1 Wednesday, 5 March 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Stanislav Galic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Madam Registrar.
9 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, with your
11 leave, only two words before the witness is brought into the courtroom.
12 May I?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. The witness who
15 will be called after this witness will be General Radovan Radinovic. The
16 Prosecution has the expert opinion of General Radinovic, and I think that
17 we disclosed it in November last year. We hope that the Prosecution has
18 read the document because they had enough time to do that. But the
19 Prosecution sent us, a few hours before General Radinovic's testimony, a
20 fax of which they said that they were surprised that a large number of
21 documents have not been -- had not been disclosed, referring to footnotes.
22 This was done a few hours before we hear this witness, even if they had
23 plenty of time to do that if they really wanted to do that. We think that
24 there are certain things that can be done on occasions and others no. We
25 think that if the Prosecution had wanted these documents, then they
1 practically had a whole six months to do that. And we think also that the
2 Defence does not have to disclose indirect references to a particular
3 work - I'm referring to footnotes - and especially to respond to a request
4 which happens a few minutes before such an important testimony. I do not
5 think these are hard words, but I think that this -- such a request is not
6 acceptable in our opinion. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think the words are too hard, perhaps a bit
8 too many in order to say what you had to say.
9 Mr. Ierace, would you please respond.
10 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. To say that there are some
11 problems with the disclosure of documents in relation to General Radinovic
12 would be an understatement. I can assure the Trial Chamber that we have
13 not delayed in making this request to the Defence. There have been
14 exhaustive searches done by staff of the Office of the Prosecution of the
15 documents cited in the footnotes to Dr. Radinovic's report. And by this
16 morning it was apparent that we were unable to match many of the
17 documents. We did discover by experimentation that some of the references
18 to the documents were incorrect and by doing searches of neighbouring
19 numbers, we were able to discover some.
20 This letter which I think you have a copy of, Mr. President, is
21 the -- lists the documents that we were not able to locate. Rather than
22 raise it in the first instance with the Trial Chamber, having regard to
23 earlier requests by the Trial Chamber, we thought it appropriate to first
24 give the Defence an opportunity to respond to see if they could find the
25 documents. I can only agree with my learned colleague that this matter
1 should not arise a matter of hours before such an important witness is
2 called. I don't think it's the fault of the Prosecution. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. The Chamber will consider the
4 matter. If, however, there would be mistakes in the references, of
5 course, that would make the job, I would say, both for the Defence and the
6 Prosecution very difficult. Primarily the expert witness himself is
7 responsible for the correctness of his citings. But if the parties can
8 compare, especially those footnotes where there have been problems, I take
9 it that both parties would have been confronted with it.
10 We'll consider the matter, and we only got the letter five seconds
12 Ms. Pilipovic.
13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Your Honour, I merely wanted
14 to say that I checked some of the footnotes before I came into the
15 courtroom now, and I have told my colleagues that the footnotes 73 and on
16 were all the documents that the Defence was referred by the Prosecution.
17 These are the documents of some of the units. The only problem with this
18 is that General Radinovic when he used them did not indicate ERN numbers,
19 but it is a problem for us since these documents were not in chronological
20 order. It is a problem for us now to find them. But he used them when he
21 made references to them.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just reading.
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] So I said 73, 106, 112, 169, 179,
24 180, 181, 182, 187, 188.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That was exactly -- what did you say about these
1 documents? Because that's not clear to me. Are there errors in the
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] There are no ERN numbers, so it is
4 difficult for us to find them quickly. And there are -- these are
5 documents of the BH army which the Prosecution disclosed to the Defence
6 but these documents are not put in chronological order, that is, by dates
7 and by years, which would help us to find them quickly. But -- and there
8 are only dates marked, and I told my learned friends that that was a
9 problem because the general did not write address the document with ERN
11 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand on the basis of this letter you
12 started searching these documents in order to assist the Prosecution.
13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I also --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honour, I also
18 would like to seize this opportunity, since I am on my legs, and I hope
19 you will allow me to do that. I wanted to inform you, but I believe you
20 already know about General Galic's request with regard to a period between
21 the 14th and the 23rd of March.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think that I'm aware of these dates
23 specifically, but it might have been that I missed something.
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Since I was not in the building this morning, I
1 missed that message. I do understand that it has been -- that it has been
2 raised with the legal staff and the registry.
3 The 14th and the 23rd of March.
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] The time between the 14th and
5 23rd, because the visit of General Galic's family has been approved. He
6 hasn't seen his wife for quite some time and they have some family
7 problems, so he's asking if during that period of time we could have a
8 short break. It is all within the context that we already discussed.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] So that we would have a short
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think I explained to the parties what the
13 Chamber has in mind. That means after finishing the Defence case that we
14 would have a break of a couple of days so that the Prosecution could
15 immediately express itself, the Defence could then respond, and then we
16 could start with any rebuttal evidence if we -- if it -- if there's any
17 application to present rebuttal evidence. That would be a couple of days.
18 The same would be true for the week when the rebuttal evidence has been
19 presented so the Defence, for any evidence in rejoinder, can apply for
20 leave to present any evidence in rejoinder. That would create a couple of
21 days as well.
22 Then finally, before we -- the parties will be allowed then - I
23 think I did not yet mention that - will be allowed two weeks to prepare
24 for their final briefs, and then we'll have the closing argument.
25 When -- I think I did not tell this part of this schedule yet, but that's
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 what the Chamber has in mind to do. If it fits within these breaks, of
2 course, there's no problem. But the Chamber would be very hesitant to
3 introduce other breaks. So it partly also depends on the parties itself,
4 how we proceed, whether this will be possible. But I have to look closer
5 at the tentative schedule we have drafted until now so that we see whether
6 this fits in in March, between the 14th and the 23rd.
7 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, very well. It
9 is wonderful that you are telling us now about this week when we shall not
10 work and for the following reasons. The first one, that we've answered
11 the question that you asked us, Mr. President, concerning the necessary
12 record about our request for the disqualification.
13 Mr. President, we've talked to the registrar, but we believe that
14 the file has to be presented to the Appeals Chamber. We have presented
15 our direct observations to the Appeals Chamber, of course with a copy for
16 your Chamber, of course. So this is the first question, because we still
17 insist to request the suspension of this hearing.
18 Secondly, we wish also to -- we have officially a document, a
19 motion which seems to derive from a non-governmental organisation in the
20 United States and which makes a reference to a number of -- to a very
21 large number of decisions and situations, and we are -- want to ask, do
22 you want us to answer that? What are we supposed to do? I do not know
23 that. Secondly, for this type of intervention, are there any standards
24 which would apply to the Defence, the number of pages that such an
25 intervention, such a response could take? And it depends on your
1 decision. And if now we ought to also to respond to numerous arguments
2 which come from another part of the earth. We believe that all this would
3 take a lot of time, but it depends on the length of the answer that we are
4 allowed to provide.
5 JUDGE ORIE: In answer to what exactly, Mr. Piletta-Zanin? To
6 the -- to the Martin document or ...?
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, exactly. Yes. Francisco
8 Forrest Martin.
9 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has received a document which applies for
10 leave to be admitted as an amicus curiae because without leave you can't
11 serve as an amicus curiae. In Rule 74, it reads that, "If the Chamber
12 considers it desirable, that the Chamber can invite or grant leave to a
13 state and organisation or a person to appear before it and make
14 submissions on any issue specified by the Chamber."
15 It seems that Mr. Martin attached already whatever he would like
16 to submit to the Chamber on his request for leave. The Chamber has
17 considered whether it would invite the parties to submit their views on
18 whether Mr. Martin should be granted leave to appear as an amicus curiae.
19 The Chamber has decided that it would not invite the parties but at the
20 same time if the parties would like to submit their views on it, the
21 Chamber will then receive whatever the parties would like to bring to the
22 attention of the Chamber, and then we'll have to decide whether leave will
23 be granted or not.
24 So the first question is not, I would say, to respond to the full
25 argument set out, but the first question would be whether leave should be
1 granted or not. If leave will be granted, then of course we have the
2 opinion, the legal opinion - it's more or less a legal opinion, I would
3 say - on certain issues, and then of course the parties could respond but
4 then more in -- to the content and not to the question of whether leave
5 should be granted or not.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the parties, however, would like to submit
8 something, this application has been made in a very late stage of the
9 proceedings. We would then like to receive your submissions, well, let's
10 say, within a couple of days.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Impossible practically. Do
12 you think our position regarding the procedure, that is, whether such a
13 leave should be done or what?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that if you read through this
15 document, that the first question would be that -- whether it would be
16 desirable for the proper determination of this case to have this opinion
17 of the amicus curiae only if a positive answer would be there and if the
18 Chamber would decide that it would grant leave, then of course the next
19 matter would be that perhaps the parties would like to address the matters
20 raised in the amicus curiae document. Yes?
21 Then, Mr. Usher, if the Defence is ready to continue for another
22 15 minutes the --
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It was 20, Mr. President,
25 JUDGE ORIE: If it was 20 yesterday, it's 20 today,
1 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I -- you're right. It's my recollection.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Dr. Kuljic.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. Good afternoon.
7 JUDGE ORIE: May I remind you that you are still bound by the
8 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
9 You'll now further be examined by counsel for the Defence.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
12 WITNESS: BLAGOJE KULJIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin: [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, witness.
16 A. Good afternoon.
17 Q. Now we are going to have a look at, in particular in relation to
18 terror, other ulterior confirmations that you have found on the Internet.
19 First of all, the site of the national library of medicine, is that a
20 professional, recognised site; yes or no?
21 A. Yes, as this is stated on the site, and it is used as such. My
22 colleagues use it.
23 Q. Very well. Doctor, with respect to the post-traumatic stress
24 disorder that you said you knew professionally, this syndrome, what can
25 you tell us about this in relation to Sarajevo and in relation to the
1 articles that you have found, particularly with respect to percentages as
2 to certain groups of population of military personnel and with respect to
3 some groups of civilians?
4 A. Well, I can say that there are many articles that were published
5 in a number of countries. People who dealt with refugees and people who
6 assessed the post-traumatic stress disorder in refugees. What was very
7 interesting for me was a recent publication by a group from Munich who did
8 a residential sample, that is, in Sarajevo itself, they found that from
9 the people who they questioned on the ground --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.
11 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd be grateful whether it
12 could be clarified, firstly whether this article in particular is one of
13 which we have a photocopy. And if not, I have a further -- I have an
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you tell us, Dr. Kuljic: The study you
16 referred to, a publication by a group from Munich, is this in the
17 documents you gave to us yesterday?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a document which I gave -- I
19 can't quite remember, because I had loose copies, and I later on found
20 this copy in my notebook. So it may have remained in the room, if it's
21 not among the documents. What I mean, it's strange that I'm just talking
22 about this, because I have a lot on my mind. It's quite hard for me to
23 tell you everything, but I can later on forward these documents.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The problem is that the Prosecution should also
25 be in a position to prepare for cross-examination. So therefore, all
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 sources should be known to them. But do you have a name? Because you say
2 you're not quite sure whether it's in this material or not? You referred
3 to a group of Munich and --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Usually the source named, I don't see at this moment
6 any Munich.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think, but I don't know
10 whether this was a mistake, but I believe that this is not in among the
11 documents that we were given yesterday.
12 Q. Doctor, is this a study by a certain gentleman called Rosner?
13 A. Yes, that's correct. Here in some of my notes I can see that I
14 have handwritten that I wanted to mention Rosner's study and to compare it
15 with the other study.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just -- is Rosner mentioned anywhere in your
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, this is a new study which I
20 JUDGE ORIE: And there is no mention made of Rosner in the
21 documents you gave to us yesterday. So then we are in a situation where
22 Mr. Ierace wanted to raise an objection.
23 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, my objection is that this evidence
24 should not be permitted. It's a rather rhetorical question, but how am I
25 to respond without having at least a copy of the publication and time to
1 read it?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I think
4 that it is not always necessary to have a document, a written document
5 before oneself, when we are speaking to an expert. To make an example, I
6 can remember that I had a client who was a star of the dance, who was over
7 70 years old and was telling me, "this is very simple, I make movements
8 with my hands and everyone understands." Now, this is a good example to
9 use here. If the doctor knows certain things, if he knows figures, he can
10 formulate them without us needing to read the text to know what we're
11 talking about.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We don't need the text to be read, but the
13 Prosecution needs the text to prepare for cross-examination. That's the
14 issue. Let me just confer.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is partially sustained. No questions
17 at this moment about this source and the subject covered by this specific
18 study. The Defence is invited to provide a copy of the Rosner, if there's
19 an excerpt, if there's a summary, to the Prosecution. And we always then
20 can see, not knowing at this moment what the study is about and perhaps
21 the Chamber could be provided with a copy as well so that we can see what
22 the study is, whether it's a summary that could be read easily, whether
23 it's something entirely new. We are not aware of that. And then the
24 Chamber can always reconsider the position upon the request of the
25 parties, either to allow the -- the Prosecution may --
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] If the doctor has this
4 document on him at this very moment in order to save time, can we propose
5 that the usher can have a copy and make a copy so that we can have it as
6 soon as possible and we'll know about it?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.
8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, what I have to say relates to that.
9 The Prosecution -- I don't mind saying this in front of the witness. The
10 Prosecution has made every attempt to obtain the articles referred to by
11 the witness yesterday and the synopses of which are in the document
12 provided to us. We're unable to get access. They're not obtainable
13 through the Internet. We're told by the library it would take some seven
14 days to get the articles. What we've been provided with are simply the
15 synopses. And it may be that it's a synopsis that the witness is
16 referring to in relation to the Munich study.
17 I'm mindful of the Trial Chamber's interest in allowing in as much
18 relevant material as possible, I wonder whether an appropriate course
19 might be for us to obtain these articles. I'm happy as soon as I get
20 them. If I can obtain them from other sources more quickly, and I may be
21 able to, to circulate them, and the witness be re-called, perhaps during
22 the evidence of General Radinovic, for further questioning. That's a way
23 which would enable all of these issues to be ventilated.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course there's -- I should then first ask
25 one thing to you, Dr. Kuljic: The document you provided yesterday, these
1 are synopses, these are abstracts. Have you read the originals or not? I
2 mean, if you -- well, let's say the first page, the article of Jensen. Did
3 you only read the abstract or did you also read the ...?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read the abstracts here because
5 it's a large number of cases. But the point of the abstract is to give a
6 very concise information. It is a digest and the essence of the abstract
7 cannot differ from the essence of the actual document, of the paper.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, usually it's not, at least the purpose of an
9 abstract is that it gives precise information. But I do understand you
10 have not consulted any of the original articles underlying these
11 abstracts. Is that a correct understanding, or did you?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These that I have attached
13 yesterday, I hadn't read them in the original, no, not those.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore, both parties and the expert
15 witness himself only have available at this moment as a source the
16 abstract of the article. Yes.
17 MR. IERACE: That doesn't overcome the problem, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Not entirely perhaps, not your problem. But of
19 course we are now in a situation where at least all the parties have the
20 same information and the expert has the same information as well. We'll
21 consider whether it will be necessary to have all the underlying
22 documents. But if they are found, of course, I expect the parties to
23 disclose it to the other party. Whether this would be a reason for a
24 re-call of a witness is something still to be considered, Mr. Ierace, and
25 we'll consider that.
1 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, so not --
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Please
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. But I'd
6 ask just one question to your Chamber: Could we give the original of the
7 Rosner document to the usher so that it can be copied in the meantime?
8 And you said yes but --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although, it would have been really
10 appropriate, having seen that it was not among the material distributed
11 yesterday and since you had, it seems in mind, to -- you have the article,
12 and you even did not have to consult your papers to refer to the name of
13 Rosner. That means that you were perfectly aware that questions would be
14 put in respect of this article, which was nowhere in the sources. So it
15 would have been appropriate, first of all, to copy it prior to this
16 hearing; and second, then do it yourself. But we'll now ask whether we
17 can get the assistance of the usher.
18 If you'll please proceed to -- --
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... And we'll see
21 whether --
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Perhaps the doctor would be
23 good enough to hand the document over, the Rosner document, if you have
24 it, Doctor? Do you have this extract from the Rosner article, please?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to check here.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Yes, this is Rosner's article.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, if there would be a possibility
3 perhaps with the assistance of the usher that it could be copied six,
4 seven, eight times. It's just one page.
5 Then please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
7 Q. Thank you, Doctor. What can you tell us, still in relation to
8 terror? Can you tell us about the indicators that could be given in this
9 field, in terms of weight of children at birth, nutrition, good or poor,
10 of mothers in Sarajevo this time, and the scientific studies that were
11 recently produced about the subject?
12 MR. IERACE: I object, Mr. President. I'm not aware of any
13 evidence so far to the effect that the weight of children at birth is an
14 indicator of terror, so to that extent it's a leading question.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any evidence presented at this moment
16 that ...?
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President. You
18 authorised me to ask the questions about the articles that were found by
19 the doctor in the reference that he gave us, which was an Internet
20 reference, and I can see that we have this before us so I'm asking
21 questions in relation to this. I can see an article which is entitled
22 "Nutrition and -- [In English] Of women and children in Sarajevo during
23 July 1993."
24 JUDGE ORIE: So what you're saying is that I'm putting questions
25 to the witness in respect of documents he presented yesterday. That's
1 what Mr. Ierace --
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Absolutely. Absolutely,
3 Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Since we have had an opportunity to read the
5 documents, that questions could be put to the witness in this respect.
6 MR. IERACE: I have no difficulty with that, Mr. President.
7 Simply that the -- the --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's still leading.
9 MR. IERACE: Yeah, there's no mention of terror in the article,
10 and that's the connection that the learned counsel makes in his question.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So would you refrain from leading and put
12 questions to the witness if --
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, very well.
16 Q. Witness, in relation to your report and also in relation to your
17 experience, what can you tell us which would be of assistance for this
18 Chamber or the Prosecution or the Defence about the problem that I
19 mentioned, please?
20 A. I would say this data that was mentioned is in relation to the
21 report of Dr. Turner. In his report, he gives a statement of one of the
22 witnesses who said that the population was going hungry, and I gave this
23 data here and you can see that this is a report by the officials of the
24 World Health Organization and they say that there was no famine. There is
25 a number of articles. I said that these articles were all grouped in
1 several groups, that they were all attached together. I'm sorry that
2 during the photocopying these articles were scattered. So if they were
3 all put together, it would have been easier to understand. This article
4 about the nutrition of children, it is mentioned that there was no
5 registration of a large number of children who were suffering
6 malnutrition, that they were of very low birth weight, and that even
7 children who were older, there was no percentage that was higher found in
8 relation to any other group of population because we can see that 2.6 per
9 cent of children who were suffering malnutrition, this is an article
10 Dzumhur Zec Buljina, this was from the paediatrician's clinic in Sarajevo
11 up to March 1994. And what is also mentioned here, this is Robertson,
12 Fronczak article on nutrition saying that there was no data saying that
13 there were children that were -- there were more than 2.5 per cent of
14 children who were suffering from malnutrition. What's very interesting
15 for me here as a psychiatrist is that also in this article what was found
16 is that women in Sarajevo were not breastfeeding their children
17 sufficiently, and because of that what was confirmed in further articles
18 is that there was a promotion of breastfeeding following that, as this was
19 pointed in Moro work about the Dobrinja hospital, as it says here, and it
20 is well known that women under stress have a problem with breastfeeding.
21 So because of a lap of dopamine and prolactine they suffer lack of breast
22 milk, which is why children cannot be fed. What was so interesting for me
23 is that in situations of extreme stress and war, as this is given in the
24 Turner expert report, the population continues to have the same level of
25 nutrition as well as children and women continue to breastfeed their
1 children. So this is all in relation to the nutrition of children.
2 Q. Very well. Doctor, what can you tell us, what was the conclusion
3 of this article in relation to the possibility for mothers, first of all
4 in Dobrinja, to normally breastfeed their children?
5 A. Yes. Here in Cemerlic-Zecevic paper in a conclusion by the end, I
6 had underlined it, fortunately, so you can find it immediately. It says
7 that "War and suspension of nutrition didn't produce any negative effects
8 in the growing of children and occurrence of anemia. What can happen is
9 that there could be more breastfeeding instances and also there would be
10 additional food, additional nutrition that was given and also with
11 additional good parental care. But I also have to stress that the
12 prolactine hormone which influences breast milk, production of breast
13 milk, because it is also influencing the brain, as well as the care for
14 the children. .
15 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Now, the figures that you were able to find,
16 in relation to the problem of suicide in Sarajevo, if we compare it to
17 other republics in the former Yugoslavia, what can you tell us according
18 to these articles?
19 A. First of all, I'll tell you my train of thought. Why I came to
20 that is because in Turner's report it is mentioned that in one of the
21 statements of one of his witnesses what was said, that he had heard that
22 there was talk in the hospital that there was an increased number of
23 suicides. The comment of Dr. Turner's was that he did not find an
24 increased number of suicides but that if we consider chronic stress during
25 this period, this could be expected. So this was his expectation.
1 Now, I can show you the findings by Jensen and the World Health
2 Organisation was that they supposed that there would be an increased
3 number of suicides throughout the time and there were other factors which
4 are relevant for this debate, and there was an expectation there would be
5 an increased number of suicides. Now, very frequently in medicine we find
6 that there is some expectation which sometimes is not confirmed. In the
7 work of Slodnjak from Ljubljana he compared a group of Bosnian refugees
8 with Slovenian adolescents.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
10 MR. IERACE: The witness is jumping from source to source. We've
11 heard a reference to Jensen and suicide rates, and now to someone else in
12 relation to Bosnian refugees with Slovenian adolescents. I'd be grateful
13 if we could have the source each time the witness refers to one in terms
14 of whether it's an Internet abstract or -- whichever document it is which
15 has been tendered.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please in such a way -- I take it
17 that when you refer to Jensen, it might have been to one of the articles
18 from the Internet you gave us yesterday. But could you please indicate as
19 precise as possible so that both Prosecution and the Bench can follow in
20 more detail what you tell us.
21 Please proceed.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. President, could the witness be asked to
23 speak more slowly.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I also have to ask you on the request of the
25 interpreters to slow down your speed of speaking. I tried already with my
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 hands once to ask your attention for that because you're speaking really
2 very quickly.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Microphone not activated]
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Doctor, please, could you please continue the moment when you were
8 talking about an increased figure of suicides. Was that in Sarajevo or
9 was it elsewhere? Thank you.
10 A. To start with, I'd just like to say that the Prosecution probably
11 failed to hear what the Presiding Judge said to speak just about the
12 articles that are only here. So the articles are all here. But I don't
13 mind continuing with this new observation.
14 Now, one of the articles that I gave you yesterday, this is
15 Jensen's article, "Mental health in war conditions." And I don't have to
16 give you the entire title. And this article, I have also underlined the
17 relevant parts, that it says here that, "Complications that are linked to
18 war trauma and that are causing stress and problems to do with stress, and
19 they can cause an increase in alcoholism, criminal behaviour, and
20 suicide." Now, the point was suicide. After that, I mentioned the paper
21 that was given yesterday. That was Slodnjak, "Depression and parasuicide
22 in -- depression in Slovenia." I hope that you were able to find it.
23 They were put one after the other.
24 I've also underlined the important -- the relevant parts. This is
25 about a comparative study done between Bosnian refugees. Again there was
1 an expectation also for former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia. This is a
2 comparative study between Bosnian refugees and Slovenian adolescents. In
3 relation to suicide, this was --
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just trying to slow you down. Yes, please
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. And in this study, it
7 says that it was precisely the Slovenian adolescents, that they were
8 likely to more frequently express their desire to commit suicide when we
9 compare this to their Bosnian refugees of the same age who had suffered
11 Now, if we continue, as Mr. Turner expressed, his expectation that
12 there would be an increase in the suicide rate, but he did not state the
13 reference which would confirm this. It can happen that these expectations
14 are not met, as it happened here in this study I gave as an example. So I
15 am still trying to what we expect we give references for. The main
16 problem with Dr. Turner's report is that things were not concrete enough.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Doctor, thank you.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Have you received the Rosner
20 abstract? Mr. President?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, do you have
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Rosner is there, but I think no questions were
25 allowed before we -- before the break or -- I'm listening to the witness
1 and not reading Rosner at the same time. It was not a matter of putting
2 it on our desk and then the way to Rosner was open. No, it was that the
3 Prosecution would have an opportunity to read the -- yes.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well. Very
5 well. Of course. Very well.
6 Q. Let's forget Rosner. What can you tell us, Doctor, about the
7 figures which - let me check it - that you were also able to analyse
8 concerning the problem of the -- I'm referring to -- by the authors of
9 Begovic and others. What are the conclusions that you can draw from it?
10 A. I'd like to mention this text because that is where we started
11 yesterday, that is, the first group of the three articles, where I
12 mentioned what Turner says in his report about 119 killed or wounded a day
13 in Sarajevo, so that I could find Begovic's, Mazlagic's, and other's
14 article, having to do with the state hospital, One of the two largest
15 hospitals in Sarajevo, mentioned in the previous article. So now we are
16 talking only about what exists in photocopies, and here he gives us 3.215
17 war injuries over a certain period of time. That is when one calculates,
18 one when divides it by the number of days, we shall have 13 a day or 18.
19 I cannot say precisely. I know that it's 13 for one and 18 for the other,
20 but I do not think it is all that relevant because I will immediately now
21 move on to mention another article, and this author is Drnda, it's the
22 next one after which I've mentioned who says "40 months of Sarajevo." And
23 when one calculates how many injured were admitted and we add those two
24 figures up and so we get the figure of 31, which is at significant
25 variance with the figure of 119.
1 But I also have to mention that none of these three papers covers
2 fully the period covered by General Galic's indictment, so that all this
3 is an approximation, and it indicates a discrepancy between these figures
4 and Turner's reports.
5 Q. Thank you, Doctor.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have two more
7 questions, and then I will have finished.
8 Q. You spoke about figures, and I'd like you to explain to us what
9 are the relations that one can establish between the general -- the
10 overall figure of persons who were victims of the war, that is, wounded
11 and killed, during the period under consideration? Do you know these
12 figures, at least approximately, and the idea, the notion of terror?
13 A. To begin with, I'd like to say what I objected to in the
14 beginning, as to how we are to distinguish the war in Sarajevo and beyond
15 Sarajevo. I told you yesterday that we had -- that we had to -- when we
16 talked about the number of injuries on a war day in Sarajevo, and
17 Mr. Turner spoke about -- said that that number was high and that that
18 gives rise to fear and terror in all inhabitants of Sarajevo. And he also
19 says that all inhabitants of Sarajevo, day in, day out, fight to survive.
20 To my mind, this lacks precision, because all of us who are in this
21 courtroom daily fight to survive. And the question is, what Dr. Turner
22 said, whether this is applicable to all respondents, and I can tell you on
23 the basis of my personal research how many people were injured and how
24 they were injured, that those facts need not mean that they are suffering
25 from such a severe mental trauma, that is, the mental trauma need not
1 correspond to the bodily injury. According to my research, I concluded
2 that the degree of their mental trauma depends on the -- on their
3 subjective assessment of their injury, and if their subjective
4 assessment -- although, their subjective assessment need not be realistic.
5 Q. Thank you. My second question has already been answered in part,
6 but I'd like -- and this is a difficult exercise; however, I'd like to ask
7 you to sum up for us if possible in what way Dr. Turner's analysis was
8 especially correct or especially incorrect or both -- for the Serb booth.
9 Thank you.
10 A. Dr. Turner's analysis was not governed by the principles of
11 systematical research, wasn't governed by the rules which lead us to a
12 truthful conclusion. In other words, the sample was not adequate, it
13 wasn't a random sample. Psychiatric instruments or interviews were not
14 used. The witnesses during the hearing could be brought in a mental state
15 which significantly changes, affects, the veracity of their statements.
16 And so not even a verification scale was applied, that is, no control
17 questions were used. The scale of socially correct, desirable answers, or
18 truths and lies, as it had to do with the investigation of responsibility
19 of a particular man for something. There was no analysis of factors which
20 could have been significant for the evolution of terror and not what he
21 stands accused of, because we know that fears are often learnt, and that
22 is a known phenomenon in psychiatry, so that the media role was of -- the
23 media role was significant, as well as all the preceding or following
24 events or the events that followed the period for which General Galic
25 stands accused of.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 All of this could have affected the subsequent cognitive
2 processing of the information and affect the perception of the overall
3 wartime situation, which would be different than it actually was.
4 Likewise, I wanted here -- I am doing my best not to be biased but to shed
5 more light on the subject, and I've also brought findings from literature
6 which shed a different light on the period of Sarajevo, when -- that is,
7 according to the reports, there was no purposeful starvation, when the
8 courses were still held at the school of medicine. People studied,
9 graduated, defended their doctoral thesis, experiments with animals were
10 being conducted. And since I was also engaged in this, I know how
11 demanding all this is, how expensive all that is, and how technical and
12 difficult it is if you do not have adequate conditions.
13 I also supplied an article which refers to CT scanners and which
14 according that paper -- and we know how sensitive that equipment is, how
15 it functioned with the same frequency during that period of time.
16 Q. Thank you, Doctor.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Ierace, is the Prosecution ready to
19 MR. IERACE: Ready to start, Mr. President. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Cross-examined by Mr. Ierace:
22 Q. Dr. Kuljic, your report is dated, I think, the 14th of January,
23 2003, and you say in it that you were engaged "to give my opinion on the
24 report of Dr. Turner." When did you receive Dr. Turner's report?
25 A. I received Dr. Turner's report at a moment when I was engaged, and
1 that was -- I cannot give you the date, but it was in December, I think.
2 It was the former part of December.
3 Q. December of 2002; is that correct?
4 A. It is.
5 Q. When you read Dr. Turner's report, did you look at the references
6 that he listed? I think it's the last two pages. Did you look at them
7 and did you read them?
8 A. I saw the references indicated. Some of the references, I
9 was -- even I was familiar with some of these references, having learnt
10 about them when I studied stress.
11 Q. My question is - yes or no - did you read them?
12 A. As I have said, yes, some of them, those which I had read
13 previously, and yes, I was familiar with the author's names.
14 Q. Whether you read them before you were given this task or whether
15 you read them after you were given this task, do you tell this Trial
16 Chamber that you have read not just the abstracts but the various articles
17 and other publications that Dr. Turner refers to in his report; yes or no?
18 A. I've said that I had read some articles. I don't understand the
19 question. Could you repeat it, please.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether there's any confusion,
21 Mr. Ierace, but I did understand your answer to be that some of the
22 references you had read already, and I took it then that you didn't read
23 others. Is that a correct understanding of your testimony?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you've understood me perfectly.
25 I was familiar with some of them, but I did not search for the references
1 indicated. I did not read them again.
2 MR. IERACE:
3 Q. Dr. Kuljic, I want to know whether at some stage in your life you
4 have read each and every one of the articles and other publications that
5 Dr. Turner referred to in his report. Could you answer that question with
6 a yes or no.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] If we're talking about page 2,
10 I see that I have the literary bibliography in Serb and the Oxford
11 dictionary. If you want -- when one uses that, does that mean that one
12 has to read all the Oxford dictionary? So that is a question. Could this
13 be made more precise.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I think the question is quite clear. Mr. Ierace
15 seems not to be satisfied with the answer, which is not in a direct yes or
17 I think you said that you did not read all the references
18 mentioned by Dr. Turner.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you understood me well a moment
20 ago. I don't know -- I don't see what the problem is.
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... The answer
22 has been given, Mr. Ierace.
23 MR. IERACE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...
24 Mr. President.
25 Q. Now, a few moments ago you gave some evidence in relation to some
1 calculations that you did based on the abstracts. Would you please go to
2 the abstract from the article by Mr. Drnda, I think it is pronounced.
3 Now, firstly, this refers to the Centre for Emergency Medicine of
4 the University Medical Centre in Sarajevo. Have you ever been to that
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you know whether that centre is attached to Kosevo Hospital?
8 Do you know whether it is independent -- it is independently located, that
9 is, not in the Kosevo Hospital complex, or what?
10 A. I put that question to the Defence, and they told me that it is
11 related to the Kosevo Hospital.
12 Q. I see. Now, could you explain to me how you arrived at the figure
13 of 31. Firstly, what did you understand to be the relevant number of
14 patients and what did you understand to be the figure of the relevant
15 number of days? Perhaps you could give us those figures and explain where
16 they appear in the abstract.
17 A. I said that when one adds up two papers, one gets 31. So I'm
18 talking about the first paper, Drnda, which says 42.075 injured and sick.
19 Of them 37 per cent were injured.
20 Q. All right. Now, in the next sentence, that is, two sentences
21 further down, do these words appear, "In this period of time, 107.453
22 patients were treated hospitably with an average of 2.108 hospital beds.
23 Do you see those words?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. What period of time do you read the author of this abstract as
1 referring to?
2 A. All I can do is read you the first sentence, in which he says,
3 "Over 40 months."
4 Q. All right. Now, would you accept from me that -- well, first of
5 all, do you accept that 40 days [sic] is the equivalent of 1.217 days?
6 Would you accept that?
7 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you are referring to a month,
8 Mr. Ierace, 40 months. You said "40 days."
9 MR. IERACE: 40 months. Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Q. Would you accept that that is the equivalent of 40 months?
11 A. Well, if you give me a calculator, I'll be able to tell you
12 exactly. But, say, 40 times 30 or 31, that would be the number of days.
13 Q. All right. Now, you can check this later if you like, during the
14 next break, perhaps, but by my calculations when you divide the figure of
15 107.453 by the number 1.217, the result is 88.something. If that
16 calculation is correct, does it appear from the abstract that over a
17 40-month period of the war, there was an average of 88 patients per day
18 treated hospitably?
19 A. I'd merely like to remind you that this is the number of admitted
20 which embraces both the injured and sick, and there are percentages
21 referring to what are injuries, then what are acute, that is,
22 surgery-requiring conditions, appendicitis or whatever, and that is a per
23 cent of emergency cases.
24 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... The time, Dr. Kuljic. In
25 question I asked you was in relation to the result of a mathematical
12 Pages blanches insérées aux fins d’assurer la correspondance entre la
13 pagination anglaise et la pagination française.
1 calculation of 88 per day. Perhaps we'll leave it at that until you have
2 a chance to check the maths.
3 Let's now look at the point you raised and let's see if we can
4 correlate the first sentence with the third. In the first sentence, is
5 there a reference in relation to that figure of 42.075 to them being in
6 the primary care unit and a reference also to the emergency department?
7 Do you see that?
8 A. Yes, it is mentioned.
9 Q. And in the third sentence, we see a reference to hospitalisation,
10 as opposed to primary care or attendance at an emergency centre. I
11 suggest to you that that is a possible explanation of why there are two
12 different figures, noting, of course, that we don't have the full article.
13 Do you agree that that is a possible explanation as to why there are two
14 different figures in those two sentences?
15 A. I'd be happy if you allowed me to explain to you certain things,
16 since I'm a physician, on the basis of common practice of admission into a
17 hospital. So, patients come to the admission room, to the reception room,
18 and that is this figure of 42.000. After that it is established how many
19 injuries there were and after that they were admitted into different
20 wards, except that we do not have this 107 [as interpreted] statistical
21 breakdown into sick and injured, I mean with war injuries.
22 Q. Let me stop you there, Dr. Kuljic. You've told us you haven't
23 been to this place. Your answer, I take it, is based on your experience
24 in hospitals. Do you agree with me that it would be very helpful if you
25 and I and others had this article, which is abstracted on this piece of
1 paper, so that we could learn more about what these different figures
2 represent? Do you agree with that?
3 A. Well, my agreement with you or not should be tantamount to saying
4 that we should all go to Sarajevo.
5 Q. Doctor --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please -- Dr. Kuljic, would you please
7 answer the question.
8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I don't --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Instead of --
10 MR. IERACE: I don't require further answer to that question.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No. But would you refrain from commenting on what
12 the consequences of your answer not yet given would be.
13 Yes, please proceed.
14 MR. IERACE:
15 Q. Doctor, you offer yourself as an expert in this trial, don't you,
16 an expert in relation to terror; is that correct?
17 A. It is.
18 Q. You come here offering an opinion as to the report of Dr. Turner;
19 is that correct?
20 A. It is.
21 Q. As an expert, do you not think it appropriate to read the articles
22 that you give evidence about before you get in the witness box?
23 A. Yes. But an abstract is also a part of an article.
24 Q. This article, according to the piece of paper we have, was
25 published, it would seem, in a journal in 1997; is that correct?
1 A. It is.
2 Q. You've told us that the site from which you obtained this abstract
3 is, I think it was suggested to you, a professional site, a site for
4 professionals. When did you first discover this abstract on that site?
5 A. I found this abstract after I submitted my report, because I
6 continued working.
7 Q. No, Doctor, when? Not was it before or after you did your report,
8 but when? Was it last week, last month?
9 A. It was, well, in January, say, the latter half of January.
10 Q. So you've had time, if you wanted to, to read the report or the
11 article in its full version; is that correct?
12 A. I said that it was a large number of articles. Besides, to get
13 this article, I would have to pay a certain, say, due or a tax. But this
14 was accessible and this is what I used.
15 Q. All right. Was there any reason which prevented you from
16 obtaining a copy? I appreciate you would have had to pay a fee, but I
17 assume that's something you could have done. If you'd wanted to, could
18 you have read the full article? That's my question.
19 A. I'll tell you that with us there is a problem with paying such
20 fees and dues, since Internet articles, when you want to gain access to
21 them, in extenso, then you have to pay it with your credit card. I don't
22 have one, and a large number of people in Yugoslavia don't. It simply
23 does not work in there, so that we are forced to --
24 Q. Very well.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
1 MR. IERACE: Is that a convenient time, Mr. President?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the first question is that
3 this would be a convenient time. And --
4 But before having a break, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what did you want to
5 bring to your attention?
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. If this
7 line of questioning is to continue, with regard to some personal -- I'd
8 rather --
9 JUDGE ORIE: We will have a break anyhow. Is it something that
10 would be proper to address in the presence of the witness that you would
11 like to say, or ...?
12 MR. IERACE: To save time, Mr. President, I don't intend to pursue
13 this line of questioning any further at this stage.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, would that still make your
15 intervention necessary?
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Just a
17 comment. Every one of us should look at the end of the pointer when he
18 intends to speak because we are otherwise all speaking -- because there is
19 a cacophony there of different voices. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll adjourn until quarter past 4.00.
21 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 4.25 p.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please escort the witness into the
24 courtroom, Mr. Usher.
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Ierace.
2 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Dr. Kuljic, I take it that you speak and read English, given that
4 the abstracts are in the English language. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you read the English version of Dr. Turner's report?
7 A. No. I read the Serbian version.
8 Q. Did you check the English version of your report?
9 A. I did.
10 Q. And do I take it that you are satisfied with the accuracy of the
11 English version of your report?
12 A. There were some minor observations. In one place, instead of
13 "delusions," it was "madness" and some other things that would have
14 changed the meaning significantly.
15 Q. Did you make appropriate corrections to the English version of
16 your report?
17 A. I thought that there are no errors that should be corrected,
18 significant errors that should be corrected.
19 Q. In the English version of your report, you refer sometimes to
20 terror, sometimes to anxiety, sometimes to fear. What is the Serbian word
21 for terror? And I'd like you, please, to spell it.
22 A. Which word? Could you please repeat. Which word do you mean
24 Q. Yes. The word is "terror."
25 A. That is extreme fear, but in Serbian we frequently use the actual
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 word "terror."
2 Q. You mean the English word "terror"? Is that correct?
3 A. Yes. For the word "terror," in many translations it is translated
4 as "terror," although sometimes there could be some confusion with
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I do not wish to interrupt,
9 but to the extent that the Prosecution wishes it, perhaps the word "Strah"
10 S-t-r-a-h, should be transcribed. This is what the Prosecution wanted and
11 spelled by the doctor.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Did he -- I take it then that he did pronounce that
13 word, because I cannot see that, of course, in the translation.
14 You were asked, Dr. Kuljic, to give the Serbian term for what is
15 called in English "terror," and from the transcript we only see that the
16 word "terror" could be used as well. We were just informed that you also
17 used the word "Strah." Is that correct? A Serbian word.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be extreme fear. "Strah"
19 is fear. But extreme fear is terror. It is in that sense. But the other
20 meaning, for "terrorise," to terrorise someone, in some legal term, that's
21 a different meaning.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, suddenly I do
24 not have the interpretation from the French booth. Perhaps because of the
1 Well, I was informed fully. I thank the booth.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I did not have in my transcript the response of
3 the French booth. Could you -- could the French booth repeat what I just
4 said so that it will be translated in English and that Mr. -- that the
5 Prosecution also can understand it.
6 Perhaps I could solve it in a different way. I do understand
7 that - but I just switched to the French channel - that the French
8 interpreters explained to Mr. Piletta-Zanin that sometimes you need some
9 reflection before you translate. Is that a correct understanding?
10 THE INTERPRETER: Precisely.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You should --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honours, we cannot know that because we do
13 not hear the French booth.
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... At this
15 moment, and I have -- yes. Thank you. So that is now clear, what was
17 Yes. Then please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
18 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. You said earlier that terror was used in Serbian with either the
20 English word "terror" or by using the words meaning "extreme fear." Was
21 the Defence correct in saying that you used "Strah" to indicate extreme
22 fear or not?
23 A. As extreme fear, extreme fear is not the same thing as ordinary
24 fear. I think that is clear.
25 Q. All right. Spell, please, the Serbian words to convey extreme
2 A. E -- I'm spelling. E-k-s-t-r-e-m-n-i; second word, S-t-r-a-h.
3 Q. All right. Now, you said that "strah" means fear. Does it also
4 mean anxiety?
5 A. I will now explain a little further, perhaps from the linguistics
6 we could go on to psychiatry, which is why I was summoned here. So anxiety
7 would include the state of tension --
8 Q. Let me rephrase the question. In your report, would you agree
9 with me that by comparing the English word "anxiety" with the Serbian
10 original, one can see that you sometimes translated "Strah" as "anxiety"?
11 Is that correct?
12 A. Perhaps you could show me specifically. Then I could explain on
13 the basis of that. Could you give me a concrete example, please.
14 Q. We'll come to that when we go through your report. Do you agree
15 with Dr. Turner's definition of "terror"?
16 A. The definition of "terror", as "extreme fear," as given by
17 Dr. Turner, this will depend whether we are talking about the linguistic
18 aspects of this meaning or psychiatric or legal aspects. And I would like
19 here for us to discuss psychiatric aspects of fear, its extreme form --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness have his microphones adjusted,
22 MR. IERACE: The interpreter's booth asks that the witness's
23 microphone be adjusted.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that
2 here we have a very clear example where the witness has to be authorised
3 to respond, to respond in his domain. He was going to give an answer, and
4 he was interrupted by the Prosecution. We think that this should not be
5 accepted. Thank you. I'm referring to the transcript, Mr. President,
6 line 13 of the current page.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm just reading it. The question was whether
8 you agree with Dr. Turner's definitions of "terror," and you said it
9 depends on whether you're talking about linguistic aspects or the meaning
10 of this meaning or the psychiatric or legal aspects.
11 You may explain to the Chamber whether you agree with the
12 definition of "terror" in the psychiatric sense of this term, Mr. --
13 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, would you hear me on that before --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I should have done so, Mr. Ierace.
15 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. The relevant part of
16 Dr. Turner's report is paragraph 4. I'll read the sentence: "The Concise
17 Oxford Dictionary, 1976, gives a number of definitions for "terror" but
18 the first and simplest is "a state of extreme fear." That's the
19 definition given by Dr. Turner. I haven't asked the witness for a
20 psychiatric definition, a medical definition, but I've drawn his attention
21 to that as the simplest definition of "terror."
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course you may ask the witness to express
23 himself on the -- I would say the ordinary meaning of what a dictionary
24 says, which is the simplest way of understanding this term. But if the
25 witness could like to explain whether he agrees with psychiatric -- you
1 just want to concentrate on this part.
2 MR. IERACE: Yes. And that's -- that's why I cut the witness
3 short. And at that point before I could rephrase it, Mr. Piletta-Zanin
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It -- yes. Please first answer the question of
6 Mr. Ierace, as we understand it now to be, that is, the understanding of
7 "terror" as a state of extreme fear, whether you would agree with that
8 part of the report of Dr. Turner, as being the simplest definition of
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is indeed a very brief
11 definition of "terror," but it's rather simplified, particularly after
12 that we can have a look at the meaning what is a terrorist. So the
13 extreme fear does not have to be felt only in the cases that are
14 later -- which is later defined in the definition of terrorism -- of a
15 terrorist, so this is a very important question.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The terrorist issue is not the issue Mr. Ierace
17 wants to raise.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace. If you would need, at any further
19 stage, for a better understanding of your testimony, that you would
20 consider it of importance to explain your psychiatric view on that, you'll
21 be given an opportunity to do that. But at this moment, would you please
22 answer the questions of Mr. Ierace, which are just limited to the
23 definition mentioned by Dr. Turner.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
25 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. In your report at paragraph 2.1, you purported to repeat --
2 A. I'm sorry.
3 Q. At paragraph 2.1, you purported to repeat the instructions given
4 to Dr. Turner, and in so doing, I take it, you set out what you understood
5 to be the objective of his report; is that correct? Is that what you
6 understood to be the objective of his report?
7 A. Yes. I am just rereading it once again, just so that there is no
8 confusion, just like I waited for you to read the abstracts and I didn't
9 rush you, so I'm just asking you to -- not to rush me.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So --
12 JUDGE ORIE: If you have such a request to one of the parties,
13 would you please address me so that I can -- if you have any problem with
14 the way you're examined, please address me.
15 You may proceed.
16 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. So that's what you understood to be his objective; is that
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First, I'd like to apologise to the
20 President, and then I would like to answer. Yes, that is correct. That
21 is how I understood. That's what was written.
22 Q. Now, you've told us that you checked the English version of your
23 report. I'd like to suggest to you that you have misstated his
24 instructions and in so doing misstated the objective of his report.
25 Firstly, I will read to you from Dr. Turner's report in English what he
1 said. And as I read it, please follow your words in your report.
2 On paragraph 3 of Dr. Turner's report, last sentence, and the last
3 sentence follows an outline of the essence of the charges against
4 General Galic. "I have been instructed to prepare a report dealing with
5 the relationship between events of this type and the production of
7 I suggest to you that those words do not appear in their entirety
8 in your restatement of Dr. Turner's instructions. Instead we read: "I
9 was given instructions to prepare an expert --"
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do not answer yet the question.
11 Could you finish the question, unless the objection would be such
12 that --
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object because now one is
16 based on something which is a translation of a document which was written
17 in Serbian, where one reads the text in Serbian, and that is the gist of
18 my objection.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is a comment to the question, as a matter
20 of fact, and part of a possible answer. It is a matter that might be
21 quite understandable to come up in your mind, but it's not an issue, it's
22 not an objection against the question. So it's denied.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
24 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the witness was asked specifically by
25 me whether he had checked the English version of his report, which makes
1 the intervention doubly inappropriate. I'd be grateful if the time taken
2 by interventions would not be detracted from my period. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
4 MR. IERACE:
5 Q. I'll reread the words which appear in your report: "I was given
6 instructions to prepare an expert opinion on the manner in which such
7 events are influencing a creation of anxiety." I suggest to you there are
8 two differences between what Dr. Turner has written and what you wrote.
9 Do you agree or disagree?
10 A. I'd first like to say that I was unable to follow you. It was too
11 fast for me. And that after that I managed to look at Dr. Turner's
12 introduction, that is, his translation into Serbian and my version in
13 Serbian, and they fully overlap. Now, tell me which versions should I
14 compare? Which Serbian version and which English version?
15 Q. Do you have with you an English version of Dr. Turner's report?
16 A. I don't.
17 Q. Did you ever ask for one?
18 A. I did not think it necessary because it was a certified
19 translation into Serbian. What would have happened had I not -- if I
20 didn't know any English? And that is why I accepted this version in the
21 Serbian language.
22 Q. All right. So is it fair to say, is it accurate to say that you
23 have at least until this minute always been under the apprehension, you
24 have always understood that Dr. Turner --
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'd like to say something, in
3 the absence of the witness. I'd like to say something in the absence of
4 the witness.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort Dr. Kuljic for one
6 moment out of the courtroom.
7 I have to ask you to leave for a second, Dr. Kuljic.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No. It's Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. I was looking in your
12 direction and -- please proceed.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] There was no possible error.
14 Mr. President, what I wanted to say is the following: I have in
15 front of me the translation of Mr. Turner's report done by the
16 Prosecution's service itself, and its number is ERN 03054237. I've
17 checked, and Dr. Turner quotes very exactly, as of page 2, to the -- at
18 the end of page 2 to the beginning of page 3 the passage which is in
19 inverted commas, in inversions, on page 2 -- I'm not going to read it in
20 Serb. I can do it if necessary. But the word used is exactly this word,
21 "Strah" which the Prosecution objects to. So if the Prosecution did this
22 translation and if the expert based his opinion on that, then the witness
23 cannot be reproached for that, for taking literally a document which was
24 supplied by the Prosecution. So that is clear.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are commenting both on what the Prosecution
1 does and intends to do. And what became clear from the testimony of the
2 witness is that he said that he copied the Serbian language as it appears
3 in the translation in his own report that subsequently was translated in
4 English as well. So, therefore, I -- what Mr. Ierace then did is, I
5 would -- at least how I understood that Mr. Ierace was proceeding, that he
6 wanted to verify that because of perhaps a bad translation, perhaps a good
7 translation - I do not know - I do not know whether Mr. Ierace objected
8 against "Strah" or not. I didn't hear him say -- I didn't hear him
9 object. He was just trying to find out what words were used. But then he
10 tried to find out whether the expert witness might have had a wrong
11 opinion, whoever were to be blamed for that, but a wrong understanding of
12 what the report of Dr. Turner was about. This is how I understood that.
13 And I do not understand what -- why it is at this moment necessary, it
14 becomes first of all quite clear from the testimony the way the expert
15 witness proceeded in preparing his report. And you introduced a few
16 things that are, as far as I understood the position of the Prosecution,
17 were not said nor intended. So I think we could have just continued
18 without this intervention but -- yes.
19 But Judge Nieto-Navia would have a question for you.
20 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I will request to Mr. Piletta-Zanin to read
21 the Serbian translation of Turner's report, the sentence. And I will ask
22 the -- I will ask the interpreters not to translate that.
23 The second time -- you should read that twice, please.
24 The second time you can interpret that. Just to check -- I am
25 checking, page 2 of the Serb original report of Mr. Kuljic.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I should be
2 happy to do that, but I apologise to everybody for my pronunciation of
3 Serbian. But I'm happy to do that it.
4 I understand first you want me to read first point 2.1, which
5 Mr. Kuljic quotes. Is that it?
6 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: No, no. I would like you -- Mr. Kuljic is
7 quoting something from Turner's report. I would like you to read, or
8 Ms. Pilipovic if you want, the quoted sentence in the Turner's translation
9 in Serb. That's what I would like. I have here page 2 of the Serbian
10 report. What I would like is to check that. I don't speak Serb, of
11 course. So if you read slowly, I can follow that.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I should be happy to do that.
13 And I quote, Mr. President, the last sentence of item 3 of the
14 Turner report translated into the Serbian by the Prosecution, 03054237 is
15 its ERN number, and 38. Now I'm quoting in Serbian. And we shall not
16 have the interpretation of this.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [B/C/S spoken], [In English] End of quote.
19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Yes. Now we can get the interpretation if you
20 read that again, just for the transcript, because -- of course.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I should be happy to do that.
22 So that same quotation, the same place: "I received the instructions so
23 to prepare an expert opinion on how such events affected the production of
24 fear." I apologise for my accent, but that is how it was translated, end
25 of quote.
1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you very much, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into
3 the courtroom again.
4 MR. IERACE: Just while he's coming in, Mr. President, for the
5 record Mr. Piletta-Zanin has twice said that it was the Prosecution's
6 translation. I think he well knows it's CLSS that does the translations.
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Ierace.
9 MR. IERACE:
10 Q. Dr. Kuljic, up until now, at least, has it been your understanding
11 that the objective of Dr. Turner's report was to prepare an opinion on how
12 such events affected the production of fear or anxiety?
13 A. Yes, as I have written it, on how they affected, whether they
14 resulted in the production of fear.
15 Q. Now, did you read the transcript of the evidence of Dr. Turner?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. As you read that evidence, did it not become clear to you and
18 indeed as you read the other parts of Dr. Turner's report, did it not
19 become clear to you that he was concerned with terror rather than fear or
21 A. You didn't ask me when is it that I read the transcript. I did
22 that after I'd written my report.
23 Q. No, that's irrelevant for my question, Dr. Kuljic. If you could
24 please respond to my question. Do you want me to repeat it?
25 A. Repeat it.
1 Q. As you read the transcript of Dr. Turner's evidence and the other
2 parts of Dr. Turner's report, did it not become clear to you that
3 Dr. Turner in his report was concerned with terror rather than fear or
5 A. His interest in his report lay with how -- what are the origins of
6 fear, what are the mechanisms leading to fear. And at the end of the
7 report it is said that the objective -- that the reasons behind all these
8 objectives was to produce terror, to cause terror. That is what I thought
9 having read his report and having read the transcript later on.
10 Q. Do you have with you a copy of Dr. Turner's report in Serbian?
11 A. I do, yes, in Serbian.
12 Q. Would you please turn to paragraph 3.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Would you please read slowly out aloud the second sentence.
15 A. "Because of that, charges were laid against him which, among other
16 things, charged him with unlawful terrorisation of civilians."
17 Q. All right. You can stop there.
18 A. "Punishable by article -- under article --"
19 Q. Thank you for that. Would you now please read the next heading,
20 that is the heading above paragraph 4.
21 A. "Definition of terror."
22 Q. And I think the first sentence under that heading is the
23 definition of "terror" according to a particular English dictionary; is
24 that correct?
25 A. It is. In the dictionary several definitions, and the first
1 definition is quoted.
2 Q. Dr. Kuljic, no one would be critical of you for basing your
3 understanding of Dr. Turner's report on the Serbian interpretation you
4 were given, but did it not seem odd to you that the charge against
5 General Galic, which was relevant to the report, dealt with terrorisation
6 and Dr. Turner in his report dealt with terror? Did that not seem odd to
7 you, therefore, that he expressed his instructions to be -- to prepare a
8 report involving fear or anxiety rather than terror?
9 A. I'll explain how did I understand this. So I understood that
10 there was an indictment against General Galic, accusing him of conducting
11 shelling and sniping campaign against civilian areas, and I won't go on
12 reading it, and that the indictment charges him under Article 51 and so
13 on. Then the next sentence said that an expert opinion should be prepared
14 as to how such events, that is, events which seem to be considered as
15 under his responsibility, how -- what is the role of such events in the
16 production of fear. Then reading -- when one reads the report further,
17 Dr. Turner often says that his findings are based on what he knows, and if
18 that is accepted as correct in court. In other words, my understanding
19 was that he wanted to say what degree of fear it was and to say how it all
20 affected the behaviour of people exposed to it. And after that it will be
21 possible to make a decision.
22 Q. Yes. In -- would you please look at paragraph 2.2 of your report.
23 Having stated, indeed having repeated verbatim Dr. Turner's instructions
24 according to the Serbian translation of his report, you immediately
25 observed what appeared to you to be an inconsistency between his stated
1 objective at the beginning of his report and the terms of his conclusion
2 at the end of his report. Have I correctly paraphrased or summarised what
3 you say in paragraph 2.2?
4 A. It is here, under 2.2, that I quoted directly what is written,
5 since after that I concluded that this was the difference between these
6 strict instructions, because my analysis on what could be the objective
7 did not agree with what was a strict instruction, and the instruction was
8 to present an opinion as to how -- what role these events play in the
9 production of fear.
10 Q. Yes. All right. Now, earlier I suggested to you that there were
11 two differences between the critical sentence of Dr. Turner, in which he
12 set out his instructions, between the English version as it transpires and
13 the Serbian version, as it appears in your report. I would now like to
14 take you to a second difference. Firstly, for the sake of completeness,
15 given that you read English, I would like you to look at the English
16 version of Dr. Turner's report.
17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might the witness be shown that
18 exhibit, which is, I think -- excuse me.
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is it a long line that you would like to read,
21 Mr. Ierace?
22 MR. IERACE: It's P3716.
23 It isn't, Mr. President. Perhaps we could --
24 JUDGE ORIE: We could --
25 MR. IERACE: Locate --
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Kuljic, if Mr. Ierace reads one or a few lines of
2 the report, could you please follow on your screen the English text read
3 and take your time to read it. Then we don't need the --
4 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So would you please first listen to Mr. Ierace and
6 then take your time to read on the screen what he said, English version.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
8 MR. IERACE:
9 Q. Dr. Kuljic, as you might expect, the original of Dr. --
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object, and I think my
11 objection is necessary for the possible future for the re-examination. I'd
12 like to know what is in this document, because I do not have it in my
13 memory. I think it is necessary to have it. Perhaps there will be some
14 other things there which will be then quoted by the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. You know the report.
16 You'll see the relevant text on the screen. I take it that you prepared
17 for the examination of this witness, which deals with the report of
18 Dr. Turner, so that you are able to establish the context in which it was
19 written. And of course in re-examination you could ask questions about
21 Mr. Ierace, please proceed.
22 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. The original version of that sentence, Dr. Kuljic, which was in
24 the English language, is as follows, and I quote:
25 "I have been instructed to prepare a report dealing with the
1 relationship between events of this type and the production of terror."
2 Now --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Kuljic, take your time to read these two lines.
4 Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
5 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. Now, the first difference which we have just --
7 A. I'm sorry.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Dr. Kuljic.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I'd like -- I'd like to
10 be given time to read it and then compare it with what it says in the
11 report, if I may. After that, further questions may be asked.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may take your time to read it.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. I've read it. Thank
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, please proceed.
16 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Now, we have dealt with one of the differences between that
18 sentence and its translation, namely the word "terror" appeared in the
19 original but the Serbian version communicates instead the notion of fear
20 or anxiety but not terror. Do you agree with that?
21 A. Yes. There is a difference between fear, "Strah", and terror,
23 Q. Okay. Now, I would like to draw to your attention what I suggest
24 is a second critical difference, and that is whereas Dr. Turner's original
25 sentence states as part of his objective to deal with the relationship
1 between the events set out in the indictment and the production of terror,
2 your -- the translation provided to you went a step further and refined
3 the nature of the relationship to being a causal relationship between
4 events of the type set out in the indictment and the creation of a
5 particular state of mind. Firstly, do you understand my question or at
6 least what I'm putting to you is a difference between the two statements?
7 A. I'm now trying to repeat it so as to provide you with an answer to
8 a second question. I'm still looking for a sentence which seems to have
9 disappeared from the screen.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would need it, I will read it again to
11 you. But the question is whether -- where the original report -- the
12 original version deals with the relationship between events of this type
13 and the production of terror. Mr. Ierace puts it to you that in the
14 version on the basis of which you worked, mention is made of a causal
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Now I've got it.
17 MR. IERACE:
18 Q. All right. Now, do you appreciate that there is that difference
19 between the English original sentence and -- on the one hand, and the
20 Serbian translation that you were given, on the other hand?
21 A. There are some differences; however, it is an issue of language
22 and these language issues could make a difference in translation, in terms
23 of some nuances of the language. Although, I would like us to discuss the
24 Serbian version, my Serbian version and the Serbian version of the
25 translation. That would make it a lot easier for me. And other issues
1 can be discussed with translators. Otherwise, I need some specific
2 questions that are to do with my opinion.
3 Q. Dr. Kuljic, please understand that I'm not being critical of you,
4 firstly; and secondly, I pursue this matter for this reason, that
5 ultimately I will be suggesting to you that your report and the report of
6 Dr. Turner are at cross-purposes, if that could be translated. But we
7 will do it step by step.
8 Would you please now go to paragraph 3.1 of your report. Do you
9 have that paragraph in front of you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. At this point in your report you formulate a methodological
12 question based on your understanding of Dr. Turner's objective, don't you?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In other words, given your understanding that Dr. Turner was
15 required to give an opinion as to how the events in Sarajevo alleged by
16 the Prosecution affected the production of terror, you say that what
17 Dr. Turner should have done was establish this question: "How can one
18 respond to the request for evaluating the state of anxiety in Sarajevo in
19 the period from 10 September 1992 to 10 August 1994?" I'm suggesting to
20 you that is the relationship between your understanding of Dr. Turner's
21 objective and the question you posed to yourself and the reader at
22 paragraph 3.1. Do you agree with that?
23 A. In this, I disagree with you because "terror," if we accept
24 Dr. Turner's definition, is a state of extreme fear, which means that fear
25 as such also includes extreme fear.
1 Q. The English version of your report, no doubt you noted when you
2 checked it, states -- refers to the state being evaluated as the state of
3 anxiety. It does not say "the state of fear." It does not say "the state
4 of extreme fear" or "state of terror." I suggest to you, therefore, that
5 the task you set yourself as the appropriate task was to evaluate the
6 state of anxiety in Sarajevo and that that is understandable given your
7 understanding of Dr. Turner's objective.
8 A. I would like to have some time to have a look at the translation
9 into English so that I can find the sentence regarding what's been implied
10 as being the problem with the English translation.
11 Q. Please do that.
12 A. Perhaps you could help me and tell me which page this is on so
13 that we can save some time.
14 Q. Paragraph 3.1. If you do it by paragraphs, it might be faster.
15 A. Yes, I did, but I was thinking that you could give me a page
16 number. That would be even easier. Yes, I've found it.
17 Q. Yes. In the Serbian version, it is on page 4.
18 A. Yes, it's the same page 4 in both Serbian and English.
19 Q. And I think the word you use is "straha." Do you agree with that?
20 A. Yes. Yes. Here the word "fear," "strah" is mentioned and in the
21 English version that's anxiety. So I'd like to explain the different
22 between these two words, psychiatrically speaking. May I do that?
23 Because I'm waiting for the authorisation to do that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, could you please -- is the issue that you
25 say the English text reads "anxiety" where the witness has testified that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 terror is extreme fear? Is that the issue?
2 MR. IERACE: No, Mr. President. It's whether -- whether it is
3 translated into English as "fear" or "anxiety," there's still a -- a
4 failure to connect, for lack of a better phrase, between -- going on the
5 report the understanding of the writer compared to the contents of
6 Dr. Turner's report. So it's not just linguistic. Perhaps I could --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said that you would like to explain
8 something to us. What exactly would you like to explain? So before doing
9 it, tell us what you would like to explain. The relation bet between
10 anxiety and terror, or -- what would you like explain to us?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I wish to explain is anxiety,
12 fear, and terror, what we're talking about here. First of all, anxiety
13 can be --
14 MR. IERACE: That's not the issue. That's not the issue.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's not the issue Mr. Ierace wants to raise at
16 this very moment. So if at a later stage the Prosecution or the Defence
17 would like to raise this issue, you'll certainly get an opportunity to
18 explain. If you find it that vital for your opinion, you always can ask
19 at the end of your testimony whether you can explain that.
20 Please Mr. Ierace.
21 MR. IERACE: Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Just for
24 the transcript, I can see that on page -- line 22 of the previous page and
25 the following, let us say until page 56, the Prosecution explained very
1 clearly what they wanted. And I think this is a way of saying things in
2 front of the witness that should have been stated in his absence. I'm
3 stating this for the record.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It is in the record.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
6 MR. IERACE:
7 Q. Dr. Kuljic, from that point onwards, your report, not entirely but
8 in a large part, is devoted to the proposition of a study which would
9 achieve the, or respond to the methodological question that you set
10 yourself at paragraph 3.1. Would you agree with that? It sets the
11 direction for your report.
12 A. Yes. What I said was that what has to be examined was the state
13 of fear and events that caused it, and for both things there are certain
14 psychiatric instruments, also for the events that occurred that caused the
15 fear or its extreme variant, that is, terror. So their existence and also
16 the existence of psychological, mental perception of it as such, more or
17 less extensively, to a higher or lesser degree. So this is a complex
18 issue which goes from -- not from A causing B but apart from that, many
19 other factors can cause it on which I have extensively written.
20 Q. Now, while you did that, Dr. Turner did something very different.
21 Dr. Turner in his report evaluated the literature in relation to terror,
22 didn't he?
23 A. In certain places he quoted literature. In some places he quoted
24 transcript from the trial proceedings, what the witnesses said, that is,
25 witness testimony. And it is on the basis of that that he drew his
2 Q. The structure of Dr. Turner's report, I suggest to you, is
3 important to understand, and I suggest to you that that structure is an
4 examination of the literature that exists in respect of terror and a
5 comparison of how the characteristics of different aspects of terror match
6 or don't match aspects of the evidence. Would you agree with me that is
7 the structure of Dr. Turner's report?
8 A. Just a moment. Just a moment, because I have a lot of paper here.
9 Q. Would you prefer I gave you some examples? Would that make it
11 A. There's no need for that. I just want to have a look at it again
12 so that I can answer your question.
13 Here. Now, may I just direct you to item 3 of Dr. Turner's
14 report, where under 3 he gives all the effects and also the instruction on
15 how to prepare findings on how these factors influence production of fear.
16 Now, my observation --
17 Q. Let me just stop you for a minute.
18 A. Have you found it?
19 Q. You said item 3. I don't recognise the contents as you described
20 them at either paragraph 3 or page 3. Can you be -- can you check whether
21 it is item 3 of Dr. Turner's report.
22 A. It is Dr. Turner's report. It says "Introduction," and then after
23 that it says item 3 or paragraph 3.
24 Q. Would you read the first few words, please.
25 A. "I was told that Stanislav Galic as the commander of --"
1 Q. Yes, I see that. Dr. Kuljic, the heading I took you to earlier of
2 "Definition of terror" refers to a simple definition as being a state of
3 extreme fear. Do you see that in your Serbian copy of his report?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Please go to paragraph 11. At that paragraph do we see a
6 subheading "Extreme fear"?
7 A. Just a moment. Let me read it. Paragraph 11, "Extreme fear,"
9 Q. Yes. And thereafter, he refers to the literature as to the
10 components of, firstly, fear. And then at paragraph -- different types of
11 fear, and then at paragraph 14, he refers to factors relevant to the
12 production of a persisting fear response. Do you see that?
13 A. I apologise. I just need to find that page because it seems to
14 have dropped out.
15 Yes, I've found the page. So we've come to this. You said it was
16 item 13. I'm sorry, can you repeat.
17 Q. Paragraph 14, where he discusses Rachman. He seeks out the
18 factors relevant to the production of a persisting fear response, four
19 factors. Do you see that?
20 A. Yes, I can see it. I can see what's been given here.
21 Q. All right. Now, as he goes through those factors, he finds
22 resonance in passages of transcript of evidence given in this trial,
23 doesn't he?
24 A. Yes, as part of Rachman, as part of that, yes. But there is
25 another question though.
1 Q. Yes, indeed. You refer to these passages of transcript as
2 samples, don't you?
3 A. Yes, considering that the indictment is about the whole of
4 Sarajevo. The way I see this is a kind of sample of people from Sarajevo
5 and their testimonies.
6 Q. And you say that as samples they fail basic tests. For instance,
7 they are not representative samples, they do not allow for possible bias
8 of those who come to this court to give their evidence, and so on. Is
9 that correct?
10 A. Yes. I state this because the indictment is for the whole of
11 Sarajevo, and of course for the methodological errors that you have just
12 raised, and I still stand by that.
13 Q. But Dr. Kuljic, I come now to the divergence, if I could put it
14 that way, between your approach and that of Dr. Turner. By seeing these
15 passages as poor samples, you are considering his task in terms of a
16 different objective, an assessment or analysis of the state of anxiety
17 generally in Sarajevo and a particular view to --
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object in relation to ...
21 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't listen to you in French, and I -- I object
22 in relation to ...?
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object in relation to --
24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't understand the counsel.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You are not understood. Could you --
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I apologise. I wanted
2 to be brief so that the witness wouldn't understand me. What I meant was
3 sense, meaning. I meant semantic meaning. So one has to know in which
4 language the witness spoke so that we know what was the meaning, what was
5 the translation, so that we know what the witness meant. So it was on the
6 level of seme, "s-e-m-e" that my objection was. Specifically on the level
7 of seme.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has a problem, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. We do
10 not understand your objection.
11 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, if it will save time, I'll withdraw
12 the question and rephrase it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
14 MR. IERACE:
15 Q. Dr. Turner never suggested that these passages represented
16 representative samples of the population of Sarajevo, did he?
17 A. He did not mention that this was a representative sample, so I
18 presume that he was aware of the limits that I stressed.
19 Q. In other words, I'm suggesting to you that you're criticising him
20 for not doing something he never set out to do.
21 A. I can tell you that on the basis of what was quoted here, these
22 four points, among which there is a factor of personality, when Dr. Turner
23 quotes a proverb, each person has a breaking point. However, this cannot
24 be taken as something that is relevant for giving a scientific opinion,
25 and there are many papers that say that certain people do not develop
1 psychopathology that will bring them to the breaking point, not even in
2 extreme situations.
3 Q. I'll come back to that, but it's not responsive to what I'm
4 putting to you. You're going to a particular comment made by Dr. Turner
5 on that page. See, what I'm suggesting to you is that Dr. Turner's
6 primary objective was to consider the professional literature, the
7 literature in psychiatry and psychology in relation to terror, its
8 characteristics, its causes, and then to look at aspects of the trial
9 evidence to see if it was consistent or inconsistent. Having regard to
10 the English version of Dr. Turner's objective, do you at least concede
11 that that's what he did?
12 A. My objection is precisely about the way that he did it, the
13 method, and that's why I said that such a report was not acceptable.
14 Something that could be called a selective abstraction. When we are
15 talking about Sarajevo --
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you. Please try to understand the
17 comparison I make. What Mr. Ierace wants you to consider is in a
18 comparison of the following: He says that an expert gives an expert
19 opinion on what a car, on what an automobile is - that is usually four
20 wheels, steering wheel, brakes, engine - and then he gives a few pictures,
21 one of a Renault, one of a Zastava, another of a Plymouth. And then
22 another expert comes and says on the basis of this report you could never
23 establish how many cars are driving on the roads in Paris, one being a
24 description of what the main characteristics are, according to literature,
25 and the other expert concentrating on the distribution of cars in urban
1 traffic. That is as a matter of fact, as far as I understand, the
2 question that has been put to you, whether Dr. Turner is not aiming at
3 establishing whether a state of terror existed in general terms in
4 Sarajevo at that time, which perhaps would require samples and a study you
5 think would be needed in order to establish such a thing and that
6 therefore your report and Dr. Turner's report are dealing with different
7 questions, although there is a similarity and that is that they both deal
8 with, whether it's fear or terror or anxiety.
9 Did I understand your questions to go in that direction?
10 Could you please try to answer whether you would agree or would
11 not agree that you're dealing with a different question as Dr. Turner did,
12 and please try to keep in mind the comparison I made, which reflects more
13 or less the difference suggested to you by Mr. Ierace.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After this explanation, I can say
15 that apart from the distribution that you spoke about -- I'm not asking
16 about how many cars there are in Paris. That could be one thing, one
17 issue. But within that my comment is that if the car has four wheels, a
18 door, and windows, we have to know that in order for the car to drive, it
19 needs an engine. That is why I'm talking about other things that were not
20 taken into consideration by Dr. Turner. That's one side of that.
21 We can also look at my report in this way, that one part will
22 speak about this distribution, as you mentioned, but another part of it
23 will more closely look into cars.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. But I think what Mr. Ierace
25 did put to you is that to some extent, that if you want to know how many
1 cars there are, you have to count them. If you just want to describe the
2 car, you don't need to count them.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We don't have to count them, but
4 we're speaking about cars. We cannot not mention the engine. We have to
5 mention the engine. But if you wish, we can leave it just like that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's time for a break. We will adjourn until
7 ten minutes past 6.00.
8 --- Recess taken at 5.48 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 6.15 p.m.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The witness may be brought into the courtroom again.
11 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, just while he's being brought in --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. IERACE: -- Mr. Piletta-Zanin has requested an English copy of
14 Dr. Turner's report. My case manager is obtaining one. And when she
15 arrives, perhaps it could be passed to the usher so that he can read it.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. And I
17 must have already submitted to the Prosecution the Serb version of the
18 dictionary which gives the definition of terror. Once again, thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
20 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Dr. Kuljic, I would like to move now to a different area. We've
22 referred to the nature of the charges against General Galic, and I'm now
23 talking about the terror charge, the charges which relate to the sniping
24 and shelling of civilians deliberately in N what we might call the
25 indictment period, that is, between the 10th of September, 1992 and the
1 10th of August, 1994. Would you agree that we can accept as a matter of
2 ordinary human understanding that if a person is repeatedly targeted with
3 a rifle or by shelling, that that will induce in them the state of extreme
4 fear that we call terror?
5 A. I'd like you to make your question more specific. Do you mean to
6 say that all the inhabitants of Sarajevo were constantly targeted? So is
7 that the question, whether all the inhabitants of Sarajevo were being
8 aimed at and targeted by snipers all the time?
9 Q. Let me break my question into 1992 separate questions. The first
10 question is: Would you agree that we can accept as a matter of ordinary
11 human understanding that if a person is repeatedly targeted with a rifle
12 or by shelling, that experience will induce in them the state of extreme
13 fear that we call terror?
14 A. I have to say that fear one experiences in a particular situation
15 depends precisely on how that person sees his or her situation, and that
16 is a key point there. So if an individual sees it as a permanent danger,
17 there will be fear. But as time passes by and that individual realise
18 that is he/she is alive and is alive day after day, the fear decreases,
19 because that person understands that he has survived through something
20 that in the beginning was intense fear, so that I cannot give you a
21 spatial answer. I have to do it on the basis of a temporal section of the
22 whole situation.
23 Q. Dr. Kuljic, my question, I suggest to you, was a simple one, and I
24 did not factor into it how that person might respond day after day or week
25 after week. Can I at least have from you your acceptance that the
1 experience of being targeted, being shot at deliberately, will in a person
2 with a normal degree of robustness of mind nevertheless cause the
3 sensation of terror rather than fear?
4 A. That question, you said a person with a normal degree of
5 robustness of mind, if I got your meaning correctly.
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. Right. Well, this is precisely one of the things. As you asked
8 me that question, it is simplification, because we cannot talk about
9 normal or abnormal person and how he or she experiences fear because it
10 covers a whole range of degrees and emotions. But if your question is
11 about an individual who is exposed for the first time in his or her life
12 to targeting and thinks that he/she might be hit, that individual
13 experiences intense fear, but its intensity decreases if that individual
14 is aimed at every day but is not fired at. There is an adage which says
15 don't ever threaten with an empty pistol, and I think that is a reference
16 to Dr. Turner's words in his report.
17 Q. In your report, you refer to the disorder known as the
18 post-traumatic stress disorder. Would you agree with me that its
19 usefulness in relation to this topic of terror is restricted because that
20 disorder refers to a continuing prevalence of fear in individuals who
21 suffer from it which lasts long after the traumatic event which caused it
22 has passed?
23 A. May I just read your question once again, because it sounded
24 rather long-winded, so let me --
25 So if I understand what you mean, you are asking me about the
1 relationship between the experience of fear or terror and the
2 post-traumatic stress disorder. So my answer would be that a person
3 experiences that kind of fear, a certain percentage of people will suffer
4 such a disorder but it varies from one individual to another over a period
5 of time.
6 Q. And many people exposed to the same trauma as that which causes
7 that disorder in some individuals do not develop that disorder - do you
8 agree with that - even though both might be of an otherwise robust state
9 of mind?
10 A. Yes, you're right there. That is, two persons may be exposed to a
11 particular event. One will develop such a disorder and the other one
13 Q. To construct an example: If we have, say, a child who is
14 repeatedly shot at and manages to -- or, say, two children who are
15 repeatedly shot at and manage to survive the traumatic experience, one
16 develops that disorder and the other does not. The fact that one develops
17 it and the other does not does not detract from the fact that both
18 experienced terror. Do you agree?
19 A. If I got your meaning correctly, you mean that they can normally
20 experience an identical situation and one develops such a disorder and the
21 other doesn't. But it is another matter whether one child experiences
22 that situation with intense fear and the other not. It also depends on
23 whether after that the parents of a child keep repeating, "Yes, you could
24 have got killed, you could have died," and the parents of the other child
25 say, "Well, it's okay, it's over." So it can also depend whether an
1 individual will be additionally traumatised and suffer from this disorder
2 or not. I keep saying that it depends very much on one's -- on one
3 individual's perception of the trauma.
4 Q. Dr. Kuljic, in your answer you focussed on whether one child might
5 have experienced terror, whereas the other did not. In my hypothetical
6 example, accept that both children experienced terror but one develops the
7 disorder and the other does not, firstly, is that a scenario which could
8 occur where both children are of a robust state of mind?
9 A. It means, this thing that you asked me now, is whether those
10 children perceive the trauma in an identical way. Perhaps they did not.
11 Perhaps one perceived it as more dangerous and the other one perceived it
12 as less dangerous. And after that this other thing comes that you asked
13 about, the issue of robustness of mind, who will develop -- so it is one's
14 perception of something, whether we perceive something as dangerous. So
15 let us divide it into parts. It is after that that you start thinking
16 about it. So if somebody did not notice anything, he will not start a
17 fear. If he did, then it is his or her robustness will determine whether
18 the disorder will develop or not.
19 Q. Dr. Kuljic, you are required for the purposes of that question to
20 accept the hypothetical basis, and you have not done that. Let me try it
21 a different way. If a study reveals that, let's say, 50 per cent of a
22 population following an event, a traumatic event, experienced by that
23 population, have the disorder, the post-traumatic stress disorder, that
24 does not mean necessarily, does it, that only 50 per cent of them
25 experienced the sensation of terror at the time of the traumatic event,
1 does it?
2 A. True, it does not need to mean that, and I mentioned a moment ago
3 that it doesn't mean that not -- that does not mean that not everybody was
4 afraid. That is what I already said.
5 Q. Yes. Now, a further difficulty with relying on rates of
6 post-traumatic stress disorder is that, with the passing of time, many
7 sufferers of that disorder recover, don't they?
8 A. As regards the time passing by after a trauma, in case
9 post-traumatic stress disorder has taken place, there are two
10 possibilities, at least two possibilities: One is that a person is still
11 exposed to something, for instance, has a traffic accident, and then
12 acquires the post-traumatic stress disorder and constantly has on his mind
13 the picture of the smashed car, and every time he sees that picture that
14 person is traumatised over and over again, which then will exacerbate
15 symptoms and therein the role of the media and subsequent cognitive
16 processing of any traumatic experience. And on the other hand, there are
17 numerous papers speaking about the aggravation of symptoms in holocaust
18 victims --
19 Q. Could you please read my question on the screen. And if you like,
20 I'll repeat it. What I'm asking --
21 A. I've read it. Yes, I've read it.
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. And -- and the answer is that a certain number of people will see
24 the reduction in the number of symptoms and in others that will not be the
25 case. I've just explained it to you, when the symptoms persevere, and we
1 have Dutch [as interpreted] psychiatrists who study people who 30 years on
2 have still had a high degree of psych disorders and PTSD, just as it
3 happens in situations I have mentioned, for instance, this example with
4 the car.
5 Q. Putting it simply, many people who have that disorder recover over
6 time, don't they?
7 A. I would say a certain percentage. I wouldn't say many people.
8 Q. And many studies have been done as to the percentage of people who
9 retain the condition for the rest of their life, haven't there?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Yes. To give one example, Dr. Turner in his report speaks or has
12 written about the experience of rape, how although that is a very powerful
13 experience in terms of trauma, over time the recovery rate from
14 post-traumatic stress disorder is quite good. Do you remember reading
15 that in his report?
16 A. Yes. It is an annex. There is a table.
17 Q. Yes. All right. Now, in your report -- would you please go to
18 paragraph 5.3 and in particular the last sentence of that paragraph.
19 A. I'm sorry, you said 5 ...?
20 Q. 5.3.
21 A. 5.3. 5.3, yes.
22 Q. All right. And you refer there to a particular study, and
23 according to the study almost every man who had a war experience was
24 developing a PTSD. You obviously thought that important to put in the
25 report. Why? What is the relevance of that observation from that report?
1 How does it contribute to your conclusions?
2 A. This comment had to do with the sex, and this was done by Chester
3 and associates. This was a study conducted with American Indians, and it
4 was to show the difference in the way that traumas are experienced and
5 exposure to trauma. There is another item where I speak about the
6 exposure rate and evolution of traumas. And this is a fact which has to
7 do with those respondents. As I have said, every author always makes a
8 reservation and says that he's dealing with a particular population
9 because there are other papers which indicate different rates, and I also
10 mentioned that in my report.
11 Q. Again, would you look at my question. What is the relevance of
12 that observation? How does it contribute to your conclusions? You've
13 mentioned it has to do with the sex. Is there any other relevance in that
14 sentence, that is, other than sex?
15 A. At the time when I was writing this, I had in mind the last
16 sentence, that these differences show that it is indispensable to bear in
17 mind the sex structure of the population under consideration.
18 Q. Well, could you tell us, what does it matter, if sex is the point,
19 as to what the traumatic event was that caused the disorder? Why do you
20 mention that almost every man who had a war experience was developing that
21 disorder? Why don't you just point out what the percentage of men was
22 with the disorder compared to the percentage of women?
23 A. What I mentioned, is that almost every man with a war experience
24 developed the PTSD, addresses only that paper. It was up to me to clarify
25 the difference between men and women. So that was the gist of it, not the
1 to emphasise something else, that every man reacted like this. There are
2 also cultural differences regarding the perception of trauma in every
3 society. I could also quote to you some of the researches done in that
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, may I ask you how much time you'd still
6 need. We're coming close to two hours, even if we deduct many moments,
7 especially the moments where the witness had to leave the courtroom.
8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, at least 20 minutes and beyond. The
9 Defence took much longer than the time they were allocated. There have
10 been fresh matters. In fact, I've just now, while I've been on my feet,
11 received some copies of the relevant materials which I'll need to read
12 overnight. But perhaps I could review it overnight, Mr. President, after
13 I finish tonight.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber compared the times taken by the Defence
16 and by the Prosecution. You may proceed if there's -- we'll indicate at
17 the end of this hearing how much time would still be available, but you
18 can continue until 7.00.
19 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since we are
21 speaking of time passing. I don't know what is the position of your
22 Chamber in relation to the Rosner papers. I think it's Rosner papers.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would there be any objection, Mr. Ierace, from
24 the side of the Prosecution having in mind the abstract given of the
25 article of Dr. Rosner that questions would be put to the witness in
1 respect of that abstract?
2 MR. IERACE: Well, Mr. President, my position remains the same:
3 That when we're dealing with expert psychiatrists on such a critical
4 issue --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. IERACE: -- The least we could expect are copies of the full
7 articles. And at this stage we have an extract which has been provided to
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will allow questions on the Rosner
12 abstract, but could you please keep in mind that it is an abstract, which
13 of course could create some problems. And you took already far more time
14 than granted, so it is not a subject for extensive questioning, but a few
15 questions will be allowed.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
17 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. How big was the --
19 MR. IERACE: Excuse me, Mr. President.
20 Q. Do you have a copy of that paper with you, the copy that you read?
21 A. Which paper do you mean?
22 Q. I mean the paper by Robin and Chester that you refer to in your
24 A. I don't have it on me.
25 Q. How is it that you come to give evidence and don't bring with you
1 the reports that you quote or summarise passages from in your report?
2 A. If I took with me all the papers, then I would have to bring all
3 of my literature from psychiatry and on stress, so I would need a lot of
4 time to gather that in my home in Belgrade.
5 Q. All right. How big was the sample of men in that study, just
7 A. I cannot recall now exactly what the sample was.
8 Q. I'm not asking you exactly. I'm asking approximately.
9 A. I think it was not a large study, an extensive study with a large
10 number of persons questioned.
11 Q. Dr. Kuljic, would you disagree with me if I told you that in fact
12 ten men had a war experience in that study? Does that accord with your
14 A. That would correspond to what I said, that it was not an extensive
16 Q. It would not surely have been wise to repeat in this report a
17 conclusion as to the percentage of men who had a war experience who went
18 on to develop this disorder where the sample, where the group, was only
19 ten, I suggest to you.
20 A. I mentioned that as one of the references, not as a key reference.
21 Q. I suggest to you that the report also made clear that the study
22 was on a particularly troubled community in North America, troubled in the
23 sense that its members had experienced a number of different traumatic
24 events. Does that accord with your recollection of the article?
25 A. Yes. Yes.
1 Q. And is it not the case that it becomes difficult to discern which
2 traumatic events, where a person has experienced a number, have
3 contributed to the disorder?
4 A. There is a cumulative effect of events bearing on the symptoms of
5 psychopathology, starting from the earliest childhood days from the moment
6 when a key event occurs and following that, even events after that key
7 event can influence and influence the appearance of symptoms of
8 psychopathology which is what I stated in my report.
9 Q. Yes. In the interests of saving time, I think you would agree
10 with the proposition that I put to you; is that correct?
11 A. Yes. Shall I ask you that many traumas can have cumulative
12 effect? Was that your question?
13 Q. Yes. Well, specifically, that it can become difficult to discern
14 which traumatic events, where a person has experienced a number, have
15 contributed to the disorder. And I think you agree with that. Is that
16 so? If you can answer with a yes or no, please do.
17 A. Unfortunately I can't answer. I have to explain psychiatric
18 practice. Every time we ask a person which one was the key event --
19 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... I withdraw the question.
20 And if you wish it, I have copies of this report. But does this
21 conclusion ring a bell with you? Do you remember this conclusion from the
22 report: "The high prevalence of PTSD in this community is therefore more
23 likely due to a high rate of exposure to trauma and the types of traumatic
24 events than to any specific vulnerability to PTSD." Do you remember
25 reading the conclusion of the report?
1 A. I read the report in its entirely a while ago, which is why I
2 cannot tell you about each one. But there is something which is key and
3 sometimes we assess whether there was some that was less significant or
4 some more significant causes that would have triggered this.
5 Q. But Doctor, this was a community that had a lot of problems
6 generating regular traumatic experiences, wasn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Yes. Would you please turn to paragraph 6.1 of your report, in
9 particular the last two sentences. There you refer to Kessler and
10 associates, and you state that in their report they make clear that the
11 life prevalence in the general population of PTSD is 5 per cent for women
12 and 10 per cent for men. Now, stopping there for the moment, first of
13 all, what is the relevance of the percentage between the sexes in terms of
14 terror in Sarajevo in the indictment period? Can you very briefly tell
15 us, if you can in a sentence, what's the relevance?
16 A. In terms of the terror in Sarajevo and any other, so let us assume
17 that there are some differences between men and women and in each medical
18 research it is always stressed how many women there were and how many men.
19 Q. But we already know that the existence of the disorder is not a
20 determinant of whether the individual experienced terror at the time of
21 the traumatic event, don't we?
22 A. Yes. It doesn't have to be that a person had suffered this fear
23 and did not develop the disorder.
24 Q. Now, in any event, I suggest to you that you got the figures
25 wrong. I suggest to you that the figures given by Kessler and associates
1 in that report is the reverse, 10 per cent for women and 5 per cent for
2 men. If you like, I can show you the report. But perhaps you remember.
3 A. I'd like to have a look.
4 Q. Well, perhaps we'll leave that with you overnight.
5 Now, you go on to say that in that report the authors quote the
6 life prevalence for exposure to traumatic experience as 25 per cent for
7 men and 13 per cent for women. Now, firstly, a word of explanation. Does
8 life prevalence mean the percentage of persons who suffer the disorder who
9 retain it for the duration of their life?
10 A. In the second part that you mentioned, for life prevalence for
11 exposure to traumatic experiences, so that's how much people are exposed
12 to traumatic experiences, not how many developed pathological --
13 psychopathological symptoms.
14 Q. So you're saying that 25 per cent of men are exposed to traumatic
15 experiences for the duration of their life. Is that your interpretation
16 of "life prevalence"?
17 A. According to their perception. We can now speculate in relation
18 to this that everybody goes through traumatic experiences. We can
19 speculate in this way. But this is in relation to what is accepted to be
20 a traumatic experience.
21 Q. Now, "life prevalence" is a phrase which occurs repeatedly in the
22 literature in relation to this disorder, isn't it? It's a common
23 indicator in the reports, isn't it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you're saying that where we read that term, "life prevalence,"
1 what it means or what it refers to is the exposure to traumatic experience
2 over a lifetime. Is that what you're saying, or have I misunderstood you?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. All right. Again I suggest to you that you got the figures wrong.
5 I suggest to you - and you can read it overnight - that the figures are
6 not 25 per cent for men but 60.7 per cent for men, and not 13 per cent for
7 one but 51.2 per cent for women. If you're not able to answer that
8 without first reading the report, please say so.
9 A. Absolutely. I have to look at the paper again. I have to read it
11 Q. All right. Now, perhaps we can just deal quickly with one other
12 small issue. Today you referred to the extract of the study by Jensen.
13 Do you remember that and do you have a copy with you?
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just to indicate to the
17 interpreters. I will need one minute at the end of Mr. Ierace's
18 intervention, but I wanted to say this now while the doctor was looking
19 for his article. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
21 MR. IERACE:
22 Q. Now, you told us that you had underlined a passage of this
23 abstract and you read out what it said. But in reading it out, according
24 to the English transcript of your evidence, you attributed to the abstract
25 a definite connection between war-trauma-induced stress disorders and
1 increases in suicide. Do you see the sentence beginning with the word
2 "complications"? I'll read from there: "Complications related to
3 war-trauma-induced stress disorders may give rise to significant increases
4 in" and then later "suicides." Do you see that?
5 A. As far as I remember now, I think this is the sentence that I
7 Q. Except according to the transcript or the translation, you said
8 "are." Not possible but definite that they -- in other words, that they
9 do contribute to it, it does happen. So my first question is: Do you
10 accept that according to the abstract war-trauma-induced stress disorders,
11 complications related to them, may, that is, not definitely, give rise to
12 significant increases in suicides? Do you agree with that?
13 A. As far as I recall I read "may give." Perhaps this is not entered
14 into the transcript. But it says here and there's no reason for me to
15 read it differently. I've underlined it. "May give." So there is a
16 supposition, an assumption -- we always take an assumption as a starting
17 point in every research.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, I was just informed that we have to stop
19 in time. In fact, we should always, but I have a bad record on that.
20 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you asked one minute for translation issues,
21 those that have to be -- cannot be dealt with in another way, please
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Very briefly: For the English booth, page 28, line 9, certain things were
25 not interpreted to do with coffee, but it doesn't matter. Page 58, line
1 23, French booth, there is a countermeaning. Your report is not his
2 report. Then on page 74, for the French booth interpreter, there is no
3 such a thing as very traumatic, and the same for the French booth
4 interpreter for page 77, there is also a countermeaning, 5 per cent for
5 the women, 10 per cent for the men. In fact, it is the other way around.
6 And the rhythm was rather rapid. On page 70 from the page -- from the
7 French booth was not able to interpret that.
8 There was one other thing which wasn't noted is that I was
9 intervening out of respect for interpreters. Thank you.
10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might I give a copy of those two
11 articles to the court usher to pass to the witness for overnight reading.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Dr. Kuljic, you could read this overnight if
13 there would be any additional questions.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, tomorrow there will be 15 effective
16 minutes of cross-examination available to you.
17 We will adjourn until tomorrow, quarter past 2.00, same courtroom.
18 And may I instruct you, Dr. Kuljic, not to speak with anyone about
19 your testimony. Yes, I instructed you yesterday as well.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
21 at 7.04 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,
22 the 6th day of March, 2003, at 2.15 p.m.