Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 2297

 1                           Monday, 7 January 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused not present]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.15 a.m.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Good morning to each and everyone in and around

 6     the courtroom.  I would like to convey to all of you the Trial Chamber's

 7     best wishes for the new year.

 8             Mr. Registrar, would you call the case, please.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case number

10     IT-04-75-T, the Prosecutor versus Goran Hadzic.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  May we have the appearances, please.

12             MR. STRINGER:  Good morning, Mr. President.  Good morning,

13     Judge Mindua.  Counsel, good morning and happy new year to all of you as

14     well.  For the Prosecution, Douglas Stringer appearing with

15     Matthew Gillett and OTP analyst, Sandra Ramirez Rodriguez, who has been

16     very instrumental in assisting with the organisation of the documents for

17     this witness as well as Case Manager, Thomas Laugel.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  For the Defence Mr. Zivanovic.

19             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  For the Defence of

20     Goran Hadzic, Zoran Zivanovic and Christopher Gosnell.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  May the record reflect that we sit

22     pursuant to Rule 15 bis, Judge Hall being absent.

23             Mr. Zivanovic, I see that your client is not in the courtroom.

24             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Yes.  We -- we filed a waiver for his absence.  I

25     hope you got it.

Page 2298

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It has been filed.  Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you

 2     very much.  So if that's all, Mr. Gillett, you have a witness.

 3             MR. GILLETT:  Yes.  The next witness is Dr. Strinovic, GH-105.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Before -- before we go to that, the Trial Chamber

 5     has a short oral ruling.

 6             On the 10th of December, 2012, the Prosecution filed a motion for

 7     leave to amend its Rule 65 ter exhibit list by adding nine documents.

 8     The Prosecution indicated that it intends to use four of these documents

 9     with Witness Davor Strinovic, who is scheduled to commence his testimony

10     today.

11             The Defence does not object to the addition of these four

12     documents and indicated -- as indicated in its response of 24th December.

13             The Chamber recalls that amendments to the exhibit list may be

14     granted when the interests of justice allow.  The Chamber is satisfied

15     that taking into account the specific circumstances of this case and the

16     lack of objection of the Defence good cause has been shown for amending

17     the Prosecution exhibit list to include the documents designated with the

18     following proposed Rule 65 ter numbers:  06365, 06366, 06367, and 06368.

19             The documents are relevant and of sufficient importance to

20     justify addition at this stage of the trial.  The Trial Chamber is

21     satisfied that the addition of the documents will not result in undue

22     prejudice to the Defence.

23             The motion is therefore granted in part and the Prosecution may

24     add the documents to its exhibit list.  Issues as to the admissibility of

25     the documents will be addressed at such time as the documents are

Page 2299

 1     tendered.

 2             The Trial Chamber remains seized of the motion in all other

 3     respects.

 4             Mr. Stringer, in order to plan the upcoming weeks and more in

 5     particular the week starting 21st and 28 of January, could we ask you to

 6     send to us and to the Defence your witness notification for those weeks

 7     by Thursday.

 8             MR. STRINGER:  Yes, Your Honour.  We can do that with no trouble

 9     at all.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.  The witness may be brought

11     in.  Thank you.

12                           [The witness entered court]

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Good morning, Mr. Witness.  Thank you for coming

14     to The Hague to assist this Trial Chamber.  First of all, do you hear me

15     in a language you understand?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  I can hear you

17     very well.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Could you please tell us your name and your date

19     of birth and also what your ethnicity is, please.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Davor Strinovic.  I was

21     born on the 8th of March, 1949, and I'm Croat by ethnicity.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you, Mr. Strinovic.  You are about to read

23     the solemn declaration by which witnesses commit themselves to tell the

24     truth.  I need to point out that the solemn declaration that you are

25     about to make does expose you to the penalty of perjury should you give

Page 2300

 1     misleading or untruthful evidence to this Tribunal.  Please read the

 2     solemn declaration now.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

 4     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 5                           WITNESS:  DAVOR STRINOVIC

 6                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.  You may be seated.

 8             Yes, Mr. Gillett.

 9             MR. GILLETT:  Thank you, President.  Thank you, Your Honours.

10                           Examination by Mr. Gillett:

11        Q.   Good morning, sir.  Could you please state your profession and

12     your current positions.

13        A.   I am a specialist in forensic medicine, a professor and head of

14     the institute for forensic medicine and criminology in Zagreb.  I am also

15     head of the government commission for the missing persons since 1991.

16        Q.   How long have you been a forensic pathologist?

17        A.   I joined the institute for forensic medicine in 1976 and since

18     1980 I have been a specialist in forensic medicine.

19        Q.   Could you briefly explain what a forensic pathologist does.

20        A.   Well, the specialisation in forensic medicine implies certain

21     problems, mainly in determining the cause of death; that is to say all

22     those cases that are pronounced violent deaths or suspicious deaths where

23     the cause is not clear are the object of interest of forensic medicine.

24             Postmortem is one of the important parts of our job, but

25     pathologists also do other work, primarily testifying in court, and a

Page 2301

 1     professor like I also trains students and educates other professionals

 2     such as in the police force, writes papers, scientific work, et cetera.

 3        Q.   And when you refer to postmortem, I understand that you're

 4     referring to autopsies.  How many autopsies would you yourself have

 5     performed through your career?

 6        A.   That is a question that is difficult to give a precise answer to,

 7     because I have been a forensic pathologist for 37 years now, and we do

 8     autopsies on a daily basis.  It's the largest institute in the

 9     Republic of Croatia that performs around 15- to 1.600 autopsies per year.

10     There were years when our staff was smaller, and in those years I did 500

11     to 600 autopsies myself per year, although that number is smaller now,

12     200 to 300 per year.

13        Q.   And how frequently do you testify in relation to forensic

14     pathology in domestic proceedings?

15        A.   I live in the largest city in Croatia with the largest number of

16     courts and judges, so forensic pathologists such as I appear before

17     courts very often or at least provide expert reports and opinions.  It's

18     difficult to put a number on it, but I can say that since I have become a

19     forensic pathologist in 1980, I have been in daily contact with forensic

20     work either testifying before courts or writing expert reports.

21        Q.   And have you testified before the Tribunal as an expert witness

22     previously?

23        A.   To the best of my recollection, I have been before this court

24     already five times in well-known cases that you must be familiar with.

25        Q.   Yes.  Thank you.  You mentioned that you write papers.

Page 2302

 1     Approximately how many publications would you have in relation to this

 2     subject?

 3        A.   If you are asking me about forensic medicine as a subject, as I

 4     understand, that would be 55 to 65 papers including books and

 5     publications for foreign and domestic journals.

 6        Q.   You mentioned that you're in the commission for missing persons.

 7     I understand this is the commission for detained and missing persons in

 8     Croatia.  Can you tell us when this commission was established?

 9        A.   The commission for detained and missing persons was established

10     in Croatia towards the end of 1991, December 1991, and has existed since

11     then, changing names several times, but it deals with the same problems

12     as before.

13        Q.   And why was it established?  What is its purpose?

14        A.   When the war in Croatia began, we realised that one of the

15     greatest problems is the number of missing persons.  The number varied

16     over different periods, and it was very high at a certain point, and we

17     wanted to establish a commission that would investigate and try to solve

18     such problems and help primarily the families of the missing persons but

19     also the state to restore some order and establish a precise number of

20     detained and missing persons.

21        Q.   So you mentioned the function at the start of the establishment

22     of the commission.  Did its functions change significantly in 1995, and

23     if so, how?

24        A.   I can say very briefly, perhaps, just to acquaint the Court with

25     the purpose of that commission, we established the commission in 1991,

Page 2303

 1     primarily to collect as much data as possible about missing persons and

 2     create lists of missing persons including ante-mortal information or any

 3     kind of information about the missing persons.  We collected that

 4     information over four years when we contacted families through the

 5     Red Cross and other organisations to inquire with the closest relatives

 6     and collect general data but also particular data that are valuable to us

 7     such as the health status or some chronic conditions that could be

 8     reflected on the bones, braces, protheses that could help with

 9     identification.  Especially precious were dental records, so we contacted

10     the dentists of the missing persons, requiring all the papers and

11     documentation they had.  And here I must say that due to the war in

12     Croatia, most of that medical documentation was not available.  So the

13     key information was the one we received from families, the so-called

14     ante-mortem information that is collected over the years.  So once you

15     find the body, you can carry out identification.

16             That's what we did from 1992 when we began our work until 1995,

17     and that was preparation for what would follow later when we find the

18     bodies.

19             And the second prong of our job was to obtain whatever

20     information we could from the opposite side that was involved in the

21     incidents in which these persons went missing.  So we asked Yugoslavia

22     and later Serbia for such information, later also Bosnia-Herzegovina, to

23     get as much data that could help us later find individual graves and mass

24     graves and identify these people.

25             That was that period from 1992 through 1995 where we did

Page 2304

 1     everything possible to prepare for the next period when we got access to

 2     these graves and proceed with exhumations.  It was not easy to find these

 3     graves that had been hidden before, that were subject to natural changes,

 4     weather conditions, that were obscured by the vegetation.  Anyway, we

 5     proceeded with that work, identifying locations, exhumations, retrieving

 6     the bodies and matching the information we had before with the -- with

 7     the actual state of the bodies as established through autopsies to permit

 8     identification.

 9        Q.   What was your role particularly in that period from 1995 onwards

10     in relation to the exhumations and identifications of the bodies that you

11     found?

12        A.   Since I was a member of the commission as of 1991, it was

13     logical, as we had to continue the work on identifying graves and

14     carrying out identifications, it was logical for me to take care of the

15     work related to identification.  As the graves were located and bodies

16     were found, teams were formed that first carried out exhumations and then

17     the processing of mortal remains.

18             At the beginning there was a lot of such work in all parts of

19     Croatia that was liberated in full by that time.  There were many graves,

20     so all pathologists and specialists of forensic medicine were involved in

21     these exhumations and autopsies.  All that needed to be co-ordinated in

22     order to cover every location, every grave.  All that needed to be

23     harmonised, and that was done through the government commission for

24     detained and missing persons, whereas the other part of the work

25     involving medical experts that needed to attend exhumations and autopsies

Page 2305

 1     was done in agreement with me.  I did the co-ordination so that

 2     everything could operate without any delay.

 3        Q.   Did you personally participate in some of the exhumations and

 4     autopsies of the victims that were found?

 5        A.   Of course.  Throughout that time and to date I have been involved

 6     in exhumations and autopsies and identifications.  At first I did more

 7     fieldwork and performed autopsies either on site or at the institute for

 8     forensic medicine in Zagreb, because we had prepared premises for that

 9     purpose alone.  And all the time since 1995, I have been involved very

10     much both as an organiser and a direct participant.

11        Q.   Were internationals also involved in this process of exhumations

12     and autopsies?

13        A.   Yes.  I must say I don't know how the work was divided, but

14     international experts came to Croatia on several occasions sent by

15     international organisations to perform exhumations and post-mortems.

16     There were several teams, international experts who performed this work

17     before turning it over to us to continue with work geared at

18     identification.

19        Q.   When the internationals carried out exhumations and post-mortems,

20     were representatives from Croatia and Yugoslavia also involved?

21        A.   Practically with every exhumation carried out in Croatia, several

22     sides were involved, especially international organisations that led

23     these exhumations and the processing.  There was also somebody present

24     from the Serbian side, mainly experts from Serbia or the so-called

25     Krajina.

Page 2306

 1        Q.   I'm going to ask some more questions about the technical

 2     processes of exhumations, autopsies, identifications.  Before we get into

 3     that, there's a few terms that arise frequently in the documentation, and

 4     I'd ask you to clarify.  One of the terms is saponified or

 5     saponification.  Could you briefly explain what that is.

 6        A.   After death, changes occur on the human body.  In the first day

 7     or two the changes are not visible.  The body is still fresh, as we say,

 8     and that is the optimal time for conducting post-mortems, but with time

 9     changes progress on the body.  If the body is in a humid environment or

10     in water, or in clay, the body will saponify.  The body remains compact,

11     the skin and tissue remain intact so that this saponification, which can

12     take a month or longer, leads to changes, but we can still see things on

13     skin like tattoos and scars.  On a saponified corpse we can also see

14     injuries such as from a projectile, a knife, et cetera, because the skin

15     is well preserved.  Internally we can see injuries to organs.  So

16     generally speaking, saponification helps us in processing mortal remains.

17     We have more elements to establish the cause of death, because we can see

18     things that we cannot see on a skeleton.

19        Q.   And in relation to a skeleton, the term skeletonisation, briefly.

20        A.   If after death the body is left outside, exposed to air,

21     skeletonisation can occur very quickly, within months, which means that

22     only the skeleton remains without any tissue.  That happens to a body

23     left out in the open.  If the body is in the ground, in dry soil, it

24     takes seven to ten years for a body to skeletonise.  That means that only

25     the skeleton remains, and along with the skeleton parts of clothing.  And

Page 2307

 1     it's important to note here that when we have only the skeleton, we can

 2     judge only by the bones whether we have enough elements for

 3     identification or whether we are able to identify a person only based on

 4     changes in the bones.  And, of course, the same applies to the cause of

 5     death.  We can establish the cause of death only based on changes to the

 6     bones.  These changes could be very specific and could indicate with a

 7     high degree of probability the cause of death, but they can also be very

 8     unspecific or very broad.  So we can only say that it's a violent death

 9     in the broad sense a result of injury, but we cannot identify the

10     mechanism, whether it's a blow by an axe or a rapid projectile or a shell

11     with high velocity shrapnel.  The changes would be approximately the

12     same, broad injuries and very recognisable ones.

13        Q.   Moving to the process of identification of remains, you've

14     mentioned the term ante-mortal or ante-mortem information.  How can this

15     assist with identifying who the remains are?

16        A.   I would like to start by saying the following:  A classical

17     identification that we are going to describe in a minute was the only

18     type of identification up to sometime in 1998 or perhaps in the year

19     2000.  Before then we did not know much about the DNA.  In Croatia, the

20     first time we started using the DNA identification method was around that

21     time, and then it became the first and the foremost type of

22     identification for each and every body.

23             When we're talking about ante-mortal information, that was very

24     important, because in 1995 or 1996 or 1997, the only thing we could rely

25     on was the -- a comparison between ante-mortal information and the mortal

Page 2308

 1     remains.  Like I've told you before, as of 1991, we started collecting

 2     that kind of information, i.e., the information that could provide

 3     answers to the questions that were raised during post-mortem and when we

 4     compared those, we could arrive at some sort of a more or less probable

 5     identification.  The ante-mortal information consists of the main

 6     information such as sex, height, gender - that's what every ante-mortal

 7     protocol should contain - and then we proceed to details such as clothes,

 8     footwear, jewellery, any objects that may be related to a missing person

 9     that could help with the identification, and then we proceed to the body

10     itself.  We can conclude that a person could have suffered from an

11     illness, from some changes on the organs such as bones or, for example,

12     teeth.  Teeth are very important for post-mortem identification.  If the

13     teeth are present, if they're preserved, which is very often the case

14     then with a high probability of almost a hundred per cent we can confirm

15     the identity of the person.  What does that mean?  Practically it is very

16     difficult to find two people with two identical dental record.  When it

17     comes to normal teeth, they can grow in several ways.  The gaps between

18     the teeth are different, the colour of the teeth is different.  The

19     various procedures that were done on the teeth like fillings, dentures,

20     and so on and so forth.  There is a whole series ever elements.  And when

21     you have a very good dental status, i.e., very good ante-mortal

22     information that was provided by a dentist or from a medical history,

23     that information is very valuable and such ante-mortal information can

24     help us with our post-mortem identification and provides us with an

25     almost hundred per cent identification match.

Page 2309

 1             This was very valuable to us when we first started doing those

 2     post-mortems.  So whatever we learned from ante-mortal information is

 3     entered and is used in identification and that includes the information

 4     on the cause of death, because there are witnesses, there are statements.

 5     And when you talk to the families and other people, and we have

 6     interviewed thousands of people, a lot of people have information about

 7     how people perished, how they died, and that part which is the cause of

 8     that and similar thing can help and can be used as one of the

 9     identification elements.

10             I have to emphasise that when we're talking about classical

11     identification and when we talk about ante-mortal information, the more

12     pieces of ante-mortal information we have and if we find similar things

13     during post-mortem and if we can compare the two sets of data we can

14     establish the identity of the person.  We do not like such identification

15     where just one element will be used to establish a positive match.  The

16     more positive matches, the better and the more reliable identification.

17     So ante-mortal information is very important, and it was particularly

18     important before the year 2000, before we started relying more heavily on

19     DNA.

20        Q.   Thank you.  And speaking of DNA, could you briefly describe how

21     DNA assists to identify the remains that you discover.

22        A.   DNA analysis is an analysis which has greatly helped

23     identifications.  When you have a good DNA findings, then your result is

24     99.99 per cent, and this is never contested by either the family or

25     anybody else who might want to challenge your findings.

Page 2310

 1             Every person has a DNA which is unique, and only a twin can have

 2     the same DNA, and this is the only cause of problem.  If we have twins

 3     with the same DNA image, then we have a problem.  Otherwise, the DNA is

 4     unique.

 5             When it comes to mortal remains, we encounter a problem.  Bones

 6     and teeth are the ideal material for taking DNA.  If the bones and teeth

 7     are well preserved, and they do keep better than any other part of the

 8     body, we can take the DNA, but we don't know who that is, because this is

 9     still an unknown person.  We have to move one step forward, and that DNA

10     has to be compared with the next of kin.  The DNA's taken from blood,

11     usually from the mother or father of the missing person or the wife and

12     the child of the missing person.  This is what is done in paternity

13     testing.  In that same way, we prove who the father is or who the child

14     is.  If we have a mother and a father, then we take their DNA samples

15     from living relatives, and if we have a missing son with his DNA taken

16     from the bones, we can match the two and we can prove that that mother

17     and that father are the parents of that missing person and that missing

18     person cannot be anybody else but their son.

19             The same applies to a situation where we're talking about a wife

20     and a child.  We actually proved that that child can only be the child of

21     that mother and that late father and that's how we prove that the body

22     belongs to that person.

23             The DNA method is virtually perfect.  However, there are cases

24     when even the DNA method cannot be help, i.e., we will not be able to

25     isolate the DNA from either the bones or the teeth.  Usually we are

Page 2311

 1     talking about the bodies who have burnt.  The DNA was disintegrated.  It

 2     cannot be found in the bones.  Or if the bodies were exposed to

 3     unfavourable conditions for a long time.  For example, if they were in

 4     open air, then the bones disintegrate.  They turn into dust and the DNA

 5     cannot be isolated.  Unfortunately, we have cases in which we cannot

 6     identify the person either by the classical method or by the DNA analysis

 7     because simply DNA cannot be isolated in some cases.

 8             I have to say that the DNA analysis which is used -- which has

 9     been used since 1992, 1993, but it took off in a bigger way since 1999

10     and 2000.  In Croatia we have three large laboratories.  One of them is

11     in Zagreb, and this is where routine identifications are performed.

12     Today everybody that is found, that is processed is subject to the DNA

13     analysis.  So every identification process is completed with a full DNA

14     analysis of that body.

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Strinovic, could I ask you to slow down a

16     little bit.  The interpreters have some difficulty to follow your speech.

17     Thank you.

18             MR. GILLETT:  Thank you.

19        Q.   I'm going to ask you some questions now about the topic of cause

20     of death that you mentioned, and I'll ask you about some of the factors

21     that go into assessing cause of death.

22             Firstly, how can the clothes that are found on a set of remains

23     assist in establishing what the cause of death was?

24        A.   I would like to start by saying this:  When it comes to

25     establishing the cause of death in bodies which were found after a number

Page 2312

 1     of years is one of the most difficult tasks that faces a forensic expert.

 2     Believe me, it is very difficult to be decisive, and we like to be as

 3     sure as possible as when it comes to issues like that.

 4             When it comes to identifying post-mortem remains after a number

 5     of years, then the cause of death is a delicate issue and it is very

 6     difficult to be a hundred per cent sure.

 7             When it comes to clothes, obviously everything that is found

 8     around the body and on the body, everything that is damaged can help with

 9     arriving at a final conclusion on the cause of death.  Every piece of

10     clothing that can -- that is found on the dead body, if it covers that

11     part of the body which was injured, then that item of clothing will be

12     damaged.  For example, if the body was killed by a projectile, that

13     projectile will have damaged the skin, but it will also damage the

14     clothes.  Those are small defects on the clothes that suggest that the

15     person died from a bullet.  However, the clothes do not last long.  They

16     disintegrate, and after a while it is going to be more difficult to

17     provide more concrete information based on the clothes.  The clothes do

18     help, and if we encounter characteristics damage on the clothes, we can

19     use it to support our findings on the cause of that arrived at from the

20     bones and from other tissues.  We will be able to tell whether the person

21     was -- died as a result of injuries or from some other causes.

22        Q.   What about the skull, cranium?

23        A.   The skull is something that in most cases when the skull is

24     preserved tells us in the most exact way what the cause of death was,

25     because of some specific features of the skull.  If the skull is

Page 2313

 1     preserved, and we are talking only about the bones, you can see defects

 2     that are the imprints of the object that are used to inflict the

 3     injuries.  There will be cuts or blunt imprints.  If the body was injured

 4     by a projectile, we will find the entry and exit bounds on the cranium

 5     which are very characteristic.

 6             What does that mean?  Every projectile, when it reaches a bone,

 7     it pierces the bone owing to its speed.  However, where the place where

 8     it enters the bone is a round and regular defect and the exit wound will

 9     cause damages of the bone, so such injuries inflicted by a broad

10     projectile are very characteristic.  When a projectile exits the skull,

11     the interior part is damaged to a lesser extent, and the exterior is

12     damaged to a bigger extent.  We can then therefore establish that it was

13     a gun-shot wound.  We can establish where the projectile entered the

14     wound, where it existed the skull.  The skull is obviously very

15     interesting when it comes to identification but when it comes to the

16     cause of death, it is very difficult when we have gun-shot wounds.  The

17     problem arises when a gun-shot wound which is very common is inflicted by

18     a fast projectile.

19             What does that mean?  If a projectile travels fast we have an

20     extensive wound of all the structures including bones.  Why is that the

21     case?  Because we're talking about high velocity, high energy that is

22     transferred onto the tissue, onto the bone and the kinetic energy is

23     transformed into the elastic energy which injuries the tissues including

24     the bones, and then at the end, after a while when the bone

25     disintegrates, we end up with a skull which is fragmented, and it is very

Page 2314

 1     difficult for us to put the fragments together and to establish the true

 2     cause of death; i.e., it is very difficult to reconstruct that the person

 3     suffered from a gun-shot wound.

 4             A similar picture is seen in an explosion of a shell when there

 5     is shrapnel and the shrapnel destroys the bones -- bone, and there's also

 6     other type of trauma such as blunt trauma, several blows which injured

 7     the bone and once the muscles and the soft tissues disappear, what we end

 8     up with is a fragmented bone from which it is difficult to reconstruct

 9     how the injury was inflicted.  I'm saying this just to make sure you

10     understand that not all the injuries will be clear cut.  In some cases it

11     will be very clear what the cause of death was and sometimes it will not

12     be possible to establish the cause of death for the reasons that I

13     mentioned just a while ago.

14        Q.   And how do X-rays assist in establishing the cause of death?

15        A.   I must say that at the beginning of our work when it comes to the

16     processing of mortal remains, we did not have an X-ray.  It was obtained

17     in 1986, and then we could put the bodies through the X-ray machine.  Why

18     is that important?  Because it takes the image of the bones and all the

19     other metal bodies -- metal objects on the body which are sometimes very

20     difficult to find.  Even when you're faced with a fresh body, sometimes

21     it is impossible for us to find the projectile or shrapnel.  We have to

22     subject the body to an X-ray in order to localise the location of the

23     metal and then we extract that metal object from the body.

24             It is particularly obvious when the bodies have spent a lot of

25     time in the soil, and by an external examination or if soft tissues are

Page 2315

 1     preserved, it is very difficult to establish the place where the

 2     projectile or a metal bullet is.  So the only way to establish the

 3     location of such metal objects is -- or the fragments of -- or particles

 4     of metal is to use an X-ray machine.

 5             After we started using an X-ray machine, we could say with more

 6     certainty how the person was injured and what the cause of death was,

 7     especially when we were faced with shrapnel that can be lethal, and it

 8     was only in that way that we could positively conclude what happened to

 9     the person who died.

10        Q.   So based on what you've told us, if we have an autopsy report

11     where the cause of death says unknown or unascertained, is it possible

12     that that person could still have been shot by a gun, for instance, but

13     they cannot determine the precise cause of death?

14        A.   Yes, precisely so.  I've tried to explain that.  In some cases we

15     have typical wounds of either soft tissues or the bones that remain.

16     However, in some cases it is not the case.  The wounds are not typical.

17     There are no multiple fractures or multiple injuries, and we cannot draw

18     a conclusion on the cause of death, although it does appear possible that

19     the cause of death was a gun-shot wound, but it cannot be positively

20     concluded.

21             MR. GILLETT:  Could we now get 65 ter document 03005 on the

22     monitor.

23             Sorry, do I see that you have a question there before we move on?

24             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes.  Before we move on, if I may.

25             Witness, Mr. Strinovic, if I understood you properly, and you

Page 2316

 1     correct me if I am wrong, when we're talking about the skull, you said

 2     that a projectile, the faster it is, the easier it is to establish the

 3     cause of death.  Is that the case?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct.  In cases

 5     when such fast projectiles cause multiple fractures of the skull which is

 6     very common.  If a projectile damages the skull in such a way that we do

 7     not have a typical entry-exit wound but only multiple fractures of the

 8     bones that are fractures, in such cases we cannot talk with certainty

 9     about the cause of death.

10             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Is that the same for

11     soft tissues or is it different with soft tissues?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When a fast projectile reaches soft

13     tissues, it goes through such soft tissues, and the faster the speed, the

14     higher the speed, the bigger the destruction.  A slow projectile that

15     reaches soft tissue makes a canal that is of the diametre of the

16     projectile.  If we are talking about more than 800 or a thousand metres

17     in a second then the damages of the soft tissue will be larger for the

18     same reason it is the case with the bone.  The kinetic energy of a fast

19     projectile is transformed into the elastic energy that destroys tissue

20     and creates a huge wave in the body which results in extensive injuries

21     which are much larger than the projectile itself.  That's the reason why

22     fast projectiles are as dangerous as they are.  They do not need to

23     injure vital organs and still they can cause death because they cause

24     may -- massive destruction of soft tissues, the traumatic shock, bleeding

25     and ultimately a person's death.

Page 2317

 1             JUDGE MINDUA:  [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  This was

 2     very clear.

 3             MR. GILLETT:

 4        Q.   And so is it correct to summarise that an injury inflicted by a

 5     slower projectile causing an entry wound and exit wound, for instance, to

 6     the skull, will be easier to ascertain the cause of death than if you

 7     have from a faster projectile which has shattered the skull?  Is that

 8     accurate?

 9        A.   Yes, absolutely, you're right.  This is precisely so.

10             MR. GILLETT:  Okay.  Could we get 03005 on the monitor, please.

11        Q.   This should come up on the monitor in front of you,

12     Dr. Strinovic.

13             Do you see this document in front of you?

14        A.   Yes, if you're talking about my curriculum vitae, yes, I can see

15     it.

16        Q.   And does this document set out further details about your

17     background, your education, your membership of expert associations and

18     professional experience?

19        A.   It does, obviously.  I drafted my own curriculum vitae, so it's

20     truthful, of course.

21        Q.   And then if we go on a couple of pages, we'll see discussions of

22     your role in exhumations and identifications; is that correct?

23        A.   Yes, that is correct.

24        Q.   And does this report still accurately reflect the methodology

25     that you used in the exhumations, autopsies, and identification processes

Page 2318

 1     that you were involved in?

 2        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 3             MR. GILLETT:  Your Honours, I'd request that 65 ter document

 4     03005 be admitted and that could be admitted publicly.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Shall be assigned Exhibit P351.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 8             MR. GILLETT:

 9        Q.   I'm now going to ask some questions about the specific documents

10     related to the victims in this case, and for the purposes of this, there

11     is a table referring to a large number of documents.

12             MR. GILLETT:  We have printed out hard copies, colour copies of

13     this for Your Honours and for the Defence.  There is, in fact, two

14     tables:  One relating to all the incidents other than the Ovcara

15     incident; and one relating to the Ovcara incident.  With Your Honours'

16     leave, I would distribute those to you as I think they'll be easier to

17     use than if we were all trying to follow on the computer the whole time.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Please do, Mr. Gillett.

19             MR. GILLETT:  And while they're being distributed, I would point

20     out that we're happy to provide searchable electronic copies of these

21     tables to Your Honours and the Defence after the witness has testified.

22     Also, these documents were made before we had 65 ter numbers, so the

23     document numbers referred to in the table are the ERNs or doc IDs so I'll

24     try and refer to the documents by those numbers as we go through this.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And, Mr. Gillett, when you say searchable

Page 2319

 1     document, you mean Excel format?

 2             MR. GILLETT:  Excel.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 4             MR. GILLETT:

 5        Q.   So we're going to start with the thicker document, which is the

 6     non-Ovcara one.

 7             Now, Dr. Strinovic, in preparation for your testimony in this

 8     case today, were you asked to review a collection of exhumation, autopsy

 9     and identification related documents?

10        A.   That's correct.

11        Q.   And does the table that is in front of you set out the references

12     to the documents that you reviewed?

13        A.   Yes, I believe so.

14             MR. GILLETT:  And I would just note that there are some

15     additional documents referred to in the table that Dr. Strinovic was not

16     asked to review.  They are generally missing persons questionnaires, and

17     the way that you can see that is if the column -- the box in the column

18     document authenticity is blank, that means it is not a document that he

19     was asked to review.

20        Q.   If we look at the column entitled "Cause of death" which is the

21     third from the right, does this list the causes of death for each victim

22     that reflects the underlying documentation?

23        A.   Yes, I believe so.

24        Q.   And when you carried out the process of reviewing these

25     documents, if you concluded that one was authentic, did you cross out the

Page 2320

 1     "No" in the document "Authenticity" column and leave the "Yes" showing?

 2        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 3        Q.   And where there is handwriting on this document, whose

 4     handwriting is that?

 5        A.   That's my handwriting.

 6        Q.   Now, when you carried out the review of all this documentation,

 7     on what basis were you able to authenticate the various documents in a

 8     general sense?

 9        A.   My basis for comparison were the original autopsy protocols that

10     were -- are kept at the forensic institute in Zagreb.  When I compared

11     the two, I could establish that we're talking about the same documents,

12     i.e., I could establish the authenticity of the documents.

13        Q.   And were you involved in producing some of these documents?

14        A.   If you mean autopsy reports, then yes.

15        Q.   And do you know the performers of the autopsy reports other than

16     yourself that appeared on these documents?

17        A.   Yes.  I think I can say I know all of them.  They're my

18     colleagues.

19             MR. GILLETT:  Your Honours, we're going to go through some

20     examples.  Obviously in the interests of time we won't be able to go

21     through every single one, but I'll try and pick some emblematic ones

22     that -- with some commonly occurring issues to help explain how the table

23     works.  Just as an aside, the letters SNS are written beside some of the

24     documents.  That's an internal thing that can be ignored.  It just

25     relates to a previous case.  And where some documents are coloured

Page 2321

 1     yellow, that can also be ignored.  It just relates to more recently

 2     received documents.

 3        Q.   If we go to page 1, the first entry is for paragraph 24, the

 4     first listed victim, and these victims follow the order in the annexes to

 5     the indictment.  And the first lists victim is Zoran Andjal.  The first

 6     document listed for this first victim is an autopsy report.

 7             MR. GILLETT:  And if we could get that report on the screen, it

 8     is ERN 02027317, and that's 65 ter 03685.  Thank you.

 9        Q.   Now, if we look at the persons that carried out this autopsy, do

10     you recognise any of the names on page 1?

11        A.   [In English] That is Dr. Mladen Marcikic.  His is head of the

12     institute in Osijek.

13        Q.   And do you know the autopsy performer, Boris Dumencic?

14        A.   [Interpretation] Yes, of course.  He was also doing

15     specialisation -- [Interpretation] He did his specialisation in Zagreb,

16     and he worked in Osijek together with Dr. Marcikic.

17        Q.   The second sentence of text on the first page which starts

18     "On 23 February, 1998," states that on LOK 1, under the number 152 in

19     Celije, "exhumation of remains was carried out."  What does this number

20     152 signify?

21        A.   When an exhumation is begun in a certain area, the site is mark

22     such as it was done in Celije, and its divided into locations, location

23     1, 2, et cetera, whereas 152 is the number of the body bag where a

24     certain person is placed.  In fact, their mortal remains.

25        Q.   And what information does this report contain?  Could you talk us

Page 2322

 1     just briefly and generally through the elements that it sets out?

 2        A.   In this autopsy report we see first the description of the

 3     clothing together with all the objects found.  If you want me, I can

 4     quote them here.  We'll refer to it just in general terms.

 5             After that, we proceed with the autopsy itself, and we go part by

 6     part describing first - we can move to the next page - the head where

 7     multiple fractures were found of the head, followed by the lower and

 8     upper jaw and then other parts of the body.  Do you want me to comment on

 9     this or --

10        Q.   No, that's okay.  And then where would we find the cause of death

11     for this victim listed?

12        A.   In the conclusion.  The basic information about injuries is

13     provided, and reference is made to a violent death.

14        Q.   And does that information in the conclusion about the injuries

15     reflect what is in the table under the column "Cause of death" for

16     Zoran Andjal?

17        A.   Yes.  In this table we see before us, we see injuries listed, and

18     in view of their number and appearance, they indicate a high probability

19     of a gun-shot or blast wound.

20        Q.   And on the report, if the victim were found with a weapon or a

21     military ID, for example, would that also be listed on an autopsy or

22     exhumation report?

23        A.   I must say that the pathologist, when he gets the body, he will

24     describe the entire body, including with everything on it, and that

25     includes weapons, and if there is nothing, he will just say the body is

Page 2323

 1     naked.  But the person performing the autopsy describes everything that

 2     comes with the body.

 3        Q.   Okay.  On page 1 of this report, we don't necessarily need to go

 4     there, but it refers to a Iscan Yasar phase 4 reflecting an age of 26 to

 5     32 years.  What is this Iscan Yasar phase?  Sorry, it's Iscan Yasar.

 6     Maybe we should go to page 1 of the report.  It's the third line from the

 7     bottom.

 8        A.   I still don't see that page.

 9        Q.   Apologies.  It's in the Croatian original.  I believe it is

10     page 2.  It is the third paragraph of text down.

11        A.   I can tell you the following:  When you look at changes on the

12     bones, you also look to see whether you can determine the age based on

13     the bones.  There are several methods to determine the age of a person,

14     and one of them is the examination of ribs that grow into the sternum.

15     With time changes occur in the ribs.  First of all, in youth they are

16     elastic and then they ossify and get less flexible.  Anyway, you can see

17     changes on the ribs that are due to age, and looking at the ribs you can

18     give an estimate on the age.

19             In this specific case, it was determined that this was a young

20     person aged 26 to 32.  That is an age where ossification is not complete.

21     But these are normal changes that exist in every person, not with the

22     same speed.  In any case, you can see on certain bones such as the ribs

23     and the pelvis or even the skull.  When the person is still young, we can

24     roughly estimate the age by the changes that occur on every bone.

25        Q.   And you're referred to the pelvis.  In the following bullet point

Page 2324

 1     on the pelvis it refers to the Suchey-Brooksukoy test phase 3.  Is

 2     this --

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Gillett, before you go there, could you ask

 4     the witness what is -- ask again what Iscan Yasar means.  According to

 5     Iscan Yasar -- I suppose it is the name of a method but we should have it

 6     on the record.

 7             MR. GILLETT:

 8        Q.   Could you clarify what Iscan Yasar means?

 9        A.   According to Iscan Yasar, that means those are the authors who

10     promoted this method, who concluded after examining many cases that there

11     were certain changes that could indicate age and provided a table with --

12     with a range.  Those are the authors of the method.

13        Q.   And in the following bullet point the report refers to the -

14     forgive my pronunciation - Suchey-Brooksukoy phase 3.  What is this?

15        A.   The situation here was very similar to the previous one.  Those

16     were authors who [indiscernible] the changes on the symphysis, which is

17     the joint between the left and the right side of the pelvis.  First of

18     all, these bones have cartilage and they are elastic.  Later with age

19     they lose their elasticity and ossify.  So persons can be divided by age

20     groups.  Here it was determined that the age would be 21 to 46 years.

21     This is rather a large range, but it's not considered to be a very

22     precise method.

23             MR. GILLETT:  Could we move to the second document for this same

24     listed victim in the indictment which is ERN 06822903, and that's 65 ter

25     3686.

Page 2325

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Gillett, I think the best thing to do is the

 2     take the first break now, even if we started 15 minutes late, but we --

 3     this way we won't get confused.

 4             Mr. Witness, we take the break now for half an hour and come back

 5     at 11.00.  The usher will escort you out of court.  Thank you.

 6                           [The witness stands down]

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Court adjourned.

 8                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Gillett, while we are waiting for the

11     witness, I could perhaps ask you this -- ask to clarify that eventually

12     with the witness.  Page 86 and 87, in the last column there is a

13     handwritten note, and it says "CD correct," what that would mean.  And at

14     page 88 and 89, it is said "No protocol."

15             MR. GILLETT:  That is certainly on my list of questions,

16     Your Honour.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

18                           [The witness takes the stand]

19             MR. GILLETT:  May I proceed?

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Please do.

21             MR. GILLETT:

22        Q.   Welcome back, Dr. Strinovic.  Thank you.  Now, we were just

23     looking at the second document for the first listed victim on the

24     non-Ovcara table, and this is Zoran Andjal.  So I believe this document

25     is still up on the screen in front of you.  Could you tell us what this

Page 2326

 1     document is?

 2        A.   Yes.  It's a death certificate.  It is a document issued to the

 3     family after an identification is definitively confirmed, and when the

 4     family agrees with the identification, it signs to confirm that it is

 5     precisely their relative, and then with this death certificate they go to

 6     the municipality where the body was found and they get the final death

 7     certificate as the final document confirming death.

 8        Q.   On this document, in box number 3 on the first page, the date of

 9     death is recorded as 22 September 1991.  What would that information or

10     that date be based on?

11        A.   It's probably clear to you that we don't know the exact time of

12     death, but we must have some information.  We get that information

13     usually from the family or from the government commission which indicate

14     as a rule the date of disappearance, which is sometimes probably the date

15     of death.  Otherwise, the date of death is difficult to determine.  So we

16     take that date to be the date of death.

17        Q.   And so am I right thinking that they are not always accurate and

18     certain dates of death?

19        A.   Yes, precisely.  That's what I just said.  We really don't know,

20     because we were not eyewitnesses.  We can only assume based on other

21     information such as information about the time when the person went

22     missing.

23        Q.   What about the place of death that's recorded?  Would that be

24     based on the same type of information?

25        A.   The same.  The fact is that the place where the body was found is

Page 2327

 1     taken to be the place of death.  Of course, it doesn't have to be

 2     necessarily so, but in absence of other information, the date -- the

 3     place where the body was found is taken as the place of death.

 4        Q.   And this may be an obvious question, but if you did have a

 5     witness to the event or someone with specific information as to the place

 6     or time of death, that would be reflected in the death certificate if

 7     they had provided that information?

 8        A.   I think that would be written.

 9        Q.   Okay.  If we could move to the third document for this victim,

10     Zoran Andjal.  This is ERN -- sorry.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Gillett, I have a question about this last

12     question and answer.

13             Mr. Strinovic, you say, "I think that would be written."  What

14     would be written?  Would be written the date of death that you get from

15     that information or would it be written that there is information as to

16     such and such date?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand the question, but it's

18     difficult to give a definitive answer.  As I said, we usually put the

19     date when the person went missing in these death certificates.  If there

20     were witnesses who knew more about the events and dates, it was possible

21     to enter such information in the death certificate as well, but I don't

22     know really.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

24             MR. GILLETT:  If we could shift to the third document for this

25     victim, and this is ERN 06822905.  That's 65 ter 03687.  And this is a

Page 2328

 1     DNA report.

 2        Q.   You've already described the general process of DNA

 3     identification so I won't go back over that in any detail, but I'd note

 4     that the -- this report refers to the body number 152 from Celije, which

 5     is the same number that we've just seen on the first document above.

 6             On page 1, the last line of text, and this is in the English, it

 7     concludes that this was most probably Zoran Andjal.  On what basis do

 8     they conclude that this is Zoran Andjal, or most probably?

 9        A.   It's the usual language involving DNA.  When we talk about 99.99

10     per cent, that is the statistical expression that is almost certain.

11        Q.   Could we go to the second page of this document, if there is a

12     second page.  Okay.  And the very last block of text under "Opinion," is

13     that where we find the percentage that you've just referred to?

14        A.   Yes.  As we see at the end of this opinion there is a percentage,

15     99.9998 per cent.  That is the degree of probability that this is indeed

16     the named person.  It is a statistical expression for almost practically

17     certain.

18        Q.   Where do we find the people that samples were taken from to

19     compare with the remains to establish who this person was?

20        A.   In this specific case blood samples were given by the mother and

21     the father, and this proves paternity.  It proves that the person found

22     was indeed the child of these two persons.

23        Q.   And I saw you pointing to the screen.  Were you pointing to the

24     heading "Findings" on this -- on this document?

25        A.   In the opinion I read the percentage.  In the findings above,

Page 2329

 1     there is information about the parents.

 2        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  I'm going to turn now to the entry for the

 3     victim called Ivan Zelember which is on page 5 of the table.  And this --

 4     the document that I'd like to look at on the screen is 65 ter 03709.

 5     This is the first document listed, the autopsy report for this victim on

 6     page 5.

 7             Now, while we wait for this document to come up, I'd note that on

 8     page 3, under the conclusion, it refers to fracture to the right side of

 9     the face bone -- or fractures, sorry, to the right side of the face bone,

10     right upper jaw, and left side of the scapula and left arm.  This is on

11     the document on page 3.  Page 3 of the English.

12             Now, these -- these various fractures, do you see that in front

13     of you on the document on the screen, not on the -- I believe it's also

14     reflected in the table, but on the document on the screen?

15        A.   Yes, I see it.

16        Q.   Could these injuries have been caused by a simple accident, for

17     instance, falling over or something like that?

18        A.   Injuries such as those listed and described in view of their

19     localisation and juxtaposition indicate the use of force rather than

20     fall.  In a fall, the juxtaposition of injuries would be a little

21     different, and it would involve some injuries that are not listed here.

22     These injuries are typical for the use of a blunt instrument or perhaps

23     the palm of a hand.

24        Q.   What is it about the localisation and juxtaposition of these

25     injuries that makes them more typical of injuries from a blunt instrument

Page 2330

 1     than a fall, for instance?

 2        A.   First of all, there are two injuries to the upper jaw, and the

 3     maxial bone that regularly occur from a blow.  In a fall, injuries would

 4     be most frequent to the back of the head.  When somebody falls on their

 5     face, it is to be expected the nose and the forehead would be injured,

 6     and it would have to be a very bad fall.  So the injuries juxtaposed as

 7     here are typical for a blow.  There is also an injury to the shoulder

 8     blade which occurs from a blow.  In a fall forward, there would be

 9     injuries to the lower jaw and the forehead.  The shoulder blade would not

10     be injured.  And it's not typical for a fall.  This specific injury to

11     the shoulder blade is difficult to sustain from things other than a blow.

12        Q.   Could I turn now to page 25 of the table, and this is the entry

13     for Pero Rasic.  Sorry, sorry, not page 25, page 14 of the table.  This

14     is Pero Rasic, who is one of the victims listed in paragraph 25 of the

15     indictment.

16             Now, the first thing for this victim, in the indictment he's

17     listed as Petar Rasic, but in the documents he's listed as Pero Rasic.

18     How could that come about?

19        A.   I can only say that Petar and Pero is one and the same thing.

20     It's one and the same name, which can be interpreted in two different

21     names -- or, rather, expressed in two different ways.  This is a

22     legitimate mistake.  It's actually the same name spelled in two different

23     ways.

24        Q.   Now, for this victim we have an autopsy report carried out in

25     2002 in Croatia, and we also have an attached earlier autopsy report

Page 2331

 1     carried out on 16 October, 1991, and how does it come about that you have

 2     two autopsy reports carried out in two different countries 20 years

 3     apart?

 4        A.   It's not the only case.  In this situation, the body that was

 5     found on the banks of the Danube near Novi Sad was transferred and

 6     processed in Novi Sad.  That was in 1991.  After that, the body was

 7     buried as an unknown individual, and it was only much later that that

 8     body was finally recognised based on a sample of the bone that was taken

 9     for the DNA analysis.  It was then transferred to Croatia.  Another

10     post-mortem was carried out 20 years later, as you have stated it

11     yourself, and finally the person was recognised, identified, and buried

12     under his name, and the whole process was thus finished.

13        Q.   In the earlier autopsy report from Novi Sad, and this can be

14     found at page 14 of 65 ter document 3755, so perhaps we could get that on

15     the screen to show it as I describe it, but I'll summarise that the

16     autopsy report from 1991 notes that the body had the tattoo of a flying

17     bird on the left arm with a date underneath it stating 13.IX.1966, and

18     the inscription JNA.  It also notes that one of the teeth was made of

19     yellow metal and that there was a ring with the body.  This is all shown

20     on, I believe, page 14.

21             Now, are these the types of elements that could assist with

22     identifying a victim?

23        A.   Very much so.  The information listed in here, and this

24     information obviously was obtained not long after the body was found, a

25     tattoo can help a lot when it comes to the identification of a person.

Page 2332

 1        Q.   So if these would have assisted with the identification, why were

 2     the earlier reports carried out in Serbia not handed over earlier?

 3        A.   Well, it's a very difficult question and a question that is very

 4     difficult to answer.  There is an explanation.  This person was treated

 5     as an unknown person.  That's how he was buried.  His body was found on

 6     the banks of the Danube, one could assume where the person was from, but

 7     obviously it took some time to co-ordinate matters, to exchange mortal

 8     remains and for everyone to finalise such cases.  We're talking about

 9     various kinds of circumstances including political circumstances and all

10     sorts of misunderstandings.  All of that played a role in the duration of

11     the process.

12        Q.   And could I ask you to clarify "political circumstances."  I

13     understand there are a number of different factors, but if you could just

14     explain what you mean by that term.

15        A.   What I meant was that there was no goodwill in place for

16     exchanges to take place, for the truth to be established, to establish

17     why those people were killed, who they were at the end of the day.

18        Q.   Okay.  And I'll be returning to this topic in relation to Ovcara

19     subsequently in the examination.  For now, if we could turn to -- sorry,

20     page 34 of the table, and this is the entry for Josip Bence.  And if we

21     could get document 65 ter 03856 on the screen, page 2.

22             Now, on page 2 of this document, for the cause of death it first

23     states a Latin term which I believe is vulnera sclopetaria capitis -- it

24     should be on page 2.  Vulnera sclopetaria capitis.  Subsequently, it says

25     the cause of death was war.  Firstly, what does vulnus sclopetaria

Page 2333

 1     capitis mean?  And secondly, why would it state cause of death is war?

 2        A.   Vulnera sclopetaria capitis is a gun-shot wound to the head.  And

 3     as for your second question about the war, I must say that it is an

 4     administrative worker at the institute who fills out the form, and

 5     sometimes when causes of death were entered were not the strict

 6     translation of what is here.  Like for example here it says

 7     vulnera sclopetaria capitis.  Instead, somebody entered the word "war,"

 8     meaning the person died in the war.  That's all I can say.

 9        Q.   I believe if we shift over to page 2 of the English, it will show

10     that description where it lists war.

11             I apologise.  This may be a doc -- ah, yes.  Sorry.  There it is

12     under the data of violent death and it says external cause of violent

13     depth equals war.  It's on page 2 of the English.

14             Now aside from various discrepancies in names that may arise, in

15     some of these documents, as you've noted on the table, there are

16     discrepancies in the dates of birth between the dates of birth listed in

17     the indictment and dates of birth listed in the documents.  How could

18     this arise that you would have different dates of birth provided?

19        A.   Obviously this depends on the source of information.  The

20     information about any sorts of dates is obtained from various people,

21     including family members such as mothers, wives, and sometimes they

22     provide us with different dates.  We must have obtained this information

23     from somebody.  We did not make it up.  The information was obtained from

24     somebody, and sometimes discrepancies are possible, but they should be

25     attributed to the various sources of the information obtained.

Page 2334

 1        Q.   And for the record, one example where we have this is

 2     Ivan Palijan on page 27 of the report where the indictment lists him as

 3     born in 1956, but Dr. Strinovic has marked in the table that his birth

 4     date is 1949.  That's page 27 of the table.

 5             Now, if we skip to page 85 of the table, near the end, the entry

 6     for Helena Albert says protocol missing, and then words to the effect of

 7     the documents on the CD appear correct.  What does this mean?

 8        A.   I apologise.  I could not follow you.  Let's repeat.  We're

 9     talking about page 85?

10        Q.   85.  Sorry.  In the last column, "Additional comments," the

11     handwritten words say "protocol missing.  Documents on CD appear

12     correct."  Could you explain what this means?  It's for the first entry

13     on that page, Helena Albert.

14        A.   Helena Albert, yes.  This means that we do not have the

15     post-mortem protocol.  It was not available to us when we drafted our

16     report.  As for what we received from you on CD, that seems to be a

17     correct finding.

18        Q.   And when you say "a correct finding," did you review the

19     documents that were on the CD in this instance for Helena Albert?

20        A.   Yes, yes.  That -- that's what it means.

21        Q.   And I note there are similar handwritten words in the entries on

22     page 86 for Viktorija Albert and page 87 for Ana Terzic.  Your Honour

23     also noted at two instances where the additional comments record no

24     protocol, and in the document authenticity column for those two documents

25     Dr. Strinovic has indicated no.  So I was going to deal with those

Page 2335

 1     separately after I finished dealing with the table, if that suits

 2     Your Honour.  Thank you.

 3             So having been through the table and referred to examples of the

 4     underlying documents, can you confirm that you have authenticated the

 5     ones where it is indicated "yes" in the document authenticity column?

 6        A.   Yes, I can do that.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And have you signed each page of the table at the bottom?

 8        A.   Yes, I believe so.

 9             MR. GILLETT:  Your Honours, at this stage we would ask for the

10     table and the underlying documents to be admitted.  I realise there's a

11     large number of documents.  There maybe logistical issues, but I'll

12     first, of course, leave it open in case there's any objections.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  If there is none.  Mr. Zivanovic.

14             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  I would -- thank you, Your Honour.  I would

15     object to the admission of the document "Croatian missing persons

16     questionnaire," regarding Kusic, Darko.  It is at page 3 of the table.

17     Actually, at page 3 of this document, it is paragraph 8G, and at page 13

18     and 14 are allegations of a person who reported the death of the -- the

19     death of this person and incriminating the accused.  So it is -- in its

20     nature it is -- it is the statement, and it could be admitted just under

21     Rule 92 ter of the Rules.

22             MR. GILLETT:  Could I --

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Which -- which --

24             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  It is page 3 --

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes, which is the name?  The name of the --

Page 2336

 1             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Kusic.  Darko Kusic.

 2             MR. GILLETT:  Your Honour, if I could clarify one point that may

 3     resolve this objection.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Please do.

 5             MR. GILLETT:  I believe my learned colleague is referring to the

 6     missing persons questionnaire, and we're not seeking to tender documents

 7     that are blank in the document authenticity column, and this is -- this

 8     is one of those.  So this is not a document that we would consider

 9     associated with this -- this table.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So I understand you well, the documents that have

11     a blank in the column "Document authenticity" are not tendered.

12             MR. GILLETT:  That's correct.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Does that solve your problem,

14     Mr. Zivanovic?

15             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Yes.  Yes.  I withdraw my objection, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  The table and the underlying documents are

17     admitted and marked.  I suppose we will ask the Registrar to circulate

18     whatever way is best to give numbers, exhibit numbers.

19             MR. GILLETT:  That seems the best way to proceed.  I envisaged

20     something like the Rule 92 ter procedure where we have a large number of

21     associated documents, but it's of course at Your Honours' and the

22     Registrar's discretion.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  You may proceed.

24             MR. GILLETT:

25        Q.   Now, moving to the entries that the President referred to where

Page 2337

 1     it stated "No protocol," the first one is on page 88 of the table, and

 2     it's in relation to Stevan Nad.  It's the -- page 88, the second last

 3     box, in the last column, "Additional comments."

 4             Now, you've explained what you mean in relation to the other --

 5     some other instances when you say no protocol that you didn't have it in

 6     house.  And so I'd like now to look at this document if we could and this

 7     document is 65 ter 04181.  That's ERN 02008482.

 8             Now, firstly, do you recognise any of the people involved in

 9     carrying out this autopsy?

10        A.   Yes, I know Dr. Marcikic from Osijek.  We have already mentioned

11     him.

12        Q.   And if we go to the final page, which I believe is page 2, and

13     look at the stamp and signature.  Perhaps on -- at the end of -- if we go

14     one -- one further page.

15             Do you recognise the signature and/or stamp there of

16     Dr. Marcikic?

17        A.   Yes, I can confirm that.

18        Q.   And you've had a chance to review this document during proofing.

19     Does it appear to be an authentic autopsy report?

20        A.   Yes.  This is a kind of an autopsy report that Dr. Marcikic used

21     to draft, yes.

22        Q.   Okay.  If we could shift across the page in the table to the very

23     final page, 89, and for the first victim named under Vlahovic, again we

24     see "No protocol" listed.  So could we bring up 65 ter 04183, which is

25     ERN 02008479.  And this is again an autopsy report, and it indicates it's

Page 2338

 1     carried out by Dr. Mladen Marcikic.  If we could go to the signature on

 2     this document on the final page, and you could take a look.

 3             Do you recognise his signature and/or stamp on this document?

 4        A.   Yes, like in the previous case.

 5        Q.   And when you looked at the document during proofing, was there

 6     anything that would suggest it's not an authentic autopsy report?

 7        A.   No.  I would say that this is an example of a very typical

 8     autopsy report drafted by Dr. Marcikic.

 9        Q.   If we return to page 1 of this same document on the monitor, the

10     autopsy report, it describes defects to the cranium with what appears to

11     be an entry wound from the bullet in the occipital region and an exit

12     wound in the temporal region.  That's on page 1 in the English version.

13     And it's in the block of text which is in the middle of the page starting

14     with the word "Head."

15             So where we have what appears to be an entry wound from a bullet

16     in the occipital region, an exit wound in the temporal region, how can

17     the examiner tell which one is the entry wound and which one is the exit

18     wound?

19        A.   I have already explained when I spoke about the cranium, i.e.,

20     the skull.  If we're dealing with a projectile, we can establish the

21     exact entry point as well as the exact exit point when we look at the

22     fracture of the skull.  The entry wound is smaller.  The exit wound is

23     bigger.  We can establish the direction.  The interior defect is smaller

24     of the exit wound, and the funnel is turned differently.  So when you

25     have a gun-shot wound through the cranium, we can establish with an

Page 2339

 1     absolute certainty which one is the entry wound and which one is the exit

 2     wound.

 3        Q.   And if I'm correct, the entry in the occipital region is at the

 4     back, and the exit wound is at the front.  What would this suggest about

 5     the way in which this victim and other victims with similar injuries

 6     died?

 7        A.   We can look at this situation in two ways.  In any case when the

 8     entry wound is at the back and when the direction is either lateral or

 9     towards the front, this shows the position of the head when the shot was

10     fired.  In this case, the back of the head was before the gun, and this

11     is typical of executions when bullets are fired in the back of the head.

12     It -- the situation could have been different, of course.  That person

13     may have found himself in that position, i.e., the gun from which fire

14     was opened could have been pointed into the back of the person's head by

15     accident.

16             MR. GILLETT:  Okay.  Your Honours, at this point we would tender

17     these two -- these two documents, which are 04181 and 04183 for

18     admission.

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  They will be assigned exhibit numbers P352 and

21     P353 respectively.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  Mr. Gillett, just to understand

23     completely the table and Mr. Strinovic's testimony, would that for this

24     particular entry mean that he changes his "no" in the column "Document

25     authenticity" for Vlahovic, Anda into a yes?

Page 2340

 1             MR. GILLETT:

 2        Q.   Dr. Strinovic, now that you've reviewed these documents, we'll

 3     start with Anda Vlahovic, for the comment "Document authenticity," would

 4     you now indicate a yes as His Honour has asked you?

 5        A.   Of course.  When I have a document in front of me, then I can say

 6     yes.  If I don't have it, then I say no.  When I drafted my report based

 7     on your tables and information, I did not have that document.  I could

 8     not obtain it.  That's why I stated no.  The situation is different now.

 9     I have in the meantime seen an authentic document signed by Dr. Marcikic,

10     and now my comment would be yes.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

12             MR. GILLETT:

13        Q.   And just to clarify, would that be the same for the first entry

14     that we just discussed with Stevan Nad?

15        A.   Of course the situation would be the same.

16             MR. GILLETT:  Thank you.  If we could now get document

17     65 ter 05850.  And we're now moving away from the table on the screen.

18     And if we could go to page 5 in the English of 05850.  And to explain,

19     Your Honours, this document includes a response from the Croatian

20     authorities to a Request for Assistance, but the document -- the part of

21     the document that's relevant for our purposes is the list with the series

22     of names and information which in the English I believe starts at page 5.

23     I'm seeing it in the B/C/S on the screen.

24        Q.   Okay.  The first name listed here at number 1 is Zoran Andjal,

25     who we've discussed earlier, and if we look at the information for

Page 2341

 1     Zoran Andjal, what does this document -- what information does it provide

 2     in relation to him?

 3        A.   I'm very sorry.  The print is so small that I cannot read it.

 4     Could you help me in any way?  Could you zoom in a little to make it more

 5     legible?  Now it's better.  Thank you.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7        A.   You want an explanation for Zoran Andjal.  You want me to say

 8     what information is provided about him; right?

 9        Q.   Particularly in the column "Remarks."

10        A.   It begins with the mass grave Celije, exhumation date

11     23 February 1998.  That person was put in body bag 152, and it was

12     identified on the 3rd of November, 2000.

13        Q.   Then if we look further down at entry number 12 for Ernest Baca,

14     it says in the remarks column "Taken over from Republic of Serbia."  What

15     does that mean?

16        A.   When the exchanges began and we were able to recover the bodies

17     that were buried in Serbia as often happened in Novi Sad, for instance,

18     Croatia took them over.  In this case this was 23rd February, 2002, and

19     it was identified on the 23rd of March.

20        Q.   Yes.  And -- sorry, if he could just check those dates, and this

21     is for entry number 12 taken over --

22        A.   2002.

23        Q.   Am I correct to understand it was taken over from Serbia on

24     21st of March, 2002, and identified on 12th of February, 2003?

25        A.   Yes, that's correct.  That's what's written.

Page 2342

 1        Q.   And does this document provide similar information for other

 2     victims whose remains were exhumed in various mass graves?

 3        A.   Yes.  Yes.

 4             MR. GILLETT:  Your Honours, we'd seek to have this admitted.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Before we do that, Mr. Gillett, could we have a

 6     word of explanation about the previous column, ID, I suppose identified,

 7     but NES, what's the other one, NP, what would that mean?

 8             MR. GILLETT:  Absolutely.  Actually if we go to the last page I

 9     believe there's a key, guide, to these terms.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Then it's okay.

11             MR. GILLETT:  So I would seek to have this admitted.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  And should be assigned Exhibit P354.  Thank you.

14             MR. GILLETT:  Could we have that admitted under seal, please,

15     because of the RFA component to it.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted under seal.

17             MR. GILLETT:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Could I just inquire what

18     time we're taking the next break.

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  12.15, Mr. Gillett.

20             MR. GILLETT:  12.15.  Okay.  Could we now get document 06365 on

21     the monitor.  06365.  And this is one of the documents that was added to

22     the 65 ter list at the start of proceedings today, as are the following

23     three documents that I'm going to address.

24        Q.   At the top of page 1 of this document, it states -- it's record

25     858/91 for an unidentified person.  So who created this autopsy report or

Page 2343

 1     protocol?

 2        A.   It's obviously a report written in 1991, and considering the way

 3     it was written, I suppose it was written in Serbia.  I don't know exactly

 4     where.  Not yet.  Maybe we'll be able to see where the autopsy was

 5     performed.  Anyway, it was performed in 1991.  The body was found in the

 6     Danube, so I suppose it was in Novi Sad.

 7        Q.   And have you seen similar documents to this?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Now, under the heading "Autopsy" on page 2 of this document, the

10     findings indicate that the person was shot in the head but was alive when

11     they landed in the water of the Danube.  How could the examiner conclude

12     that the person was still alive when they were thrown into the Danube?

13        A.   Yes.  When injury occurs, including injuries to the head, death

14     does not have to occur immediately.  Death occurs even after a gun-shot

15     wound, after some time, sometimes even hours.  However, when the body

16     finds itself in water, lungs continue to breathe, and in autopsy you can

17     establish the cause of death easily by seeing whether the water reached

18     the lungs, the alveoli, or another part of the lungs.  So we can conclude

19     in this case that the person was wounded in the head, came into contact

20     with water and died from drowning.

21             MR. GILLETT:  Your Honours, we would seek to admit this document.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Shall be assigned Exhibit P355.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

25             MR. GILLETT:  If we could now get 65 ter document 06366 on the

Page 2344

 1     monitor.

 2        Q.   Now, this is a DNA analysis.  If you take a look at the document,

 3     could you tell us who carried it out.

 4        A.   This analysis was performed in the hospital in Osijek, and it was

 5     done by the doctor who still performs DNA analysis today.

 6        Q.   And in the previous document we saw the number at the top 858/91,

 7     but it was an unidentified person.  How can we link this autopsy report

 8     with this -- that -- that previous -- sorry.  How could we link this DNA

 9     report with the previous autopsy report?

10        A.   There is a link with a number from Novi Sad, 858/91.  That's the

11     number of -- on one side on the autopsy report from the autopsy done in

12     Novi Sad, and this link, which is the number of body bag in the report,

13     and this indicates a connection.  Those are the samples from that body

14     bag, so it's a sample from that person.

15             MR. GILLETT:  Your Honours, we would seek the admission of this

16     document at this time.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  It shall be assigned Exhibit P356.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

20             MR. GILLETT:  Could we now get document 06367.

21        Q.   And when you take a look, could you describe what this document

22     is and who it's for.

23        A.   [In English] I'm sorry.  [Interpretation] Could we enlarge it?

24     Thank you very much.

25             This is a death certificate that we discussed before.  It's an

Page 2345

 1     official document stating that a person has been identified, and this

 2     certificate is given to the family.  This concerns Ivan Tomicic.  Place

 3     of death, Dalj, municipality Erdut.  Do you want to know anything else

 4     from this document?

 5        Q.   That's okay.

 6             MR. GILLETT:  We would seek the admission of this document.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  It shall be assigned Exhibit P357.  Thank you.

 9             MR. GILLETT:  Thank you.  Could we get document 06368, please.

10        Q.   Now, you had a chance to review this document during proofing.

11     Could you describe to us what it is and let us know if we need to enlarge

12     it for you.

13        A.   Yes, I remember this case.  We discussed it before.  In cases

14     where we have a missing person, if they are not found and identified

15     after a certain period, whereas there are witnesses and there is firm

16     evidence that the person is dead, then before a court in the municipality

17     of residence of that person proceedings are conducted to have the court

18     issue a decision, a ruling, that that person is dead.  That is done when

19     the person has been missing for a long time and there are witnesses who

20     can confirm that the person is dead, although there are cases where the

21     family has received a death certificate and the person is later found and

22     identified by name and surname.  Then another procedure is conducted

23     when the initial certificate is used to obtain a final confirmation of

24     death, final certificate.

25        Q.   And is this decision, from what you've reviewed, an authentic

Page 2346

 1     decision, and who is it for?  Who is the victim?

 2        A.   I see the Croatian coat of arms.  It looks authentic.  It says

 3     it's the Municipal Court in Beli Manastir, and the decision is issued

 4     declaring dead Tibor Siles, born in Osijek on 23rd May, 1963.

 5             MR. GILLETT:  I'd seek the admission of this document at this

 6     time.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  It shall be assigned Exhibit P358.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

10             MR. GILLETT:  Thank you.  Your Honours, I'm now going to turn to

11     the Ovcara incident, which is paragraph 32 of the indictment, and so this

12     is discussed -- or reflected in the smaller of the two tables that was

13     distributed.

14             I'd recall at the outset that this incident is covered by a

15     number of the agreed facts between the parties, and those are facts 103

16     to 110, where it's been agreed essentially, I'm summarising, that the 194

17     named victims in the annex for paragraph 32 of the indictment were

18     murdered at Ovcara, that they were detained when they were murdered, that

19     they were buried in a mass grave at Ovcara, that the grave was protected

20     by UN personnel, and the exhumation and autopsies were carried out by

21     international and domestic experts, and representatives the Croat and

22     Yugoslav authorities were present.

23        Q.   In the process of examinations and identifications of the people

24     found at Ovcara, what was your involvement?

25        A.   I'll have to provide an introduction, because it is a very

Page 2347

 1     peculiar case, and I was involved from the early days in the

 2     investigation concerning Ovcara and retrieving the bodies from Ovcara.

 3     As I said before, in the month of December 1991, I was invited to join

 4     the commission for detained and missing persons, which was just being

 5     established, and it was to deal with all the missing persons in Croatia,

 6     but one of the major issues were the persons who went missing at the

 7     hospital in Vukovar.  The whole country was seeking answers.  It happened

 8     on the 9th of November, 1991, and ever since that time there was an

 9     outcry for the truth to be revealed and to find out what happened to

10     these people.  So starting in January 1992, we had negotiations between

11     Croatia and Serbia, also involving international organisations, and the

12     main issues were related precisely to the people removed from the

13     Vukovar Hospital.

14             So I was involved from the very beginning.  I know the chronology

15     of the inquiry into Ovcara, and I -- if you wish, we can discuss that

16     now.

17             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  I just noted -- I just noted an error in

18     transcript at page 51, line 2, about the date.

19             MR. GILLETT:

20        Q.   On the record it says 9 November 1991, for when the commission

21     was established.  Is that correct or could you give us the correct date?

22        A.   I must be honest, I don't know exactly when the commission is

23     first mentioned with the date, but I know that I was invited to join it

24     in November.  Whether it was earlier, I can't say with certainty.

25             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Sorry, he didn't speak about the commission, the

Page 2348

 1     date of founding of the commission, but about the disappearance of the

 2     patients from the Vukovar Hospital.

 3             MR. GILLETT:  Thank you, sorry, for clarifying that.  I'll be

 4     asking some further questions about the details of the incident

 5     subsequently, so we'll come back to this topic, and at that point I think

 6     it will be clarified.  So apologies to confuse the two issues there.

 7        Q.   For a start, if we can look to the table that's been distributed,

 8     and I'll ask you similar questions as to the previous table without going

 9     into as much detail in light of the agreed facts, but in preparation for

10     your testimony today, were you asked to review autopsy reports or records

11     for the victims at the Ovcara incident?

12        A.   Yes, I did that several times, and I prepared for this case in

13     the same way, comparing reports, autopsy reports with the tables that

14     were presented to me.

15        Q.   And were you able to authenticate these documents?

16        A.   Yes.  That's what I did, and every page has been signed by me.

17        Q.   And in the column called "ID Method," which is the fifth column

18     from the right, it refers to classical and DNA.  What -- does this relate

19     to your previous answers about the means of identifying victims?

20        A.   Yes, precisely.  We could talk about that a lot, but in any case,

21     we began with Ovcara.  From a classification the DNA analysis had not

22     been perfected at that time, so the first cases were identified in the

23     traditional way, comparing the ante-mortem information with findings, and

24     that was accepted.

25        Q.   And if we could open the first document referred to here, which

Page 2349

 1     is for Josip Kozul and the document ERN is 00559729.  That number is

 2     00559729.

 3             And does this report set out the typical elements that you would

 4     find in an autopsy report, from your experience?

 5        A.   Yes.  I would say it's a very good report, including all the

 6     information that is established in this type of autopsy.  So it's a job

 7     very well done.

 8        Q.   And then if we could go to the next page, please.  It says at the

 9     first word "Commingling:  No."  What does "commingling" mean?  It's the

10     very first word at the top of the page.

11             MR. GILLETT:  Maybe if we could get the B/C/S copy of this for

12     that first word.  There is no B/C/S?

13             To explain, these documents are -- we broke out the translations

14     from a much bigger B/C/S document, and which I believe should be

15     available on e-court under 00559729 to 00560697, but I can actually get

16     the 65 ter number for you.  Yeah.  The 65 ter number is 4192.

17        Q.   Could I ask without referring to the document, are you aware of

18     the term "commingling"?

19        A.   Yes, certainly.  In that context, it means mixing, commingling.

20     That is a frequent problem with mass graves, and we have to be very

21     careful with this commingling.  We have to separate one body from another

22     completely.  In some situations such as wells, it is practically

23     impossible, but in mass graves such as Ovcara through careful examination

24     of mortal remains it is possible to finally separate one body from

25     another and to avoid commingling.

Page 2350

 1             MR. GILLETT:  Now, Your Honours, the autopsy reports for these

 2     victims are quite formulaic, so I'm not going to go through more of them.

 3        Q.   I will ask do you know the approximate age range of the victims

 4     that were found at the Ovcara grave site?

 5        A.   As far as I remember the range was 16 to 71 years -- sorry, 72

 6     years.  And it is rather precise because this is information we got after

 7     identification.  In the course of processing, the anthropologist can give

 8     a rough estimate of the age based on the teeth, ribs, and the pelvis, and

 9     the estimate comes in a range.  However, when we finalise the process and

10     the body's identified, when we know the date of birth of that person, of

11     course we know the exact age.  This is why this range which I just

12     mentioned, 16 to 72 years, was the final information after all the

13     identifications were done.

14        Q.   And on the table where there is handwriting, is that your

15     handwriting?

16        A.   Yes, that is my handwriting and my signature at the bottom.

17        Q.   And in some cases have you indicated where there are

18     discrepancies in the dates of birth or spellings of names and marked the

19     correct spelling or date of birth?

20        A.   Yes.  If we leaf through the table for Ovcara, we'll see there

21     are cases when the date of birth has been changed or the name, which is

22     obviously a result of the final identification when we were able to put

23     in the exact data.

24             MR. GILLETT:  At this stage we'd ask for the table and the

25     underlying documents to be admitted.  Those are the documents with yes or

Page 2351

 1     no -- well, with yes indicated in the authenticity column, the final

 2     column.  There are some missing persons questionnaires right at the end

 3     of the table which we are not admitting and they're blank in that

 4     authenticity column.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Gillett, may I take it that in the Excel

 6     version you will add the 65 ter numbers of all these documents?

 7             MR. GILLETT:  We do indeed already have a version with the 65 ter

 8     numbers added, but they weren't available at the stage when we first made

 9     these.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.  Admitted and marked.

11             MR. GILLETT:  And to -- just a couple of notes to tidy up in the

12     remaining seconds.  I'll just note with the handwritten remarks sometimes

13     they're slightly difficult to make out, but I've confirmed with the

14     witness that in the entry for Anton Mutvar the -- it should read

15     "30.1.69."  For the entry for OVC-004, the handwriting should read

16     "13.6.1959."  For the entry for OVC-066 the handwriting reads Holjevac

17     that is with one L.  For OVC-073 it reads "1.NOV.1979".  And then I think

18     the rest of the entries will be -- will be clear enough.  We'll also note

19     in the electronic versions of these tables the diacritics are not

20     included, because if they're included it makes it hard to electronically

21     search for the names.  So that's the way it's set up.

22             I see we've reached 12.15.  Perhaps it's a good time to take a

23     break.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you, Mr. Gillett.

25             Mr. Witness, we will take the second break now and come back at

Page 2352

 1     12.45.  The Court Usher will escort you out of court.  Thank you.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Court adjourned.

 4                           --- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.

 6                           [The witness takes the stand]

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Gillett.

 8             MR. GILLETT:  Thank you, President.

 9        Q.   Dr. Strinovic, before the break we were discussing the victims

10     exhumed at Ovcara, and could I ask you how many bodies in total were

11     exhumed from the Ovcara mass grave?

12        A.   Exactly 20 bodies.  I apologise, 200 bodies were exhumed at

13     Ovcara.

14        Q.   And were all of the bodies or have all of the bodies been

15     identified?

16        A.   No.  We were in charge of that identification right from the very

17     beginning, and we know that so far a total of 193 persons have been

18     identified.  One was identified based on the DNA, but that was not

19     accepted by the family, which means that officially we have 192 bodies

20     positively identified, 1 pending acceptance by the family, and 7 bodies

21     pending identification.

22             MR. GILLETT:  Could we get 65 ter document 02498 on the screen,

23     please.

24        Q.   Now, on this list we see a series of numbers, OVC-001, OVC-002

25     listed, and there are 200 of these numbers which corresponds to the total

Page 2353

 1     number of 200 bodies that you just provided.  On page 1, if we look down

 2     to OVC-011, what see the words "No name."  What does this mean?

 3        A.   OVC-001?

 4        Q.   OVC-011.

 5        A.   This means that OVC-011 has not been identified.

 6        Q.   And if we shift to page -- page 3 of this document, after the

 7     list of 200 remains with OVC numbers -- if we could go one further page

 8     on, please.  Sorry, and even one further beyond that.

 9             So there we see up to OVC-200, and after that we have six names

10     listed which say "Not deceased."  Could you explain who these people are

11     or how this came about?

12        A.   These are people who were at Ovcara, but they were not killed

13     there, which means that they are still alive.

14        Q.   Following the six names with "Not deceased" listed after them, we

15     have another series of names, approximately 50 or 60, that continue

16     across to the next page.  Do you know the circumstances of these people

17     or how these names arrived on this list?

18        A.   When people went missing from the Vukovar Hospital, lists of the

19     missing persons were compiled.  Those included the 200 bodies from

20     Ovcara.  However, the final list was longer, so the number of people

21     missing from the hospital was about 260.  The persons whose names are

22     listed here are the persons who were on the list of the missing persons

23     who were not found -- or, rather, whose bodies were not found at Ovcara

24     but were originally on the list of the persons missing from the

25     Vukovar Hospital.

Page 2354

 1        Q.   And have efforts continued to locate those persons since the

 2     lists were originally created?

 3        A.   Of course we are trying.  We have been trying from the very start

 4     to find all of those who are on the list.  We will never stop looking for

 5     those people.  To this very day we have not been fully successful in

 6     finding all the people from the list.

 7             MR. GILLETT:  We would seek the admission of this document at

 8     this time.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  It shall be assigned Exhibit P359.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

12             MR. GILLETT:

13        Q.   Dr. Strinovic, before the break you said that you would be able

14     to provide a chronology of the investigation into the Ovcara incident and

15     the mass grave.  Could you briefly do so now.

16        A.   From the moment when people went missing from the

17     Vukovar Hospital between the 19th and 20th December 1991, the list of

18     their names was compiled and attempts were made to learn the truth.

19     There were witnesses.  There was indicia and indications that people from

20     the hospital were taken in an unknown location after which their traces

21     were lost.  We held several meetings with the representatives of Serbia

22     in order to try and learn as to what had happened to the people from the

23     Vukovar Hospital.  All that time from the moment those people went

24     missing to the moment the grave was found and bodies there identified, we

25     were very busy trying to establish the truth.

Page 2355

 1             According to the chronology, on the 20th of December, 1991 -- or,

 2     rather, in 1992, Dr. Clyde Snow, who was invited by the government of the

 3     Republic of Croatia and who arrived from the United Nations as an expert

 4     to try and locate the grave where the mortal remains were buried.  He

 5     arrived in East Slavonia, and sometime in the month of November, as far

 6     as I can remember, he did go to the location.  He found something that he

 7     found suspicious and indicative.  He found an area which differed from

 8     the rest of the terrain.  It was somewhat depressed.  He found some

 9     traces of bullets there, and on the surface of the soil he found remains

10     of human bones, and that was his first visit to Ovcara, and that was the

11     first time that he indicated that the mass grave could be located there.

12     That was in 1992.

13             And then in 1993, we revisited that place.  The grave was marked

14     somewhat better and some trial excavations were done in 1993.  The size

15     of the grave was already defined by then, and then the exhumation of the

16     grave had to start.  Some preparations were already underway, but all the

17     works were stopped, and what we could do at that moment, from the moment

18     Clyde Snow visited the grave, further on the grave was secured by

19     UNPROFOR soldiers.  The area was well protected, so that in 1993,

20     UNPROFOR soldiers were there, protect -- they protected the grave and

21     practically we could not reach it until the year 1996.

22             And then in the month of September of 1996, preparations started,

23     followed by the exhumations of the grave at Ovcara.  I was involved in

24     all that as a monitor on the Croatian side, and on the Serbian side there

25     were also experts hailing from Vukovar.  Everything was observed.

Page 2356

 1     Everything was monitored while the exhumation of the mortal remains was

 2     carried out, and it was carried out by international experts who had

 3     prepared the exhumation.  They carried it out, and the total of 200

 4     bodies were found.  Those bodies were bagged and marked with numbers 1 to

 5     200.  Number 1 was the first body that was found.  Number 200 was the

 6     last that was found.  All the bodies were brought to the surface and

 7     brought to Zagreb in a convoy to the school of medicine there at the

 8     institute for pathology.  Special rooms were dedicated to the process of

 9     identification, the process of -- started sometime in late October 1996,

10     and by the end of the year, the processing of the mortal remains was

11     completed.

12             Again, international experts were monitored by the Croatian side,

13     the Serbian side, and the local authorities in Vukovar, which means that

14     we had control of all what was being done.

15             When the bodies were processed sometime in early 1997, we took

16     over the bodies.  We received the minutes of the post-mortem examinations

17     about the part that was important for identification.  We were under a

18     lot of pressure.  We had to proceed with identification as soon as

19     possible, so we received the minutes of the post-mortem findings that

20     helped us with the identification.  We did not receive the part that

21     dealt with the causes of death.

22             The process of identification started.  There was some cases

23     which were identified based on the comparison of ante-mortal and

24     post-mortem information, and in that way we managed to identify a certain

25     number of cases which were relatively clear cut and simple.  The families

Page 2357

 1     were invited to come to the institute of forensic medicine in Zagreb, and

 2     the process was launched.  The identification was gradual.

 3             And let me just illustrate how painstakingly long the process

 4     was.  Two weeks ago, we identified body number 192.  This means that

 5     constantly from 1997 until this very day, we have been involved in trying

 6     to identify all the 200 bodies.  We are still missing seven.  So the

 7     process has been continuous.

 8             During the first couple of years, we used the method of classical

 9     identification, i.e., the comparison of post-mortem remains and

10     ante-mortem information with the help of the families who kept on coming

11     with new information, new photos, new details.  We carried out our

12     identification so that about 97 persons were identified in the classical

13     way.  And after that --

14        Q.   If I could just ask you to slow down slightly for the

15     interpreters.  Sorry, please just finish off what you were saying.

16        A.   So now we are at the end of this classical identification method

17     by which we identified 97 persons, and then we could use the DNA method.

18     All the other Ovcara cases have been identified using the DNA method so

19     that we now have 192 positive identifications, 192 positive

20     identifications plus the one that has not been accepted by the family for

21     emotional reasons.  And this is the most important thing that I can tell

22     you about the chronology.  From the very beginning, from the moment when

23     the people went missing to this very -- if you need additional

24     clarifications, or if there's anything else you'd like to ask me, I would

25     be very happy to answer you, any questions you might have.

Page 2358

 1        Q.   I do have some clarifying questions.  Going back to the start of

 2     the chronology, before the break you referred to the incident where the

 3     people were taken from the Vukovar Hospital and on the transcript it

 4     recorded the date 9 November 1991.  Now, a few minutes ago when you gave

 5     a date it came out as 19 and 20 December 1991.  Do you recall which month

 6     it was, November or December 1991?  I realise that you weren't present at

 7     the incident.

 8        A.   It's a memorable -- memorable date.  It is the date when Vukovar

 9     fell.  It was the 19th of November, 1991.  That's the day when Vukovar

10     fell and when the hospital fell into the hands of the Serbian side.

11        Q.   Thank you.  And then shifting in the chronology, you mentioned

12     that in 1993, the initial exhumation that had been started was stopped.

13     Who stopped the exhumation in 1993?

14        A.   According to what I know, the exhumation was indeed stopped in

15     1993 for political reasons, i.e. -- I don't know why exactly.  I suppose

16     that somebody else will know why it was stopped, but from what we knew at

17     the time and from what we understood about why the exhumation was not

18     being carried out was the large number of dead who all had come from one

19     hospital, and I suppose that must have been the reason why the whole

20     procedure was stopped.

21        Q.   Who stopped the procedure?

22        A.   I repeat, I don't know.  I can only assume.  I can repeat what

23     I've just told you.  Obviously, the procedure was stopped by the people,

24     by the authorities that were in power at the time, and that was not

25     Croatia at the time.

Page 2359

 1        Q.   The -- could you clarify which authorities you're referring to?

 2        A.   As far as I know, the local Serbs and the former JNA held the

 3     power in their hands at that time.

 4        Q.   Now, you've mentioned that you don't know precisely why it was

 5     stopped, but you referred to political reasons.  Can you elaborate on

 6     that at all?

 7        A.   No, I can't speak about political reasons.  I am not a

 8     politician.  I can only speculate.  If a large people went missing from a

 9     hospital, if they were obviously killed and buried somewhere, it was a

10     delicate situation, and in 1993, the time was not ripe to publicise the

11     whole matter, and I suppose that's why the whole procedure was stopped.

12     But these are my speculations.  Political reasons in this case may be at

13     least one part of the answer to your question, but I really don't know.

14        Q.   That's totally understandable.  Going back to the exhumations

15     themselves, was the delay from 1993 until 1996 when the full exhumation

16     was carried out, what effect did that delay have on the process of

17     identifying the victims?  I.e., did it make it easier for more difficult?

18        A.   As I've already stated, in 1993 the exhumation was stopped; i.e.,

19     no excavation was carried out, and nothing was happening in the area

20     until 1996.  It was guarded, and that's important.  And obviously as time

21     went by, the elements that help the identification deteriorated.  The

22     fresher the mortal remains, the better identification and the better

23     establishment of the cause of death.  And the longer the period of time

24     between the death and the identification process, the more difficult it

25     is to identify the body, obviously.

Page 2360

 1        Q.   Now, you referred to the incident where the people were taken

 2     from Vukovar Hospital and that -- that you learned of this quite soon

 3     after it occurred.  How did you learn about it, from what sources?

 4        A.   There were several sources.  The first source were newspapers and

 5     newspaper articles about the situation and about the people who went

 6     missing, and there were also reports received from the doctors who worked

 7     at the hospital, Dr. Bosanac and Dr. Njavro, one a surgeon and the other

 8     the hospital principal.  They kept on sending us information.  That

 9     information reached our commission, the commission that I was a member

10     of.  So those were the two principal sources, the media and the

11     information that reached us from the Vukovar Hospital.  Later on, we also

12     received information from the relatives and the friends of the deceased

13     of those who had gone missing.  They wanted to know what had happened to

14     them.  And I apologise, maybe I should add one more thing.  At that time,

15     some people who were at Ovcara, the Croats who were supposed to be

16     executed but escaped, they also provided some information when they

17     arrived in Zagreb.  I don't know when that was.  I believe that it was

18     very soon after the event, but they also testified as to what might have

19     happened at Ovcara.

20        Q.   And you mentioned that information reached your commission and

21     the commission was established in December 1991.  Who did your commission

22     meet with?

23        A.   That commission met with their counterparts from Serbia, a

24     similar commission from Serbia, and those meetings were organised through

25     international organisations that chaired those meetings.  Those meetings

Page 2361

 1     were in English, and they were co-ordinated by those international

 2     organisations.

 3        Q.   And what subjects were discussed at those meetings between the

 4     two commissions?

 5        A.   When those meetings started, we started by discussing people who

 6     went missing from Croatia and those that went missing from occupied

 7     areas.  Each side had its arguments.  We all looked for people who went

 8     missing and we couldn't find, and that's how we tried to learn from the

 9     other side and vice versa.  The commission from Serbia sought information

10     about those people who either went missing or of whom it was positively

11     known that they had been killed during the war.

12             MR. GILLETT:  Could we get document 01161 on the monitor, please.

13        Q.   Now, this document on the front is titled "Draft.  Minutes

14     commission for Vukovar, Budapest, 12 June 1992."  If we turn across to

15     page 2, we see a list of participants in this meeting.  Aside from

16     yourself, obviously, can you describe who these people were and

17     particularly the members of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

18     commission, as far as you recall.

19        A.   Yes.  On the Croatian side there was Ivan Simonovic, law

20     professor.  There was Dr. Vesna Bosanac who was the CO of the

21     Vukovar Hospital.  Dubravka Horvat from the Red Cross of Croatia and

22     Ivan Kopjar who represented the Armija, the Croatian Army, I believe.

23             On the Serbian side I don't know much about those people.  It was

24     a long time ago.  I never had any subsequent contacts with them.  My

25     colleague Dr. Stankovic was a captain at the time, and later was promoted

Page 2362

 1     to become a general.  I know him.  He was resident in Zagreb.  That's how

 2     I knew him.  And as for the others, I don't know.  I don't want to guess.

 3             In any case, there were corresponding profiles to our side.

 4     There was the Red Cross, the organisation representing missing persons,

 5     the army, but I don't know any details about any of them.

 6        Q.   Okay.  If we turn to page 4 of the English under heading

 7     number 2.  In the first line of the first paragraph under that heading we

 8     see that Dr. Strinovic said that:

 9             "It was necessary to establish a tripartite commission for the

10     identification of mortal remains.  At the meeting in Pec held in January,

11     it was agreed that such commission would be formed.  However, in Geneva,

12     the Serbian side refused such co-operation.  Up to date such commission

13     has not been established."

14             Do you recall making this suggestion for a tripartite commission?

15        A.   It was really a long time ago.  What comes to mind first is this

16     tripartite commission which was supposed to comprise the Croatian side,

17     the Serbian side, and the international side.  That would have been that

18     tripartite commission, and that's what I had in mind when I proposed

19     that, I suppose.

20        Q.   And did they give reasons where the Serb side, where they did not

21     agree to this co-operation?

22        A.   It's very hard for me to answer that question.  I really don't

23     know what the reason was.  There may have been several, but I really

24     don't know.

25        Q.   On page 7 of the English -- and this should be the second last

Page 2363

 1     paragraph from the end.  It's page 6, last paragraph in the B/C/S

 2     version.  Now, this is quite hard to read.  Unfortunately, this is the

 3     only copy of this document we have.  We checked.  But in this paragraph

 4     at least that can be read, it states that:

 5              "Colonel Starcevic said that the JNA evacuated 174 persons and

 6     handed them to the CEE without precise names.  According to

 7     Major Sljivancanin, among these 174 persons were all the wounded and ill

 8     from the hospital.  The group stayed overnight at Ovcara and were handed

 9     the next day to the ECMM."

10             Do you recall this account being given about missing persons from

11     the Vukovar Hospital?

12        A.   What I remember, although it was a long time ago, was that the

13     negotiations was very hard, and precisely from the example you cited, you

14     can see that it was practically impossible.  We did not get any reliable

15     information, especially about Ovcara.  About Ovcara we got nothing.  So

16     these negotiations were very difficult, and there was practically no

17     progress on some important things such as Ovcara was for Croatia.  One

18     side would present very high figures, the other side would present very

19     lower figures for the same thing, and we could not find common ground

20     on -- on major issues.

21             MR. GILLETT:  Your Honours, we'd seek admission of this document

22     01161.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Shall be assigned Exhibit P360.  Thank you.

25             MR. GILLETT:  And if we could now get 65 ter 02444, and this is a

Page 2364

 1     photo booklet relating to the exhumation at Lovas farm, which is one of

 2     the -- relates to one of the incidents in the indictment.  I believe it's

 3     paragraph 33 of the indictment.  Now, if we could skip to the second

 4     picture.

 5        Q.   In this photo booklet, there is a large number of pictures.

 6     During proofing, did you have the opportunity to go through all of these

 7     pictures?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   So I'm not going to run through all of them, as similar elements

10     continuously reappear.  I'm just going to highlight a couple of examples.

11     If we could go to photograph number 8, please.  I believe it's page 8.

12             Now, in this picture and in a number of the other pictures we see

13     the remains of a person and that there's a card with numbers and letters

14     printed on it.  In this case, "NN 33."  Could you describe what the

15     information on that card is, if you can read it?  Perhaps if we could

16     zoom in on the card itself.

17        A.   Yes.  When exhumations were done, every body was brought out

18     separately whenever possible and put in a body bag.  The body bag was

19     marked, first of all, with the date of the exhumation and the location so

20     the exact site where the exhumation was performed, and this NN means

21     unidentified person, and the cardinal number of the body beginning with

22     1.

23             So all the information that was required in order not to mix up

24     the bags and to make sure that each body bag contained a particular

25     person was placed on the body bag, and after that the body bags were

Page 2365

 1     transported to a place where autopsies were done, and one and the same

 2     number followed the mortal remains from the beginning of that path to the

 3     end.

 4        Q.   I understand when you say the cardinal number 1, you're not

 5     referring to this specific photograph here but that it's the first body

 6     that was dug up would receive a number 1; is that correct?

 7        A.   Yes.  I just wanted to be more precise.  Of course, it did not

 8     begin with number 33.  It begins usually with number 1 and then we

 9     reached a number like this.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Could we turn to page 22.  And could you describe

11     what this photograph shows.

12        A.   When an identification is done, everybody is taken separately,

13     and everything found on the body, on the arms, in the pockets, everything

14     accompanying the body, all the objects are placed with the body, and

15     during the post-mortem a description is provided not only of the body but

16     also of all the accompanying objects such as clothing, jewellery, and

17     especially documents that maybe relevant for identification.  Because you

18     have to know that before we had DNA, what was of particular interest to

19     us and was key for the family to accept our identification were precisely

20     these things such as keys or some personal item or a car key that could

21     open a certain car ten years before.  It was very valuable for the

22     families to recognise the items that were found with the body, such as in

23     this case, NN 33 [as interpreted].

24        Q.   And in this case, how do we know for certain that these effects

25     were found with this body, NN 30?

Page 2366

 1        A.   At every exhumation special care was paid not to take some

 2     objects from the side and not put them in the wrong bag.  So all the

 3     objects that were put in the body bag were found immediately on the body,

 4     around the neck, in the pocket, et cetera.  Of course, in theory, you can

 5     argue there was a possibility that somebody confused these objects later,

 6     but we took strictly objects on the body itself, not around the body.

 7     Those items were included in the body bag, and they later were taken into

 8     account during identification.

 9             MR. GILLETT:  And, Your Honours, for the record, the identity of

10     the body in -- shown in this particular picture and the personal effects

11     can be established if you look at 65 ter documents 04043; 04046, page 9

12     in the English; and 05850, page 9 in the English.

13             Could we go to page 69 of this booklet.

14        Q.   And could you describe what this picture shows?

15        A.   You see on this photograph an open grave.  What does that mean?

16     When we started the exhumation, the principle we followed was not to

17     touch the bodies or the objects on them until the entire grave is

18     exhumed.  We had to photograph the entirety, because only in that way,

19     after a careful and professional exhumation, can bodies be retrieved one

20     by one and placed in bags.

21             We see a multitude of bones here.  The bodies look very mixed up.

22     But in view of the position of the bodies and in view of the fact that

23     there was clothing on them, we could separate individual bodies with a

24     high degree of accuracy.  When the bodies are found exactly as they were

25     at the time of death, we are able to separate them into individual

Page 2367

 1     bodies.  However, in some situations, this may be impossible, such as in

 2     cases when bodies were damaged subsequently or thrown into wells, and

 3     then identification will not be possible in the same way.  We will not be

 4     able to perform the exhumation so well or separate the bodies quite

 5     accurately.

 6             MR. GILLETT:  Could we have this photo booklet admitted.  I just

 7     note that the other pictures are of a similar nature to this one.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  It shall be assigned Exhibit P361.  Thank you.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

11             MR. GILLETT:  Could we now get document 65 ter number 02472 on

12     the monitor.  And this is a report on exhumations in Eastern Slavonia,

13     and it's written by John Clark.

14        Q.   Before we even see the document, do you know John Clark, and did

15     you work with him at all?

16        A.   Yes, I know John Clark.  He was in Zagreb several times, and we

17     collaborated on autopsies on our premises when they -- or, rather,

18     John Clark carried out identifications and processing of mortal remains.

19        Q.   And on page 1, near the bottom, under the heading "Receipt of the

20     bodies in the mortuary," this is page 2 in the B/C/S, the report states:

21              "At the completion of each exhumation, the bodies were

22     transferred in sealed and labelled body bags to the mortuary in Zagreb."

23             Did you see those bodies bags, and did you deal with those cases

24     at all?

25        A.   When the bodies were delivered to Zagreb and we began with

Page 2368

 1     autopsies, just like in the Ovcara case, occasionally I would be present

 2     at autopsies together with my colleagues, and I saw those markings on the

 3     body bags.

 4        Q.   On page 2 of the English and B/C/S, this report sets out the

 5     methodology that they followed for autopsies in these cases, and you can

 6     see that in the indent the bullet points.  Does that adhere to the usual

 7     professional standards for autopsies carried out?

 8        A.   Yes.  I've seen this before.  That is exactly the same way we do

 9     it.  They went step-by-step.  The bodies were received with their

10     numbers.  One by one they were placed on the tables, and then the

11     autopsies were performed according to procedure.

12        Q.   Now, if we could just turn over - and I'll get the page number

13     now - to page number 12 in the English.  And in the -- at the fourth

14     bullet point this says that -- it's a summary of the findings, that the

15     large majority of bodies found died from single gunshots to the head or

16     neck.

17             If we go back to the non-Ovcara table that you have already

18     discussed earlier in your evidence and we look to the corresponding

19     incident which is at paragraphs -- it's at pages 76 to 84 of the bigger

20     of the two tables that was distributed to Your Honours and the Defence at

21     the start of today's proceedings, and these are paragraphs 34 and 35 of

22     the indictment, if you scan through those pages in your report from 76 to

23     84 looking at the cause of death findings, do they in general match the

24     findings in the John Clark summary of findings?  Again this is page 76 to

25     84.

Page 2369

 1             And while you're scrolling through those, I just note for

 2     Your Honours the easiest way I find to link the bodies referred to in

 3     exhumations such as this John Clark report to a specific paragraph of the

 4     indictment is to use the document that was admitted earlier today.  It's

 5     65 ter 05850, which lists the body numbers for the victims, and you can

 6     usually follow those numbers through to the other identification

 7     documents on the table to figure out which incidents from the indictment

 8     are at issue.

 9             So I will repeat my question.  The summary of findings for the

10     victims found at this Daljski Atar in John Clark's report is that the

11     majority died of gunshot wounds to the head and neck.  Does that match

12     the findings in your table from reviewing the documentation?

13        A.   Yes, that's correct.  I've just reviewed the table once again,

14     and it is consistent with what you've just said.

15        Q.   If we could turn to page 19 of the John Clark report which is on

16     the monitor, and this is page 30 in the B/C/S.  The second paragraph

17     under the heading "Post-mortem findings."  And it describes that two

18     females and one male were located.  In relation to the male, it states

19     that the man had an obvious physical deformity and must have walked

20     awkwardly and that this may have been related to a more generalised

21     neurological condition.

22             Firstly, is this deformity something that would be typically

23     discovered by the forensic pathologist or an anthropologist or both?

24        A.   When mortal remains are examined, it is first done by a

25     pathologists and then an anthropologist.  In any case, damage like this,

Page 2370

 1     and it is relatively important damage, both the pathologist and

 2     anthropologist must have seen it, and that's why they wrote that this

 3     damage was important, must have made walking difficult, and that means

 4     that it was perfectly obvious to both specialists.

 5        Q.   And how would this type of information assist to identify who the

 6     remains belonged to?

 7        A.   For us any information of this type, something irregular,

 8     something unusual, something unhealthy such as this damage to the pelvis

 9     or the hip is very valuable, especially when we have a small group of

10     missing persons.  The smaller the group, information of this type is the

11     more important.

12             If we have a group of 1.000 people missing, there is a greater

13     likelihood that two persons would have this type of deformity.  However,

14     the smaller the group, the more important this information is.  It is

15     very unlikely that two people in a small group or from a small village

16     would have the same type of deformity.  So this is one of the firmest

17     evidence that we get for identification, changes on limbs, on bones that

18     are evident and very helpful in identification, and it also means that

19     the families would not have any problem with -- with the identification

20     results.

21             MR. GILLETT:  We would seek the admission of this report of

22     John Clark, which is 02472.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Admitted and marked.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  It shall be assigned Exhibit P362.  Thank you.

25             MR. GILLETT:  Now could I get 05579 on the monitor, please.

Page 2371

 1        Q.   And while that's coming up, this is a report on exhumations of

 2     wells, and it covers some of the same locations as the previous report

 3     that we saw.  However, it goes into further detail on the personnel who

 4     were involved in these exhumations.

 5             On page 1, the first paragraph, the report notes that the

 6     Tribunal asked Colonel Ivan Grujic to exhume two of the alleged sites.

 7     Were you working with or for Colonel Ivan Grujic at this time?  This is

 8     in the year 2000.

 9        A.   Yes, certainly.  We collaborated from -- was it 1994?  Anyway,

10     around that time he joined the commission for the detained and missing

11     persons, and from that time we have been collaborating all the time.

12             MR. GILLETT:  Could I just ask that this not be publicly

13     broadcast on the monitor because it's an internal document.

14        Q.   In terms of the exhumations that -- that are discussed here, are

15     you aware of these exhumations from wells in Eastern Slavonia in -- near

16     Borovo Selo?

17        A.   Yes, I was aware.  I know about these cases and I think most of

18     them ended up in Zagreb.  In any case, the answer is yes.

19        Q.   On page 2 of the English and B/C/S it refers to some of the

20     pathologists who were present.  Do you recognise any of these people?  Do

21     you know them?

22        A.   On this list we see Dr. Dumancic, a forensic expert from Osijek

23     who was in the field very often because he was based in Osijek which is

24     very close to all those localities.

25        Q.   Now, if we could turn to page 8, and the corresponding pages are

Page 2372

 1     9 through to 10 in the B/C/S.  And here we have a description of the

 2     exhumation of a body marked with NN 35.  Then if we continue to the top

 3     of page 9 in the English, we'll see that the report states -- it gives a

 4     possible cause of death.  Do you see that in the first -- I'm not sure if

 5     you're looking at the English or the B/C/S, but it should be in English

 6     the first three lines at the top of page 9.  Maybe if we could close-up

 7     on those.

 8        A.   [No interpretation]

 9             MR. GILLETT:  And, Your Honours, this body number relates to the

10     very final victim listed in the large Ovcara table that has been

11     provided, Marija Senasi.  That is who we are discussing.

12        Q.   Do you see what is listed for the possible cause of death?

13             MR. GILLETT:  Could we zoom in on the English to the first -- to

14     the top of the page.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see it.  Thank you.  Your

16     question is what does that mean?

17             MR. GILLETT:

18        Q.   Yes.  What does the report state as to possible cause of death?

19             MR. GILLETT:  This should be page 9 in the English.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This refers to a probable violent

21     cause of death.  This is the literal translation of what is written here.

22     If you're asking me why that is written, I would have to read the report

23     to see what the findings were.

24             MR. GILLETT:

25        Q.   And let's go to the corresponding report for this victim which is

Page 2373

 1     65 ter 04185.

 2             MR. GILLETT:  If we could get that on the screen.  And again that

 3     is listed on the non-Ovcara table, on the very final page.  It is the

 4     autopsy report, the first document for Marija Senasi.  If we could go to

 5     page 5 of the original.

 6        Q.   Now, the cause of death --

 7             MR. GILLETT:  This should be page 1 of the B/C/S translation.  Is

 8     this 04185?  I believe there is a translation issue.  Some of these

 9     reports are written partly in English and partly in B/C/S, so the

10     translation is a composite of the two.  It should be in e-court the

11     very -- the first document which is the original.  If we could go to

12     page 5 of that.  And in the -- there should be a summary with the third

13     paragraph.  That's the document.  Thank you very much.

14        Q.   So in the summary, in the third paragraph, the report states that

15     the cause of death, it's possible this was gun-shot injury to the back of

16     the neck, but it reaches the conclusion that the cause of death is

17     unknown or unascertained.  On what basis could they -- they make the

18     suggestion that a possible cause would be gun-shot injury to the back of

19     the neck?

20        A.   You're asking me something that is very hard to answer without

21     the complete information.  I can only speculate.  I suppose that there is

22     information to the effect as to what the expert found.  He must have

23     found something on the neck.  Perhaps one part of the spine was missing,

24     some part of the bone was missing.  Things are not clear from the

25     summary.  I could be more precise if I had the full description of the

Page 2374

 1     findings of the skull, the cervical spine and so on and so forth.  Then I

 2     would be able to answer your question.  The way it is written in here

 3     does not tell us much about what happened.  It says it is possible that

 4     the cause of death was a spinal -- or cervical spine wound, but I would

 5     have to see the whole -- the complete findings to see what the

 6     pathologist actually saw himself, and then I'd be able to answer your

 7     question properly.

 8             I apologise.  The writing is again very small.  There maybe a

 9     description here.  Maybe if you blew up the summary, either in English or

10     in Croatian, it doesn't really matter, maybe I would be able to answer

11     your question actually.  Yes, that's that.

12             There is description which says that the -- there were parallel

13     fractures in the body in the occipital part of the cranium which

14     connected at the top.  The description in itself doesn't say much, but

15     further on it says that several cervical bones were missing.  It says

16     "neck bones," but there are no neck bones.  There are cervical spine

17     bones which are missing.  And based on all the appearance where you can

18     see that some of the cervical spine bones were missing and that there is

19     a fracture of the skull, as a result of which the pathologist thought

20     that the death may have been caused by the gun-shot wound of the neck.

21             The finding was not specific, but it did say something.  It did

22     reveal a fracture.  It did reveal some missing cervical spine bones.

23     This is the upper part of the spine.  And based on that, he provided the

24     possibility which can be accepted as one of the possible explanations.

25     We can still not be sure because we do not have a classical gun-shot

Page 2375

 1     wound or an entry-exit wound through either a skull or the cervical

 2     spine.  That would be conclusive.  But this is a nonspecific findings.

 3     There is a fracture, some cervical bones are missing.  Something must

 4     have happened, but way don't know what.  The event may be due to a

 5     gun-shot, so there may have been a gun-shot wound involved, but we cannot

 6     say that for -- for a fact.

 7        Q.   Thank you for that explanation.

 8             MR. GILLETT:  And could we have the report that we started on,

 9     which was 05579 admitted.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zivanovic.

11             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  I would object to the admission of this document.

12     It is internal report made by the investigator of the Prosecution, and it

13     contained the information from the unknown witness, it is under page 1,

14     that goes to the guilt of the accused.

15             MR. GILLETT:  Your Honours, the witness has provided additional

16     information about the people involved, such as Dumancic.  He's provided

17     additional explanation about the processes involved and confirmed that

18     he's aware of these exhumations taking place.  Now, I think the concerns

19     of the Defence would go to the weight rather than the admissibility of

20     this document, and you will hear more evidence in relation to the issues

21     that my learned colleague has concerns about from a different witness.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Objection overruled.  Admitted and marked.

23             MR. GILLETT:  Thank you, Your Honours.

24        Q.   Last couple of questions, Dr. Strinovic.  Looking at the

25     overview, what is the approximate total number of missing persons from

Page 2376

 1     the conflict in Croatia -- I apologise.  I should have waited for the

 2     Court Officer to have provided a number for that document.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes, indeed, Mr. Gillett.

 4             MR. GILLETT:  And could it be admitted under seal, please.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It is only the internal memorandum you --

 6             MR. GILLETT:  Yes, it's 05579.  Sorry, we shifted to a different

 7     document to help with the explanation of that.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And why should it be under seal?

 9             MR. GILLETT:  Because it's an internal document and it has the

10     names of some of our investigators on it.  I'm happy to look into the

11     possibility of having that switched to a public document in due course,

12     but currently in the interest of not frustrating the purpose of

13     confidentiality, we'd prefer it to be admitted under seal at this stage.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And just to make sure that we come back to it,

15     when would you be able to take a final position?

16             MR. GILLETT:  Certainly by the end of tomorrow.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  So it's admitted under seal for the

18     moment, for the time being.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P363.  Thank you.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

21             MR. GILLETT:  Thank you.

22        Q.   I'll repeat my question.  Going to the overview of your work in

23     the conflict in Croatia, what is the approximate total number of missing

24     persons from the conflict in Croatian in the 1990s?

25        A.   Your question is impossible to answer, and I'll explain why.  In

Page 2377

 1     1991, when the commission was first set up at the end of 1991, the number

 2     of missing was very high.  At one point a reference was made to 16.000 to

 3     20.000 missing people, but they were not all dead.  A certain number of

 4     them have been found.  Some were in camps, prisons.  Some had left the

 5     country, and so on and so forth.  I can't tell you how many were reported

 6     as missing in 1991.  The number was high.  I can tell you what the

 7     situation is now, how many missing persons we have at the moment.  First

 8     of all, those who were killed or went missing in 1991 and 1992, and then

 9     a large number who went missing in 1995.  All of that in Croatia.  I can

10     tell you the figure as it stands now.  I can't tell you how many went

11     missing in 1991.  It was a colourful number as it were, and it is very

12     difficult to say how many really went missing as opposed to those who had

13     gone missing and then were rediscovered or reappeared from somewhere.

14        Q.   I'm looking for that approximate number for the current number of

15     how many are missing.

16        A.   What I'm going to tell you is the information of the government's

17     commission.  From the 1st of January, 2013, Croatia is looking for 968

18     persons who have gone missing from 1991.  Over 88 per cent of them are

19     Croats, but there were others as well.  So that's the data for the year

20     1991 and 1992.

21             As for what happened in 1995, Croatia is still looking for 743

22     persons, residents of Croatia of Serb ethnicity, who went missing in

23     1995.

24             Up to today, a total of 933 people have been exhumed, 572 were

25     identified, which is a total of 61 per cent.

Page 2378

 1             At the moment, Croatia is looking for 968 people of -- plus those

 2     who went missing in 1995.  We're talking about 743 people.  So all in

 3     all, Croatia is still looking for nearly 1.700 missing persons.

 4        Q.   And for the total number of people that died during the conflict,

 5     would that be greater than the 933 people that have been exhumed?

 6        A.   I can only repeat what I have already said.  933 have been

 7     exhumed.  743 persons are still being searched, and those are the people

 8     that went missing in 1995.

 9             Did I make myself clear on that part?

10        Q.   That part is certainly clear, and it's okay if you don't have the

11     information.  I was just looking for a general figure of the number of

12     people killed during the conflict in Croatia, but if that's not

13     available, that's not a problem.

14        A.   I understand the question.  It's -- it's been put differently

15     now.  It's very difficult for me to tell you the exact number at the

16     moment.  I know that the figure was about 11.000-plus people, if that's

17     what you're asking me.  This is the figure that is referred to by the

18     government, and that is the figure that should be correct.  So this is

19     the number of all those people who died, who were killed during the

20     homeland war, 11.000-plus people.

21             MR. GILLETT:  Okay.  Your Honours, that concludes my questions on

22     direct exam.  Do I understand that we're breaking at 2.15 or are we

23     breaking at 2.00 today?

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Normally we break at 2.00, I think.

25             MR. GILLETT:  I wasn't sure because of the 15-minute delay at the

Page 2379

 1     start.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But by all means, if this concludes your

 3     examination, I don't think we'll ask the Defence to start

 4     cross-examination for 15 minutes.  I have one or two questions to ask,

 5     clarification questions.

 6             So you're done for the moment.

 7             MR. GILLETT:  Yes, unless any questions arise if I can assist,

 8     but otherwise I'm done.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  You showed us and you tendered the list with the

10     more or less 200 -- yes, about -- a number of about 200 victims of the

11     Vukovar Hospital incident.  Could we have some information about the

12     origin of that document?  It's the document with the 200 names of which 6

13     are -- were unidentified, and then 60 other names.

14             MR. GILLETT:  Could I just say that's 65 ter 02498.  I'm not sure

15     what the exhibit number is.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  2498.

17             MR. GILLETT:  Yes.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  2498, sorry.  2498, that's right.

19             MR. GILLETT:  Is the question directed to myself or the witness?

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Whoever can answer the question.  If the witness

21     can answer the question, I would refer the witness to answer it.

22             Mr. Strinovic, do you remember that list?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let's try and explain

24     once again.  When we're talking about the Vukovar Hospital, the list of

25     the missing persons was compiled very early on, immediately after the

Page 2380

 1     event.  There were several such lists.  Some were expanded.  However, the

 2     shortest list of the names contained over 290 names.  That was the list

 3     of the missing persons.

 4             Second of all, when the persons who were found at Ovcara, the 200

 5     bodies were identified, we ended up with 193 completed identifications.

 6     The names that you see from 1 to 200 or 1 to 193, those are the names of

 7     the peoples who were excavated from Ovcara, who were identified, and

 8     their body bags were marked by numbers from 1 to 200.  And then on that

 9     list you have a large number of other names that are mentioned.  Those

10     are the people whose names were on the list of those who went missing

11     from the hospital.  They have never been found.  They did go missing from

12     the hospital.  There are witnesses to that.  But their bodies, the bodies

13     of some 60 people who indeed did go missing from the hospital, their

14     bodies were -- have not been found yet anywhere.

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Strinovic, the purpose of my question was to

16     know what this list is part of.  I suppose it's not something on itself.

17     Somebody compiled it.  Where is it part of?  What is it part of?  Is it

18     part of some kind of report?  Do you know?

19             MR. GILLETT:  I could just offer that the information we have is

20     that it's a fax -- it was attached to a fax received from the commission

21     for detained and missing persons in March 2003, and I understand there's

22     been various lists in relation to this matter sent back and forward at

23     various times.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Commission of which the witness was a member;

25     right?

Page 2381

 1             MR. GILLETT:  That's correct.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So do you -- do you recognise this list as a list

 3     made or compiled by the commission you were a member of?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  I recognise the

 5     list.  I and my colleagues identified the victims.  I recognise the

 6     names, the names of 193 people whose bodies have been identified over the

 7     past ten years or so, mostly by me.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.  And another little question about the

 9     booklet with photos that was shown to you.  The inscriptions, the papers

10     on the body bags, mention Lovas farm.  Was that the location of the mass

11     grave.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was never there at Lovas farm,

13     but I should have thought so, yes.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  We can perhaps pull up that document.  It's

15     65 ter number 02444.  Let's perhaps go to page -- page 10, in body bag

16     with the number 20, and it says "Lakacija 4, Farma Lovas."  Now, my

17     question is:  Is that Farma Lovas, is that part of the location where the

18     body was found, or is it something else?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on several occasions,

20     in one location such as Farma Lovas bodies were buried in several places.

21     Farma Lovas is an area.  It's a place.  It's a location with several

22     graves, and each of the graves was a location.  Location 4 was where the

23     body of an unknown person marked by number 32 was found at Lovas farm.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I think your -- your question -- your answer is

25     quite clear.  I'll clarify my question to which I have an answer now.  So

Page 2382

 1     Lovas farm on this paper does not refer to the place of death.  It refers

 2     to the place of finding of the mortal remains.  You agree with that?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.

 5             So we take the break for today.  You'll come back tomorrow

 6     morning at 9.00, and I must remind you that you are under oath, which

 7     implies that you are not allowed to discuss your testimony with anybody,

 8     and you are not allowed to speak to any of the parties at all.  Do you

 9     understand?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do, Your Honours, yes.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.  The usher -- the usher will

12     escort you out of the court now.  Thank you.

13                           [The witness stands down]

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Court adjourned.

15                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.10 p.m.,

16                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 8th day

17                           of January, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.