't know. So although an
3 investigation team went there, we don't have any information on the exact
4 look, appearance of the site, or the position where the injured party was
5 when the projectile was fired.
6 Q. Thank you. I'll go back to what you said a minute ago. Before
7 the break, you spoke about variations in the trajectory in a closed space,
8 I think that's the term we used, because a projectile could have left
9 traces, it could deviate, it could be hindered in the course of its
10 trajectory, it could encounter obstacles. Do you remember talking about
12 A. Yes. What is missing here is a forensic medical --
13 Q. I'll stop you there. You mentioned vegetation. Is it possible
14 that in open spaces, in rural areas, is it possible that the projectile is
15 deviated from its course because it passes through leaves, through
16 vegetation, branches, et cetera?
17 A. The projectile can deviate in the sense that it is subject to
18 ricochet. But this can't be caused by soft material, leaves and so on.
19 This can be caused by hard material, stones, wood, for example. But grass
20 and leaves can't present such an obstacle.
21 Q. Thank you. Before we prepare cassette number 3, which is the
22 following one, which we will view in closed session if possible, could you
23 tell us on the basis of your personal experience what the situation is
24 with regard to what we call stray bullets. As an expert, is this a
25 phenomenon that can occur frequently in wartime conditions?
1 A. Well, I really couldn't say whether this occurs frequently or not.
2 There are such projectiles. So I can't answer that with precision.
3 Usually one is referring to projectiles which ricochet, which change their
4 trajectory, et cetera.
5 Q. Thank you. If we have a wounded person at a given site but in an
6 area where fighting is ongoing, is there a possibility of scientifically
7 and technically excluding the possibility of a stray bullet? Can this
8 possibility be excluded?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before the witness answers this question, I'd like
10 to -- him to define what a stray bullet exactly is. You said, "Usually
11 one is referring to projectiles which ricochet, which change their
12 trajectory, et cetera." Would you, before answering a question, the
13 question by Mr. Piletta-Zanin, give a clear definition of when you
14 consider a bullet to be a stray bullet.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When, for example, the bullet misses
16 its target and hits a target that it wasn't supposed to hit.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And how from a ballistics point of view would you
18 know whether the object that was hit by the bullet was intended by the
19 person who fired, and is there a ballistic way of establishing whether the
20 bullet hit the intended target or any other object?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I was thinking of areas which
22 aren't visible. For example, if there is a man in the grass. If the man
23 is not visible but is hit by a bullet. So this is what I was thinking of,
24 of the area itself where such things happen. But from a ballistics point
25 of view, it's impossible for me to know whether the shot was fired
1 intentionally or not. Naturally, I'm not talking about these things.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My next question: You said about an area where
3 you could not see the person. Let's just assume for argument's sake that
4 one would expect someone to be in the grass although not visible but the
5 grass is visible, would you then if such a person -- although invisible
6 from where the person firing was located, would you consider this a stray
7 bullet or ...?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I haven't fully
9 understood your question. If the person is hidden in the grass --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I understood that you gave an example of where you
11 would accept a bullet is a stray bullet when it hit a person or an object
12 that could not be seen from the location where the person firing was
13 positioned. And then this example was about a person hit by a bullet
14 hidden in the grass. And my question to you was whether if one would have
15 a suspicion that someone would have been in the grass, although not
16 visible, if such a person would have been hit while being in the grass,
17 whether you would consider this to be a stray bullet or not.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. If the person -- if a person is
19 hidden in the grass, and I'm aware of the fact that naturally the bullet
20 is not a stray one.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore, from a ballistics point of view, you
22 could not identify a bullet to be a stray bullet but you could describe
23 circumstances which would make it more or less probable. Is that a
24 correct understanding of what your expertise could tell us?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please keep in mind this,
2 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, when putting the next questions to the witness.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed, Mr. President. But I
4 believe that as far as this aspect is concerned, the witness has replied,
5 has answered. Thank you.
6 Q. Witness, could you please focus on the tape that we will now show
7 in a minute.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But, Mr. President, we have to
9 say, as Madam Registrar is just doing -- we have to go into closed
11 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into closed session.
12 [Closed session]
12 [Open session]
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Witness, I want to ask you certain questions, and I'll be very
15 grateful that if we are speaking about the person that we just saw on this
16 videotape, the person who was injured, can you please never mention the
17 name. Just speaking of her as "the person" or "the victim." Thank you.
18 On this subject, what can you tell us in relation to the
19 ballistics technique of the positions that were marked on the wall by the
20 investigator, particularly in relation to the first step and in relation
21 to the position of the person in question, the way that she's described it
22 herself on the first step.
23 A. Here we have -- how shall I put it? -- A partial reconstruction,
24 so to speak, of the position of the body of the injured party. But as
25 I've spoken of this earlier, what's insufficient here is that we do not
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 have the direction of the channels of the -- inside her body, the part of
2 the back where she was wounded. What I'm saying is that as we can see on
3 the videotape, she showed the position that she had, which was a crouching
4 position. And if the projectile was going down her back, because it was
5 supposed to injure her, then on one side it must have come from a height
6 but then it couldn't have hit the wall on the other side. If the person
7 was crouching with her body differently, then the direction of the firing
8 would have been almost parallel to the ground. Now, between the first
9 mark point where the bullet hit and the height of where her feet were, the
10 way it's assessed, the way we can assess from the videotape without
11 measuring anything - although, this should have been done, the
12 measurements - is about 30 centimetres. Which means that if the position
13 of the person in a crouching position, leaning forward, that should be --
14 should have been- again, I'm assessing because it's insufficient because
15 of the medical documentation - then what should have been done, that it
16 should have been above the spot where the projectile had hit. The
17 projectile must have come somewhere from the front side. Of course, we
18 don't know exactly from where and from which side because what should have
19 been done is that forensically it should have been processed by the crime
20 technician on the site the impact spot of the projectile, then to
21 establish the position, which cannot always be established but at least
22 then what can be supposed where the direction where the shot was fired
24 There is another possibility in this incident, which is that the
25 projectile hit -- had hit the wall, that it fragmented and that
1 it -- fragments of the fragmented projectile, that is, fragments of the
2 jacket, the jacket of the bullet, would have hit or had injured her. But
3 that is a supposition on the basis of which I cannot draw any certain
4 conclusions. That is the reason why there is basis and reasons to ask for
5 a reconstruction, while this reconstruction, it's supposed to be done, it
6 should be done with the person who was of -- who is of similar physical
7 characteristics as the injured party at the time when she was injured.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel. Microphone, counsel.
9 Microphone, counsel. Microphone, counsel.
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Interpretation] Microphone.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Q. Witness, you spoke to us of a jacket, of a bullet, of a
13 projectile. Now, my question is the following: In practice, if a
14 projectile explodes or fragments, disintegrates on a hard surface, these
15 fragments, can they still travel in space? And if so, what is the
16 distance that they can travel to? That is, is this something that is
17 very -- do they go very near the impact position or can they go a lot
18 further away than that? What can you tell us about it?
19 A. The projectile fragments, disintegrates, and in this case we do
20 not know what kind of a projectile that was and what kind of energy it
21 would have had, generated. But it certainly should have had a higher
22 energy in order to decompose fragments, depending on the weapon that's
23 fired. Because what happens with a projectile is that it loses its force
24 on impact and then the fragments cannot go very far.
25 Q. Witness, my questions were more of a general nature. According to
1 your knowledge in the area of ballistics, and assuming that a bullet or a
2 projectile fragments -- disintegrates on impact, is it possible
3 theoretically speaking that these fragments continue to travel along
4 distance and can injure several people? Is this something that's
5 envisageable? Is it possible, on a basis of principle, as a general rule,
6 is this possible?
7 A. Disintegrated fragments on short distances have the energy that at
8 short distances - and I mean from the impact point where the projectile
9 hit, so several metres - the fragment can injure the person, it can hit
10 the person. If the angle of the firing into the hard surface is such that
11 there was a partial decomposition, fragmentation of the projectile, that
12 it ricochetted, then that fragment which remains then at certain
13 distances, if it's a large fragment, it can cause injury.
14 Q. Thank you. Witness, I'm going to come back to the case that we
15 just saw. You spoke to us, if I understood you correctly, of a necessity
16 of an elevated angle depending on whether the person who was fired
17 at -- the way the person was fired at? Did I understand you correctly?
18 A. What I said is that on the video, we saw a crouching position.
19 While, I don't know whether the projectile went under the skin from
20 up -- from up to down or in another way. If it went from up to down under
21 the skin onto the back, then that position would be -- wouldn't correspond
22 to certain distances.
23 Q. Very well. Now, once -- when you were establishing your report,
24 the person that you saw, was this person younger -- was this person
25 smaller because she was younger at the time? This is something that you
1 knew. You did take that into consideration.
2 A. Yes, yes. Yes, I did. Yes.
3 Q. No, I withdraw that.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Would you allow me one additional question in respect
6 for my better understanding.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Previous interpretation continues] ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: When you say that you saw a crouching person, is it
9 your interpretation of the video that the person as it was positioned when
10 asked to take the position was exactly there or somewhere else? Because
11 in one of the earlier questions, the investigator asks her, I think, to
12 tell where her feet or her legs were on a step. Did you interpret the
13 position taken by the crouching person to be the actual position where she
14 was hit or just to demonstrate what her body position if not exactly on
15 that place would have been? Could you tell us how you interpreted that in
16 order to better understand your conclusions.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just in relation to the position,
18 the way she was crouching. Not in relation to the position on site, on
19 the scene.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just trying to understand whether I understood
21 you well. You say the body position she demonstrated, you did not
22 interpret that to be at the exact spot where she was hit. Is that
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. Yes. Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. President, I'd
3 like us to move on to another incident, which is incident number 13. And
4 I know that we will manage to produce miracles in producing maps. But I
5 do not know whether the video -- rather, the ELMO is working now.
6 Very well. In which case -- thank you.
7 Q. Witness, the same question: Do you recognise this map? Was this
8 something that you saw? Was it submitted to you?
9 A. Yes, it was.
10 Q. Thank you. Witness, could you please be given a pointer.
11 Thank you. Witness, on this map, could you please indicate so
12 that we can make sure, could you indicate the building known as the UN
13 building today. At the time that was a student hostel.
14 A. [Indicates]
15 Q. Could you point at the second of those buildings.
16 A. [Indicates]
17 Q. Very well. Yes. Thank you. So you've identified for the
18 transcript the two buildings -- the two student hostels. And were you in
19 that area? Did you go to that area?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. Witness, can you point to the road which is located
22 there marked in red to the south of the buildings, the student hostels,
23 that is, linking Nedzarici area and the Alipasino Polje, that is,
24 Vojnicko Polje -- no, no. Perpendicular, which goes -- can you see a road
25 to the south of the building which is the student building, not
1 south-east. I meant south. Go higher, higher, higher. Stop. No, just
2 go down.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, are you inviting the witness to
4 point at the road that goes from point 13 into a circle a bit
5 south-east -- south-west of that?
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's perfect,
7 Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. From point 13, just south-east, that road.
9 Would you point at it.
10 THE WITNESS: [Indicates]
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Here it is. Thank you. Thank
12 you very much.
13 Q. Now, witness, when you were doing your analysis, were you informed
14 of the existence of barricades at the time of these events which was
15 located somewhere in that portion of the road? And if so, how much were
16 you told?
17 A. Yes, I did know that barricades had been erected because I was
18 there at the time of these demonstrations when the investigator had been
19 doing this case in Sarajevo.
20 Q. No, witness. What I'm trying to say, that barricades that were
21 erected - and we mean barricades, for instance, containers that were
22 erected as protection so that shots cannot hit those that are behind those
23 barricades. Sometimes they're called as fronts or barricades.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.
25 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I object to leading on this particular
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The objection is sustained.
3 Could you tell us anything about any artificial obstructions that
4 you would under normal circumstances not find in that area, specifically
5 on that road? Were you informed about it? And what could you tell us
6 what your information was?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Looking at this case, studying this
8 case, I bore it into mind at the time in Sarajevo I was -- when the
9 investigator was doing this incident. And the exact point on the
10 crossroad was shown where the barricades had been positioned. So I do
11 know about this.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, what kind of barricades were these? What
13 was it made of, as far as you were informed?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can't recall right now what
15 the barricades were.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you indicate where you did -- where they were
17 positioned on this map?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were positioned at crossroads
19 itself or next to the intersection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Were you aware of any other obstructions - and
21 by "obstructions" I mean in whatever way preventing the use of roads for
22 what they are for, that is, to pass through - are you aware of the
23 existence of any other obstructions? Did you receive any information --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. As far as other information
25 is concerned, at the time when I was doing the expert report, I don't know
1 whether there were other barricades or not -- other obstacles or not.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Obstacles. No obstacles that would take either
3 access or view, apart from those already mentioned? If you don't know,
4 just tell us. I'm not trying to ...
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know about any others. I've
6 already answered the question, I believe.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Thank you
10 for rephrasing all of this.
11 Q. My question, in fact, was the following: Witness, you had your
12 findings and your report on incident number 13. I'm going to ask you a
13 hypothetical question. If on the road that you mentioned earlier there
14 had been several other obstacles, would that have changed your opinion?
15 What can you tell us about that? If there had been several other
16 barricades, for instance. It is a hypothetical question, I know, but
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, even then, if you are asking
19 whether it would change the opinion of the expert, would you not first see
20 what his opinion was so then we can then identify what might or might not
21 have changed.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Absolutely.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Absolutely.
25 Q. So, witness, can you please tell us, what was the result, the
1 findings of your examination for incident number 13?
2 A. Well, I said that the projectile that had hit - and that's
3 obvious - it fragmented. We do not have a defined channel, which channel
4 on the vehicle or where it could indicate where this was fired from.
5 According to the documents, it was fired from the right-hand side of the
6 vehicle which was going up and from those defragmented
7 projectiles -- projectile, that is, the fragments, persons were injured.
8 So what can certainly be established, according to the description, is
9 from which side of the vehicle the projectile came. But the exact
10 direction and all other elements that could get us closer to defining the
11 position, it is not possible to ascertain that. There are simply not
12 enough elements.
13 Q. Witness, I'm going to ask you to recall as much as you can. You
14 told us about a relative velocity and the space theoretical of the shot.
15 Now, if we are talking about a theoretical speed of a vehicle and the
16 speed or the velocity of a projectile in the case of this incident, what
17 can you give us as a general indication?
18 A. Well, it is possible to say something about it. If you have --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the beginning of the
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the beginning of your answer,
22 because the interpreters couldn't catch it.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So again, it is in connection, in
24 relation to the lack of -- shortage of elements. Because what has not
25 been given is what the speed of the vehicle was, which is important. If
1 the vehicle was moving at 40 kilometres an hour - and this is just a
2 supposition - then it's going 90 metres a second. Now, if it's going 60
3 kilometres an hour, then it's going about 15 metres a second. So in
4 relation to this, depending on how far the shot has come from, from which
5 distance, and whether the vehicle is being targeted, whether we wish to
6 hit it on the spot which we can see on the video recording that was
7 presented by the Prosecution and that the investigator on the scene of the
8 incident marked with paint, the distance from the barricade to the scene
9 where the shooting occurred is very short. If we want to hit a vehicle
10 which is moving at the speed of, for instance, 40 kilometres an hour, then
11 you have to -- you have to take that into consideration where it's going
12 to be. It's like hunting. When a bird is flying, so you have to take the
13 distance into consideration, the distance it will travel by the time the
14 bullet gets there. So that the vehicle and the projectile will come and
15 reach the same point. So in this case, perhaps it was by a length it was
16 just behind the barricade. So this is all theoretical. This is all a
17 supposition. Then it should have just covered that distance within a very
18 short period of time. So whether you waited for that vehicle to emerge,
19 again, depending on the distance, but perhaps 400, 500 metres, you would
20 have to miss it. Because if it was 500 metres in one second, the bullet
21 covers that distance - or less than a second - the vehicle is already
22 gone. So there are many unknown factors, unknown elements - and this is
23 just an example - which could point to that, that the vehicle was perhaps
24 hit by a projectile that could have been fired a little bit earlier than
25 the vehicle was actually spotted. It's again a -- an assumption or a
1 supposition because we don't know whether the vehicle was actually
2 spotted. The moment when it just emerged behind the barricade or just
3 before or just after. So in this case, I am not ascertaining -- saying
4 anything. I am just explaining the problems -- elaborating on the
5 problems of identifying the position from where -- from where the shot is
6 fired, that is, the establishing of the position, of that position. Thank
8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. IERACE: Can the speeds and distances covered per second be
11 clarified with the witness.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I had some difficulties also where the witness
13 said that 40 kilometres an hour would result in 90 metres a second, I
14 think. But perhaps it's a translation problem.
15 In the very beginning of your answer you said something about the
16 speed of the vehicle. You linked --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 9 or 10. 9 or 10 metres in a
19 JUDGE ORIE: 9 or 10 metres in a second, yes.
20 And then for 60, you said it would be 15 approximately.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Roughly speaking. Yes. There is
22 information -- there is data on this. It's possible to calculate it.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Thank you. Witness, in your testimony you spoke about what we
25 call a window, a firing window, the place where it's possible for a shot
1 to be fired. And my question is as follows: Your conclusions with regard
2 to incident number 13, would they have been different or would you have
3 supported these conclusions if you were told that there was not just one
4 barrier, not just one obstacle, but several obstacles along the road that
5 you mentioned a minute ago?
6 A. I said that we don't know exactly where the projectile was fired
7 from, but if there's someone behind an obstacle, then this obstacle will
8 obviously cause a problem. An obstacle is an obstacle. Whether it's an
9 adequate one or not, I simply don't know.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could we show
12 the map for incident 2, and then I'll show video that concerns incident
13 number 2.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if you turn to another incident,
15 and in order to prevent that we have to get back to the problem. I'd like
16 to seek a clarification from the witness.
17 When you were asked about the speed of the vehicle and of the
18 speed in also metres per second, did you tell us this because of the time
19 the bullet would need to travel - that's just for sake of argument
20 assumed - the time the bullet would take to travel from the circle
21 indicated on the map to the place that was shown to you as the place of
22 impact and the time the vehicle would need to -- to pass the crossroad?
23 Is that what you're drawing our attention to?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was an example, and that's what
25 I wanted to draw your attention to.
1 JUDGE ORIE: May I then ask you: Since you've visited the site,
2 at what length the road can be observed from what was indicated to you as
3 a possible source of fire, which was as I did understand you well at
4 approximately 500 metres? What -- at what length the intersection could
5 be observed from that position? Would that have been 10 metres, 20
6 metres, 30 metres, or didn't you measure it, or don't you have an
7 impression of --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't measure that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Did I understand you well that in order to hit from
10 the assumed source of fire, that in order not to make it a lucky shot that
11 you would need first time for pulling the trigger once you see that
12 vehicle and that then there would be time needed for the bullet to travel
13 at such a distance and that one should take into consideration how -- at
14 what length at this intersection the vehicle could be seen? Is that a
15 correct understanding of your testimony?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you've understood my testimony
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please then proceed, Mr. -- We have to
19 look at the clock. How much time would the Defence still need,
20 Mr. Piletta-Zanin?
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not much time, Mr. President,
22 but I'll confer with my colleague. How much time do we have left, if I
23 may ask?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think that I have no clear instruction to be
25 given, since this type of expert -- expertise, it's not always easy to
1 give an assessment of what would be needed for a clear explanation of the
2 expertise. That's perhaps a bit different to the background. But of
3 course, I -- I must say that the report as such is very clear, and it
4 certainly was of use to have some additional observations. But if you try
5 to make it as efficient as possible. And you say you would not need much
6 time. But could you give us an indication? Would it be ten minutes, a
7 quarter of an hour?
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, what we suggest
9 is the following: We should watch one more incident on a video to see
10 what a technical expert thinks about how the technical aspect was
11 presented by the Prosecution, and then we would like the witness to
12 confirm his report, since he is here under oath, and then I have some
13 general questions I would like to put. But we won't examine each element
14 individually. There is incident 2 that I want to examine. And during the
15 break, I can provide the technical booth with the material required.
16 At what time will we be having a break?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest that we would have a break now,
18 because then there would be only 40 minutes left after the break.
19 So I take it then you'll take one more video, ask the witness
20 about the collection of data as shown on that video. You'll not go
21 through each and every incident, which is understandable, because most of
22 the conclusions were in the negative and then you have a few additional
24 Could I just suggest to you that all together 20 minutes would do
25 for that?
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll adjourn until five minutes past 1.00, and
3 then you have time until five -- 25 minutes past 1.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 12.43 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 1.07 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. I take it that
7 the video is ready?
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Willingly. But perhaps it
9 will be useful for the expert to be present. I don't know.
10 MR. IERACE: For that time, if I could take advantage of these few
11 seconds. The language assistants can only interpret the names and dates.
12 We have put in an urgent request to CLSS to advise us whether they think
13 they can do any better. We should know that by late this afternoon. I
14 will, therefore, inform you on Monday. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then I do agree with you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that for
18 reasons of transparency, it's good that the expert witness testifying is
19 present in the court.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'll be as
22 clear as possible. But in order to avoid any confusion with regard to the
23 cassette, we believe that there are no problems. But perhaps it would be
24 better to view it in closed session. That won't bother us.
25 JUDGE ORIE: There are no protective measures --
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, as far as we know, there
2 aren't any protective measures.
3 JUDGE ORIE: We can play it in open session. Please proceed.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 Could you show the cassette, please. And at the same time, could
6 we place the map on the ELMO.
7 [Videotape played]
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That was a bit too fast for
9 me. Could we view it again at a normal speed.
10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
11 [Videotape played]
12 THE SPEAKER: Could you please show me by pointing where to the
13 best of your recollection you heard gunfire shortly before your daughter
14 Anisa was shot.
15 Thank you. Could you now please show me where to the best of your
16 recollection the bullet hole was before the wall was repaired.
17 I can see traces of repair work on the wall at this location, and
18 I am going to place small red marks with a red tip felt pen.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. Witness, could you comment on the methodology and on this type of
22 A. I briefly explained in the expert report that an investigation
23 wasn't carried out, that the traces weren't established, that the angle of
24 incidence of the projectile is not known. And likewise, whether it was a
25 direct hit or not is another factor that remains unknown. Statements can
1 be examined, of course, but the most essential thing is to determine how
2 the person was wounded, in what position the person was when that person
3 was wounded in the right leg in relation to the origin of the projectile.
4 If the person was towards the house, then the right leg should have been
5 towards the wall. If he was coming out of the house, then the person
6 should have been facing the place from which the projectile apparently
7 arrived. And therefore, my opinion is the same as in the case of incident
8 number 3. It's necessary to carry out a forensic examination of the
9 channel of the wound because there is a possibility, and this is always
10 the case with a projectile that disintegrates, it's possible for wounds to
11 be caused by fragments of the projectile. In this case, we don't have any
12 information as to whether the projectile went across the leg, through the
13 leg, or whether it hit the leg lengthwise, and this would be necessary to
14 determine what the position of the body was. Everything remains within
15 the domain of statements. Everything is reduced to statements. And this
16 has to be verified from the point of view of forensics. It has to be
17 checked to see whether this is the case.
18 Q. Witness, thank you. I have the following questions: You spoke
19 about a direct shot. Am I to deduce that according to your examination in
20 this specific case, one can't say that yes, in fact it does concern a
21 direct hit or it's an indirect shot, in fact, it's a ricochet or the
22 result of fragments or something like that?
23 A. Well, I have just explained why it was impossible for me to state
24 an opinion.
25 Q. Very well. I wanted to make sure that I had understood you. What
1 you have told us about the technical impossibility to say whether this
2 concerned a direct shot or not is this something that you encountered in
3 the course of your investigations in relation to several of the case
4 examined? Did you encounter the same difficulty?
5 A. Well, the forensic medical expert determines whether it was a
6 direct hit or not, and it's on the basis of the entry wound or the entry
7 and exit wound, on this basis, that the character of the wound is
8 determined. Whether it's a circular or an elliptical wound, the expert
9 determines whether there are any -- whether any irregular damage has been
10 caused. The expert also determines the nature of the channels of the
11 wound, and these factors are taken into consideration when deciding
12 whether it's a direct hit or not. When I say "a direct hit," that means
13 that the projectile entered or penetrated the body in a regular manner.
14 Q. Very well. If I have understood you correctly, this is in the
15 technical domain. And when you speak about the channel, the result of a
16 ricochet could also cause direct entry to a certain extent, could also
17 result in direct entry.
18 A. There are probably such cases, but it's difficult to distinguish
19 them because especially in cases when there's a slight deviation or
20 rebound from a soft surface, the deformation of the projectile will not be
21 very great and the projectile will hit the body in a regular manner and
22 make a so-called circular wound, and this will appear as if the shot -- it
23 will appear as if the shot were direct.
24 Q. Thank you. Witness, the second question that I would like to ask
25 you with regard to the video has to do with the fact that the witness who
1 was interrogated was asked to say where in his opinion the shot came from
2 on the basis of what he had heard. My question is as follows: If we are
3 in an urban area, is it possible for one to hear where the shot came from?
4 Is it possible to determine the origin of the shot on the basis of what
5 one hears?
6 A. Well, we've all heard shots or explosions in urban areas. We know
7 that sound rebounds from walls, that there is a fact of reverberation.
8 It's difficult to locate the origin of sound. Perhaps if someone gets
9 accustomed to these things or knows in advance where the shot will be
10 fired from, but I don't have any particular opinion about this.
11 Q. Well, this question no longer has anything to do with this video,
12 but it's of a general kind. In wartime, when there are several positions
13 from which fire can be opened, in your opinion does this increase the
14 difficulty of determining the origin of the fire on the basis of what is
16 A. Well, yes, of course.
17 Q. Thank you. Witness, another question, and I think we will have
18 finished. As a matter of principle, can you -- could you formally confirm
19 before this Trial Chamber -- could you formally confirm the conclusions
20 that you reached in your expert report?
21 A. Well, yes, I do confirm the conclusions I reached in my expert
23 [Defence counsel confer]
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I apologise. I -- thank you.
25 Mr. President, I would just like to confer with my colleague for
1 15 seconds, with your leave. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
3 [Defence counsel confer]
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
5 Q. My last question: You mentioned on several occasions in the
6 report that you have just confirmed the lack of basic documents or other
7 elements of evidence. I'm not just referring to bullets but all the
8 elements in technical reports that are required according to you. My
9 question is as follows: Can you explain why this was the case? That's my
10 first question.
11 MR. IERACE: I object, Mr. President.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.
13 MR. IERACE: Well, given the answer, which is unsurprising, I
14 withdraw my objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Do you know -- I'll rephrase that. Do you know whether there is a
18 general obligation for the authorities, for the police, to preserve the
19 projectiles in the course of an investigation, in case an
20 investigation -- if an investigation is carried out?
21 A. In Belgrade, yes, they're kept for a long period of time.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No further questions,
23 Mr. President, unless my colleague is suddenly inspired.
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Put to the
25 expert witness, she is invited to put -- to do so.
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Examined by Ms. Pilipovic: [Continued]
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kunjadic, you told us that as a professional
4 man, a ballistics expert, you said that in order to make your report it
5 was necessary for you to have a record of the investigation. And from
6 your expert report this is possible to conclude, so to speak, that you
7 mentioned as one of the reasons the lack of the record of the
8 investigation. You couldn't use them because you didn't have them. If
9 these investigations weren't carried out, can you tell us what the reason
10 is for this?
11 A. I really don't know. I can assume --
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... This question
13 has been asked by Mr. Piletta-Zanin. It was objected against by
14 Mr. Ierace. The witness quite understandably responded already that he
15 wouldn't know because I take it that you were not present when all the --
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps I wasn't following
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, is the Prosecution ready to start
19 cross-examination of the expert witness?
20 MR. IERACE: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Perhaps
21 the -- perhaps the ELMO might be moved slightly so that I can see the
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Usher, could you please re-establish eye
24 contact between Prosecution and expert witness.
25 You'll now be examined, Dr. Kunjadic, by counsel for the
2 Cross-examined by Mr. Ierace:
3 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Kunjadic. Could you tell us, sir, when it
4 was, perhaps what month, what year, that you received from the Defence the
5 statements and police reports and maps that you mention in your report.
6 A. 2001.
7 Q. Do you recall what month?
8 A. No, I do not.
9 Q. And whereabouts today are those documents?
10 A. All documents are with the Defence.
11 Q. When did you give them back to the Defence?
12 A. After the first expanded version was completed, I don't recall.
13 Q. Well, what year was that?
14 A. Probably in 2001.
15 Q. All right. As you understood it, did you do that report before
16 the trial had commenced or not?
17 A. The first version, the expanded version of the report, I compiled
18 it before the trial. And then we waited for the trial. And what I wished
19 to do was also to hear the testimony of Witness Hinchliffe, and that's why
20 we didn't give the final version.
21 Q. Did you return the material to the Defence towards the end of
23 A. I said I really don't know.
24 Q. All right.
25 A. Probably, but I don't know.
1 Q. When was the next time you received any material from the Defence?
2 A. I received -- I was given the task that the transcript from the
3 trial should be translated so that I can see what this is about, because
4 I -- my English isn't very good, so the Defence engaged a translator who
5 worked with me reading through the transcript and establishing the
6 differences between the previously given statements and those statements
7 that were given in testimony and trial.
8 Q. Yes. You told us this morning that was last summer. And you
9 said, "Because I understood that there were no considerable differences, I
10 then didn't quote them in any special way," them being the transcript. Is
11 that correct?
12 A. That's right. I didn't quote them. I didn't list them in the
13 report. I didn't quote anything from the transcripts.
14 Q. Did you understand that you were given the transcript of all of
15 the evidence given by the witnesses that were relevant to the sniping
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. I suppose it took a long time for that to be -- I withdraw that.
19 I suppose it took a long time for that to be read through.
20 A. Yes. The transcript is very long, yes, and we needed a lot of
22 Q. All right. And then I take it it was after that exercise of going
23 through the transcript that you completed your report. Is that correct?
24 A. That's correct. I redrafted the first expanded version of the
25 report I had because it was far too long and I was advised to cut it
1 short, which I did, and that was the final version of my report.
2 Q. And you did that redrafting after you had become familiar with the
3 evidence given in court; is that correct?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. And was your report completed in October 2002?
6 A. Yes, in October 2002. Yes.
7 Q. Were you given any directions from the Defence in terms of using
8 material that had not been admitted into evidence in the trial?
9 A. Yes, I have. Yes. I was given directions.
10 Q. What were you told?
11 A. I was told that the relevant statements are those that were
12 witness statements of the witnesses who came to testify.
13 Q. And were you given the same directions in relation to documents
14 that you relied upon, such as police reports, whether you should only rely
15 on documents if they had been tendered into evidence?
16 A. No. I was given instructions not to rely on police documents,
17 statements that were given to the police. At the police, that is -- they
18 were not relevant.
19 Q. Why, then, did you mention police documents in your assessment of
20 some incidents?
21 JUDGE ORIE: May I just interfere at this very moment. Could I
22 please --
23 You answered the question about police reports. Your answer: "I
24 was given instructions not to rely on police documents, statements that
25 were given to the police." Your answer relates to a slightly different
1 category, I would say, as the question. The question was about police
2 reports, and your answer was about, as I understood it to be, witness
3 statements given to the police. Could you please specify your answer,
4 whether you were instructed not to use police reports - that means reports
5 drawn by the police, not limited to what witnesses would have told them -
6 and statements, that is, written-down wording or at least summaries of
7 what witnesses had told the police.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as police reports are
9 concerned, it was said that those were relevant that are in relation to
10 the on-site investigations and that the others were not relevant.
11 JUDGE ORIE: All right. So when you said that you were instructed
12 not to rely on police reports, you intended to limit your answer to the
13 reports of witness statements and not -- that you were not instructed not
14 to use the police reports dealing with the investigations by the police
15 itself on the spot?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for me it is a little
17 difficult to understand your question. What I said was that I was using
18 the reports, that is, sketches, photo file, from the site. And whatever
19 has been done on site by the forensic and technical part. But any other
20 parts of that that should not be used, then I didn't use them. That's how
21 I do my work even now.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It clarifies sufficiently.
23 Mr. Ierace, please proceed.
24 MR. IERACE:
25 Q. Approximately how long did it take you to go through the -- the
1 transcript of the evidence? Was it a matter of hours or days or weeks?
2 A. Days. I came on several occasions. I would stay, and we would
3 compare the transcripts and the previously given statements. It was
4 voluminous material, and it went -- proceeded very slowly.
5 Q. When you say "we would compare," you and who else?
6 A. The translator. The translator who was translating the transcript
7 for me and myself.
8 Q. Do you have a copy of your report in front of you?
9 A. Yes. Yes.
10 Q. I think there is a subheading very early on in the report,
11 immediately after the contents, titled "Request for expertise." Do you
12 see that?
13 A. [No audible response]
14 Q. In that section, do you set out the various materials that were
15 provided to you in order for you to prepare your report?
16 A. On page 2, do you say?
17 Q. Under heading "1. Request for expertise."
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you have a B/C/S or English version that you're reading?
20 That's in Serbian, is it, the one you --
21 A. In B/C/S.
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. All right. Now, in that section, do you mention anything at all
25 about your consideration of the evidence given in court?
1 A. No, not here. I don't speak here of testimony. That part
2 remained from the previous version of the report. As I've explained,
3 the -- those documents were compared, and I did not mention the witness
4 testimony in court.
5 Q. Did you mention the fact that you consulted the testimony in
6 court, did you mention that fact anywhere at all in this report?
7 A. No, I didn't mention it. I explained that I was comparing them.
8 I didn't find these elements.
9 Q. Looking back on it, was it not appropriate to inform those who
10 read the report that you had consulted the evidence given in court?
11 A. I can say that the way that I work and the way I work in Belgrade
12 is that all the statements -- but I'm not -- I take them out of the
13 evidence with all the relevant elements. But as I was told to cut short
14 my version, I then shortened it and I used the sentence that I was using
15 everything from the documents, and I meant these data, these relevant
16 documents that were at my disposal.
17 Q. Would you please answer the question. On reflection, do you not
18 think it was appropriate to include in your report the fact that you had
19 consulted the evidence given in court?
20 A. Now I can see that. Yes, absolutely.
21 Q. All right. Would you please turn to incident number 17. Do you
22 have that page in front of you?
23 A. Yes. Yes.
24 Q. Do you agree with me that what appears under the heading "Incident
25 no. 17" is confirmed to a consideration of the statement of
1 Fatima Osmanovic? In other words, the source of information was the
2 statement of Fatima Osmanovic.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did she give evidence?
5 A. Whether she testified I cannot recall. It is possible -- just a
6 moment. No, she did not testify.
7 Q. What are you now consulting? What is the piece of paper that you
8 just consulted?
9 A. It's a piece of paper with the witnesses, witness testimonies.
10 They're all -- rather, the witnesses who came to testify during the trial.
11 Q. All right. Might I have access to that. And whilst I'm having
12 access, can you tell me this: When you spent those days going through the
13 transcript, how could it possibly be that in relation to incident number
14 17, you did not realise that Fatima Osmanovic did not even give evidence?
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 A. I looked at her as an injured party that had injuries and that
17 these injuries were obvious from --
18 JUDGE ORIE: One moment. One moment, please.
19 Madam Usher, could you please --
20 Mr. Ierace, could you please return it to Madam Usher since just
21 before handing it out Mr. Piletta-Zanin --
23 No. I'm not saying that you -- I would like to give an
24 opportunity to Mr. Piletta-Zanin since he was standing. No, no, no, no,
25 no. Was there anything you would like to say, Mr. Piletta-Zanin?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Microphone not activated]
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please. Microphone.
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Interpretation] Microphone.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. It is
6 useless for me to see the document. But why I am objecting and what I
7 really do not appreciate it is the tone. On several occasions you have
8 told the parties that the answers can be achieved if the tone is adequate.
9 Now, if the witness is asked to produce a document and then if he's a
10 document and he's then in such a brusque fashion asked what document that
11 is, I don't think that is appropriate.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I do agree with you that the way in which the request
13 for having access to the document was worded could have been different,
14 and especially in view of the willingness of this expert. It was also the
15 tone, Mr. Ierace. I see that you're -- you said "can I have access to the
16 document?" That's more or less what you said. And certainly I felt that
17 this expert witness is cooperating as good as he can.
18 MR. IERACE: I very much agree with that, Mr. President.
19 I apologise to the witness. It was not intended on my part.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you would have said, "Sir, would you be willing to
21 give me access to the document," it would have been more -- better, I
23 MR. IERACE: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: But the document can be shown to Mr. Ierace. And
25 then --
1 MR. IERACE: I notice the time, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Having -- you have looked at it. Yes. Then of
3 course the Defence is also entitled to have a look at the document.
4 No, could you please show it to the Defence, Madam Usher.
5 Mr. Ierace, do you want to do anything with the document or just
6 you --
7 MR. IERACE: Well, perhaps it could be marked at this stage,
8 marked for identification.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification. Yes. Could then -- could
10 we do it such a way that it's given to the registrar that she'll mark a
11 copy for identification, that the original will be returned to
12 Dr. Kunjadic.
13 Dr. Kunjadic, we're working here on shifts. That means that we
14 have to stop now because another case will be heard in the afternoon. As
15 you may have noticed, we've not yet finished your testimony. So,
16 therefore, I have to ask you to come back next Monday.
17 Madam Registrar, that would be in the morning again at 9.00, as
18 far as I'm --
19 THE REGISTRAR: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I instruct you not to speak with anyone, whoever
21 it is, about the testimony you have given and the testimony you are still
22 about to give in this court. I would like to see you back at 9.00 Monday
24 If there's any need for the parties - because I heard there was
25 some exchange needed - if any assistance of the Chamber is required, it
1 always can be done through the intermediary of the -- one of the legal
3 We'll adjourn until next Monday at 9.00.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
5 at 1.46 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,
6 the 10th day of February, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.