1 Wednesday, 24th November, 1999
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 10.10 a.m.
4 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Please be
5 seated. Registrar, would you have the accused brought
7 [The accused entered court]
8 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] First, let me
9 be sure that the interpreters can hear me. Good
10 morning to all the interpreters, and I would also like
11 to say good morning to the representatives of the
12 Office of the Prosecutor, and Mr. Nice,
13 Mr. Tochilovsky. And good morning to Defence counsel,
14 Mr. Greaves, Mr. Londrovic, and to the accused.
15 I believe that we can now begin, because the
16 witness, who couldn't testify a few days ago because he
17 was sick, I think can now be brought in. Is that
18 correct? Mr. Greaves? Mr. Nice?
19 MR. NICE: I am only on my feet to explain
20 that the gentleman sitting on my right, if this is
21 acceptable to the Court, is Dr. Duits, the psychiatrist
22 who has prepared a report and who I would be calling, I
23 forecast, with your leave immediately after the next
25 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I would like to
1 ask Mr. Greaves, who is going to call in
2 Mr. van den Bussche -- is he feeling better?
3 Mr. Greaves, is he feeling better today?
4 MR. GREAVES: I haven't actually spoken to
5 him, but I anticipate so.
6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Well, I hope he
7 is the one who can talk.
8 MR. GREAVES: Certainly.
9 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Do you have any
10 problem in having Dr. Duits sitting here?
11 MR. GREAVES: It is a procedure with which I
12 am entirely familiar in my own system, and I have no
13 objection to my learned friend having the assistance of
14 Dr. Duits.
15 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] The Judges see
16 Dr. Duits' presence as an advantage.
17 All right. We can now move on.
18 MR. GREAVES: If we may have the witness.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Good morning,
21 doctor. Do you hear me?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] You do. We
24 hope that you will be able to speak today. Do you feel
1 THE WITNESS: I feel a little bit better.
2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Not really
4 THE WITNESS: Not yet.
5 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] As we say in
6 France, the shoemakers are the ones who have the worst
7 shoes. Well, you are a doctor, and perhaps you didn't
8 take proper care of yourself. Well, we'll try to
9 continue with our work. First of all I am going to ask
10 you to take an oath. You took an oath. All right.
11 You don't have to do that, then.
12 Thank you, Judge Rodrigues, for reminding me
13 of that.
14 You may be seated. Please proceed.
15 WITNESS: BERNARD VAN DEN BUSSCHE [Resumed]
16 Examined by Mr. Greaves:
17 Q. Mr. van den Bussche, I will be as quick as I
18 can, in view of your condition.
19 Can you first of all help us about this.
20 Your full name is Bernard van den Bussche, and you are
21 a forensic psychiatrist; is that correct?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. Were you initially sworn in 1985 as a
24 permanent judicial expert by the Court in Amsterdam?
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. Would you be so kind, please, as to tell
2 their honours what your professional qualifications
4 A. Yes. In 1985 I worked for the Forensic
5 Psychiatric Service, Amsterdam, as a forensic
6 psychiatrist --
7 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Speak slowly.
8 Speak slowly. Don't try to fatigue your voice too
9 quickly. Just answer gently, quietly, and also allow
10 the interpreters to do a proper job in interpreting
11 you. Thank you very much.
12 A. The Forensic Psychiatric Service in the
13 Netherlands, all branches of the Dutch Ministry of
14 Justice. And the Forensic Psychiatric Service,
15 Amsterdam is one of the biggest, most qualified and
16 experienced compared with the others. Therefore, we
17 were asked by the Dutch Ministry of Justice to
18 cooperate with this Tribunal.
19 Q. How long have you practiced as a forensic
20 psychiatrist, Mr. van den Bussche?
21 A. Fifteen years.
22 Q. And whereabouts did you qualify as a forensic
23 psychiatrist? Was that at university or medical
25 A. University.
1 Q. And which university did you attend?
2 A. The University of Utrecht.
3 Q. Apart from your qualification as a doctor and
4 a forensic psychiatrist, do you have any other medical
6 A. No, I don't have.
7 Q. And during the course of your duties as a
8 permanent judicial expert with the court, are you
9 regularly involved in making reports for the courts of
10 the Netherlands?
11 A. Yes, for the court in Amsterdam and the
12 higher court I made in about 15 years about 400
13 psychiatric reports.
14 Q. I'm sorry, you were about to finish. I do
16 A. And besides that, I do risk assessment
17 reports on behalf of the Dutch Ministry of Justice in
18 special clinics where serial killers or serial rapists
19 are compulsory treated.
20 Q. So is what you are saying that serial killers
21 and serial rapists is, in effect, your speciality?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Have you made that your specialty throughout
24 your period of service with the Dutch Justice Ministry?
25 A. The Dutch ministry asked me to do those risk
1 assessments -- risk assessment reports because of my
3 Q. Now, help us about this, please. Did you,
4 during the course of your duties, then go to see the
5 defendant, Goran Jelisic, earlier this month?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And did you, as a result of that, prepare a
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. Dated the 8th of November 1999?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. And, Your Honours, I think that's the report
13 which has been filed with the Tribunal, and I hope that
14 you have it.
15 And you can answer any questions from the
16 Prosecution concerning your report.
17 A. Yes, I can.
18 Q. Dr. van den Bussche, would you be so kind to
19 wait there, please, and to answer such questions.
20 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice
21 represents The Office of the Prosecutor and he will ask
22 some questions. Mr. Nice, please proceed now.
23 Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:
24 Q. Doctor, in order to save your voice, I will
25 try and ask questions, sometimes compendious questions
1 which may be capable of the yes, no answer, leaving
2 your voice freer for those occasions when you will need
3 to expand. So the questioning, if it works, will be a
4 little unusual, but will be aimed at helping you.
5 First, it's correct, isn't it, that although
6 you had access to the earlier psychiatric and
7 psychological reports on this man, you have not seen a
8 record of his interviews, and you know nothing of the
9 evidence that has been given by witnesses in this case?
10 A. Yes, that's correct. And that's a pity.
11 It's not an usual situation in the Netherlands. The
12 psychiatric interview is only a small part of the
13 complete psychiatric examination. And usually I have
14 to read for about four 'til ten hours all the trial.
15 Q. Again, do feel free to add if you want to,
16 but you've given the answer.
17 The second point is that on this occasion you
18 interviewed the man alone, but for an interpreter?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And again the compendious question is this:
21 With psychiatric examinations you always have to be
22 careful about the subject being dishonest and
23 attempting to mislead or to manipulate the
24 psychiatrist, and it is therefore preferable, when
25 possible, to have two people present at the
1 examination, and not one? Would you accept that?
2 A. Yes, I agree with you.
3 Q. This man is a man who is shown to be both
4 dishonest and manipulative; would you accept that?
5 A. Yes, I would agree.
6 Q. So that you, therefore, suffered the
7 disadvantage, and there's no criticism in anything I
8 say, but you suffered the disadvantage of not having a
9 second expert at your shoulder or by your side to check
10 on what he may have been trying to achieve; do you
11 accept that?
12 A. I agree completely with you. In the Dutch
13 court system it is even a fault if you speak with a
14 severe criminal alone. So I always advise my
15 colleagues to talk with two persons, and then you can
16 choose between two of a kind or two of a different
17 kind. I prefer to talk with a psychiatrist and a
18 psychologist because some of them even can cheat two
19 psychiatrists, and a psychologist, you can better rely
20 on a psychologist because he can do more objective
21 tests to find out the manipulation.
22 Q. Thank you. In the interests, again, of
23 saving your voice and dealing with things in an orderly
24 way, it may be helpful if I ask you to open your report
25 at, I think, page 5, and I will try and deal with the
1 particular questions I have in relation to your report
2 in sequence. Then I'll turn to a few other questions
3 about other reports and a few other general
4 propositions that I'd like you to help us with.
5 Again, many of these questions may be capable
6 of being dealt with briefly. Of course, at the end of
7 it, if there's something you want to add and feel I
8 haven't explored, you will be allowed to do so without
9 any hesitation, I'm sure.
10 On page 5, he tells you, under case history,
11 that his former attorneys, and he names them, wanted
12 him to commit suicide and were contemptible, that they
13 advised him to keep silent and offered him money, and
14 that his family was threatened.
15 He didn't, of course, point to any proof of
16 this. Did he provide any detail beyond what's set out
18 A. No.
19 Q. Thank you. Further down, we see that he
20 identifies the offenders who he said were at liberty
21 and goes on to give an account of forming liaisons in
22 prison with Croats and, indeed, with Muslims.
23 Ingratiation is making himself popular with the very
24 group of people who had been his victims consistent
25 with his being both manipulative and narcissistic?
1 A. I found him more childish and immature.
2 Q. Thank you. Three lines up from the bottom of
3 this page, he told you no more than that he had acted
4 under duress, that he shot 15 people, but then he said
5 he saved hundreds. He provided you no detail of the
6 alleged hundreds that he saved.
7 A. No, and I couldn't check it.
8 Q. He, of course, then went on to say that he
9 was being made a national scapegoat. Setting himself
10 in the big picture is consistent with the narcissism
11 and/or the childishness.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you. Over the page, please, to page 6,
14 as you summarise it, just under halfway down, he says:
15 "'I was forced to kill, by my superiors. They gave me
16 the name Adolf. If I hadn't followed the orders of
17 those monsters, I would have been killed.'"
18 You may have other notes, I don't know, but
19 did he give you any more detail of how he was forced to
20 kill than that?
21 A. He told me that some friends of his were shot
22 in front of Muslims when they denied to follow the
24 Q. Did you check whether that was a version he
25 had ever given before or whether this was a completely
1 new version of events, being forced to see others being
2 shot for disobedience?
3 A. I didn't read it in the other reports.
4 Q. No. I'm going to come to just a couple
5 aspects of the other reports and the way his stories
6 change. But since I want to deal with this report in
7 an orderly way, you would accept, would you not, that
8 if this version is new and different and if one can see
9 in the earlier reports a developing series of different
10 stories, then the different stories obviously undermine
11 his reliability, don't they?
12 A. There's a possibility, but he has also other
14 Q. He blames the other attorneys at some
15 stage --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- for forcing him to give different stories,
18 but I'll come to that. If we put that on one side, and
19 if somebody gives, first, one account, then a stronger
20 account, then a different account, and, in your report,
21 yet another different account, that obviously goes to
22 show he may just simply be being dishonest.
23 A. There's a possibility, yes.
24 Q. Thank you. Then, just a little further down
25 the same paragraph, he says: "'On one occasion, I fell
1 to my knees and begged to not have to go on any more.
2 I was informed that I shouldn't think, but simply carry
3 out orders.'"
4 I don't know if you have any more detail of
5 the falling to his knees, but the question again I want
6 to ask you is this: Did you find any earlier reference
7 to this form of pleading by him?
8 A. No, I didn't.
9 Q. Do you have any more detail of what he said
10 happened on this occasion, beyond what you've set out
12 A. No, I don't.
13 Q. Towards the bottom of page 6, you set out the
14 following, about ten lines up: "When the discussion
15 focused on his upcoming 7 to 8 days of defence, tears
16 appeared in his eyes, and the defendant started to
17 cry ..."
18 MR. NICE: I'm so sorry. I hope I'm not
19 going too fast for the interpreters and that they've
20 got copies. I'll slow down a little. I'm so sorry.
21 Q. "'I hate the idea of seeing and hearing all
22 those people --'"
23 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Excuse me,
24 Mr. Nice. I'm waiting for the French version. It
25 takes a little longer to say it in French.
1 MR. NICE: I'm sorry, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] It was fine up
3 to this point. There it is. I see where you are.
4 Please continue.
5 MR. NICE:
6 Q. "'I hate the idea of seeing and hearing all
7 those people who both on request, and also
8 spontaneously are coming to bear witness ...'" and then
9 that paragraph continues.
10 If we go on about another eight or nine
11 lines, you set out this: "Following deeper
12 questioning, it emerged that over the last few months,
13 the defendant has regularly been crying, when alone."
14 Now, my question is this: The first tears
15 relate to his defence witnesses; the second tears, were
16 those also for himself and for his defence witnesses?
17 A. Well, he was crying all the time at that
18 moment, for about four or five minutes, and I really
19 had to relax him, to get himself in a better
21 Q. But were the tears for himself?
22 A. In my opinion, the tears were not for
23 himself, but in my opinion, he was confused between
24 feelings of intimacy to others and feelings of
25 aggression and all kinds of different mixed feelings,
1 and he didn't know until now how to manage them.
2 Q. Thank you. You, I think, will be able to
3 confirm from the material you've read that there is no
4 reference, I think, anywhere else in the material to
5 his showing spontaneous remorse, tearful or otherwise,
6 for his victims.
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 Q. So the first occasion of crying is crying
9 which we saw related to his emotion at people coming to
10 give evidence for him; it's not tears about his
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Thank you. In the English version, I'm
14 getting to the end of this passage which comes on page
15 7, and in the French version, it must be at the foot of
16 page 11, I think. Yes.
17 Two things really. He says that he was
18 arrested and tortured -- I beg your pardon. He says
19 that the account that he was arrested and tortured by
20 the Croat army was untrue, that he'd been under
21 pressure from his former attorneys to make those
23 I'm a little confused as to what page 9,
24 paragraph 2 means in the report of Dr. Duits and
25 Dr. van der Veen, but without doing a paper chase, can
1 you confirm that what he was instructing you to say
2 should be rubbed out completely was the account of
3 torture in Croatia?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Were you aware that by the time of his first
6 psychiatric examination, he was already being
7 represented by the attorney who he says he trusted,
8 even if one of the other attorneys was still involved
9 in his case at that time?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So he says he made these allegations in
12 response to his attorneys, but one of his trusted
13 attorneys was also already on his team.
14 A. Yes, Mr. Londrovic. But -- yes, that's
16 Q. So if we go on now to page 9 in the English,
17 page 12, halfway down page 12 in the French, he says
19 "Nonetheless, the defendant wished to state
20 that the previous report writers, Dr. Duits and van der
21 Veen had written down things which he had not said.
22 Once the undersigned had asked why he had not corrected
23 the reports, since he had taped the entire previous
24 examination interviews, there was a moment of silence
25 and the ice appeared to have been broken."
1 What was it, according to Jelisic, that
2 Dr. Duits and Dr. van der Veen had written down either
3 incorrect or untruthfully.
4 A. I asked him, but he didn't tell me. I asked
5 him, I said, "You taped everything." And then he said
6 to me nothing any more.
7 Q. So either he was being dishonest with you or
8 he was being untruthful or dishonest with them? It has
9 to follow, doesn't it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can we turn over, please, to page 10 in the
12 English, where in the middle of the page you make the
13 point, and I think you've made it already, that he
14 emphasised his position as a victim in all of this,
15 didn't he?
16 A. Yes, but, in my opinion, a little bit less
17 than in the previous reports. But just a little.
18 Q. And, of course, he had obviously had the
19 advantage of reading the previous reports, because he
20 commented on them, and he was thus in a position to act
21 and to change his behaviour to accord with what would
22 be wanted of him?
23 A. Yes, there is a possibility that he is
24 manipulating, but, on the other hand, I made the report
25 one year later, so a person can change in a year.
1 That's also a possibility.
2 Q. Thank you. This is a person, of course, who
3 is found to have been theatrical in nature in any
4 event, isn't he?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. And a theatrical person is both more likely
7 to and more able to mislead people such as yourself?
8 A. Yes, that's why it was such a pity that we
9 couldn't test him.
10 Q. On the same page in the English, a few
11 paragraphs down, three quarters of the way down the
12 page you say this:
13 "In parallel to these considerations, during
14 his examination the defendant started to show more true
15 remorse and feelings of guilt in respect of his victims
16 and their family members."
17 Do I take it that you are saying that this
18 first demonstration of remorse, of which you are aware,
19 happened in your very examination?
20 A. Yes. Yes.
21 Q. Because there is no evidence of it happening
22 earlier, is there?
23 A. Yes, that is correct.
24 Q. On reflection, and I will probably remember
25 to ask you this question again at the end, but on
1 reflection, this has to be possible, doesn't it; that
2 he was simply doing this because he knew he was the
3 subject of criticism for showing no remorse in earlier
5 A. That's a possibility.
6 Q. Thank you. At page 11 you make this point,
7 and it's in the first complete paragraph. I'll see if
8 I can find the French. Yes, I think it's at the foot
9 of page 14, if that assists, Your Honour.
10 You deal with his having narcissistic traits
11 based on a primarily negative self-image. You then go
12 on to say:
13 "He maintained surface object relationships,
14 was fundamentally uncertain and easily influenced.
15 Unconsciously he was searching for a father
16 identification figure. He tends too easily to identify
17 with people in a power position. For them he can offer
18 little resistance and is easily influenced."
19 Now, the characteristic of being easily
20 influenced by people in power is not something that
21 will be immediately apparent, is it?
22 A. When you see him, not. But he looks around
23 30 years old, but in his emotional life I think he is
24 about 17, 18 years old.
25 Q. Thank you. But the point is that these
1 aspects of the potential to be influenced are something
2 that you are either going to discover at a psychiatric
3 examination or you are going to have to discover by
4 some prolonged contact with the man?
5 A. From the psychiatric interview and his life
7 Q. Thank you. Then we can go to the next --
8 well, you do say in the same section, I needn't take
9 you to the passage, you say in the same section that he
10 has had suicidal ideas. This is entirely based on his
11 own account, isn't it?
12 A. It is, yes.
13 Q. We can go to the next section headed
14 Diagnostic Observations. You set out at the beginning
15 of Diagnostic Observations, page 13 and 17 in the
16 French, that he has admitted having killed 15 people
17 under duress. Various conclusions in your report
19 If, in fact, he was not acting under duress,
20 may I take it that many, most, or it may be all of your
21 conclusions fall and come to nothing?
22 A. Which conclusions do you mean?
23 Q. Well, conclusions about remorse, in
24 particular the conclusions about remorse we are going
25 to come to later on. But do those conclusions fall
1 away? Must we disregard them, if he was not, in fact,
2 acting under duress?
3 A. Yes. If it's not true, what he is telling
4 me, then he must have behaved during the crimes in a
5 different way than he is telling me.
6 Q. Yes. I am not criticising you at all,
7 because you had limited material to go on. I just want
8 to understand your report. So that from this moment on
9 you are working on the basis that what he tells you is
10 correct --
11 A. Yes. The only base I have is what he is
12 telling me.
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. And that's the limitation of the report.
15 Q. Of course. And you accept that on findings
16 of facts, it's the Judges who have to decide whether
17 and to what extent he was acting under any duress?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. At the foot of page 13, which will be either
20 the foot of 17 or over to 18 in the French, you make
21 some observations about wars. I pick it up at the foot
22 of 13 where you say that wartime conditions influence
23 personality; that no two wars are the same; that
24 parties to war, in your opinion, behave as if with
25 antisocial, psychopathic borderliners, hiding behind
1 and basing their actions on rational and national
3 Without being critical, doctor, it's fair to
4 say that this is outside your area of special
6 A. Yeah, in a certain way. What I wanted to
7 make clear was on page --
8 Q. I am going to go on to the next page, so if
9 you want me to read the next bit, I will as well.
10 Shall we go through that and then it will save your
11 voice if I ask the question again.
12 Over at page 14 you say that all parties were
13 active in splitting manipulation and paranoid
14 projection. You say psychiatric primitive defences are
15 characteristic for borderline personality disorder.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you then say this: In a climate of this
18 kind it is adaptive, understandable, and easy or easily
19 empathised with and, given the circumstances,
20 relatively healthy for an individual to develop such
21 personality characteristics with a view to survival.
22 I'll just complete it, then I'll give your voice its
23 free rein.
24 Some individuals are able to handle the
25 situation and do so within normal social standards.
1 Others, often the minority, fail. And if they have an
2 imperfect identity and are sensitive to identification
3 with, for example, an aggressive leader. You then say
4 there are notable psychopaths, who are already
5 psychopaths prior to the war and come into a
6 playground, as it were, to live out their sadistic
8 Now, if I tell you the questions I want to
9 ask, and then you can give a single answer. First,
10 your analysis of warring parties having leaders
11 manifesting antisocial, psychopathic borderline
12 characteristics, and projecting those onto others, is
13 outside your area of expertise and, unless I've missed
14 something or unless we've missed something, not
15 supported by research or learned material. And the
16 second question is: Are you really suggesting that a
17 majority or a substantial minority of people will
18 identify in this way, and that it would be relatively
19 healthy for people to do so?
20 A. What I wanted to make clear is this. In
21 Holland we have much expertise with the victims of
22 concentration camps, and there are some two or three
23 special clinics in Holland where, 'til now, still
24 victims are treated. And strange enough, you see that
25 quite often the survivors, the only survivors of those
1 concentration camps have a borderline personality
2 because the only way they could survive was by also
3 lying, with a little bit of cheating, and not be
5 So if you see somebody with a borderline
6 personality, after a war, it can mean two things. It
7 can mean he was already a borderline before the war and
8 already before the war emotionally disturbed, but it
9 can also be a kind of adaptive mechanism to survive the
11 Q. I understand, and am grateful for your
12 explanation. I understand that in relation to those
13 who are true victims. But Jelisic, who now denies even
14 being tortured in Croatia or Serbia, is in no sense a
15 true victim. He is a perpetrator. That's correct,
16 isn't it?
17 A. Yes. Yes.
18 Q. Therefore, whatever learning there may be in
19 Holland about the ability to survive of the victims
20 doesn't really bear on this issue at all, does it?
21 A. Well, there is no -- 'til now, there is no
22 psychiatrist who did research on war offenders, and
23 that that's the point, I have no reference material.
24 Q. Thank you. And then finally on your report,
25 and then I'll just turn to the other questions I have,
1 you make the point right at the end of the report that
2 German perpetrators of war crimes lived for years in
3 South America as diligent family men.
4 Again, there is no learning on this, this
5 question number one. And question number 2 is, even if
6 you are right, that war crime perpetrators lived as
7 diligent family men in South America, they had a real
8 interest in keeping their behaviour good and their
9 profile low, didn't they?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Right. Dealing with the only points that I
12 would need to make on the other three reports, and to
13 some degree I've covered them already, you are aware of
14 the fact that in the first report to Dr. Elsmann he
15 gave an account of being tortured in Croatia and
16 expressing in fairly, I think, straightforward terms
17 that he was put under pressure to kill on the basis
18 that he would be killed otherwise.
19 Do you remember that in the most general
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. That can be found, if the Court finds page
23 references helpful, at page 3 of that report. I don't
24 go into it in detail. The point I am going to make is
25 a short one.
1 In the report of Dr. Herfst in April at page
2 3 he gives a detailed account again of his escape and
3 of his being tortured. On this occasion he speaks of a
4 hand grenade around his neck, of being wounded with a
5 knife, and of having red hot cinders on his feet. So
6 that the account is enlarged.
7 On page 4 of the report he sets out how the
8 army commander called him Adolf and said he had to
9 kill, and gave him a list: That he had no choice, and
10 otherwise, if he didn't obey, he would be killed. He
11 was provided with alcohol and pills.
12 In the next report of Dr. Duits we see at
13 page 10 -- well, 9 and 10, we see the account of
14 torture continued, with an account at the top of the
15 page of cutting veins on the back of his feet and
16 putting hot coals on them. But at the foot of page 10
17 we see this: At the police station they threatened him
18 with the words, "This bullet is worth more than your
19 head, if you don't do what you are told. You must obey
20 and ask no questions." He was also threatened that his
21 sister would be raped if he didn't do the job
23 He then had to take a group of people to the
24 station and murder them.
25 We know, from your report, that he has
1 abandoned all suggestion that he was tortured and has
2 produced to you a new and different version of the
3 pressure that was put on him to make him kill. The
4 development and the changes of these accounts show, do
5 they not, that as a historian he is simply not to be
6 relied upon. You would accept that, wouldn't you?
7 A. He is a person who manipulates, that's
9 Q. And as between these different accounts over
10 time, it's impossible to choose between them, or to say
11 any one of them is preferable to the other?
12 A. Yes. That's correct.
13 Q. What it is possible to say is that the way he
14 develops his account, in knowledge of what has gone
15 before, shows that he is responding in a manipulative
16 way to what the psychiatrists have found out about him?
17 A. Yeah, but also it's a very childish way of
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. Because you can look immediately through it,
21 like you do now.
22 Q. Now, you haven't heard the evidence and, I
23 repeat, absolutely no criticism in that, but can I just
24 summarise for you a few things that have been given in
25 evidence and may or may not be accepted by the Trial
2 The evidence shows that he was enthusiastic
3 to kill; that he killed people on his own account,
4 without any reference to authority; that he swore at
5 victims; that he beat victims; that even after he was
6 stopped from killing by a superior officer, he
7 returned, expressing desires to kill. He even admits
8 returning to look at the prisoners after he had been
9 stopped from killing. He also brags of the numbers he
10 had killed, with such expressions as, "I've done seven
11 today so far and I'll do another eight." Or claiming
12 to have killed either 76 or 86 people, claiming up to
13 150 killings. And speaking of, "Well, that will be 68
14 balijas," which is a derogatory word for Muslims,
16 If he did those things without the evidence
17 of anybody standing behind him making him do and say
18 those things, then that completely contradicts the
19 account he gave to you of acting under duress.
20 A. That's correct, yes.
21 Q. The next thing is this: A preeminent
22 characteristic of the personality disorder that you and
23 all the experts found is manipulation and control;
24 would you accept that? A desire to control events
25 rather than to be --
1 A. No, not completely. In fact, we are saying
2 in all the reports the same thing. We give it another
3 name, the personality disorder, but personality
4 disorders are what we call clustered. So this
5 personality disorder, anti-personality disorder, and
6 borderline personality disorder belong to cluster B,
7 and cluster B, all those personality disorders in
8 cluster B, they have no overlap. So if you see a
9 person with traces of two of those personality
10 disorders, then that's why I choose the name of
11 personality disorder, not otherwise specified, which
12 are the traits of both of those personality disorders.
13 The crucial thing in the personality disorder
14 is instability, instability in feelings, instability in
15 self-judgement, instability in judging others,
16 impulsiveness, et cetera, and not so much the will to
18 Q. Very well. But there is within him, and it
19 may be that you and Dr. Duits will not necessarily
20 agree on this, but there is within him manifestation of
21 a desire to control as manifested by manipulation.
22 A. Well, he has some anti-social traits and he
23 wants to be in power, if you mean that by "control".
24 Q. It's also true, and this relates to the issue
25 of danger that you address in your report, it's true,
1 isn't it, that -- the following two propositions are
3 Proposition 1: The desire to control is
4 either "the" or "a" principle characteristic of the
5 true psychopath; proposition 2, which is separate from
6 that proposition but linked to it, proposition 2 is
7 that the learning shows that once someone has killed
8 once, his resistance to killing again is substantially
9 reduced, he finds it easier to kill having done it
11 A. The second is right, that's correct. The
12 first one is not completely correct. You have to add
13 that a psychopath doesn't feel sorry for what he's
15 Q. Indeed, because his sole interest is in
16 control. He starts off controlling people in one way
17 or another; he finds the measure of control
18 unsatisfying; he moves to greater control, typically
19 tying someone up or imprisoning them; his ultimate step
20 has to be to kill them.
21 A. It's almost, for a psychopath, a sexual
23 Q. Yes. So that in this case, it is in truth,
24 at best, impossible to say anything about how dangerous
25 this man is, but there are indicators in his
1 personality and in his history of killing that he will
2 remain a danger.
3 A. I answered that question already in my
4 report. I can't answer that question.
5 Q. Very well. I should have asked you this:
6 You know in his account -- perhaps you don't know, but
7 in his accounts he said he was incapable of looking at
8 his victims when he shot them. If there were clear
9 evidence, and there is from the photographs, that he
10 looks absolutely at his victim as he shoots him, that
11 again would tend to undermine what he says to you about
12 being under duress, wouldn't it?
13 A. That would be a form of manipulation, yes.
14 Q. Now, I come back, I think, to my last
15 proposition, and I'm grateful to you for having had the
16 voice to answer my questions so far.
17 If we set on one side his account of how he
18 came to kill, because it's so varied and he's shown to
19 be dishonest, if we acknowledge that his vulnerability
20 to authority figures wouldn't be manifest on him, not
21 something you wear like a badge, it's got to be
22 discovered, then the problem that may face the Chamber
23 is how he came to kill at all.
24 You're not suggesting in your report that
25 anyone or a large number of people would behave in this
1 way, that is, go out and kill people; you're not
2 suggesting that's a majority human trait?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Accordingly, it comes to this, doesn't it,
5 that the easiest way of finding out if somebody is
6 prepared to kill would be to ask them.
7 A. In fact, it's strange, what happened, if he's
8 telling the truth about his life history. Usually,
9 when you are a psychopath and when you start to kill
10 people, you have already aggression regulation problems
11 in your youth, and I could not find any of them. So
12 what you have to do, you have to interview his parents,
13 his schoolmaster, to find out if the things he's
14 telling me about his life history or his youth is the
16 Q. Yes. But given that you wouldn't know that
17 this man was likely to do what he eventually did, he's
18 the sort of personality, is this not right, who, were
19 he asked to do this sort of thing by authority
20 figures --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- recognising that he would be given power
23 and status if he responded to the request, he's the
24 sort of person who might fall to be a volunteer.
25 A. Yes. In my opinion, he has almost no
1 identity of his own. So that means that if a bad guy
2 passed by in power, he becomes a bad guy.
3 Q. There were a couple of other questions; I'll
4 just deal with them very briefly. If a person is in
5 remorse for what he or she has done, is he or she
6 likely to be compelled in the brain to relive what has
7 happened, to rerun that awful history?
8 A. That's a difficult question to answer,
9 because we are talking about facts that happened six,
10 seven years ago, and in every mind, if I look to myself
11 and I think about facts that happened six or seven
12 years ago, there are always distortions in the memory.
13 Q. I quite understand that, but if somebody he's
14 killed not by mistake but as a result of a crisis not
15 of his making, and he is genuinely in remorse of that,
16 is he likely to relive that experience?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So a person who turns the corner and faces
19 the reality of what he's done is likely to relive, to
20 whatever degree possible, the awful events that have
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, this man was always cautious, wasn't he,
24 with you and with the psychiatrists who examined him
25 before you, to limit the number of people he killed.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What was the number?
3 A. Fifteen.
4 Q. Were you aware -- I think you weren't
5 aware -- that in his interview he speaks of up to 20,
6 and, indeed, he speaks of 20 on occasions.
7 A. He was talking to me about 15.
8 Q. It would be difficult, wouldn't it, if you
9 were genuinely remorseful and being honest with the
10 psychiatrist not to have a reasonably accurate
11 knowledge of the number of people you'd killed.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. His very inaccuracy, changing between 15 and
14 20, may be another indicator that he simply isn't being
16 A. There's a possibility, yes.
17 Q. Thank you very much, indeed.
18 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you,
19 Mr. Nice.
20 Mr. Greaves.
21 Re-examined by Mr. Greaves:
22 Q. Dr. van den Bussche, can I ask you this,
23 please: You've told Their Honours that, yes, he is
24 capable of manipulation but --
25 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Excuse me,
1 Mr. Greaves. I haven't heard your question.
2 MR. GREAVES:
3 Q. You've told Their Honours that the defendant
4 is capable of trying to manipulate during the course of
5 the interview with you, but you also described it as a
6 childish means of manipulation. May we conclude from
7 this that you were able, at all times during your
8 dealings with the defendant, to see through those
9 attempts at manipulation.
10 A. Yes, because I've quite a lot of experience
11 in that field. I have even interviewed people where I
12 didn't feel safe at all in the same room, and I had the
13 feeling that I would be lucky if I could leave the
14 room. So this interview was, for me, quite relaxed,
15 and in my opinion, the worst psychopaths are the smart
16 ones and clever ones, and he was manipulating in a
17 childish way, immature way.
18 Q. May we conclude that the conclusions to which
19 you have come in your report and the evidence which
20 you've given today has taken due account of his ability
21 to manipulate.
22 A. Can you repeat your question?
23 Q. Yes. In coming to the conclusions that you
24 do in your report and the evidence about him which you
25 have given today, have you, as it were, come to those
1 conclusions after giving due account to the attempts at
2 manipulation that he has made with you?
3 A. The way he manipulates is easy to see and not
4 a smart way, in my opinion.
5 Q. If I can just take it a little further, when
6 you conclude something about it, you conclude it after
7 giving allowance for that manipulation; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Yes. At some stage in your report, you refer
10 to him or use the phrase "true remorse." Perhaps I can
11 just refresh your memory as to the page. I'm sorry.
12 I've lost it now.
13 MR. NICE: It's page 10, if that will help
15 MR. GREAVES: Thank you very much. I'm
16 sorry. I can't find my own note.
17 Q. On page 10 of the English version of your
18 report, Dr. van den Bussche, you refer to him as
19 having -- or an expression of "true remorse." Again,
20 was that something you were able to conclude about him,
21 having, as it were, factored in the degree of
22 manipulation that he was capable of?
23 A. No. Those feelings were real at the moment.
24 His emotional life is not really mature but those
25 feelings he was showing at that moment were not
1 feelings of manipulation, in my eyes.
2 Q. You've been asked about this by my learned
3 friend, in general terms, about people who have killed
4 before. It is undoubtedly right that this defendant
5 has killed. Did you see in him any particular aspect
6 which gave you cause for concern that this individual
7 would be likely to repeat the experience?
8 A. I can't conclude that. For that you would
9 have to do comprehensive psychological tests. Because
10 in an interview with me, he is not showing any feelings
11 of lust or he is not saying that he likes to kill.
12 Maybe he is manipulating in that, I don't know, but
13 then you have to find out by comprehensive tests or
14 psychological tests.
15 Q. So the remark in general about people who
16 have killed before cannot, one way or the other, be
17 imputed to this defendant without further tests.
18 A. Yes, everybody is different and it's not good
19 to generalise too much.
20 Q. Looking, please, at page 8 of the English
21 version of your report, Mr. van den Bussche. You were
22 asked a question about the defendant saying the torture
23 that he had experienced in Croatia and Serbia, that he
24 was now withdrawing that. Did he mention anything at
25 all about Serbia when he was talking to you?
1 A. No.
2 Q. And so the only reference he made was to
3 torture taking place in Croatia?
4 A. No. No.
5 Q. That was incorrect?
6 A. No. He said to me he had to skip the torture
7 in Croatia.
8 Q. Mr. van den Bussche, sir, I want to ask you
9 this, please. You had put to you a series of pieces of
10 evidence picked out by my learned friend from the
11 Prosecution's case. Can I ask you this, please. We've
12 heard evidence in this case of the defendant, firstly,
13 being friendly towards the Muslim community prior to
14 the war; of him giving assistance, at personal risk, to
15 Muslims during the war and during the relevant time
16 when he was killing people; and thirdly, of him giving
17 assistance, again at personal risk, after the war to
18 Muslims. Can you say anything about how that profile
19 fits with the picture of someone going off and
20 enthusiastically and joyfully killing Muslims at about
21 the same time?
22 A. Those two pictures don't match with each
23 other, in my opinion
24 MR. GREAVES: Thank you. Would you wait
25 there, please, and answer further questions.
1 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I'd like to
2 consult with my colleagues about what we are going to
3 do next.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We are going to
6 take a 20-minute break and ask you to remain available
7 to the Tribunal. And this may give you some time to
8 drink some hot tea in order to answer the Judge's
9 questions. The Court stands adjourned.
10 --- Recess taken at 11.17 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.48 a.m.
12 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We can now
13 resume the hearing. Please be seated. Have the
14 accused brought in.
15 [The accused entered court]
16 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I think we can
17 resume now. And we will move to the Judges questions
18 for Mr. van den Bussche. Judge Riad.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. van den Bussche. Good
21 morning, Mr. van den Bussche. We were very interested
22 in listening to you, and I am sorry not to be a
23 psychiatrist. I think this is the greatest mission, to
24 know the human -- to go deep into the human soul,
1 I just gathered two things, mainly, being a
2 layman, from your testimony, from the reports,
3 especially from -- to start with, from your testimony
4 you said that our accused, Jelisic, his emotional life
5 is -- could be 17 or 18 years.
6 Now, what could this imply? First, would
7 that mean that he hasn't got the full discernment of
8 his actions? Would that mean his discernment is
9 lacking? You don't need -- just tell me "yes" or "no,"
10 the way you did, if your voice is not good.
11 A. Okay. I will try to explain it.
12 JUDGE RIAD: I mean, he doesn't know the
13 dimension of his actions? Is that what you are
15 A. Not completely. A personality disorder is an
16 emotional development disorder. It's always an
17 emotional development disorder. And it doesn't mean
18 that a person doesn't have the capacity of his free
19 will. He still can have -- he still can have the
20 capacity of --
21 JUDGE RIAD: -- and discernment. So he knows
22 the dimension of his actions?
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE RIAD: Would that also imply that
25 although he knows the dimension, he lacks the control
1 of a mature person? He can't control himself?
2 A. In a certain way, yes. To a certain degree.
3 JUDGE RIAD: He would feel an unresistible
4 urge to do things?
5 A. Yes. Yes.
6 JUDGE RIAD: And as far as his relationship
7 with people, which you mentioned people have got over
8 higher authority. Would that mean that he would be
9 easily led by them?
10 A. Yes, very easily.
11 JUDGE RIAD: Very easily. Why, because his
12 emotional life is 17 or 18?
13 A. Not only his emotional life, but also his
14 identity is like somebody from 17, 18 years old. He
15 is, in fact, still an adolescent and not a mature
17 JUDGE RIAD: Perhaps the age you mentioned,
18 17 or 18, they have got a strong personality, they have
19 an opinion of their own, they even are sometimes
21 A. Yes. Yes.
22 JUDGE RIAD: I mean, I have difficulty
23 understanding that. At that age you are easily led.
24 Is it --
25 A. Yes, you are right. Yes.
1 JUDGE RIAD: They are easily led?
2 A. Yes.
3 JUDGE RIAD: But you have discernment --
4 A. More easily influenced by people in
6 JUDGE RIAD: But you know what you are doing,
7 discernment is full?
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE RIAD: You don't question that as a
11 A. No.
12 JUDGE RIAD: Full discernment?
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE RIAD: Now, in your diagnosis too you
15 mentioned the characteristics. One of them is the
16 dysthymic. What is the meaning of dysthymic?
17 A. It's a mild, mild form of depression.
18 JUDGE RIAD: I'll talk slowly. I got here --
19 yes, you would like -- dysthymic?
20 A. It's a very mild form of depression.
21 Slightly depressed.
22 JUDGE RIAD: Would that lead to the actions
23 that he is accused of?
24 A. No. It is related to the circumstances he is
25 in at this moment.
1 JUDGE RIAD: At the moment of the --
2 A. In the detention, that he had to go to his
4 JUDGE RIAD: That he is here, you mean?
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE RIAD: But not when he was killing?
7 A. No.
8 JUDGE RIAD: It does not affect the
9 killing --
10 A. No, no, at that time he wasn't -- he wasn't
11 dysthymic. I am talking in my report about the
12 situation at this moment.
13 JUDGE RIAD: At this moment. But in your
14 report when you say -- in your testimony, that he has
15 got a negative self-image, narcissistic antisocial
16 behaviour; this was not now, this was also before?
17 A. Personality disorder is also -- is already
19 JUDGE RIAD: It's continuous and a desire to
21 A. But dysthymic is at this moment only.
22 JUDGE RIAD: But others are part of his
24 A. Yes. Yes.
25 JUDGE RIAD: Now, this premise could also
1 make it more or less possible to commit such crimes, if
2 you have got this diagnosis, a person of this
4 A. Yes. Yes.
5 JUDGE RIAD: Is likely to commit such crimes?
6 A. Not likely. Some persons with this
7 personality disorder commit these crimes, but maybe not
8 more than with other personality disorders.
9 JUDGE RIAD: Not more?
10 A. No. Except when the antisocial component is
11 very high. But if you look to borderline personality
12 disorder, I think the percentage of total population is
13 a little bit less than one per cent.
14 JUDGE RIAD: The personality disorder?
15 A. Yes, from borderline personality disorder.
16 JUDGE RIAD: You are speaking of the Dutch
17 population or the world population?
18 A. The world population.
19 JUDGE RIAD: World population?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE RIAD: So this one per cent we can
22 expect them to do such things?
23 A. No, that's -- you can't say that.
24 JUDGE RIAD: We would be in real danger.
25 A. Yeah.
1 JUDGE RIAD: But still, suppose -- I mean, we
2 know that they are more likely, if I understood
3 rightly, that they would be -- they would commit
4 aggression and so on. But they still have the
5 discernment; they know what they are doing completely?
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE RIAD: That does not interfere with the
9 A. They know what they are doing.
10 JUDGE RIAD: They know what they are doing?
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, doctor.
13 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you,
14 Judge Riad.
15 Judge Rodrigues.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,
17 Mr. President.
18 Good morning, doctor. As you were answering
19 Mr. Nice's questions, I noted down my own. I did that
20 taking into account the assertions -- with the
21 realisation that assertions of that type always have to
22 be somewhat moderated. And I am trying to set up some
23 kind of a structure for an analysis. We have our own
24 ways of looking at reality, of course, and I've used my
1 If we take the relationship between authority
2 and obedience, as concerns Mr. Jelisic, how would you
3 say that those two extremes, the two extremes of that
4 relationship, how would they operate; that is, the
5 extremes of authority and obedience?
6 A. I think he will be obedient to people of a
7 higher authority and of an older age because he is
8 looking or searching for a kind of father
9 identification. So he will be, I think, less obedient
10 to people of his same age, and I think he shows more
11 resistance too.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So if we go
13 beyond discretion, which I think is a key question for
14 understanding Mr. Jelisic's personality, if we go
15 beyond issue of identification, one would be able to
16 say that if he had not completed his process of
17 identification, he would not feel equal in a
18 relationship that he might have. Could we conclude
20 A. Yes, you can conclude that.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Therefore,
22 he isn't capable of having an adult relationship
23 because he had not yet constructed a relationship of
25 A. Yes. He had, in fact, no good relations with
1 his father, and that is, in fact, one of his biggest
2 problems afterwards in his whole life, and he is still
3 looking for a father figure. When such a figure passes
4 by, he is easily influenced.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me,
6 but I've got to wait to hear the interpretation. We
7 are used to some breaks which can get in the way of our
9 If I look at a different relationship, the
10 relationship between utility and lies, is there a close
11 relationship between those parameters, or does one
12 thing have nothing to do with the other?
13 A. I didn't get the question completely. The
14 relation between lies and ...
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Utility,
16 from the point of view of moral judgement. Perhaps
17 you're familiar with Colbert's work, who raises that
18 question to some extent, the process of moral
19 reasoning, starting from a heteroautonomous
20 relationship to an autonomous relationship. I think
21 that one could make the relationship between lies and
22 utility, because we saw that Mr. Jelisic lied on
23 several occasions.
24 Could we say that lying has something to do
25 with some idea of utility or usefulness from the point
1 of view of moral judgement?
2 A. Mr. Jelisic has a lack or a not complete
3 conscience, and he is, in fact, also in the development
4 of his conscience, still a child who wants to avoid
5 punishment; therefore, he doesn't have a real inner
6 conscience, but if he sees that something is wrong and
7 he's going to be punished, he doesn't do it.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Another
9 question that I have. I think I'm following the order
10 that I picked up from your answers to Mr. Nice's
11 questions. I'm thinking about another relationship,
12 and that is the one of autonomy and dependence. I
13 believe that the fact that Mr. Jelisic had not really
14 structured or completed his own identity could create a
15 certain degree of dependency, specifically in relation
16 to some authority figures. How do you see this
17 relationship, that is, between autonomy and dependence,
18 as far as Mr. Jelisic goes?
19 A. Mr. Jelisic suffers from what we call
20 invaluation separation problems, and that means in
21 simple words that he can't be alone and he can't be
22 together with somebody, both. So in a certain way,
23 he's very dependent, and in the other way, he is very
24 afraid of dependence, and that makes him walk in life
25 as somebody walking on a string.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What you
2 have just said to me brings to my mind another
3 relationship. You spoke a great deal about
4 manipulation. We could say that this is part of
5 imagining things or representing things. Does
6 representation and compensation, as a psychological
7 defence mechanism, could that be related in this case,
8 that is, representation, manipulation, and control on
9 one side, and on the other side, compensation or
10 possibly projection of a lack?
11 A. There are several types of defence
12 mechanisms. You have the more primitive ones and the
13 more higher ones. Every person has defence mechanisms,
14 but in regard to Mr. Jelisic, you see especially the
15 very primitive defence mechanisms, like, for example,
16 denying or what we call splitting. Splitting means
17 that you look at somebody in black/white terms.
18 Somebody is completely good or completely bad and there
19 is nothing in between. So that's something that
20 Mr. Jelisic is doing quite often in the interview and
21 also when he's talking about his life history.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Another
23 question. We spoke a little bit about Mr. Jelisic's
24 position, not as a victim but as perpetrator, as a
25 criminal, if I could say it that way. In Mr. Jelisic's
1 personality, is there also a victim side, even when he
2 committed criminal acts?
3 A. That's a very interesting question, because
4 as a psychiatrist, we look at the borderline
5 personality disorder as a severe kind of disease, in
6 fact, and if you have a disease, then you are certainly
7 a victim. In my opinion, because of his emotional
8 disturbances, he is, in a way, the victim of those
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm almost
11 at the end of my questions but I still have a few
13 If we accept the fact that from a certain
14 time of behaviour, one could see at least three steps
15 in reaching it, that is, perception or knowledge, from
16 the point of view of trying to get some information or
17 to understand reality, that is, knowledge, and then the
18 emotion which some people call emotional areas -- you
19 spoke a great deal with emotional things -- and then
20 after the final stage, which is action, if we were to
21 put one next to the other, knowledge, emotions or
22 emotionalism, and then action or behaviour, where would
23 you see more problems? At what stage would you see
24 more problems or more illness, in the concrete case,
25 speaking about Mr. Jelisic's personality?
1 A. In his emotional -- in his emotions, but his
2 emotions will lead to behaviour. And a characteristic
3 of his behaviour is impulsiveness. He is a little
4 bit -- in Holland we have a saying, against the wall
5 makes strange jumps. And he is a little bit like
6 that. When he is put on the pressure, he can react
7 very impulsively because he can't cope in a mature way
8 with emotions, especially mixed emotions.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So if I've
10 understood you correctly, doctor, you didn't see any
11 disturbances that were in relation to taking in
12 information about reality, but more problems of
13 analysing or seeing that reality? You didn't see
14 illusions or delusions?
15 A. Yes. Yes. He has what we call psychotic
16 symptoms. His capacity of seeing the reality is almost
17 one hundred per cent.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] My last
19 question has to do with a question that Mr. Greaves
20 asked you. To kill Muslims or to help Muslims, you
21 said that that was somewhat contradictory, but I would
22 like to ask you the following question: If we have an
23 unstable personality; if we have an unstructured
24 emotional personality, one which is not organised; if
25 we have an individual who does not -- has not yet
1 reached maturity, from the point of view of his
2 personal identity; we end up with a person who is
3 completely dependent on circumstances.
4 And we have also seen that Mr. Jelisic's
5 behaviour was especially manipulative and
6 representative, if I can say that, if I can use
7 theatrical terminology, that he was putting on a
8 spectacle. Could we have a Mr. Jelisic in that type of
9 personality who could kill Muslims, but at the same
10 time could help Muslims under different circumstances,
11 in practical terms, because theoretically it seems to
12 me that there could be some contradictions.
13 But you yourself said that one cannot make
14 generalisations, but for the time being we are speaking
15 about the personality of Mr. Jelisic. Could that
17 A. That can happen, yeah. That's a
18 possibility. But it is a very difficult question to
19 answer because it goes a little bit in what we call
20 insanity defence, and therefore if you really want to
21 ask this question, well, you need, as a psychiatrist,
22 to have far more information. And you need more
23 information about the circumstances during the crimes
24 and, indeed, to have insight and witness accounts to
25 make that picture complete.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You are
2 more familiar than I am with schizophrenia or in the
3 emotional area where there is always a degree of
4 emotional ambivalence. I think that in this case, in
5 Mr. Jelisic's personality there is a confusion, an
6 emotional confusion?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps he
9 would be completely dependent on the circumstances in
10 order to do what I have always called process of
11 compensation. And as you said, in Mr. Jelisic's
12 personality there is still a childish side. You know
13 that frequently the child -- his behaviour is aimed at
14 calling attention to it. So in light of that, could
15 one still say that Mr. Jelisic behaves in a certain way
16 in order to call attention to himself, in a way of --
17 showing that he obeys or he is obeying his superiors by
18 killing people. But the same behaviour is used to call
19 attention to himself when he helps Muslims in order to
20 compensate for what he had done. That is another way
21 of calling attention to himself. What do you think
22 about that?
23 A. I think you see it correct. That's right.
24 The way you see it, he is looking for compensation in
25 his behaviour and -- but he doesn't -- but that process
1 is unconscious.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I agree
3 with you. I agree with you. Yes, he does that. But
4 not being fully conscious of it, but he does that. And
5 I think that this is a process that can be used in
6 order to understand the results, because we are now
7 dealing with results.
8 A. And specially he has problems with ambivalent
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You have
11 helped me understand a very difficult situation, to get
12 into a human mind, but you have been very helpful to
13 me, and I thank you.
14 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I believe that
15 Judge Riad would like to ask you another question. I
16 myself have a question.
17 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. van den Bussche, this is
18 really a continuation of a question which Judge
19 Rodrigues has asked you. When he asked you if the
20 accused would feel at the same time victimised, feel
21 the victim while committing his acts, and your answer
22 was -- generally you said that he is, after all, the
23 victim of the disturbances of his character. Of
24 course, this is -- of course he is the victim of
25 himself. But then you mentioned the example of the
1 cat, your Dutch proverb, I hope you will give it to us
2 in Dutch. It's called a cat jumps when cornered, jumps
3 when it is cornered. That was perhaps another answer.
4 Does that mean that he, while committing these -- the
5 crimes of which he is accused, he was, in fact,
6 defending himself?
7 A. I think when you put Mr. Jelisic under big
8 pressure, he --
9 JUDGE RIAD: When you put --
10 A. Big pressure, big tension, and he is anxious,
11 then he will react impulsively.
12 JUDGE RIAD: A big pressure. All right. Do
13 you think that this, in this circumstance --
14 A. In a stressful condition, when he is in a
15 stressful condition.
16 JUDGE RIAD: You speak of anybody or of
17 persons of this --
18 A. No, about Mr. Jelisic.
19 JUDGE RIAD: About him?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE RIAD: If he is under great pressure?
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE RIAD: Great pressure means that he is
25 A. For example, but it can also be verbal
1 aggression, not physical aggression.
2 JUDGE RIAD: So if one attacks him verbally?
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE RIAD: Or would it be in his mind? If
5 he feels that he is under great threat, he or his
6 community, would that be a way of defence? Is that
7 your answer to the question? Because the question was
8 quite far reaching, that he is committing things as a
9 way of defence. It's almost self-defence?
10 A. No. No. No. I am saying that he is a
11 victim of his emotional disturbance and because we, as
12 psychiatrists, see his personality disorder as a severe
13 kind of disease, in fact, development disease. And
14 most of those people have severe problems in normal
15 life. They have problems with relations. They have
16 problems with what we discussed before, the balance and
17 autonomy. They most of the time have many partners or
18 many jobs. They never finish a job, and they feel
19 themselves empty inside.
20 Some of them start to drink too much alcohol
21 or go into drugs, and all those symptoms has
22 Mr. Jelisic. And in only the last few years it looks
23 like he, for the first time, has a more -- a little bit
24 more mature relation with his wife, although his wife
25 is very young. But I think that's the first normal
1 relation 'til now he has.
2 JUDGE RIAD: But finally, all this -- to what
3 extent does all this impair his discernment and his
4 capacity to judge what he is doing, to know what he is
6 A. He knows what he is doing, but it influences
7 his behaviour and his way of thinking about people.
8 And also it leads to -- it influences his acting.
9 JUDGE RIAD: But he knows the consequences of
10 his acting?
11 A. He knows the consequences.
12 JUDGE RIAD: He is aware of it?
13 A. Yes. Yes.
14 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you, doctor. Thank you.
15 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I spared you --
16 I am going to spare you a long series of questions.
17 Otherwise, your voice is not going to hold out 'til the
18 end. My colleagues asked you some very good questions
19 that I myself would have liked to have asked. So mine
20 will be relatively short.
21 Obviously, if the questions are as detailed
22 and as long as they are, it's because the procedure is
23 set up in that way in this Tribunal. And it was the
24 Defence's choice, we could not hear the accused, but
25 that's how things are. And this is a choice of the
1 Defence, which is a choice that the Defence can make,
2 which explains why we have several questions to ask.
3 In a way mediators in order to get into the personality
4 of Mr. Jelisic.
5 I will be very brief. I have a question in
6 respect of Mr. Nice's relating to duress and remorse.
7 Do you agree with me, or perhaps you don't agree with
8 me, that one can have remorse, whether or not one has
9 acted under duress?
10 A. Yes, that is possible, yes.
11 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. You
12 said that you could not answer the question as to
13 whether he was still dangerous. And we could assume
14 from that, perhaps, could we, that it would be a rather
15 serious risk to society and him if he were to be
16 released or, to the contrary, are you saying that you
17 don't know; that perhaps everything might be all
18 right? What is your tendency? How do you think that
19 you would -- if you don't want to answer, you don't
20 have to, but it's like the bottle which is half full or
21 half empty. That is my question, whether he would
22 still be dangerous. Is there a degree of danger, if I
23 can say it that way?
24 A. Yeah, I really can't answer that question
25 because risk assessment is one of the most difficult
1 things for a psychiatrist to do. And the last few
2 years we are becoming better and better, but we have
3 still the tendency even to overpredict the risk.
4 That's what we see or what we found out by reports and
5 discussions with other colleagues. We psychiatrists
6 have the tendency to see more risks, in fact, and we at
7 the moment -- some colleagues are developing scales,
8 scales for risk prediction, and they do it for every
9 type of crime. But those scales, they are only correct
10 when what they call the base rate of a crime is very
11 high, and the rate of the recidivism has to be more
12 than 50 per cent. And if you know that from one type
13 of a crime, then you can say in a certain way something
14 about the risks.
15 But in this case, in Mr. Jelisic's case, the
16 crimes happened during wartime, and we as psychiatrists
17 have no other reference material. There is in the
18 literature, there is almost nothing to find because all
19 the literature of psychiatrists about war goes about
20 victims and especially the post-traumatic stress
21 disorder. And only in the American literature there
22 are some articles of ex-Vietnamese soldiers who are in
23 a certain way offender and also victim. But they were
24 the only two articles I could find.
25 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I understand
1 your caution, and in my own country opinion looks
2 without indulgence at many criminals who were released
3 from prison too quickly, and then after that committed
4 further crimes, despite the fact that they had the
5 blessing of psychiatrists and psychologists.
6 Therefore, you are right to be careful.
7 But this brings me to another question.
8 After two hours of speaking with the witness, how can
9 you say it so firmly, so assuredly that the accused, at
10 the time that you were writing your report, had real
11 authentic remorse, real feelings? Is this part of
12 psychiatric science to be able to judge not only
13 remorse but the intensity of that remorse? I was
14 struck by that.
15 A. First of all, Mr. Jelisic has a superficial
16 emotional -- has superficial emotions, his emotions are
17 not mature. So what I saw was a slight form of
18 remorse, but not really profound, deep remorse like
19 mature people would have. His feelings were honest,
20 but it was a childish kind of remorse, in fact.
21 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I'm not, of
22 course, going to change what you wrote, but you are
23 nuancing the somewhat preemptory statement. In a way,
24 one might say that given the interview was not very
25 long, given the fact that this is a somewhat childish
1 personality of the accused, it seemed to me that at
2 that time his tears could be sincere and might reveal a
3 degree of remorse.
4 Of course, this is a legal way of saying it,
5 but could you agree with that?
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Of course we're
8 not going to rewrite your report; don't worry.
9 I would like to ask you two further
10 questions. I am not familiar with the psychiatric
11 definition of perversity. I only know the definition
12 which is used in ordinary conversation and in the legal
13 profession. In the psychiatric sense, when you hear
14 that word, would you say that Mr. Jelisic's personality
15 is perverse? Correct me if I am wrong.
16 A. I would say his personality is anyway
17 anti-social, in part. Let me say it in this way:
18 Eskimos have 20 words for the word snow; we know only
19 one word for snow. So for a psychiatrist, there are 20
20 types of bad, and in the outer range is perverse and
21 there are other degrees. If you have to find out how
22 bad Mr. Jelisic is, in what kind of degree is he
23 perverse or is he bad because of more circumstances,
24 then you have to do far more research, and especially
25 psychological research, and I'd have to study the
1 witness accounts carefully.
2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I understand.
3 But having said that, I will note that you can't answer
4 questions having to do with the degree of danger, but
5 you said that he is partly anti-social.
6 A. He is partly anti-social, yes.
7 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] My last
8 question, really, my last one, is the following: You
9 have observed many criminals who might be somewhat like
10 Mr. Jelisic, even though they acted under a different
11 conscience. I'm talking about serial killers, and we
12 have examples of that in many countries, including the
13 one I come from.
14 In those examples which come from the legal
15 annals of the Netherlands, could you say that the type
16 of personality like Goran Jelisic, could you say that
17 that type of personality could also be evaluated by
18 judges or psychiatrists as being partially
20 A. Yes, but it is always -- if you talk about
21 responsibility, it's always the relation between the
22 personality disorder and the crime. In the Dutch law
23 system, we only say that somebody is less responsible
24 when the crime is directly coming out of the disorder.
25 There must be a direct relation between the crime and
1 the disorder, and if you can't find that relation, then
2 even somebody with a severe personality disorder is
3 still responsible.
4 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. You
5 haven't really slaked my colleague's thirsts. Judge
6 Riad has another question and then Judge Rodrigues, but
7 we are looking at the clock because we have some other
8 witnesses who are waiting.
9 All right. Judge Rodrigues.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Doctor, you
11 say that we have one word only for snow, whereas
12 Eskimos have at least 20 words for snow. Perhaps we
13 would have only one word for personality, but you are
14 here because you have at least 50 words for
16 This is my question, and I don't want to
17 deduce things so I will go directly to the question.
18 Would you say that the experience of
19 Mr. Jelisic, that is, the murders, what he did in the
20 camps during the war, might he have learned something
21 in the sense of having modified or changed or organised
22 things from his emotional structure? Was he able to
23 grow a little bit in his ideas relating to identity?
24 A. I think he is able to grow a little bit, and
25 in fact, you can see that already, in my opinion. The
1 fact that he has to be here in this trial is a very
2 good way for growth in a positive way for him. What I
3 saw in the detention unit, also there, from what I
4 heard, he behaves like a model prisoner, in a social
5 way. So he has possibilities for growth, but he has to
6 be in good circumstances, with positive identification
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So now I
9 could tell you what the point of my question was.
10 Excuse me, Mr. President, but I saw the other
11 half of the bottle. Thank you.
12 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Judge Riad, a
13 final question. We want to begin with the next
15 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.
16 [In English] I just wanted to reach a synthesis of a
17 very interesting, in my opinion, very crucial answer
18 you gave to the President when you said that this
19 personality disorder can be taken into consideration if
20 the crime committed is related to the disorder.
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE RIAD: Now, apply this to this case to
23 which you are appointed. Do you think the crimes are
24 related to the disorder?
25 A. I think so.
1 JUDGE RIAD: Which means that such crimes can
2 be committed again as far as this disorder can
3 determine it.
4 A. If the circumstances are the same.
5 JUDGE RIAD: If they are the same.
6 A. If the circumstances are the same.
7 JUDGE RIAD: Yes.
8 A. I mean, if there would be war conditions
10 JUDGE RIAD: Yes.
11 A. But if there is no war, then it's very risky
12 for me to say this. I can't say yes; I can't say no.
13 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Doctor.
14 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Let me turn to
15 my colleagues once again to be sure that they don't
16 have any further questions. I would like to thank
18 We are finished now. Your voice is still
19 there. You could have been asked many more questions,
20 you know, but all the more reason because we had never
21 heard the accused express himself.
22 We're going to work until 1.00, and we'll ask
23 the usher to accompany the witness out of the
24 courtroom. We thank you very much for having come to
1 Mr. Greaves.
2 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, I'd like to have
3 the same opportunity as the Prosecution had, but
4 perhaps Your Honour thinks I shouldn't have that, of
5 having my witness sit next to me.
6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Greaves,
7 without expressing it quite the way you did, I can say
8 that I have never really refused anything you -- you've
9 had your interpreter with you, and I don't think that
10 there's a problem. Ordinarily, I think the Judges
11 conduct themselves politely, unless we are talking
12 about judicial discussions. I would like things to
13 continue to be carried out that way.
14 Mr. Greaves, I see no problem with that. I
15 am sure that in the silence that Dr. van den Bussche is
16 going to maintain, we can hope that his voice will
18 We could bring the next witness into the
19 courtroom and have Dr. van den Bussche to sit the way
20 the Prosecution's witness has been sitting. Thank you
21 very much.
22 MR. NICE: Can I, in the circumstances, call
23 Dr. Duits, please, to give evidence.
24 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, of
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Good
3 afternoon. First you're going to give us your names
4 and your position, your date and place of birth, your
5 current domicile, and then we're going to ask you to
6 take an oath, and after that, you may be seated.
7 THE WITNESS: My name is Nils Duits. I am a
8 psychiatrist and superspecialist in child and
9 adolescent psychiatry.
10 What more did you ask? You speak -- I
11 understand French, but I didn't hear you.
12 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I just wanted
13 to ask you your age, where you live.
14 THE WITNESS: Okay. I was born in 1955, and
15 I reside in Amsterdam.
16 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Would you take
17 an oath, please.
18 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
19 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
21 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. You
22 may be seated now, Doctor.
23 I will ask Mr. Nice to continue for about 20
24 minutes. Mr. Nice, stop at logical point.
25 MR. NICE: Thank you. I'll do just that.
1 WITNESS: NILS DUITS
2 Examined by Mr. Nice:
3 Q. Dr. Duits, you've told us that you are a
4 psychiatrist. Without focusing on the paper
5 qualifications, because they are less important than
6 the experience, can you tell us your length of service
7 as a psychiatrist, the degree to which you're a
8 forensic psychiatrist, specialisation, and
10 A. I am a psychiatrist from 1994. I am a child
11 and adolescent [Realtime transcript read in
12 error "adult"] psychiatrist from 1995. My forensic
13 psychiatric experience is longer than that. Already
14 from 1988, I was working in the forensic psychiatric
15 services. I work in the same service as Mr. van den
16 Bussche as a coordinator of psychiatric reports and
17 supervision of people who do those psychiatric
18 reports. I think I have made some 200 psychiatric
19 reports. I do contract expertise for the Ministry of
20 Justice. I did and do consultations for the Prison and
21 Youth Protection Board.
22 In Holland, I am a leading forensic chart and
23 adolescent [Realtime transcript read in error "adult"]
24 forensic psychiatrist, and I'm the editor and wrote a
25 book about youth psychiatry and law.
1 Q. Thank you. Did you examine --
2 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, I'm just slightly
3 troubled. The transcript keeps on coming up "child and
4 adult psychologist" I had understood him to
5 say "adolescent" on each occasion. Please may the
6 appropriate correction be made in respect of that.
7 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] You're right,
8 Mr. Greaves. I had heard "adolescent" in French. It's
9 adolescent, is it not?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. NICE:
13 Q. Doctor, you examined Goran Jelisic last year
14 in November with a colleague, preparing the report for
15 this Court, and you may take it that the Chamber has
16 read that report and has it available.
17 I have a number of questions to ask you, not
18 too many, but I am going to try and connect the topics
19 that I was going to ask you in any event with the
20 questions recently in mind because the learned Judges
21 have asked them of the previous witness, and it may
22 help us if we focus on those same areas straightaway.
23 You were --
24 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Nice,
25 the Judges would be sensitive to your establishing the
1 relationship with the questions that my colleagues
2 asked as well.
3 MR. NICE: Thank you.
4 Q. You were asked questions by His Honour Judge
5 Riad about the potential of those with personality
6 disorders to commit precisely this type of crime, and
7 you were asked a similar question, but I think
8 expressed in a different way, by His Honour Judge
9 Rodrigues, and you were asked questions about what
10 would happen in the Dutch legal system to those
11 convicted killers who were found to have personality
13 Question 1: What percentage, if you can help
14 us, of convicted killers who are examined
15 psychiatrically are found to have psychiatric
16 personality disorders?
17 A. I think you have to divide killers or
18 homicide into different categories. First of all, you
19 have the homicide in the family atmosphere, which
20 unfortunately in all countries happens a lot. Those
21 people, a certain part of them do not have personality
22 disorders but have psychotic problems, although often
23 relating to slight or more personality disorders.
24 People who do not kill or commit homicide in
25 family relationships, most of the time, and you asked
1 me a percentage, I think it's in 90 to 100 per cent
2 have personality disorders.
3 Q. So inverting that conclusion, family
4 situations apart, without personality disorders, the
5 number of killings would be dramatically reduced or
6 eliminated? Without personality disorders, if you
7 postulate a society free of personality disorders, and
8 if you exclude the family circumstance, why, without
9 personality disorders you eliminate or drastically
10 reduce the number of victims and the number of crimes?
11 A. Well, that's a theoretical question, but I
12 think it's impossible to answer. But if there are no
13 personality disorders -- it's always related to
14 circumstances also. But virtually speaking, you have
15 less crime.
16 And let me specify the question you asked
17 beforehand. In family life, or in homicide of family
18 circumstances, has to do with other psychiatric
19 disorders, often psychotic problems. But I must say,
20 like from the basis stated, that personality disorder
21 is in all a different degree possible.
22 So if I state 90 to 100 per cent of people
23 who do not kill -- or do kill, not in family
24 circumstances, you have all the spectrum.
25 Q. Dr. van den Bussche, at page 18 in the
1 English version of his report, but we all remember it,
2 postulates how the leaders of the warring parties will
3 themselves have and project psychopathic borderline
4 conditions, antisocial, psychopathic borderliners.
5 Now, we have explored with him whether there
6 is any learning in relation to that, but do you have
7 any view to express about the possibilities of
8 personality disorders being found within the leaders of
9 atrocities committed either in this war or indeed the
10 leaders of atrocities committed in other more famous
11 and graver wars?
12 A. It's always difficult to say, in the sense
13 that they are not psychiatrically examined. But if you
14 draw that on journalistic reports, and I also examined
15 Internet on this, of course, you can say that big
16 leaders often have personality disorders, in the sense
17 that more in the narcissistic and anti-social range of
18 the personality disorders.
19 Q. You were then asked about his age of maturity
20 at 17 or 18. I beg your pardon. You weren't asked,
21 Dr. van den Bussche was asked. And he answered in
22 terms of the defendant seeking a father figure. I want
23 you to comment on those propositions, but to save time,
24 will you also deal with whether on the evidence he has
25 shown any signs of maturing or developing from the 17
1 or 18 year old, or whatever your answer on that is,
2 between the time of the killings and today?
3 A. The first question about maturity at 17 or
4 18. I think Mr. van den Bussche related a certain
5 aspect of the origin of the personality disorder
6 Mr. Jelisic has, seeking a father figure. There is
7 more to that, I think. It's also in his objective
8 relations, like we call it in psychiatric terms, in his
9 early objective relations, and in his attachment
10 problems, there are disorders which reflect themselves
11 in how he relates to other people.
12 Simply said, that like what van der Bussche
13 said also, the reflection finds itself in the splitting
14 phenomenon he explained, like the idealisation,
15 devolution of the people who are before him. And if
16 you go back to his youth, the little we know, because I
17 have to state also, that if you want to make a good
18 psychiatric report, you need the material about his
19 growing up. Not only from his mouth, but also from his
20 close relationships, and a full documentation about, of
21 course, what he has done and how he was beforehand.
22 But what he said about his youth, you can see that the
23 object relation thing I just mentioned is disturbed.
24 The second question, and not only seeking a
25 father figure. That is one aspect of it. The second
1 question, if he has matured, I cannot answer, in the
2 sense that at least not 'til now. Of course I have
3 read Mr. van den Bussche's report, but I didn't examine
4 him. I can only speak concerning my diagnostic
5 examination, which is mostly a present state
6 examination. And maybe you have to specify your
7 question about mature.
8 Q. First of all, are you accepting that the
9 mental age or the developmental age was or is 17 or
10 18. If it was 17 or 18, to what degree has he advanced
12 A. Yes. I think that's in a certain way
13 arbitrarily chosen by Mr. van den Bussche in his
14 authority or speaking about his identification
15 problems. Other manifestations of his personality
16 disorder have to do with more childish behaviour, in
17 the sense that how he sees the other person before
19 Q. His Honour Judge Rodrigues asked questions
20 about utilities and lies. You may remember the
21 questions. Do you have any comments that you want to
22 make on that?
23 A. Well, yes. I would like to comment, to have
24 one comment. What we saw, Mr. van der Veen and I, for
25 our interview with Mr. Jelisic, is that it was
1 difficult to ask him questions about certain topics we
2 were interested in. In that way, as we described, as
3 you can read in the examination interview, he was very
4 much leading the topics we could discuss.
5 About lies. That's, in a certain way,
6 difficult to -- talking about lies, you have to -- you
7 must control them with other people's statements, and
8 you have to control them. And we did not have,
9 actually, the possibility to control them.
10 Q. Because you didn't have the material
11 available --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- on which to act?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And, of course, that is partly from the
16 evidence of the interviews, which you have now read,
17 substantially that's going to depend on the factual
18 findings that the Trial Chamber makes?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. On matters that have been given in evidence
21 and that are the subject of dispute?
22 A. Yes. But I was surprised to read that he
23 wasn't tortured in Croatia. Because that's what he
24 told us.
25 Q. Staying with that topic, that is the way in
1 which he controlled the interview, and dealing with the
2 heading of manipulation generally. To what degree did
3 you find him or do you find him to be manipulative?
4 And to ask you two questions at once, to save time, His
5 Honour Judge Rodrigues asked questions about the
6 potential for Jelisic, theatrically or for other
7 reasons, to help Muslims at the same time as also
8 killing other Muslims. One other possibility that the
9 Chamber will be invited to consider is that at the time
10 of or shortly after killings, he would be creating
11 alibi witnesses or witnesses who would be favourable to
12 him, knowing what was inevitably going to happen to him
13 if he was arrested.
14 So dealing with manipulation, will you
15 comment on his potential, given what we know about him,
16 to manipulate people in that way.
17 A. I find it hard to comment on that, because we
18 did a psychiatric examination. We felt manipulated, in
19 the sense I described beforehand, like we wrote down.
20 If he is able to do that kind of manipulation or
21 steering with other people, it is not excluded of
22 course, because he did it with us also. But that's all
23 I can say about that, I think. Because I don't know
24 the circumstances.
25 Q. Thank you. The Presiding Judge's question to
1 you about remorse and duress -- I beg your pardon, his
2 question to the last witness drew an answer that of
3 course you could act under duress and still express
4 remorse. And I don't think you disagree with that
6 A. No.
7 Q. But if the account of duress is itself
8 inaccurate, or dishonest, does one have to enlarge or
9 change the caution with which you approach the man's
10 account of remorse?
11 A. I think it has to do with honesty and, of
12 course, it has to do with remorse. Remorse has to do
13 with, first of all, to understand other people's
14 feelings and behaviour and thinking, to take another
15 regard in perspective. In our interview -- no, let's
16 go further than that. Remorse has also to do with --
17 let's say mental pain, to make and the urge to make
18 that disappear, to make that better, or to undergo
19 punishment for it.
20 In our interview we did not see remorse in
21 those aspects. Especially, we did not see, let's say,
22 the basis for Mr. Jelisic's placing himself in other
23 people's shoes, like to say it simply. But our
24 interview was one year ago.
25 Q. If I may return to a few questions about
1 remorse a little later, but it may be that that would
2 be a convenient moment.
3 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes. That's
4 what I think as well. We'll resume at 2.45 today.
5 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.02 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.53 p.m.
2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We can resume
3 our work now. Have the accused brought into the
4 courtroom, please.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I apologise for
7 this delay.
8 We can now resume, Mr. Nice.
9 MR. NICE: Thank you.
10 Q. Doctor, you were dealing with remorse, and
11 you told us a little about the significance of an
12 ability or inability to identify and feel for others.
13 I'm going to ask you to come back and just remind us of
14 the significance of that, but do you recall that in one
15 of the earlier reports of Dr. Herfst, at page 8 in the
16 English version of that, the last page, the doctor said
17 that what is remarkable is that when the subject
18 explained he had to shoot Muslims, he showed little
19 emotion and there was no deep feeling of regret or
21 Can you just expand a little on the
22 significance, not very much but just a little on the
23 significance of this inability to locate yourself in
24 somebody else's shoes?
25 A. Well, I think that before I begin, I'd have
1 to say that we talked with Mr. Jelisic about his youth
2 and adolescence, and there are a lot of failures,
3 failures at school, yes, also fraud with cheques, and a
4 lot of failures like that, and all the time he is
5 blaming that on others. As an aspect of his
6 personality disorder, he is externalising the guilt.
7 Another aspect of his relation to others is
8 that those relations are, in fact, empty. The close
9 relationships, the lasting relationships, also with his
10 parents, are devolutive in -- they only have devolutive
11 aspects. Also, the other relationships he describes he
12 uses other people for his needs, very simply spoken.
13 To have remorse or guilt, it means that
14 you -- well, he has an egocentric stance. To have
15 remorse or guilt, therefore, you need to see other
16 people's feelings, emotions, and thoughts. In the
17 interview we had with him, in the interviews I read
18 about him, I cannot see that, and that's needed number
19 one for feelings of guilt or remorse. If you don't
20 have them, it's very difficult.
21 Q. Apart from the one passage in the latest
22 report, where it is said that the man cried, although
23 it said that he cried when thinking of witnesses coming
24 to speak for him, there's no other evidence you've seen
25 going to show remorse of any kind.
1 A. No.
2 Q. Picking up on something that you touched on
3 there and reverting back to a question from His Honour
4 Judge Riad about him responding by committing these
5 crimes to pressures and tensions of attack -- that's
6 relating to the crimes in the war -- do you find some
7 significance in the commission of these frauds before
8 the war when there was no attack and there was no
9 pressure to commit offences of that or any kind?
10 A. That's right. I think one must be aware of
11 the fact that it's not -- that there are no simple --
12 that his personality disorder is not a simple fact in
13 the sense that it's only pressure that counts. Of
14 course, that counts, and stress is a factor for
15 personality disorder aspects to come out. But what you
16 can see is that he makes his own rules, generally
17 speaking, and also that he does that in grandeur, as I
18 might simply say it. In fact, in the psychiatric
19 examination, the grandeur, the narcissistic aspects of
20 his personality disorder were clearly seen.
21 Q. For his earlier criminal behaviour, he has at
22 different times given a very wide range of reasons,
23 starting with being dealt with badly by his parents,
24 even by his grandparents, his friends leading him
25 astray, his first wife's father coming and dragging his
1 first wife away, drugs and alcohol, reason after reason
2 has been advanced, and they can be catalogued for the
3 Trial Chamber in due course. As against that, the
4 layman might say, "Well, he did these things simply
5 because he wanted to." What are we to make of the fact
6 that he gives all these different accounts for criminal
8 A. That's what I said before. That's an aspect
9 of his reality, externalising guilt, externalising
10 responsibility for his own acts.
11 Q. Do you, as a psychiatrist -- do psychiatrists
12 accept that people can commit crimes simply because
13 they want to?
14 A. Well, there you come -- yes, they exist, of
16 Q. Thank you. Moving away now from the learned
17 Judges' questions because I think I've touched the ones
18 that I wanted you to deal with, a few more points,
19 please. Control, as an element of personality disorder
20 and also as an element of the psychopath, first of all,
21 in manipulation, do you find evidence of control?
22 A. Of course.
23 Q. Is it right that control is an element in the
24 development of a psychopath, the desire to control?
25 A. Yes, of course.
1 Q. Thank you. We asked questions of the last
2 witness about the significance of a killer being more
3 vulnerable or likely to kill again. Can you deal with
4 that proposition and also with anything you want to say
5 about either his being a danger if released ever and/or
6 about the difficulties of assessing his danger?
7 A. I totally agree about what van den Bussche
8 said about risk assessments and about the frequency of
9 the deed. To be sure about risk assessments, the
10 actuarial instruments we have for that are lacking for
11 these kinds of needs, so what rests is clinical
12 experience and clinical risk opinions.
13 We know, as Dr. van den Bussche said also,
14 from clinical experience, and we treat a lot of people
15 also in prison in Holland who have killed, that once
16 you have killed somebody, it's very easy to do -- or
17 it's more easy to do your next killing, also to commit
18 suicide. That's one.
19 The second is that Mr. Jelisic, as I said
20 before, besides all the aspects of the personality
21 disorder he has, like van den Bussche told us, about
22 identification, about splitting, about idealisation and
23 devaluation is a very egocentric and narcissistic
24 person. Those traits do exist also in this personality
1 His objective relations are, as I said
2 before, centred in his need and are relatively empty.
3 In the psychiatric interview, we talked four hours with
4 him, with two people, in a non-confrontational manner.
5 Despite that, upon the slightest confrontation, the
6 subject's anger was close to the surface. It's not
7 possible for me, like van den Bussche said also, to
8 foresee the future in this case regarding danger. It's
9 an impossible -- you can't possibly answer that
10 question, but what you can say is what I said before.
11 So if you killed somebody, it's easier to kill next
12 time. The objective relations are empty and anger is
13 under the surface.
14 Q. Two supplementary questions to those, each
15 short. The fact that someone cannot feel for another
16 person, does that disinhibit him? Does that make it
17 easier for him to commit a crime that has consequences
18 in injury and death for another person, because he has
19 no notion of how to feel for another person?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Has there been any material shown to you to
22 suggest that this man has started to feel for other
24 A. No, not in our diagnostic exams. No.
25 Q. The second point, the anger. Mr. van den
1 Bussche says that there was no anger there. We know
2 that you recorded your finding of anger in your report
3 and that he had read your report. Is it within the
4 capabilities of a man like this to suppress his natural
5 behaviour in the interests of manipulating a
7 A. First of all, I have to say that in all
8 forensic psychiatric diagnostic assessments,
9 manipulation is always at hand. Of course, people who
10 are against a psychiatrist, a forensic psychiatrist,
11 want to be better than they are, and do manipulate.
12 Second, and related to his personality
13 problems, there are, of course, fluctuations in his
14 mood, behaviour and stance to another person before
15 him. That changes. So it might well be possible that
16 in our exam he was more paranoid, more ill at ease than
17 with van den Bussche. But it's possible, because he
18 read our diagnostic examination, that he has drawn his
19 conclusions. I cannot say.
20 Q. The significance of having more than one
21 psychiatrist or psychologist in one interview, a quick
22 comment on you from that, and then I am going to ask
23 you a quick question about your report, and then I am
24 going to finish. So two people present at an
1 A. It's our normal procedure in big cases to be
2 with two people. The manipulation risk, when you are
3 alone, is too big. If one takes the questions, the
4 other can lean back and look to the interaction and can
5 concentrate more on things like projection, and
6 idealisation, et cetera. Simply said, can look to the
7 interaction if the colleague is let in or not.
8 And that's what I have to say about that.
9 Q. Thank you. Take your report in the English
10 version, please. Page 5. I don't have the French
11 version immediately at hand. It's the heading
12 "description of himself." Thank you very much. It's
13 page 5 in the top right-hand corner. The French
14 version has the numbers in the top right-hand corner,
15 the English in the bottom, I think.
16 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Excuse me. I
17 have been changing offices and I don't always find
18 things. Excuse me. Page 5 is then what page in
20 MR. NICE: It's also 5 in French.
21 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Okay. Thank
23 MR. NICE: "Description of himself."
24 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, I see it.
25 Thank you very much, Mr. Nice.
1 MR. NICE:
2 Q. We have here this passage of the subject
3 saying he was good and had never been bad, could prove
4 himself, and repeatedly comments on his high moral
6 Now, this is obviously an extraordinary thing
7 for a man who is a multiple killer on any reckoning to
8 say. Can you just explain, if there is any explanation
9 for that, the significance of that? What does that
10 extraordinary passage fit in with?
11 A. It's a mix of reasons, I think. It has to do
12 with, first of all, that he doesn't see his own -- he
13 doesn't see well the reality, simply said.
14 Second, that he wants to convince the
15 examiners about his own ideal perception of himself.
16 And at the same time, and that's a very common
17 happening in the interaction with borderline
18 personality disorder, you get projection identification
19 thing. That means that -- it's difficult to explain.
20 That you -- what you feel, what you want to feel, you
21 project, you see it in the other, and you feel it like
22 you see it in the other.
23 So wishes, manipulation and distorted reality
24 are reasons for these things he says about himself.
25 Q. Thank you. Page 8 in both the English and
1 the French version. Under "Relationships with Others."
2 He made it clear in a couple of occasions, I think, in
3 your interview, that he had been a great success with
4 women and he had tried out women or test driven women,
5 and that he had two or three women at the same time.
6 Is that significant or is that just a
7 reflection of immaturity?
8 A. No. It's again -- there are several reasons
9 again for these statements. In fact, it reflects on
10 how he uses other people, how he doesn't count on their
11 needs, thoughts. But also it has to do with grandeur.
12 He boasts as a macho, as somebody who has power, and
13 again distorts reality.
14 Q. Page 10 in both the English and French at the
15 foot. You are aware, are you, that this version that
16 he gave you of specific threats to kill is something
17 that he's never adopted elsewhere and indeed in his
18 interview, which you've now seen, he makes it clear
19 that he was never threatened. So that this is, on --
20 if his interviews to the investigators is his present
21 case, then this is a lie, and a significant lie,
22 because it's quite specific. And the significance of
23 that for you?
24 A. Well, I am impressed by that in the sense
25 that, like I said, his answer on your questions you
1 asked beforehand about his distortion of reality and
2 also lying to the examiners. To me also.
3 Q. So when we turn over the page, in both the
4 English and the French versions, at the end of the
5 first paragraph he says that he killed people with his
6 head turned away. At the end of the second paragraph
7 he says that he made a confession to a Muslim lawyer
8 about everything he had done and seen.
9 As to the first point, you've now seen the
10 photograph sequence and you realise that that simply
11 isn't true.
12 As to the second, you accept that that's
13 something that doesn't appear, I think, anywhere else
14 in the account that he's given. Thank you.
15 Would you turn over right now to page 16, and
16 I think the translators have very helpfully kept the --
17 pretty well the same pagination, and indeed it is on
18 page 16 in the French version. A few lines down from
19 the top and in the main -- the first full paragraph in
20 the English version.
21 I'm sorry, there was no answer to the
22 previous question. Did you accept the points I was
23 putting to you on the previous question, please,
25 A. I said "yes" to that.
1 Q. Thank you. Right. Page 16 of your report.
2 You had access to the report of Mrs. Petrovic, who, of
3 course, had been seeing him for extended periods of
4 time, and she stated that he couldn't control his
5 aggressive impulses. This was the reason for his
6 behaviour in the war; that he is a primitive who could
7 not defer his needs. He couldn't face his own
8 behaviour, and he couldn't, he claimed, read the
9 statements in connection with the matters charged.
10 Now, first of all, does your assessment fit
11 with or is it contrary to the assessment of the woman
12 who had been treating him?
13 A. Well, the statement that the subject cannot
14 control his aggressive impulses, I already commented
15 upon. I said that his anger was close to the surface
16 upon little confrontation. In our assessment, and I
17 must say that we do not confront very much, to keep the
18 interview going. In such short notice to do a
19 psychiatric examination, needed not a confrontation --
20 normally you confront people with dishonesty or to see
21 what happens if -- with anger and impulse control. But
22 this wasn't possible in this case, so we couldn't do
23 it, due to the short notice.
24 So in our exam we did not see that he
25 couldn't control his aggressive impulses.
1 Q. Does your conclusion --
2 JUDGE RIAD: Excuse me. I want to
3 understand. He could or he couldn't control?
4 A. We, in our examination, in the four hour
5 examination, he could control --
6 JUDGE RIAD: He could control?
7 A. He could. But his aggression was under the
8 surface. That's what I said.
9 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you.
10 MR. NICE:
11 Q. Her conclusions or her opinions, rather,
12 related not just to the process of being examined by a
13 psychiatrist, but amount to a conclusion about his
14 behaviour generally, because she attaches the reasoning
15 to his behaviour in the war. What I want to know from
16 you is this, please: Do the conclusions you were able
17 to draw from the psychiatric and the controlled
18 psychiatric examination you conducted, do your
19 conclusions necessarily conflict with hers or may they
20 be consistent with hers?
21 A. They are consistent.
22 Q. So that there remains the possibility that he
23 is an aggressive person who cannot defer to his needs,
24 and that it was his aggression that led to his
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you. Thank you very much. You will be
3 asked some further questions, I forecast.
4 Cross-examined by Mr. Greaves:
5 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Now, the Defence is going to ask some questions.
7 Mr. Greaves, please.
8 MR. GREAVES:
9 Q. Dr. Duits, can we just look a little more
10 closely at what precisely your sphere of expertise is.
11 Can you explain to us what the phrase "superspecialist"
12 means exactly?
13 A. To be a child adolescent psychiatrist, you
14 have to further specialise than a normal psychiatrist.
15 You have a normal -- in Holland it's like this. You
16 become a psychiatrist. You do, in your psychiatrist
17 education, child and adolescent psychiatry. You go on
18 with that. And afterwards you are a child and
19 adolescent psychiatrist.
20 Q. So it's, as it were, a further specialisation
21 within a specialty, as it were?
22 A. Yeah, that's right.
23 Q. Thank you. And help me about this. In
24 dealing with children and adolescents, can you just
25 help us about what the age of criminal responsibility
1 is in the Netherlands?
2 A. Twelve.
3 Q. Twelve. And when you use the word
4 "adolescent," is that a, as it were, a specific phrase
5 that is appropriate for the Dutch legal criminal
6 system? Does it have a specific meaning?
7 A. For the Dutch legal system, no. People can
8 be judged according to juvenile law 'til the age of 21.
9 Q. And so that's, effectively, the age range for
10 which you are dealing for the purposes of the criminal
11 courts, 12 to 21?
12 A. No. No. No. I am also doing psychiatric
13 exams on adults.
14 Q. What proportion of your work is children and
15 adolescents, and what proportion adults?
16 A. I think it's about 80 to 20.
17 Q. And when you are dealing with children and
18 adolescents, is this right that you are dealing with
19 the whole range of criminal activity, not just violence
20 and homicide and things like that?
21 A. All the psychiatric examinations we do have
22 to do with aggressive acts, and not only homicides, no.
23 Q. I was going to say aggressive acts covers a
24 wide range of activities; does it not?
25 A. Of course. It means armed robbery, sexual
1 assault and homicide also.
2 Q. Of those people with whom you've dealt, how
3 many of them have been serial killers, Dr. Duits?
4 A. Contrary to United States and France, we
5 hardly have serial killers in Holland.
6 Q. Next I would like to turn, please, to the
7 examination in which you conducted in November of 1998
8 of the defendant. It's right, isn't it, that there was
9 one specific purpose to your examination of the
11 A. I don't understand your question.
12 Q. You were being directed to one particular
13 issue, were you not, which was whether or not the
14 defendant was fit to plead, fit to stand his trial?
15 A. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. And help us about this. One understands in
17 the English system what that means, but can you explain
18 to their honours what you understand by the issue of
19 fitness to plead, to stand trial?
20 A. To understand the psychiatric status of the
21 person in question, where he comes from and how he is,
22 and if he is emotionally and rationally able to
23 understand and to undergo a trial.
24 Q. At that time, November 1998, you were not
25 being asked to determine whether or not this defendant
1 represented a risk in the future, were you?
2 A. No.
3 Q. You were not specifically, although it may
4 have been part of some of the assessments that you
5 made, you were not specifically being asked to
6 determine the degree of personality disorder present in
7 the defendant?
8 A. No, but that's -- I was not asked, but we
9 felt it our duty to do so.
10 Q. It's right, isn't it, that you and indeed, I
11 think, Dr. van der Veen, have not seen or examined the
12 defendant since that time?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. Do you accept that it is possible for an
15 individual to change, develop in the period of a year?
16 A. A person in general, or Mr. Jelisic?
17 Q. Let's deal with it in two parts. People of
18 this kind, in general.
19 A. This kind? What do you mean by "this kind"?
20 Q. Persons with personality disorders.
21 A. Very, very -- like van den Bussche also said,
22 there's a range, a spectrum of personality disorders in
23 severity and different types of personality disorders.
24 It doesn't fall out of the air. People have that from
25 childhood on, and, like van den Bussche said also, it's
1 an assessment, a diagnostic assessment which not many
2 people have. The possibility of change is very
4 Q. But not having seen the defendant since 1998,
5 a year ago, you could not say, could you, whether in
6 fact or not he had changed or developed in any way,
7 could you?
8 A. In fact, we said it beforehand, if you read
9 our examination. There are fluctuations in mood and
10 behaviour which are related to the disorder itself.
11 Q. That wasn't the question that I asked,
12 Doctor. You have not seen him since November 1998.
13 You are, therefore, not in any position at all to say
14 whether or not he has changed or developed, are you?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. The only person who is allowed to give
17 evidence before this Court who could give such an
18 assessment is, therefore, your colleague, Dr. van den
19 Bussche; is that right?
20 A. But he didn't see him a year ago.
21 Q. But he's the one who's seen him most
22 recently, hasn't he?
23 A. Yes, but you have to make a comparison with
24 your own eyes, I think, not only with the document
1 Q. Well, he's got your report. Are you saying
2 that your report is not of value to a fellow
3 psychiatrist in coming to such a conclusion?
4 A. No, I don't say that.
5 Q. So he could read your report -- and of course
6 you say that you've got it right about the defendant --
7 he could read your report and determine whether or not
8 there had been any development or change in the
10 A. Even discuss it with me.
11 Q. He discussed it you with, didn't he? So he's
12 in a position to come to an objective conclusion, is he
13 not, as to whether or not there has been development.
14 A. That is his professional judgement.
15 Q. I want just to ask you a little bit about how
16 you came to make your report, and I'm referring to page
17 4 in the English version. I'm afraid I don't have the
18 French version so I can't help Your Honours as to where
19 it is.
20 You state there, top of page 4, that your
21 examination took some four hours on the 23rd of
22 November and that you had the aid of an interpreter.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And that you, following the examination of
25 the defendant, spoke with the interpreter and asked
1 about her impressions. Did she give you those
3 A. We asked how -- yes, because we asked a very
4 specific question about -- like we said in the
5 examination, if it's normal to have different women at
6 the same time in Yugoslavia.
7 Q. Did you establish whether she was from the
8 same area as the defendant or the same community as the
10 A. No.
11 Q. Wouldn't that have been a good idea, to find
12 out a little bit about the cultural background of the
13 person who you were seeking expert evidence on the
14 treatment of women in Yugoslavia? Wouldn't that have
15 been a good idea, Dr. Duits?
16 A. I don't know for this specific question. I
17 couldn't say. I can't say now either.
18 Q. Come, there are, would you accept, cultural
19 differences right the way across the world in the way
20 that individual nationalities treat other people,
21 particularly women, in some countries that the
22 attitudes towards women is more developed than in
23 others, isn't it, Doctor?
24 A. That's right. I know how in the Muslim
25 culture one thinks about having more women.
1 Q. But you didn't think it important when
2 questioning the interpreter about that to establish
3 which culture she represented.
4 A. No, we didn't ask, I believe. I'm not sure
6 Q. Did the impressions which she gave to you,
7 did those have any influence on the conclusions to
8 which you came, Dr. Duits?
9 A. On the question we asked, we mentioned in the
10 report that apparently it's not normal to have
11 different women at the same time.
12 Q. I'd like to ask you now about the role which
13 Dr. Petrovic plays in the conclusions to which you
14 came. You were able fully to consult with
15 Dr. Petrovic, were you?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. We can see in your report a series of
18 quotations which come from Dr. Petrovic.
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. Were any restrictions placed upon you by the
21 Registry as to whether you could not or could quote in
22 your report the professional diagnosis of Dr. Petrovic?
23 A. There were no restrictions.
24 Q. Did Dr. Petrovic express to you any
25 reservations about you disclosing in your report in a
1 direct quotation manner her diagnosis and treatment of
2 the defendant?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did Dr. Petrovic ever say to you that because
5 of her professional relationship and professional
6 ethics you could not quote her directly and set out her
7 diagnosis and treatment?
8 A. She never said. We said beforehand that
9 we -- we interviewed her because of the examination and
11 Q. If the Defence were told that they were not
12 allowed to quote Dr. Petrovic directly as to her
13 diagnosis and treatment, that would be a different
14 regime applicable to the Defence compared with you;
15 would you accept that?
16 A. I don't understand your question.
17 Q. Well, you've told us that you were placed
18 under no such restriction. If the Defence were placed
19 under such a restriction, that would be a different
20 regime, wouldn't it, being applied to the Defence?
21 A. I still don't understand your question.
22 Q. It's quite simple, Doctor.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You were given no restrictions of any kind as
25 to what you could quote from the diagnosis of
1 Dr. Petrovic. If the position is that the Defence team
2 and the doctor instructed on behalf of the Defence were
3 placed under restrictions as to what they could quote,
4 or whether they could quote at all, that would be quite
5 different, wouldn't it, a quite different regime than
6 applied to the Defence? Would you accept that?
7 A. If that were so, then it's a different
9 Q. Yes. You rely heavily upon the observations
10 of Dr. Petrovic, don't you?
11 A. No. I think -- no. What I want to say here
12 is that, like van den Bussche said, the quality of a
13 psychiatric examination is based on a multi-informant,
14 multi-material examination of somebody. So you have to
15 know -- if you are asked the question if somebody is
16 fit to stand trial, how he behaves in detention, that's
17 why we asked also the doctor and somebody from the
18 guards how he is in detention, that's why we talked to
19 Ms. Petrovic also.
20 Q. Just help us about this, sir, si that we're
21 absolutely clear: In 1998, you were instructed to deal
22 with this matter on behalf of the Registry. Are you
23 now still working for the Registry or are you working
24 for the Office of the Prosecutor?
25 A. I was asked by the Prosecutor to come here as
1 his witness, to be his witness.
2 Q. Can I turn now, please, to the conclusion of
3 your 1998 report, your report of a year ago. You
4 concluded, and this is at page 25 of the English
5 edition, Dr. Duits: "The subject is rationally capable
6 of understanding the nature of the charges against him,
7 including genocide, and capable of participating in the
8 present case with full knowledge of what is being
10 Would this be right: that you had no
11 reservations at all about his ability to understand the
12 proceedings, to give instructions to his lawyers, and
13 to physically and mentally undergo the process of
14 standing trial?
15 A. Well, we make a difference between the
16 rational part and the emotional part, as you can read.
17 Q. I read out the first bit to you. I'd like
18 you to deal with that.
19 A. The rational part, yes, that's what we
21 Q. The reason I asked you that is because I wish
22 you to -- do you have the report of your colleague,
23 Dr. Herfst, dated the 16th of April, 1998?
24 A. Not in the English version.
25 Q. Not in the English version. It doesn't
1 matter. Have a look, please, at the conclusions to
2 which that doctor came.
3 That doctor said at paragraph B of the
4 conclusions: "Based on the foregoing, the undersigned
5 is of the opinion that further to disorders affecting
6 his judgement and critical faculties, the subject is
7 only partially, i.e., to a limited extent, capable of
8 understanding the consequences of his statements or
9 realising the nature of the charges made against him
10 and, as our participant in the present case, is only
11 partially aware of what is being discussed."
12 You plainly don't agree with that
14 A. No. In fact, we artificially divided the
15 rational and emotional aspects, and it's a simple
16 answer to a difficult question, of course. If you look
17 to the psychiatric examination, of course you can see,
18 like I already answered beforehand in other questions,
19 that distortion of reality and about his objective
20 relationships, about his emotional problems, it's an
21 artificial division. So I don't disagree with what
22 Herfst says in April 1998, although we examined him in
23 November 1998.
24 Q. Would you accept that what Dr. Herfst is
25 saying is that his ability to follow the proceedings
1 and stand trial is strictly limited, whereas your
2 opinion was that he was fully able, in the rational
3 sense, to understand what was going on?
4 A. In the rational sense, that's what we said,
6 Q. Dr. Herfst doesn't make the distinction which
7 you've described as an artificial one between the
8 rational and the emotional?
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. Are you saying that Dr. Herfst has got it
12 A. No, I already answered your question. I do
13 not disagree with him.
14 Q. The defendant, when you saw him, elected to
15 tape-record your examination of him. This is right,
16 isn't it: You weren't very happy about that, were you?
17 A. No, I disagree with that statement. We
18 observed it.
19 Q. You didn't like the defendant, did you?
20 A. I disagree with that.
21 Q. You were irritated about him and the way in
22 which he was answering your questions; isn't that
24 A. It's much too simple to say something like
25 that. You must know that in psychiatric examination,
1 of course you use your feelings about somebody to
2 confirm your diagnostic hypotheses, and like we said
3 also in the psychiatric examination, he was at the same
4 time charming also sometimes.
5 Q. Forgive me, Dr. Duits. What you said in your
6 report at page 20 was "The very forceful and egocentric
7 attitude of the subject, his manipulative method of
8 exchange, and his changeable emotional state made the
9 examination difficult and sometimes caused irritation."
10 That's a pretty simple statement that you
11 were irritated by him?
12 A. Of course, but that's normal and an honest
13 way of how feelings of the examiner can lead to --
14 irritation has to do with somebody who is, like I said
15 before, is manipulating, and it's very important to
16 recognise that feeling.
17 Q. And, in particular, you also didn't like the
18 inappropriate, as you perceived them, inappropriate
19 remarks about women, did you?
20 A. They were, indeed, inappropriate.
21 Q. See, what I suggest is that you formed quite
22 a considerable dislike for this man and that dislike
23 somewhat overrode your objective view of him, didn't
25 A. No.
1 Q. As far as the material which you had before
2 seeing him and upon which you were able to base your
3 report, none of that material contained either
4 interviews with the Office of the Prosecutor or witness
5 statements upon which the Prosecution were proposing to
6 rely, did it?
7 A. No.
8 Q. And, therefore, your report was effectively
9 prepared in ignorance of the detailed allegations
10 against him.
11 A. Yes, and I totally agree with van den Bussche
12 that you must have all those things to do a better
13 quality examination.
14 Q. Indeed, one upon which you can come to any
15 really solid and reliable conclusions at the end of the
16 day; would that be right?
17 A. Yes and no. I mean, the fitness to stand
18 trial is a present state examination, and I think
19 between the context of what we had, this is a
20 qualitative, good psychiatric examination for that
22 Q. As far as the issue of the defendant being
23 untruthful is concerned, of course that applies equally
24 to your conclusions as it does to those of Mr. van den
25 Bussche, doesn't it? If he lies to you, your
1 conclusions may be based on uncertain foundations; is
2 that right?
3 A. Can you -- do you ask me something about my
4 own diagnostic examination or what I said beforehand?
5 Q. This is the position, isn't it? If the
6 patient you are examining lies to you, there is a
7 danger that that may undermine the basis upon which you
8 make your report, if you have been misled. Would you
9 accept that?
10 A. Being misled and lied to, of course, yes.
11 Q. That applies equally to you as it does to
12 Dr. van den Bussche, doesn't it?
13 A. Yes. I mean, lies which you cannot control
14 don't seem to be lies, of course.
15 Q. Of course, if you are lied to, or if you are
16 manipulated, any psychiatrist would be alert to that
17 possibility, wouldn't he, or she?
18 A. Yeah, but it's not only -- manipulation
19 doesn't consist only of lying. It has also to do with
20 leading the interview; don't want to discuss certain
21 issues. Yeah, let's keep it there.
22 Q. Well, I put it to you in this way: If you
23 are lied to or if you are manipulated. So I wasn't
24 suggesting to you that manipulation consists only of
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. But the point is this: That, as you've said,
3 the good psychiatrist is alert to that and the good
4 psychiatrist makes allowance for it in coming to his or
5 her conclusions; isn't that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And factor it in, and if you are good at your
8 job, you spot the manipulations, you spot the lies and
9 make due allowance for them, don't you?
10 A. That's -- I don't think we can spot every
12 Q. Of course not. I am not suggesting that you
13 should. But what do you say about the proposition I
14 have put to you, that --
15 A. If we spot lies?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And van den Bussche says, "I was able to see
19 through him." So are you saying that he was incapable
20 of making proper allowance for the lies and
22 A. That's difficult. I think, like Dr. van den
23 Bussche said, we had limitations with our psychiatric
24 reports. We didn't have all the material. We did have
25 to do it on a very short notice. Of course, lies and
1 things we don't know, we cannot put properly in our
2 reports. Nor Mr. van den Bussche, nor van der Veen and
4 Q. Yes. Let's turn now, please, if we may,
5 Dr. Duits, to the issue of risk prediction. Would you
6 accept the proposition that Mr. van den Bussche put
7 before us, which is that there is a tendency when
8 making risk assessment to play safe, if you understand
9 what I mean by that. In other words, to put the risk
10 at perhaps a higher level than perhaps is appropriate,
11 just in order to be on the safe side. Is that a fair
13 A. Of course.
14 Q. And that may be common sense, that one
15 doesn't want to underplay the risk in case you make a
16 terrible mistake. It's better to overemphasise than to
17 underemphasise; is that right?
18 A. Yes. And I want to add something on that,
19 because the risk assessments which take place for
20 serious offenders -- I mean, the quality of psychiatric
21 examination, the quality of a risk assessment are more
22 important for serious crimes. And the risk assessments
23 which take place, especially in Holland, but also
24 elsewhere, have to do with, like Jelisic now, with an
25 artificial situation, in the sense that you cannot
1 foresee how somebody is in a psychiatric hospital and
2 afterwards in freedom, because they are not
4 Q. And, of course, it's difficult to recreate
5 the conditions in which, for example, this defendant in
6 time of war committed these offences?
7 A. Still another difficult aspect, yes.
8 Q. Would you agree with this proposition,
9 Dr. Duits, that in the absence of a proper extensive
10 assessment, it would be wrong to come to any conclusion
11 ultimately as to the issue of risk?
12 A. That's what I said also, and that's what
13 Dr. van den Bussche said. I only made it -- I only
14 made statements about the personality of Mr. Jelisic
15 and the aspects of his objective relations, his
16 aggression under the surface, and his killing
18 Q. Would you agree with this proposition,
19 Dr. Duits, that the circumstances of a fairly bloody
20 and fairly savage civil war or conflict of the kind
21 that took place in Bosnia, are very different and have
22 very different restraints from those which operate in a
23 normal, peaceful society?
24 A. Of course.
25 Q. Yes. And there may well be a significant
1 difference between the risk of further offending if a
2 similar war takes place and the risks of further
3 offending if society has become either normal or at
4 least more normal again? Would you agree with that?
5 A. Of course there is a difference.
6 Q. I just want to turn now to a related topic.
7 It's the matter that you raised about percentages of
8 those who are at risk with having personality
9 disorders, at risk of committing further offences. And
10 you quoted a figure of 90 to 100 per cent.
11 A. No. Because you are not stating what I
12 stated. I said it the other way around. It was about
13 people who kill, people who commit homicide, and I
14 stated about those people, not in the family
15 atmosphere, a percentage of 90 to 100.
16 Q. They are at risk, you say, of doing that
17 again --
18 A. No, that's not what I said. It was not about
19 risk assessment.
20 Q. Yes. About those people who are not -- and
21 you use the words "family atmosphere." By that do you
22 mean domestic killings?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Those who are not amongst that group --
25 A. Have in, 90 to 100 per cent --
1 Q. A risk of further offending?
2 A. Well, if you say -- if you make the leap that
3 a personality disorder who killed can kill again, then,
4 yes. But what I stated was that 90 'til 100 per cent
5 of the people who kill, not in a domestic atmosphere,
6 have personality disorders.
7 Q. You make observations about what you
8 described as Dr. van den Bussche's arbitrary choice of
9 age development. What, precisely, do you mean by
11 A. Well, I think as a child and adolescent
12 psychiatrist I am able to speak about child age and
13 cognitive moral and emotional development and what goes
14 with what age. That's exactly my specialty.
15 Q. Of course. But --
16 A. But the point is that, like van den Bussche
17 said, that age, he related that to identification
18 problems, identity. And personality disorder is more
19 than identity alone.
20 Q. But you say that it's arbitrary. Are you
21 saying he's got the age completely wrong?
22 A. No. I think it's -- you cannot arbitrarily
23 say that he's 17 or 18 years old. I think for some
24 aspects of his functioning or defence mechanism he has,
25 he is younger. For some he is older.
1 Q. You were asked about this, and it's been
2 suggested that the defendant, even back in May 1992,
3 was already at the business of creating alibis,
4 creating defences for himself. Do you seriously think
5 that this defendant is sophisticated and intelligent
6 enough to commit a murder in the morning and then
7 immediately set about creating alibis and defences for
9 A. I don't know the circumstances, as you must
10 know, but I do know how he behaves in the interviews
11 and in our exam, and what goes with the personality
12 disorder he has. From there on I made some
13 statements. I cannot go into your question because I
14 don't know the circumstances.
15 Q. Let's assume for a moment that -- well,
16 sorry. Just give me a moment and I'll rephrase that.
17 Does he have the degree of intelligence and
18 sophistication, you having examined him, to plot, from
19 the moment of a killing, how best to make things up and
20 lie about them so that he can avoid responsibility for
21 them? Does he have that level of sophistication?
22 A. Immediately after a murder? Immediately
23 after a killing?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. If I could say -- I cannot answer that. You
1 must know the circumstances to answer that. What I can
2 say is that he is manipulative in the interview and in
3 the other interviews as well.
4 Q. As to the issue of remorse, of course again
5 the snapshot that you are able to give us relates to a
6 period 12 months ago. You couldn't dispute that there
7 may have been some development in the past 12 months in
8 that regard, could you?
9 A. What I can say about that is that Dr. van den
10 Bussche -- in fact, we have the same diagnostic
11 assessment. We've come to the same diagnostic
12 conclusion. We describe the same defence mechanisms of
13 the personality disorder, like psychiatrists and
14 psychologists before. And the statements are made
15 about that, about the necessity for remorse is to have
16 objective relations, is to be able to place yourself in
17 the shoes of somebody else, emotionally, cognitively,
18 rationally, et cetera. And I don't see that with
19 Mr. Jelisic.
20 Q. You didn't see it in November 1998, but you
21 cannot say, can you, that it did not exist in 1999?
22 A. I didn't read it in van den Bussche's report
24 Q. It's for the learned judges to decide of what
25 to make of Dr. van den Bussche's evidence today about
1 whether or not there was genuine remorse.
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 MR. GREAVES: Yes. I have no further
5 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice.
6 Re-examined by Mr. Nice:
7 Q. You've been asked about van den Bussche's
8 seeing through the defendant. You will recall that van
9 den Bussche also said, in relation to the passage in
10 his interview where he spoke of the defendant crying
11 and apparently showing some remorse for the first time
12 ever. He also said it was possible that that was a
13 change of personality or it was possible that he was
14 being deceived.
15 In relation to that, what do you think is the
16 value of a two-hour interview by a solitary
17 psychiatrist on his own to assess personality change?
18 A. I don't think van den Bussche claims that he
19 saw a personality change. He made a statement about
20 remorse, which actually he didn't specify, in the sense
21 of how that relates to how Mr. Jelisic relates to other
22 people and his emptiness of feelings.
23 Further, he stated that he had real tears,
24 which he didn't specify either, in the sense that --
25 and what I read in the report of Dr. Van den Bussche is
1 that it was related to the fact that Mr. Jelisic was
2 relieved that the witnesses -- so many witnesses came
3 for him to The Hague. And if tears are related to
4 that, it, for me, it has not much to do with remorse.
5 But it can be about other subjects as well, but in the
6 report it was related to that fact.
7 Q. Two other questions only, I think, that I
8 have for you, possibly three. They can be dealt with
9 quite shortly, I hope.
10 Given the conclusions of all psychiatrists
11 and psychologists, that this man has a personality
12 disorder, question number one of a two-part question is
13 do the pattern of lies and dishonesty that we've heard
14 about confirm or fit in with the diagnosis of the
15 personality disorder?
16 And the second point that I would like you to
17 deal with is this: You have now, I think, seen the
18 interviews of the defendant, although you haven't been
19 told anything about the detail of the evidence. Is
20 there anything in the interviews that touches on
21 dishonesty? Is there anything in the interviews that
22 goes against your initial conclusions or that confirms
24 So dishonesty and the interviews, please.
25 A. Dishonesty goes with the antisocial aspect of
1 the personality disorder or the psychopathic aspect.
2 In fact, an antisocial disorder is a classification of
3 DSM IV, which is a euphemistic description of how one
4 relates to other people. In this psychodynamic sense
5 of the word which the interviews took place, the
6 objective relationships, you must state that there are
7 psychopathic traits. So dishonesty goes with that.
8 The second question --
9 Q. Interviews.
10 A. You mean the interviews of the examiner about
11 the facts?
12 Q. With the investigators, yes, about the
14 A. Well, I wrote different explanations about --
15 which he gives in the interviews, in the psychiatric
16 interviews. And that is at least not the same
17 reality. So that must be dishonesty, I think.
18 Q. Did you find anything in the interviews that
19 confirmed your views or that ran counter to your views?
20 A. Well, what I only looked -- I especially
21 looked to what was related to our diagnostic
22 examination, and that was the egocentric extent and his
23 youth past in the former Yugoslavia. And what he does
24 even more than in the diagnostic exam is that he feels
25 no responsibility or guilt or whatsoever. Not about
1 his -- I don't want to go into his statements about
2 what he did in the war, but pre-war all his failures
3 and deeds he did over there, or his fraud also, he
4 relates that to other persons or other reasons and
5 doesn't take responsibility for his deeds.
6 Q. My last question on remorse. Is there any
7 evidence anywhere that this man has seen, in image or
8 in description, the suffering of the people that he's
9 killed, or indeed their loved ones and bereaved?
10 A. I cannot comment on that. I think, as far as
11 I can see, and I didn't examine the interviews on that
12 point, but what he says in our diagnostic examination,
13 and what I wrote about his examinations or the
14 interviews, was that he cannot place himself in
15 other -- in the shoes of somebody else. That's what I
16 have to say about that.
17 MR. NICE: That concludes my questions.
18 Thank you.
19 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you,
20 Mr. Nice. We're going to try to finish now, with the
21 agreement of my colleagues, so that we can release the
23 Let me turn to my colleagues immediately.
24 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Thank you,
25 Mr. President.
1 [In English] You just mentioned, in answer to
2 the Defence counsel, that the qualitative psychiatric
3 examination which was made was good, in answer to his
4 question that apparently you did not have a full
5 knowledge of the facts of the case. So still this
6 examination would be qualitatively sufficient, if you
7 do not know the facts of the case?
8 A. It depends on the questioning we had to
9 answer. The quality of a psychiatric examination has
10 to do, first of all, with the questions you have to
11 answer. Given the context, given the limited context
12 we had, first of all, the fact that we had to do it in
13 several days only, that we couldn't work it out like we
14 do normally, come back again to the one we have to see
15 and confront a person with dishonesty or other
16 statements, or from people we interviewed also, given
17 the limited context, I think we made a good report,
18 especially for answering the questions.
19 JUDGE RIAD: Good. Now, Dr. van den Bussche,
20 when I asked him, and you were present, about the
21 relationship between the acts and between the
22 personality disorder, he said that, in fact, the acts
23 committed would have been more or less motivated by his
24 personality disorder, were related to his personality
25 disorder. Would you go as far as to say that he could
1 not help committing these acts, his personality
2 disorder put him under such a compulsion that these
3 acts were bound to happen?
4 A. It's a balance between circumstances and
5 personality disorder. I think in a certain way they
6 were bound to happen. I think the aspect which we did
7 not talk about today, until now, maybe not enough, is
8 his aspects of grandeur, his narcissistic aspects. He
9 states in his examination, "Give a person a pistol and
10 a Motorola and he thinks he is God." I think that that
11 is a statement that he really felt grandeur, I think,
12 and that aspect made it -- it's not only pressure and a
13 cat against the wall, but also the grandeur, the
14 narcissistic aspect. Another aspect of narcissistic
15 problems is the rage which goes unread.
16 So it's bound to happen, in a certain way,
17 yes, in those circumstances.
18 JUDGE RIAD: Speaking of the rage, I note
19 that you mentioned his rage was close to the surface
20 and his aggression was under the surface. What is the
21 meaning of these terms, "close to the surface," "under
22 the surface"?
23 A. What we do in a psychiatric examination is --
24 in our training, we call that transference and
25 countertransference. You use your feelings which the
1 patient gives you as an instrument. We are trained for
2 that. That was my answer also to Mr. Greaves.
3 What you see -- what we saw and what we
4 discussed as a team is that under slight confrontation
5 or deviating the interview to topics we would like to
6 discuss or to shortcut Mr. Jelisic's monologue, he
7 became irritated. We kept it very polite, but there we
8 felt, both of us, the anger, so we didn't want to
9 confront him further. That's what I meant with "anger
10 under the surface." And the narcissistic rage, that's
11 a whole other item.
12 JUDGE RIAD: I beg your pardon?
13 A. Narcissistic rage, that's a whole other
15 JUDGE RIAD: Which is also very quick to
17 A. No, in certain circumstances only, with
18 extreme confrontation and in cat-against-the-wall
19 situations, let's say, like that, if you're frustrated
20 in your grandeur.
21 JUDGE RIAD: Not necessarily that you have to
22 defend yourself; you are just proving your grandeur.
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you,
1 Judge Riad.
2 Judge Rodrigues.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good
4 afternoon, Doctor. I have many questions, but I'll
5 only ask some of them.
6 You divided killers, murderers between
7 homicides and other categories. I'm speaking in French
8 and writing in English, so I'm mixing up the
9 languages. What I would like to ask you is what is the
10 sense of family that you're using here? Is it a
11 restrictive sense or a broader sense? You know, we
12 speak about a more nuclear family -- mother, father,
13 children -- and an extended family. What sense are you
14 using it in?
15 A. Close relationships.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Can one
17 include, in the notion of the extended family, one can
18 see a certain feeling of belonging? Can one speak of
19 an extended family if one is speaking about an ethnic
20 belonging to --
21 A. [In French] Any belonging.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So it was
23 Jelisic's circumstances. The fact that he was a Serb
24 and that he was part of that ethnic group doesn't play
25 any role in that distinction?
1 A. [In French] No, it does not.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] This is the
3 question. You said that you were very surprised when
4 you learned that Mr. Jelisic had lied about the
5 question of torture by Croats. Why?
6 A. Excuse me. I wanted to respond in French.
7 Because it's such a worked-out story, not only in our
8 examination but also in the other things I read, and
9 now that's all not true. So I was surprised by that
10 because it's so worked-out, differentiated.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But if we
12 take into account somebody, say an attorney, who asked
13 them to tell that story, how would you interpret that?
14 A. Well, then he learned his lesson well.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] This is the
16 other aspect. You said, you said frequently in fact,
17 the objective relations were somehow disturbed. I
18 believe that you spoke about manipulation in that
19 respect, that is, disturbances of his objective
20 relations which was also the cause of the
22 This is my question: Is it possible that
23 Mr. Jelisic manipulated people so that subsequently
24 they could come to be defence witnesses for him?
25 A. It might be -- it might be possible. I
1 answer affirmative to that because certain topics we
2 couldn't discuss with him. We couldn't discuss about
3 how he got money for his kiosk, which was his friends,
4 and I think there is a whole area we didn't touch on.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Only those
6 areas that he wanted to touch on; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Doctor, I'm
9 going to ask you a question, and then I'm going to tell
10 you a story.
11 Imagine that Mr. Jelisic were to come into a
12 cafe, find a woman there, a woman who works in the
13 cafe, and then after 20 minutes of conversation,
14 Mr. Jelisic asks that woman to allow him to take her
15 son, who I think at the time was four or five years
16 old, to go spend a week's vacation with Mr. Jelisic,
17 and the woman, that woman, that mother, allows him to
18 do that. That was the first time that Mr. Jelisic saw
19 the woman, the first time that the woman saw
20 Mr. Jelisic.
21 What comment do you have, from the point of
22 view of manipulation, whose objective it was to have
23 for himself defence witnesses?
24 A. I think it's impressive -- sorry. Slower?
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Would you
2 answer, please.
3 A. I think it's impressive that a woman who
4 talks 20 minutes to a man gives her child away for a
5 week's holiday with a total stranger. For me, it's
6 unimaginable. Two options arise --
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me
8 for interrupting you. Imagine that that's true.
9 A. Imagine? If the fact is there, then it's
10 also impressive that Mr. Jelisic, in an amount of 20
11 minutes, can be so trustful for that lady to give her
12 child to him for a week. That's very impressive.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But from
14 the perspective of what you knew about Mr. Jelisic's
15 personality and that aspect of manipulation, would that
16 be possible?
17 A. He comes very close in his relationships,
18 yes, because he doesn't know the borders, he doesn't
19 know the limits in the relationships.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Another
21 question. You said that Mr. Jelisic uses other people
22 to satisfy his own needs. In some way, can killing
23 satisfy someone with Mr. Jelisic's needs?
24 A. I think I have to wait a bit here. We come
25 to the issue of perversity, and maybe narcissistic rage
1 also. It is possible, yes, that the anger, the rage he
2 feels towards others, because they did him harm in his
3 opinion, can reflect itself in doing harm to others.
4 And if he has lust with it, we couldn't examine that
5 because we didn't go for that issue, but it might be
6 possible because Mr. Jelisic externalises and is angry
7 at all those people who did wrong to him.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You spoke
9 frequently about the egocentric nature, the
10 narcissistic nature of Mr. Jelisic. Did you find any
11 idea whether there were any references or ideas about
12 paranoia, specifically in respect of the Serbs?
13 Because he always said that he had to defend himself
14 from the Serbs, that the Serbs were his worst enemies.
15 Along with his egocentrism and narcissism, were there
16 also some references made to paranoia in respect of the
18 A. What he said to us was -- I have to wait.
19 What he said to us was that, in fact, he was a hero for
20 the normal people and that he wasn't afraid of the
21 people who were after him. I don't think that's true,
22 the last issue. I think he said that out of his
23 grandeur. If you're a great man, you're not afraid,
24 but I cannot -- because we couldn't go into that issue
25 because he didn't want to discuss it, I cannot comment
1 further on that.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I have
3 another question I would like to ask you. You examined
4 Mr. Jelisic in the presence of another person, so you
5 had a degree of control over the manipulation. Did you
6 also have some control over his body language, his
7 non-verbal communication? That's my first question.
8 If you say that you did, whether that body language was
9 consistent with his verbal language.
10 A. Yes, we did. That's part of our
11 intervention, to do that. We normally discussed with
12 each other the case, and we put our examination
13 together, both of us. Body language was related to the
14 issues he presented. That's why we can state that
15 anger was under the surface. I mean, anger is not
16 only -- transference and countertransference issues are
17 related to body language.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I have
19 another question. In order for you to conclude
20 something about manipulation, do you look more at the
21 emotions and feelings or do you look more at the
22 knowledge itself or objective knowledge?
23 A. I cannot say which one takes the lead. And
24 it's matter of fact what we do, what we discuss now all
25 the time is take issues out of traits of the
1 personality disorder. But they interrelate to each
3 If you talk about paranoid traits, it has to
4 do with an objective relationship, it has to do with
5 grandeur also, and that's how you come to a diagnosis.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me ask
7 the question a different way. Can there be
8 manipulation even when one is telling the truth or part
9 of the truth? And my last question is the following.
10 I laughed a little bit with your colleague when he said
11 that he -- that there is only one word to say snow, and
12 I said that Eskimos had at least 20 words. This merely
13 means that certain people have specialisations in
14 certain areas, with a lot of words to see and to
15 express reality.
16 A very simple question. You can answer it if
17 you like. As a specialist, as a psychiatrist,
18 particularly a forensic psychiatrist, can you see more
19 in two hours than an ordinary person in two years, or
20 are we exaggerating somewhat?
21 A. Two hours and two years, there is a big
22 difference. But I think, yes. In a certain way, yes.
23 I am always impressed about -- and that's why I called
24 it a super specialisation to Mr. Greaves. And it's in
25 fact a super, super specialisation, because I am a
1 forensic child and adolescent psychiatrist. And the
2 expertise you have is related to making contacts, to
3 avoid confrontation first, the facets of the interview,
4 to go around difficult issues, et cetera, to see in
5 body language, as he said before and in certain
6 pronunciation of words or whatsoever what's up in
7 people's minds. And I think, yes, expertise is a
8 big -- enormous advantage. I am always impressed by
9 people not seeing things.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] My really
11 last question. You said that you didn't carry out any
12 tests and that you needed to conduct other interviews,
13 for instance, with his parents or with people who knew
14 him in order to form certain opinions, because I think
15 you always answered with a degree of precaution. You
16 said, "I can go this far, but in order to go further I
17 would need more instruments, more diagnostic
19 What you said for sure, then, can be said
20 with the amount of time that you had and with the
21 instruments that you had available to you at that time;
22 was that enough?
23 A. Yes, it was.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
25 very much.
1 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I am going to
2 ask you to be a little more patient, because through my
3 colleagues questions they have spared me from having to
4 ask you more questions.
5 I am going to ask the interpreters for a
6 little more patience. They have been here almost for
7 an hour and three quarters. A very simple question.
8 I am referring to your report which was
9 prepared a year ago. You were asked to study three
10 questions. Was there was a mental illness? And you
11 said, no, that he had profound personality disorders,
12 that he was a borderline personality. Then, would his
13 mental state allow him to understand the nature of the
14 accusations brought against him. You said yes, that he
15 could reason, and that to some extent emotionally he
16 would be able to understand those accusations brought
17 against him. And the third question: Was he fit to
18 appear? I consider the third question is really now
19 outside of the scope of this trial. The second
20 question is borderline, and the first we have already
21 taken note of.
22 So this is my question: Did you feel any
23 kind of discomfort when you were called to testify here
24 and to speak about a subject that you examined a year
25 ago now?
1 A. In a certain way, yes. But at the same time
2 I tried to, like you stated before, in the context that
3 we did our exams, to stay between the lines of what I
4 can say. And so in a certain way discomfort, but I
5 tried to manage the discomfort.
6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Well, you are
7 satisfied with what you've done. That's fine. You
8 have your own emotions and that's very reassuring. But
9 I am rather surprised, doctor. Can a psychiatrist, a
10 specialist, can he just make an abstraction of the
11 development over the course of a year of a subject,
12 about whom we are not going to say anything in terms of
13 responsibility; who pleaded guilty; who for now two
14 months -- well, even longer who has been in detention;
15 who is very troubled, you saw that through the last
16 psychiatric examinations; can a psychiatrist like
17 yourself make an abstraction of any evolution over the
18 course of -- and you who saw him a year ago, can you
19 say now that he is this or that? He is going to
20 develop this way or that way? Because in the end the
21 Judges have not heard him at all, and you didn't speak
22 to him except for a year ago, and it was only the other
23 doctor that spoke to him more recently. But that's the
24 only question I am going to ask because the other
25 questions that needed to be asked were very well put by
1 the Defence and the Prosecution.
2 A. Between the limitations I already stated,
3 yes. Like I said before, Dr. van den Bussche and I are
4 working in the same office. Dr. van den Bussche
5 discussed the matter with me not only to hear my
6 opinions, which he already had on paper, or our
7 opinions which he already had on paper, but to discuss
8 his diagnostic assessment in a interview situation with
10 And at the other end it must be said that, of
11 course, Mr. Jelisic is unique. Of course there is
12 fluctuation. But I made general statements about
13 borderline personality disorder and possibilities of
14 change. And in that context I made comments.
15 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I had said, in
16 fact, that that was my last question. You can go back
17 to your work. The Tribunal expresses its gratitude to
18 the interpreters. Very well. We are going to resume
19 the hearing in 30 minutes.
20 --- Recess taken at 4.35 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 5.08 p.m.
22 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We will now
23 resume the hearing. Please be seated. Have the
24 accused brought in.
25 [The accused entered court]
1 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Have the
2 interpreters rested? Fine.
3 Insofar as possible, we are going to try --
4 if we can't, we can't -- but we're going to try to
5 finish this evening so that tomorrow -- let me say this
6 to Mr. Nice, perhaps he hasn't had his headset on but I
7 know he speaks French very well -- I just wanted to say
8 that insofar as possible, we're going to try to finish,
9 insofar as possible, let the interpreters be reassured
10 that it's that way so then tomorrow could be devoted to
11 the final arguments.
12 Mr. Nice.
13 MR. NICE: Maybe Mr. Greaves has something to
15 MR. GREAVES: I just want to deal with one
16 matter whilst I think about it and while it's in
17 relation to the evidence which has just been heard by
18 the Tribunal.
19 Your Honour will recall that I asked
20 Dr. Duits about restrictions placed on him in relation
21 to Dr. Petrovic. I wish formally to place it on the
22 record that such a restriction was placed on the
23 Defence, and we are not only prohibited from calling
24 Dr. Petrovic but prohibited from making any reference
25 at all directly to any diagnosis or treatment or
1 statement that she had made about the defendant.
2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I'm glad that
3 you said that.
4 MR. NICE: Your Honour, then with the
5 Chamber's --
6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, would
7 you like to respond?
8 MR. NICE: I have nothing to say on that
9 point. That's a matter entirely, I think, between the
10 Defence and the Registry. The Chamber will recall that
11 in relation to Dr. Duits, I sought the Chamber's leave
12 to approach him and to ask him questions, he having
13 been originally relied on by the Chamber, and I don't
14 think there's any complaint to the fact that I have
15 called him or relied on the passages of his evidence.
16 I think it's a different issue entirely.
17 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Greaves, it
18 was appropriate for you to raise that question. I
19 think that we'll take this into account as part of the
20 substantive questions.
21 We'll move to the next witness, Mr. Nice.
22 MR. NICE: Indeed, the last witness is one
23 for whom statements in B/C/S and I think French have
24 now been prepared and served, and it's entirely
25 appropriate, given his much longer acquaintance with
1 this case than mine, that Mr. Tochilovsky should take
2 the last witness, and so he's going to.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 MR. TOCHILOVSKY: Your Honours, the witness
5 asked for the same kind of protection as other
6 witnesses, the pseudonym and facial image distortion.
7 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Very well.
8 Witness S, do you hear me? This is the
9 Presiding Judge speaking to you.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Very well.
12 First, check to see that these are your names on the
13 document that the usher is showing you.
14 Show it to him. Show it to him. Don't hide
15 it that way.
16 Then you're going to take an oath. Please
18 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
19 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
21 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] You may now be
22 seated, Witness S. You have responded to the summons
23 of the Prosecution to testify in the sentencing hearing
24 in order to determine the penalty applicable to Goran
25 Jelisic, the accused, who is to your left in this
1 courtroom, who pleaded guilty to crimes against
2 humanity, and only within that scope.
3 Let me remind Mr. Tochilovsky that the
4 witness has agreed, insofar as he is going to be a
5 character witness in respect of Goran Jelisic, as you
6 yourself said in your submissions.
7 Having said this, I can tell you, Witness S,
8 that you are being covered by very strict protective
9 measures and that you can speak without any fear and in
10 full serenity.
11 Mr. Tochilovsky, please proceed.
12 WITNESS: WITNESS S
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Examined by Mr. Tochilovsky:
15 Q. Witness S, you had an opportunity to read a
16 summary of your statement, and is the summary correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You spent some time in Luka camp in 1992; is
19 that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you remember the date when you were taken
22 to the Luka camp?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What was the date?
25 A. The 15th of May, 1992.
1 Q. Who took you to Luka?
2 A. I was taken to Luka by Goran Jelisic.
3 Q. Can you describe Goran Jelisic's behaviour,
4 his demeanour on that evening, that day when he took
5 you to Luka and when you were in Luka? Can you
6 describe his behaviour?
7 A. Well, it was as if he had been drugged, to
8 put it simply.
9 Q. Did he look like a person who was acting
10 under order, who was reluctantly following any orders
11 when you were in the camp?
12 A. As far as I know, he did not receive any
13 orders; he issued orders himself.
14 Q. Just to have some examples of that, upon your
15 arrival to the camp, did soldiers try to approach you
16 immediately upon your arrival?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What was Goran Jelisic's reaction to that?
19 A. He said, "Go away. Don't touch him. Do you
20 want me to kill you like the others in the hangar?"
21 Q. When you were interviewed by the
22 investigator, you prepared a sketch of the Luka camp,
23 of the place where you were kept; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. TOCHILOVSKY: May I ask the usher to put
1 this sketch before the witness.
2 A. This is a description of the office where we
4 Q. And is it the place where you were kept when
5 you were in Luka?
6 A. Please, could you put your question more
7 specifically. I did not understand it very well.
8 Q. You said it was the office?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Is it the place where you were kept when you
11 were at Luka?
12 A. Yes, temporarily.
13 Q. And were there any guards, soldiers, other
14 camp personnel in that room as well?
15 A. Well, there were a few unknown persons, and
16 there were about four or five persons in the room who
17 were doing their own jobs.
18 Q. Did you hear any orders given by Jelisic to
19 those others present in the room?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And what kind of orders?
22 A. Well, to bring in a man from the hangar.
23 Q. And did soldiers follow his orders?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. With regard to his behaviour, how did he
1 treat those detainees who were brought on his order to
2 the room?
3 A. His behaviour. Well, when he would bring
4 them there into the office, this is the only way I can
5 describe this, he would start interrogating them and
6 then hitting them.
7 Q. And then?
8 A. And then take them out and probably kill
10 Q. When he took the second detainee out and then
11 returned without him, did he tell you anything about
12 how he treats those Muslim Croat detainees?
13 A. Yes. He said, "I do not rape. I do not
14 mistreat. I only kill."
15 Q. He say how many people he killed?
16 A. Yes. He said, "This is my 83rd or 93rd from
17 this morning."
18 Q. Did Goran Jelisic tell you what had happened
19 to your friend Mevko?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In short, what did he tell you?
22 A. First, he asked me whether I knew him and
23 what he was to me. And I answered that I was a very
24 good friend of his, since he did not have many friends
25 and his family did not care about him very much. He
1 said that he had killed the strongest man until then.
2 He had fired two bursts of gunfire into him and in the
3 morning he would go there, shoot him in the temple so
4 that he'd finally be dead.
5 Q. Now, did Goran feel sorry about what happened
6 to Mevko, that he killed Mevko? Did he express any
7 remorse of that?
8 A. As far as I know, no, he did not show any
10 Q. When you were leaving the camp with Jelisic,
11 did Jelisic give any other orders to soldiers upon his
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What kind of orders?
15 A. When we were leaving the Luka camp, he
16 ordered that this man, who said that a Serb was
17 guaranteeing for him, should be killed before we would
18 come back.
19 Q. Did you have the impression that all these
20 orders he gave when you were in Luka were followed,
21 that others followed his orders?
22 A. No. He carried out the orders himself.
23 Q. And when he ordered to bring those people to
24 take care of them, did those soldiers bring people,
25 follow his orders?
1 A. Could you please put this a bit more
2 specifically? I don't know what you are referring to
4 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Witness S, I
5 know it's not very easy, but when you answer, if you
6 would please turn toward the Judges. Thank you.
7 THE WITNESS: Fine, fine. Yes. Yes.
8 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I know it isn't
9 easy, but try to do that. Of course when the questions
10 are asked, you listen to the person asking the
11 questions. Thank you.
12 MR. TOCHILOVSKY:
13 Q. You mentioned that Goran issued orders to
14 those present in the room, to the soldiers to bring
15 detainees to him. Did those soldiers follow his order,
16 obey his orders?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Your Honours, I have a few questions on other
19 detainees, actually some of them were witnesses,
20 protected witnesses. So maybe we can go to private
21 session to mention those names.
22 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] All right.
23 Private session.
24 [Private session]
15 pages 3034 to 3036 redacted – in private session
12 [Open session]
13 Cross-examined by Mr. Greaves:
14 Q. Witness S, I'd like to ask you just a little
15 bit, please, about how you come to be here in The
16 Hague. When were you first approached with a view to
17 giving evidence at The Hague? Can you tell us that,
19 A. About a month ago.
20 Q. I don't want to know where you are living,
21 but the place in which you are living at the present
22 time, have you been living there for some time; if so,
23 for how long?
24 A. I've been living there for a year and a half,
25 in that particular place; for the time being I'm
2 Q. Would there have been any difficulty of any
3 kind in finding you, say, in March or April of this
4 year in the area in which you live?
5 A. Could you ask me that in more precise terms?
6 I didn't follow you.
7 Q. Is this right: You weren't making a secret
8 of where you were living; you were living openly in the
9 community in which you live, were you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And that was the case in March and April of
12 this year; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. If somebody had wanted to come looking for
15 you in that community, they would have had no
16 difficulty in finding you; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. Can we now move, please, to the
19 circumstances in which you were asked to make a
20 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is this the case, that one or more
23 investigators came to see you and conducted an
24 interview with you?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Before recording your statement, did any of
2 those people tell you what it was they wanted to know?
3 A. If you would, please, be a little more
5 Q. Of course. The people who came to see you
6 and to take a statement from you, did they, before they
7 took a statement from you, tell you about what incident
8 it was that they wanted to speak with you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did they describe to you the information
11 which they had about that incident?
12 A. No. I just gave them the information,
13 because they asked for it, in connection with Goran
15 Q. Was it a question of them saying, "We want to
16 know about an incident with Goran Jelisic on the 15th
17 of May, 1992," or did they give you more information as
18 to what it was they were seeking?
19 A. They just asked for that piece of information
20 relating to the 15th of May, 1992, what happened there,
21 and that was the kind of statement that I gave them.
22 Q. All right. I'd like just to put a bit of
23 detail onto the account that you've given us this
24 afternoon, Witness S. This is right, isn't it: that
25 you say that you were working at a particular place
1 during the course of the afternoon when Jelisic and
2 another man came to see you; is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. The other man's name was Dzole. Is that the
5 correct pronunciation?
6 A. I don't know whether it's correct, but I know
7 that they mentioned that particular name during the
9 Q. Subsequently, you were taken from the place
10 where you were working to the outside and put into a
11 car; is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In the car, when you drove off from that
14 place, were four people; is that right? Yourself,
15 Goran Jelisic, Dzole, and another person.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Four in all, including yourself.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The other person was a girl, a woman.
20 A. I wouldn't say woman; I'd say girl. I
21 thought she was probably about 14 or 15 years old.
22 Q. When you got to the house of the (redacted), had
23 anybody else got into the car between the place where
24 you were working and that location?
25 A. No.
1 Q. When you were at the house, was the car
2 parked close to the house and close to its entrance?
3 A. Yes. A car was parked close to the house, at
4 the end of the road, by the asphalt.
5 Q. Perhaps if we can just get it right, was the
6 car within sight of the entrance of the house in those
8 A. From the entrance to the house?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Yes, you could see, but you would have to
11 come out of the house because there were some steps.
12 Q. Of course. How far from the entrance to the
13 house and the steps was the car parked? Are we talking
14 about five yards, ten yards, twenty yards? What?
15 A. About 10 to 13 metres.
16 Q. From your position where you were in the car,
17 were you able to see the entrance of the house clearly?
18 A. Not very clearly. I couldn't see properly.
19 Q. At the entrance to the house, did anybody get
20 out of the car?
21 A. Goran Jelisic got out and went up to the
22 front door of the house, and then he called the (redacted)
23 and he went out after that.
24 Q. Again, no other man had joined you at this
25 time, had they?
1 A. Could you be more specific? I don't follow
2 what you mean.
3 Q. Yes. Whilst you were there at the house, no
4 other person joined you. No other man, no other woman
5 joined you, did they?
6 A. I sat in the car, and next to the driver sat
7 Monika. Goran Jelisic went out of the car and went
8 over there, and later on, Dzole went out and took over
9 (redacted). That was all.
10 Q. (redacted)
13 A. Five people? Just a moment, please. Before
14 that, we went towards the school, and when Goran
15 Jelisic said, "Who's Dzodza?" I didn't understand him
16 very well. When we got to the school, there were two
17 people standing there. He also asked them who Dzodza
18 was, and one of them said that he was (redacted)
19 (redacted), and then he told them to drive him to the house.
20 So perhaps you're thinking about those two
21 individuals. Perhaps they were still there, but I did
22 not notice them. That's the point.
23 Q. One of the people who were with you went
24 eventually to the car belonging to (redacted); is that
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did any of the others who were with you,
3 apart from Goran and Dzole, get out of the car at all?
4 A. Only myself and Monika remained in the car
5 after that.
6 Q. Did Dzole go in towards the house after Goran
7 and (redacted)?
8 A. I wouldn't say so because I didn't see it.
9 So I can't really say; I didn't see it.
10 Q. In order to get back to Brcko, two cars were
11 taken there, is that right, one of which was the car
12 belonging to (redacted)?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And just describe to us the seating
15 arrangements in the two different cars. Who went in
16 which car, Witness S?
17 A. As far as I know, Dzole was in (redacted)
18 car, that is to say (redacted), and in
19 the other car there was Goran Jelisic, Monika and
20 myself. And later on we were joined by another soldier
21 whom I didn't know.
22 Q. You were joined in your car or, sorry, not
23 your car, but the car in which you were seating by
24 another soldier whose name was never given to you; is
25 that it?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And the only person who was in the car with
3 (redacted) was this man whose name was Dzole? No
4 question of there being anybody called Simo with him?
5 A. Well, let me tell you. I was quite lost at
6 the time, to tell you frankly, so possibly there was,
7 but not really. There are two versions. I can't say
8 that it's the truth or whether it's the truth, because
9 I was very frightened at the time.
10 Q. You travelled to Brcko. The other car only
11 contained (redacted) and one other person; isn't that
13 A. Well, I don't know if that's right, because
14 they went off before us.
15 Q. But Monika remained with you in your car?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. (redacted)
20 A. Well, I suppose that was how it was.
21 Q. When you got to Luka, you were taken to the
22 office and (redacted) was already there. That's right
23 according to your statement; isn't it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So if (redacted) said that you were already
1 there at the time, not the other way around, that
2 wouldn't be right, would it?
3 A. It's very probable.
4 Q. How many people in all were in the office
5 when you arrived there?
6 A. Well, I can't remember those details. I know
7 that (redacted) was there and probably another man next
8 to him. All I know is that I tried to sit down there
9 and at that time they took my handcuffs off. He took
10 the handcuffs off my right hand so that I was able to
11 sit down. But how many people were there, I can't
12 really say because I don't really -- didn't really
14 Q. I think there was some difficulty in getting
15 the handcuffs off, but you managed to get them off
16 after a short while; isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And was that simply a problem of somebody not
19 being able to get the key in properly and to get the
20 handcuff off?
21 A. I don't know, but they couldn't find the
22 right key to the handcuffs. So that they tried to pry
23 them open with a pin.
24 Q. And eventually they managed to get them off
25 all right, did they, without any further fuss?
1 A. Yes. From one hand. And after some time
2 they got them off the other.
3 Q. Then, according to you, and I'll come back to
4 this in a little while, Witness S, instructions were
5 given to go and fetch one person, who was brought back,
6 a detainee who was brought into the office; is that
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And between your arrival in the office and
10 instructions being given to fetch that detainee, was
11 any interrogation conducted of (redacted)?
12 A. As far as I know, no. I had my head bowed
13 down all the time and I was extremely frightened.
14 Q. And your account is this: That three
15 detainees were brought into the office and taken out
16 again, one after another. It wasn't a question of
17 three detainees being brought in at once, was it,
18 according to you?
19 A. I don't remember that particular detail. All
20 I know is that they would take one by one in. Whether
21 they were all three in there together, I really can't
22 say. I don't remember.
23 Q. So if Witness R said after a short while he
24 brought in three young men between 20 and 25, that
25 wouldn't be right either, would it?
1 A. Could you repeat that question, please?
2 Q. Yes. I'll read to you a short piece of
3 evidence. It's said:
4 Q What did he do with that man? What did
5 he ask of that man?
6 A He said bring those people in.
7 Q What happened to the list with the names
8 on it?"
9 And he then described the particular
10 individual taking a folder.
11 And then this:
12 "After a short while he brought in three
13 young men between 20 and 25 years of age."
14 A clear implication of that being that three
15 people were brought in at once.
16 That can't be right, if you are telling the
17 truth, Witness S, can it?
18 A. That's right.
19 JUDGE RIAD: I'm sorry, what is right? You
20 said, "That is right." I didn't understand this
21 answer. That's right that you are not telling the
23 A. No. As far as I remember. As far as I
24 remember, and as far as I know, they were brought in
25 one by one, one by one prisoner was brought in. I
1 don't remember that they brought in three at the same
2 time. Perhaps I am wrong, but that's what I think.
3 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
4 MR. GREAVES:
5 Q. Witness S, when you made your statement to
6 the Office of the Prosecutor, it was read over to you
7 in the Bosnian language, wasn't it, at the end of
8 making it? Do you remember that? And we are talking
9 about just four or five days ago.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you told them and signed that it was --
12 the statement was true to the best of your knowledge
13 and recollection; didn't you?
14 A. Could you please repeat this. What statement
15 are you referring to? In relation to what?
16 Q. How many other statements have you made in
17 relation to this incident, Witness S? A written
18 statement reduced into writing and read over to you,
19 how many other statements have you made?
20 A. Written statements? I don't understand
22 Q. I wonder whether he might see the original of
23 the work which has been provided to the Defence,
24 please. Just so we know exactly what we are talking
1 Would you be so kind, Witness S, as to look
2 at that document, please. Don't read it yet. You see
3 at the bottom of the first page of that document a
4 signature. Is that your signature?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is it your signature?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Look at the bottom of each of the following
9 pages. Do those bear your initials?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And don't look at the last page, but look at
12 the last but one page, please, Witness S. Do you see
13 there -- I think you've got the English version, I
14 hope. A short piece of text at the top and then a box
15 with some words in it, and again your signature on
16 there. Do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you remember signing those pages and
19 initialling those pages on the 17th of November 1999 --
20 sorry, seven days ago. I do apologise. I mislead you
21 as to time.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is that the statement which you made and
24 which was reduced into writing, the statement you made
25 to the Office of the Prosecutor, Witness S?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And do you accept that it was read over to
3 you in the Bosnian language, at the end of which you
4 signed it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you need to have a Bosnian version put in
7 front of you, because I am quite happy that you should
8 have it so you can follow what I am saying. Would that
9 help you?
10 A. All right.
11 Q. Then please may he have the Bosnian version.
12 Again, if -- I would just like you to look at the page
13 we were just looking at, which I think will be the last
14 but one. And it's the end of that page where it says,
15 I think in your language, "witness acknowledgment." Do
16 you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And that witness acknowledgment reads as
19 follows, doesn't it, "This statement has been read over
20 to me in the Bosnian language and is true to the best
21 of my knowledge and recollection." Do you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Would you accept from me that in the
24 statement that you made, as indeed you told us this
25 afternoon, that the detainees were brought in one by
1 one, and not three at a time? Do you accept that?
2 A. I accept, to the best of my recollection, but
3 I do not preclude the possibility of this not being
4 correct because I was very upset at the time. I was
5 not exactly composed. I had seen and heard quite a few
7 Q. You see, the point is this, that the two
8 accounts which you've been given about this incident
9 are in material respects completely different. And the
10 differences which I pointed out to you mean that they
11 cannot both be true. That's right, isn't it, Witness
13 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Don't give the
14 witness an answer. The problem with differences under
15 such dreadful circumstances has already been pointed
16 out before to the Court. You are not dealing with
17 scientific experts, what you are discussing. This is
18 May 1992 in a hangar, which is simply hellish. So you
19 can simply point out things, but don't try to give the
20 witness an answer. If you agree, perhaps you might try
21 to move a little bit more quickly.
22 MR. GREAVES:
23 Q. The account of the alleged Russian roulette
24 that you give. Is this right? You said to the Office
25 of the Prosecutor that the gun was pointed at the head
1 or temple of (redacted)?
2 A. Well, that's what I assume. The head, for
3 instance, because he was sitting next to me, and the
4 pistol was right next to me, like this.
5 Q. So you were right close to it at that point;
6 is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So no question of it being pointed at the
9 chest of (redacted) and the trigger pulled.
10 A. Well, it is very possible, but I imagine
11 somewhere in the head. That's what I assumed, judging
12 by the level at which the pistol was held.
13 Q. When you were removed from Luka and taken
14 back to where you had come from, how many checkpoints
15 in all did you pass through?
16 A. I don't know exactly. I'll give you an
17 approximate number. Perhaps five checkpoints where we
18 did not stop; we stopped only at the first and second
19 one on our way back.
20 Q. So on the way home, only two checkpoints did
21 you stop at.
22 A. No. I said perhaps about five, but we were
23 only stopped at the first and second.
24 Q. That was the question that I asked you.
25 As far as you could see, the incidents
1 involving these three detainees which you claim to have
2 witnessed, you cannot say, can you, if, prior to your
3 arrival, any orders were given in relation to those
5 A. I could not have seen that or heard that
6 because I was not there, nor do I know of it.
7 Q. So that it's quite clear, and I'll put it
8 quite shortly to you, Witness S, there were no killings
9 that afternoon; there was, I suggest, no game of
10 Russian roulette and no ill-treatment of any person in
11 your presence.
12 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] That is your
13 opinion, Mr. Greaves, and you can argue that tomorrow.
14 Ask questions, please.
15 MR. GREAVES: I'm suggesting to him that if
16 he's saying there were such incidents, that it's not
17 true. He's entitled to have an opportunity to deal
18 with that proposition, and I put it to him so that he
19 may deal with the proposition that it's not true. That
20 is a proper issue which goes to the question of
22 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Challenging the
23 question itself, the credibility of your question. You
24 have a right to ask questions, but I'm simply
25 contesting the way you ask questions. Not by saying "I
1 suggest that" but by saying that you were making
3 Move to your next question, please.
4 MR. GREAVES: I've made it plain what our
5 position is. I have no further questions.
6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Mr. Tochilovsky.
8 Re-examined by Mr. Tochilovsky:
9 Q. Just one question in regard to those answers
10 you gave to the Defence about those three detainees who
11 were brought to the room. Do you know what happened to
12 those detainees after they were beaten, as you
13 described, by Goran and interrogated?
14 A. This is the way I'm going to put it: The
15 first one was taken outside. I heard two blunt shots.
16 I could not see that. I did not see that because I
17 could not see that. You could not really see this with
18 your own eyes through that hall.
19 The second one, he took out, and I heard
20 three blunt shots, and after the second one, his
21 trousers had blood stains on them.
22 The third one was returned to the hangar and
23 the fourth one was taken out to wait.
24 Q. That one is the one who Goran, upon his
25 departure, ordered to kill as well.
1 A. No. That one was already at the hangar. The
2 fourth one who was waiting there was a distant relative
3 of mine. Until the present day, I don't know what's
4 happened to him. At that point, while I was there, he
5 was still alive.
6 Q. When Goran took those people out and you
7 heard those shots, did he look like a person who was
8 acting under any order, or was feeling any remorse for
9 or sorry for what he was doing?
10 A. First of all, as far as I could tell, he was
11 totally in charge over there. As for remorse, I did
12 not see anything like that in his face. All of this
13 was in cold blood.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. TOCHILOVSKY: I have no further
17 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you,
18 Mr. Tochilovsky.
19 Judge Riad? Judge Rodrigues?
20 I have a very short question to ask you.
21 When Goran took the pistol in that dreadful Russian
22 roulette game, was the gun loaded? Were there a
23 certain amount of bullets? Was there one bullet or
24 were there several bullets? If you remember. Perhaps
25 you don't remember.
1 A. It was loaded because I know that he was
2 taking bullets out, and how many he returned, that, I
3 don't know. Basically, I didn't even want to see it
4 because the very words, "Russian roulette," made me
5 realise that my life was threatened.
6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I understand.
7 I'm not really interested in knowing how many there
8 were. I just simply wanted to know whether the gun was
9 really loaded with some bullets, either one or
11 A. Several.
12 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Therefore, I
13 wouldn't be wrong when I say that Goran Jelisic took a
14 real risk when he put the gun to his temple.
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Very well.
17 Thank you very much. That's all. It was a bit
18 difficult for you, but thank you for having come. I
19 hope --
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] -- you're
22 going to go home at peace and try and forget all of
23 that, if it's possible. You will be taken care of, and
24 once again, my colleagues and I would like to thank
25 you. I know it's difficult. You have the right to
1 have a good beer when you get out of here, if you like
2 beer, a Dutch beer.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you. May I just add one
4 more thing.
5 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, please.
6 THE WITNESS: I came here and I was welcomed
7 very nicely, but there is just one regret I have: I'm
8 so sorry that this trial cannot last longer because
9 there are so many things to be said. That's all I had
10 to say.
11 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] This is the
12 first time that the International Tribunal hears
13 somebody saying that the trials should be even longer
14 than they are. Thank you very much.
15 We are going to adjourn until tomorrow
16 morning at 10.00, I believe it is; is that correct?
17 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] I hope so.
18 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] What do you
19 mean you hope so?
20 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Well, because
21 there is a further initial appearance.
22 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Oh, yes, yes.
23 Judge Rodrigues spoke to me about that.
24 Mr. Greaves, did you want to take the floor?
25 MR. GREAVES: At whatever moment is
1 convenient to Your Honour.
2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I simply wanted
3 to ask a question.
4 Mr. Nice or Mr. Tochilovsky, about how long
5 will your final arguments take? About how long? I'm
6 trying to organise the Trial Chamber's work.
7 MR. NICE: I should hope I could be done in
8 two hours. I've reduced the arguments to paper, which
9 will be ready tomorrow, and so I will be able to pass
10 over various paragraphs, and I have a schedule of
11 evidence that, again, I can pass over quickly. I hope
12 two hours, not more.
13 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. And
14 you, Mr. Greaves, about how long?
15 MR. GREAVES: I have no idea at the moment
16 because I shall be working all night completing it, and
17 I don't know at the moment.
18 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I hope that
19 we'll be able to finish by the end of tomorrow. That's
20 what I would hope for. Since you do need to go to
21 sleep, I'd ask that you not work all night.
22 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, there are two
23 matters that I want to raise, please.
24 Your Honour directed that a report should be
25 obtained from the commandant of the detention unit. I
1 have not yet had sight of such a report and I would
2 inquire whether such a report has been received.
3 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar,
4 did you get that report?
5 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Well, I don't
6 have it. I could see after the hearing where things
7 stand, but I think that ordinarily the report should be
8 ready. I was thinking that it would be ready by now.
9 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We should have
11 MR. GREAVES: I didn't know of the deadline
12 and I had become anxious about it.
13 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Well, you're
14 right. You're absolutely right, Mr. Greaves. In any
15 case, we have to be finished by tomorrow evening at the
16 latest. We would ask the registrar to be sure that
17 Mr. Greaves has the report, and the Judges also. The
18 Judges can think about it afterwards, but Mr. Greaves
19 has to present his final arguments tomorrow.
20 Second point, Mr. Greaves.
21 MR. GREAVES: I have presented a number of
22 documents to my learned friend, and he has been
23 cogitating carefully about them, but we're getting to
24 the stage where he really does need to make up his mind
25 as to whether he's going to allow me to present them to
1 Your Honours without any further argument. I think
2 they're relatively non-controversial as documents go.
3 MR. NICE: I'm happy to allow them to go in,
4 providing that there is another document that my
5 learned friend, which I haven't yet shown him, I think,
6 is prepared to go in. It's to do with medical records
7 and service records and matters of that sort. If I can
8 just show him this document tonight, I dare say we can
9 agree that the whole package can go in tomorrow
10 morning, and we'll have this document copied in enough
11 numbers for the Chamber.
12 MR. GREAVES: I thank my learned friend for
13 his remarks.
14 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Very well. I
15 want to thank the interpreters.
16 We will adjourn and we should begin at 10.00
17 tomorrow. Court stands adjourned.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
19 6.13 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,
20 the 25th day of November, 1999, at
21 10 a.m.