1 Tuesday, 31 January 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
8 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I simply wanted to raise
9 one scheduling matter and bring it to the Court's attention. This is a
10 matter that has been discussed with Mr. Robinson and to which the Defence
11 has no objection.
12 As the Court will recall, the two witnesses scheduled to follow
13 Mr. Ruez were Witness Todorovic and KDZ333. In order to ensure the
14 completion of KDZ333's testimony this week, we have inverted the order.
15 So it will now be following the completion of Mr. Ruez's testimony,
16 KDZ333 and then Witness Todorovic, if the Court has no objection. As I
17 say, there is no objection from the Defence.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Tieger.
19 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
20 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 WITNESS: WILLIAM HAGLUND [Resumed]
22 Examination by Mr. Mitchell: [Continued]
23 Q. Good morning, Doctor.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. I want to move now to look at your final site, the Pilica site.
1 If we can have 65 ter 2452 in e-court and go to page 20. Doctor, that's
2 page 8 in the hard copy.
3 Can you describe what this site was like when you first went
5 A. There was just some new vegetation growing over the depression,
6 sort of a depressed area, with the vegetation being totally different
7 from the surrounding vegetation, but it was an area that had been dug
8 previously if you go with some ...
9 Q. And what were the first steps that you took to investigate this
11 A. Well, first of all we did a good surface search looking for
12 possible remains, and we did find some, and then we were measuring the
13 grave here, and then we began by doing transverse paths across that,
14 digging down to see if there were remains were there, and we didn't find
15 any until we got to the end, the far end. This would probably be dug by
16 a big machine, and it ramped down in an incline and then got to the end.
17 That was the end where we found the assemblage remains.
18 Q. Can we go to page 42 in e-court now. It's page 30 in the hard
19 copy of the report. Can we zoom in on the bottom photo.
20 And, Doctor, if you can give us a sense of the size of the grave
21 at this site.
22 A. At that -- that point it was about -- it was 3 metres deep and
23 you can see the edge of the grave is much higher than the individual
24 standing there, so that was when the grave was pretty much emptied.
25 Q. And which part of the grave was the assemblage of bodies located
2 A. The far end. That -- when we looked at the original picture.
3 We're looking at the end right now just -- with the previous photograph
4 we had people measuring, and it was the furthest away from the roads that
5 came -- the field roads that came from the farm itself.
6 Q. Can you now just briefly summarise your findings for this
7 particular location.
8 A. Yes. We had 132 minimum count of -- 53 of the individuals we
9 found were complete, 23 were nearly complete, and then the rest were body
10 parts. They could be torsos, they could be legs, they could be
11 individual bones, or they could be fragments of bones.
12 Q. And that -- the number of 132 minimum number of individuals, is
13 that something that was arrived at at the site or later at the morgue?
14 A. It was at -- it was at the morgue.
15 Q. Thank you, Doctor. I have no further questions.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
17 Doctor, your evidence in the previous case was admitted here in
18 lieu of your examination-in-chief in addition to some supplemental
19 questions by Mr. Mitchell, and you'll be cross-examined by Mr. Karadzic.
20 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Excellencies.
22 Good morning to everyone.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Dr. Haglund. I should like to ask
25 you for a precise definition of your professional position. What are you
1 by occupation?
2 A. Well, I'm a forensic anthropologist. It depends upon where I'm
3 working. I was an investigator with the medical examiner's office, so I
4 did forensic death investigations as well as anthropology.
5 Q. Yes. That is how you replied, that you are a forensic
6 anthropologist and that you graduated in Washington. You said that in
7 the Krstic case on page 3724. However, on page 9101 in the Tolimir case,
8 you said that you were a forensic anthropologist and death investigator.
9 Could you please explain to us more clearly what a death
10 investigator is and how one acquires such a diploma, such a certificate.
11 A. This wasn't a diploma. This was -- I -- I actually learned on
12 the job when I worked 15 years with the medical examiner's office. And
13 the -- what that involves is going to scenes, determining any mal-doings
14 there. Oftentimes, we'd be working with the police. Especially on
15 homicides we wouldn't -- the police would do that. But oftentimes we
16 would go to a person that -- the place where a person had died of a
17 natural death and we would just make sure that there was nothing that was
18 out of place, that of -- for instance, in a suicide we would be looking
19 for notes, we would be doing that, and collecting the medications,
20 et cetera. We would try to get the -- the amount of time the person had
21 been dead and -- and basically just look -- look through the house and
22 especially the area where the deceased was before we removed the body.
23 And if we had a problem where it was a homicide, then the pathologist
24 would come and take the case from there, and we would stand by and watch.
25 Q. Thank you, Doctor, but in response to the question what your
1 occupation is, when asked by Mr. McCloskey, when he asked you what your
2 profession is, you said, "I'm a forensic anthropologist and death
3 investigator." Is that your profession?
4 A. Well, that's my degree as an anthropology, but I do death
5 investigations. I do assessments of graves. I set up the -- what's
6 needed to do these -- these excavations and -- and set up the autopsy
7 areas, make sure the individuals get to where they need to get, make sure
8 that we have proper equipment, make sure that we have our -- our
9 vehicles. If we were in a place like Rwanda, we need to take almost
10 everything we have or else we wouldn't have it. We'd have to take our
11 own cars, our own water filtration systems, our own bathrooms. So doing
12 that kind of thing surrounding what -- what else we -- what else we have
13 to do, but as -- as the person that's directing this, they have to be
14 able to do these ancillary things also, but I am an anthropologist
15 according to my -- according to my college education.
16 Q. Yes, that's what you do, but I'm trying to find out what your
17 training is. In the Krstic trial, on page 3724, you said, when asked
18 what your position was, you said, "I was the chief medical investigator."
19 A. When I worked at the medical examiner's office, yes, and -- you
20 want to know what I did there? Okay.
21 Q. No. I'm interested in the training you got through education.
22 Did you graduate from the medical school?
23 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic -- Dr. Karadzic, if you wanted to
24 know what the witness's training was, that should have been your first
25 question. We've now spent 12 minutes to get to the question you really
1 want to ask.
2 THE WITNESS: My schooling from college is anthropology, biology,
3 a bit of archaeology, and then I went to -- and when the -- for the
4 medical examiner's office, we would go to state meetings and to police
5 teaching, and actually, I ended up doing a lot of that teaching, and they
6 would have to do with the law as far as death investigation. It had to
7 do with anatomy. It had to do with postmortem interval. It had to do
8 with an area called taphonomy. It had to do with all of the kinds of
9 work we had to do, and in fact, I co-authored a book that's used to train
10 death investigators all over the United States. You have to know about
11 medications. You have to know many things. But I am not a medical
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Yes. With all due respect to you and the Trial Chamber, I'm
15 trying to establish not all the kind of works you did but what you were
16 qualified to do. Were you the chief medical investigator?
17 A. I was, but I worked underneath the -- the pathologist, the
18 medical doctors. I worked for them.
19 Q. So he was the chief medical examiner, not you; correct?
20 A. I was not -- I was the chief medical investigator. The person
21 that runs the medical examiner's offices usually are medical forensic
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
24 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, perhaps it would be helpful to get
25 a time-frame on these questions, whether we're talking about
1 Dr. Haglund's role at the ICTY or previously. I think there's some
2 confusion there.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
4 Mr. Karadzic.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I'll come to that. I'd like to ask you since when have you been
7 doing -- have you been engaged in forensic investigation?
8 A. 1979 or 1980.
9 Q. In the Tolimir trial, however, on page 9108, Mr. McCloskey said:
10 [In English] "He has been conducting forensic investigations
11 since 1993."
12 A. I was doing international -- international work on the kinds of
13 topics that we're dealing with here right here in this Chamber since
14 1993, yes. And that's while I was working -- while I was working with
15 the medical examiner's office, I would go on a foreign investigations in,
16 for instance, Honduras and Guatemala, and also I went to the big grave in
17 Ovcara and did some -- we did some exhumations in -- in part of the
18 rest -- in the -- other part of the country there. So that was in 1993
19 was the first time that I went out to do this.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. You said that in the Krstic
21 transcript, page 3725, saying that you took leave:
22 [In English] "Well, I took holidays and went on some foreign
23 missions. In 1993, I was a member of the expert committee and went to
25 A. That's --
1 Q. [Interpretation] Who established that committee?
2 A. The UN did, and the individuals that were involved in doing it
3 were done by the Physicians for Human Rights. They're the one who put
4 the team together, and I was asked to be on at that team. I didn't
5 direct that team, but I learned a lot.
6 Q. Could you tell us what this organisation is, doctors for human
8 A. It's Physicians for Human Rights, and they had a forensic part
9 that they did, but they did much -- they did much. They, in fact, got a
10 very, very high honorarium for doing the torture of -- getting the first
11 of -- I can't recall but it's -- I'm having memory problems so that's my
12 big problem here, so, but it was -- but they did that. They look at
13 other situations, and I think now they're involved with -- with Africa,
14 with rapes of women, torture. They still do the forensic work, the
15 work -- working in Afghanistan right now, and they do a lot of teaching.
16 Q. Thank you, but who are they? Who set them up and what kind of
17 institution is it?
18 A. It's a -- it's -- it's one that they don't earn money. They
19 collect money from -- from the people -- people give them -- give them
20 funds in order to run their -- it's -- it's -- it's not an industry or
21 anything like that. It's -- it's called human rights. They do a lot of
22 things for human rights. And they'll do publications and lectures and
23 train people -- thing.
24 Q. Thank you. So that's a private association of citizens in a
25 certain line of work; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 JUDGE BAIRD: [Microphone not activated] ... Doctor, I don't
3 quite [indiscernible] the Physicians for Human Rights got a high
4 honorarium for doing the torture.
5 THE WITNESS: Not doing the torture.
6 JUDGE BAIRD: [Overlapping speakers]
7 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] I'm going to try to remember
8 what it's called because it was a -- it was an international of -- thing
9 that you get in Sweden. They shared that that year because they came up
10 with protocols of dealing with torture and of -- and how to -- you know,
11 talking about laws that should be in -- set in those things and what
12 should happen about that, and actually the UN adopted that also, so ...
13 JUDGE BAIRD: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. When did the UN adopt that protocol and in which document? Can
17 you help us find it?
18 A. I -- I don't know when they adopted. I probably have it at home
19 in my -- my library, but I don't have it in my head.
20 Q. Thank you. So nowadays they go around the world to investigate;
21 correct? And their boss, the director of their pathology department, is
22 Dr. Kirschner; correct?
23 A. No. He's just part of the -- they had -- they have various
24 groups working on different kinds of projects, different issues. One of
25 the -- one of the groups within -- is -- is basically the forensic aspect
1 of it. And a lot of what they do is -- is done with compiling
2 information. They don't have to go around the world to find a lot of it.
3 They compile a lot of information and work with organisations like
4 Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and things like that. And
5 when needed, they would lend their forensic abilities to other
6 organisations to assist them in what they were doing.
7 Q. Thank you. Was Dr. Kirschner there at the time when you
8 co-operated as director of that pathology department, or is he in that
9 position still?
10 A. No. Dr. Kirschner was very sick at the time he was here and we
11 didn't know it. He had cancer and he's dead. I took over his job when
12 he died. Or when he was very ill and he couldn't work any more then I
13 was asked to take over his job. So that's when I resigned from the
14 medical examiner's office. Or that's when I -- actually I resigned from
15 the Tribunal, excuse me.
16 Q. Thank you. So we'll get to that. Tell us, though, how did you
17 get employed by this Tribunal -- or, actually, was it the Tribunal that
18 employed you or the OTP?
19 A. It was first the Rwanda Tribunal, and Dr. Goldstone had worked
20 very closely at some times with Physician for Human Rights and he knew
21 they had a long reach as far as being able to collect forensic experts to
22 do things, and that's how I was asked to go to Rwanda to do the first
23 assessments, and then when I was done there I came here and did the first
24 assessments in 1995 and early 1996.
25 Q. So was there a specific document that employed you? Did
1 Prosecutor Goldstone officially employ you before you went to Rwanda and
2 before you did anything there, or was that done subsequently?
3 A. That was done subsequently. In late 1995, about September, I
4 took a six-week lay -- away from my work at the medical examiner's office
5 in Washington State and I did the -- Physician for Human Rights paid for
6 it. I did a lot of travel and that was paid for by the UN, but I did the
7 assessments at that point. And then December 30th, I believe, or 31st,
8 in 1995 then I was given a contract, and the contract was through the UN
9 for the Rwanda Tribunal.
10 Q. And when was it that you were engaged here at this OTP?
11 A. After the first two large -- the two -- the two exhumations --
12 after the first exhumation, actually, I was asked to come up to The Hague
13 and then go to the former Yugoslavia to start looking at graves that some
14 of the Tribunal individuals were looking for or looking at, and -- and
15 that's -- and then so I was bouncing back and forth between Rwanda and --
16 and the Tribunal, and it wasn't until early July, almost a year from the
17 fall of Srebrenica, that I came back and basically stayed here for the --
18 most of the time and then started doing the exhumations and getting the
19 teams and setting up the facilities we need, basically, things like that.
20 Q. Thank you. So what were the first two exhumations after which
21 you were employed, actually?
22 A. The first exhumation was the Cerska grave which we spoke of
23 yesterday, and then subsequently the next grave was -- was Lazete. The
24 next day was Nova Kasaba, and then we had to stop for about three weeks
25 because the ordnance sniffing dogs had been taken on vacation and we had
1 to wait until they come back, because I wouldn't take any people on any
2 of the scenes without having at least inspected in a way that we would
3 find out that there were no ordnance on areas, you know, so -- and then
4 the last of the -- the next one was then Lazete and then the
5 Branjevo Farm.
6 Q. Thank you. How is that possible? On behalf of who you or on
7 whose authority did you work before you were actually employed by this
9 A. I was working of -- I was being sort of supported by PHR, but I
10 was working with the Tribunal, and I was working with, actually,
11 Mr. Ruez. Actually, he was the person in charge of the Srebrenica
12 investigations, and those were the graves that they were interested and
13 wanted me to look at, so I accompanied them. When we were first doing
14 assessments. I never saw him after we started doing the work. He was
15 doing his own work.
16 Q. But you Doctor, sir, I don't see who it was who authorised you to
17 work on these exhumations. You do two or three exhumations and then only
18 on the basis of that and after that you're employed by the OTP.
19 A. I was being paid by Rwanda, but I was working here, and then I
20 think the second year and a half I was paid by the Tribunal. But
21 Dr. Goldstone requested that. I come up from -- he was -- he was in
22 charge of both Tribunals, and he asked me to come up here and I did so.
23 Q. We have to clarify that. Before you were employed here, on the
24 basis of what did you conduct exhumations in Republika Srpska? On the
25 basis of which document, whose document, which authorised institution?
1 A. Well, the authorised institution I worked for was the Tribunal.
2 Q. However, you were employed by the International Tribunal after
3 the exhumations, not before them.
4 A. No. I was employed by either -- by one of the -- one of the --
5 of the Tribunals from September -- late -- late December 1995 until
6 mid-1990 -- 1998.
7 Q. Do you have that document --
8 A. What document is that --
9 Q. That --
10 A. -- my contract? That's my contract. I had a contract with them,
11 I guess. They hired me. I don't know -- I'm not sure what you're
12 reaching for.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
14 MR. MITCHELL: Perhaps I can clear up this confusion,
15 Mr. President. In 1996, the ICTR and ICTY had a single Prosecutor, and I
16 don't know if that will assist Mr. Karadzic in moving on.
17 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, the witness clearly said he was asked
18 by Mr. Goldstone, who at the time was the Prosecutor of this Tribunal. I
19 think you can move on.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, with all due
21 respect, this witness worked on a private basis without authority and
22 without having proper engagement. He worked on several exhumations, and
23 I cannot establish --
24 JUDGE KWON: That's your submission, which is reserved for the
25 later date, but witness clearly said he worked upon the request of
1 Mr. Goldstone.
2 THE WITNESS: I was part of the Tribunal.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Am I right if I say that you were employed by this OTP after a
5 few exhumations? Yes or no?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Were you first employed and did you then do the exhumations? In
8 this OTP, that is.
9 A. After I was -- after I was hired by the UN, yes. I did
10 exhumations after that. I did assessments looking at graves prior to
11 that. At least in the context of the Srebrenica graves.
12 Q. Thank you. Tell us, please, did you report to the authorities of
13 Republika Srpska there, and did you receive their consent for doing all
14 of that?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Thank you. Did you make an offer to them; namely, did you offer
17 them insight into your work? Did you want to share your findings with
19 A. They never approached us for that. We allowed them to come to
20 the -- the Cerska grave to visit and they were welcome to do that.
21 Otherwise, there was really no attempt, at least to me, to come, although
22 when we did the Ovcara grave in -- in Croatia of -- the Serbs sent a
23 pathologist and he was able to come over and he watched the autopsies and
24 saw what we did and visited the grave a couple times, and that was fine
25 with us. We were completely open if somebody would have asked.
1 Q. Thank you. So then, as for these remains that were exhumed in
2 Republika Srpska, you would hand them over to Mr. Masovic -- or, rather,
3 the other side; right?
4 A. It -- when we -- after the exhumations, we passed them on to the
5 Bosnians -- Bosnians, and they were in Sarajevo at that time, and
6 that's -- they -- they -- we returned the remains to them. They were
7 their people.
8 Q. Thank you. What was your task?
9 A. What was my task?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Basically -- basically it was to do the -- the exhumations and --
12 and see that the examinations were done and getting a cause of death, and
13 you can see from the reports. However, being interested in the families
14 and giving the families support, what PHR did, it started a group in
15 Sarajevo and started outreaching to the basic Muslim religious leaders
16 and -- and the -- of the names of the people that ICT -- that ICRC had,
17 the Red Cross --
18 THE ACCUSED: I do not object, but I don't think the public has
19 any translation.
20 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me.
21 THE ACCUSED: Serbian translation I didn't hear.
22 JUDGE KWON: Should you repeat [Overlapping speakers]
23 THE WITNESS: I'm happy to repeat it, yes.
24 MR. KARADZIC:
25 Q. You have transcript. You may [Overlapping speakers]
1 A. Yes. Okay. As a person that's worked with the dead, actually,
2 ever since I was in high school, basically because I had an embalmer's
3 licence at one time, and I dealt with families all the time and I dealt
4 with families at medical examiner's office and I felt that these families
5 need -- we did not have to identify individuals. We just had to reach
6 the -- the -- what we were looking at as far as identification, as far as
7 ethnic, you know, things like that, and -- and -- but it was important
8 for us and -- and a lot of -- because Physician for Human Rights was --
9 was actually paying a pittance to the people who came over and worked
10 from all over the world, that we wanted to set up an organisation that
11 would start working with the families and start collecting information
12 about when they were last seen, although most of the stuff we got from
13 that was from the Red Cross and then start reaching out to the families
14 and start getting information about the individuals that they were
15 missing and describing their clothes and describing as much as they could
16 about their medical situations and -- and so that -- that went on for --
17 till about 1999. And during that time, we were able at -- on --
18 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you. May I -- we'll get to
19 that. I was interested in the general assignment, as it were.
20 First of all, let us see who paid the Physicians for Human
21 Rights. Who paid them, and who paid so little?
22 A. Physicians for Human Rights, these people -- or human rights
23 people, basically they donated their time. These were -- these were
24 individuals that Dr. Kirschner had worked with all over the world, and,
25 you know, the anthropologists and archeologists where -- Dr. Clyde Snow
1 was also involved in that and -- and so we got a lot of people we knew
2 that -- good pathologists. But a lot of people they got were as far
3 as -- archaeologists and anthropologist were from Central and South
4 America because they had been doing that work since 1983 starting out in
6 Q. But they did have some fund. Who gave them money? Who paid
8 A. I think they got a -- I think they got a -- well, how they get
9 their money is organisations donate that to them. They get this money
10 donated, and they had about a million dollars donated and that's how we
11 got our equipment and then -- to Rwanda.
12 Q. Thank you. First of all, this general part of the task at hand,
13 please let us take a look at the summary for Nova Kasaba and elsewhere.
14 That is on page 4. And you say that in July 1995 -- I'll read it out in
15 Serbian so that it can be interpreted.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We do not have the
17 original document.
18 JUDGE KWON: For the benefit of interpreters and the Bench, it's
19 better to upload that part. Did you refer to --
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I agree.
21 JUDGE KWON: -- Nova Kasaba report --
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE KWON: -- which was not touched upon in your
25 MR. MITCHELL: Correct, and we didn't tender the report.
1 JUDGE KWON: Very well, let --
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] However, Your Excellencies, this is
3 becoming part of the case through the Krstic transcript that has been
4 admitted, so in a way it can get by that way.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We do not prohibit you from dealing with that
6 part, but let's upload it. What was the 65 ter number for that? I take
7 it it's a report of June 15th --
8 THE WITNESS: About that time.
9 JUDGE KWON: -- 1998.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 2451, 65 ter 2451. That should be
13 the number.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 4 now. The
16 summary, it's got to be somewhere. This must be page 3 then.
17 JUDGE KWON: Seven?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Summary. Yes, we've got it in
19 Serbian. Page 8 in English.
20 THE WITNESS: I'm unable to read this. It's sort of blurred.
21 Ah, thank you. That's helpful. Yes.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. So this is part of your -- your executive summary where you
24 repeat these assumptions, right, or the prerequisites for your work? And
25 these assumptions are that approximately 7.000 men and boys went missing
1 and that the majority are suspected to have been executed. Was that the
2 point of departure for your work?
3 A. That was -- that was the sort of introduction to what the thing's
4 about that of -- 7.000 was the number up at that time. And -- and I
5 think using the word "execution," probably I shouldn't have done that.
6 These are deaths, and I'll not there to prove they're executions or not,
7 I'm just there to talk with the dead people and look at the area and find
8 out what's going on, and it's up to the -- the Prosecutors to put a
9 context in there. I talk for the dead people, not the Tribunal.
10 Q. Thank you. So you say that 7.000 was the figure that was bandied
11 about then. What was the total number of victims that was assumed at the
13 A. Well, it's a continuing thing, you know. It's going on still,
14 and I know that 6 -- over 6.000 have been identified far, so it's going
15 up, but I could only do so much in one year, so ...
16 Q. Do you know that at the time the figure of 250- to 300.000 dead
17 Muslims, killed Muslims, was the figure that was bandied about?
18 A. I'm not aware of that.
19 Q. Thank you. Let us, please, look at the second paragraph:
20 "The purpose of the forensic investigation of these graves was to
21 collect evidence for the International Criminal Tribunal," and so on and
22 so forth.
23 So collecting evidence. And it says here what that evidence is.
24 A. What that evidence is? Graves, remains, how the individuals were
25 killed, and all of the things I have in my report.
1 Q. And that was done for the Office of the Prosecutor; right?
2 A. Yes, it was done for them, but what is in the reports are
3 basically what the graves and the individuals in the grave and evidence
4 around the grave, that spoke to us, not -- not the Tribunal. They got
5 what they found. They got what they got, what we actually had observed
6 and collected. And they could manipulate that themselves or deal with it
7 in trials, but that's what these reports are about.
8 Q. Thank you. Collecting evidence for the International Tribunal;
9 wouldn't it have been more correct to say for the Office of the
10 Prosecutor? Wasn't it the Office of the Prosecutor that had employed you
11 and co-operated with you?
12 A. Well, I was working for the Tribunal. The head of the Tribunal
13 asked me, yes, and I worked with the Prosecutor section, yes. I'd worked
14 with them, yeah.
15 Q. All right. You did not work with the Defence, because the
16 Tribunal consists of Chambers, the OTP, and the Defence. Did you work
17 with the Defence? Did you co-operate with the Defence?
18 A. I was never asked to co-operate with the Defence.
19 Q. Thank you. In the process of collecting evidence, what did you
20 do with evidence that would work in favour of some Defence?
21 A. Well, it was all turned over to -- to the Tribunal, actually,
22 so -- that's who I was being employed by, but that's where it went. I
23 would not have known where to send it to the Defence.
24 Q. Let us be more specific. You handed that over to the OTP; right?
25 A. Yes. To the -- to the Tribunal. To the -- to the Prosecutor's
1 office, yeah.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 JUDGE KWON: For your understanding, OTP is a jargon of the
4 Tribunal meaning Office of the Prosecutor.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Now, do you think that you had sufficient data, sufficient
8 information to view things that had happened correctly in order to be
9 able to rule out prejudice?
10 A. I'd like to believe I had no prejudice. I -- like I keep saying,
11 and it maybe seems like simple to you, but we collected information about
12 these graves and the people in them, and the reports are about them, and
13 it can be utilised in the context of the courts. That's what police do
14 all the time and that, and it's up to the Court and there's -- to deal
15 with this. Yourself and the Prosecutor.
16 Q. Thank you. So is it correct that the first assumption was that
17 these were victims from July 1995?
18 A. I didn't know that until we started finding the connection
19 between who was in the grave and when they went missing and identifying
20 some of them. Then you get more of the idea of who they are. But at
21 this time we know most of the people that had been in Srebrenica graves,
22 or a great many, anyway.
23 Q. Thank you. Victims from July 1995, were you cautioned of the
24 possibility that there were victims there from other times, and was your
25 task to single out the victims from July 1995?
1 A. No, because most of these graves hadn't been added to. They
2 were -- bodies were taken out, not more bodies put in or put on other
3 bodies. They're not old graves. And then, of course, I did see, I
4 think, one or two of the first flyovers from July, and we knew when those
5 graves were -- were -- at least there was activity around the graves.
6 But I saw none -- no indication of -- of bodies having been there from
7 previous wars or previous burials. At that -- that didn't show up in
8 what our findings were.
9 I can explain sort of how you come about that, if you wish.
10 JUDGE KWON: What did you mean, Doctor, by "flyover"?
11 THE WITNESS: There was some aerial photography done. You've
12 probably seen these and I only saw one of two for just the July thing.
13 That's when we were trying to find the graves. Branjevo Farm is one I
14 saw. It's ...
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Thank you. Did you exclude all those victims that might have
17 been pre-dating those July 1995? In other words, did you determine the
18 time of their death and the time when they were buried?
19 A. Well, for instance, the -- the one from Branjevo Farm, we knew
20 when the deaths happened. We saw the dead people out in the field,
21 according to this flyover, and we saw the machinery and that for where
22 the grave ended up being. But the only way that we could really get an
23 idea on when these people probably died is when we would find some
24 identifications, and maybe they had documents that were very, very recent
25 or that they had been reported to the ICRC, once we had identified them,
1 that they had disappeared in first -- first of -- part of July in 1995.
2 It's become much more clear since then, but we had little to go on at
3 that time, and -- but when you have remains in a grave and you have one
4 person on the bottom and one person in the middle and another person on
5 the top and these other people are all wrapped around him because they're
6 not layered at all, then you know that these people were dumped in that
7 grave about the same time.
8 Q. Could you discern between the victims that pre-dated July 1995 is
9 one question. Another question, however, is whether you could discern
10 those victims that died in July 1995 which were killed in combat as
11 opposed to those that were unlawfully murdered.
12 A. Mm-hmm. Well, when you look at graves when they're 63 per cent
13 or so blindfolds, people don't fight with their blindfolds on.
14 Q. Did your hosts tell you that the combatants, even Serbian
15 combatants, let alone the Muslim combatants, used to wear bandannas on
16 their heads or head pieces and that those may not have been blindfolds?
17 A. Well, it's difficult to see that all these -- all these head
18 wrappings dropped right down below the eyes and they were tied very tight
19 in place for the most part. They didn't slip. They weren't hats or
20 bindings on a head. They didn't go up or didn't go down. They stayed on
21 the eyes. They were tied very tight.
22 Q. When soft tissue disappears from the skull, do they still remain
23 to be firmly tied or could they move up or down?
24 A. When these bodies are -- are together and there's no space
25 between them, these things won't migrate from where they were. And, yes,
1 you're right. If the remains was on the surface and turned to skeleton
2 and the head is moved around, or something, by an animal or it rolls down
3 a hill, yeah, you could -- could lose a blindfold, but not in the graves.
4 It would be very difficult to do that. And they were photographed in
5 situ before we moved them, so ...
6 But there were often a lot of blindfolds that were -- were -- or
7 a lot of cloths, rings of cloth with knots in them sometimes loose in the
8 grave and you will see that in my reports.
9 Q. In a grave, can bones be fractured under the burden of all the
10 other bodies and the earth that comes on top of them?
11 A. No. I've never run into that before, especially these deep
12 graves. If something happened on the surface, it's not going to --
13 bodies are, you know, a metre and a half, 2 metres down. You can drive a
14 tractor over them and that's not going to break any bones, no.
15 Q. Did anybody tell you, any of your employers or your hosts in
16 Bosnia, that in that area a war had gone on for 44 months and that there
17 was daily fighting during that time? Did anybody tell that you?
18 A. Yes, I was aware there had been a war. Yes, of course. We all
19 were. The world knew.
20 Q. Thank you. Do you know that under our law there is a process
21 that is called sanitisation, which is a process to remove carcass and
22 bodily remains after each battle?
23 A. I wasn't aware of that, no.
24 Q. Did you know that the warring parties handed their fallen
25 soldiers over to their families, whereas they buried the enemy soldiers
1 in mass graves?
2 A. Yes. No doubt that that happens at times, yes.
3 Q. Thank you. Did you know that during the first year of war, up to
4 March 1993, in the territory under the control of the Muslim side there
5 were over 1.200 people killed and buried in over 50 mass graves? I'm
6 talking about Serbs who were buried in mass graves.
7 A. I have no doubt about that either.
8 Q. Did the hosts then tell you do not investigate this mass grave or
9 the other mass grave because the bodies that were buried there were
10 killed during the 44 months of the war? Did they warn you not to do
11 something, not to investigate some place because they belonged to a
12 different period?
13 A. They didn't -- they didn't mention anything like that. I was not
14 aware and I'm not surprised that there would be bodies like that. If we
15 had dug them up, they would probably have uniforms on, and that would be
16 another situation and that would be a different report.
17 Q. Did you know that according to Muslim sources, up to 85 per cent
18 of their own soldiers never wore uniforms?
19 A. I have no doubt of that either.
20 Q. Thank you. Did they tell you that between 13.000 and 15.000
21 people, Muslims, from Srebrenica after the 11th of July, went in the
22 direction of Tuzla and they were fighting all the time? Two or 3.000
23 were civilians, the other were combatants, and a lot of them lost their
24 lives while they were trying to break through towards Tuzla.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
1 MR. MITCHELL: Can I get a cite for the claim that 2- to 3.000
2 were civilians and the rest were combatants.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, if I had time, I would do
5 that. However, we heard Mr. Franken who said that between 13.000 and
6 15.000 set out, and we saw reports of a Muslim intelligence agency in
7 which it says that 10.000 combatants reached Tuzla, that they had passed
9 JUDGE KWON: The question was: Among those number of people,
10 what's the basis on your part to -- to argue that only 2- or 3.000 were
11 civilians among them?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The basis is the fact that 10.000
13 were combatants, which was confirmed by the Muslims. On top of all those
14 who were killed, 10.000 reached Tuzla, and we know that the column
15 consisted of anything between 12.000 and 15.000 people and 10.000 reached
17 JUDGE KWON: When you would like to quote Mr. Franken, be
18 precise, or just put your case to the witness.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I will do that in my
20 closing argument.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. However, I put it to you, sir, based on what we have heard in the
23 proceedings so far, that 13.000 to 15.000 people set out in the direction
24 of Tuzla, that one-third carried weapons, and that the Muslim side
25 registered 10.000 combatants who finally arrived in Tuzla and that some
1 3.000 were considered to be lost during their breakthrough through the
2 forest. Do you know all that?
3 A. Vaguely, yes. Yeah.
4 Q. Thank you. Did you know that the Serbs found those bodies in the
5 forests, in the woods, and that they buried them in mass graves?
6 A. I wasn't aware of that.
7 Q. Thank you. Did you know, did you hear that in Bare about 600
8 bodies of people who died from shrapnel was found on the surface?
9 A. I am not aware of any of these things, so I can't really comment
10 on them.
11 Q. Thank you. If I put it to you that our Zvornik Brigade, which
12 was entrenched and putting up defence, suffered more losses over those
13 three or four days than during the entire length of the war, would you
14 agree that the side that mounted the attack must have suffered even more
15 losses than that?
16 A. Well, I'm not into battle-field things like that. I don't -- I
17 could see what happened or not. I don't know. I was not there. I don't
18 know about this.
19 Q. Thank you. Do you agree with me that the host should have
20 informed you of all the possibilities so that you did not have all those
21 ambiguities that you, yourself, very honestly admitted having?
22 A. Could you -- could you tell me more when I said that there were
23 these ambiguities that I admitted having? Can you tell me where that
24 appears or if I could review that?
25 Q. On page 3759 in the Krstic case, in answering Judge Riad's
2 A. What was the context of that? Could you please tell me that?
3 Then I might be able to help you.
4 JUDGE KWON: Let's upload Exhibit P4310, 4310.
5 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
6 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I think this is a specific line of
7 questioning that relates to whether the Branjevo Farm had been disturbed
8 and whether Dr. Haglund was aware at the time that he did the exhumation,
9 whether that grave had been disturbed or not.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes. If doctor sees the transcript page, that will
11 be resolved, naturally. So -- it's page 37.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes. If I could make it a little larger.
13 JUDGE KWON: We'll come to that. Hard copy, yes, it's coming.
14 THE WITNESS: Well, as you see by my report on the Branjevo Farm,
15 the Lazete grave was very, very -- it just shouted at you. You knew what
16 happened there. And I really -- really couldn't come to a final
17 determination of what I felt there. I think I gave a couple
18 possibilities, and I just said I would just wait for further information
19 to come, because I didn't feel that I -- it was ambiguous to me, and I
20 didn't want to say something that -- it's ambiguous. That's how you --
21 it's ambiguous. I can't make a call one or the other. And I gave two
22 possibilities and there were probably other probabilities too. But
23 everything does not seem clear to me. Some things are ambiguous.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Thank you. Well, that's a very fair conclusion on the part of a
1 scientist. However, I'm asking you now if you had all the information
2 about the war that had lasted for 44 months and that in July during the
3 critical period of time there were a lot of dead who were subsequently
4 buried in mass graves, would it have been easier for you to deal with
5 those ambiguities and possibly resolve them?
6 A. Well, would I have to -- have to investigate and exhume the grave
7 and find out what was going on. Some -- if you see most of these -- of
8 reports that we're -- we're looking at, I was able to resolve most of the
9 problems, and I came to conclusions. Each grave is different.
10 Q. I would like to call up the two previous pages, 3757, for
11 example, and then 3758. Do you agree with me, Mr. Haglund, that it is a
12 much easier job for a piece of machinery to split a body, to break a body
13 in parts if that body is in an advanced stage of decomposition? Much
14 easier, that is, than it would have been for the same machine to do it
15 immediately after the death of that person while the body was still
16 fresh, as it were.
17 A. Well, with these bodies that are fresh and actually adipocered,
18 they last a long time in damp places like some of these graves were. A
19 big machine could do that. Whether it was fleshed, unfleshed, skeletal,
20 all they have to do is just drop that big bucket right down there - it
21 weighs hundreds of pounds - and they would just crush it. And if you're
22 dealing with bodies that are more -- gone far beyond in decomposition,
23 when you lift them up parts will drop off, if the bodies were in that
24 kind of condition. So, yes, you have a good point, yeah. But it wasn't
25 this way in these graves. They were put in there fresh, and any
1 decomposition that happened came while they were in the grave.
2 Q. Please look. You are aware that things could have been different
3 here. If you look at the page, you can see that from line 7 -- look at
4 your answer starting at line 7. And then line 17 --
5 A. I'd like to read the paragraph before, if I could here, and then
6 I'll read down. Could you put it back, put it down so I could see the
7 previous question and that -- what's going on there. Thank you very
8 much. It jumped off my screen.
9 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I note the time. I take it that we
10 have a printout of this transcript, Mr. Mitchell. I was wondering why we
11 do not have more legible ones.
12 MR. MITCHELL: We can upload a better quality version and --
13 JUDGE KWON: But -- but we'll take a break now. Why don't we
14 hand over the transcript to the doctor so that he can read during the
16 MR. MITCHELL: Certainly.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, please be
18 mindful of the fact that we have a very important witness here who has
19 produced four reports. Please look at the time that you have given me
20 irrespective of the fact that I'm a layperson. I believe that any
21 Defence would have a lot of work here in terms of examining this witness.
22 JUDGE KWON: I would not spend in the manner as you did.
23 We'll take a break for 20 minutes and resume at quarter to 11.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 10.47 a.m.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Dr. Haglund, please look at the entire page. Can we scroll up to
4 page 25. You say here that the bodies may have been collected from the
5 surface with the help of machines; is that correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Do we then agree that you say here:
8 [In English] "They could have tumbled and maybe been torn apart"?
9 [Interpretation] Is this something that could have happened if
10 the sanitisation process took place months after those people died?
11 A. The one flyover picture I saw were the bodies in the field, and
12 they were moved to the grade, which was a bit aways. I had -- I think
13 they were moved by a machine, and I think they were scooped up off the
14 ground, and they rolled and some of them got cut apart and some got put
15 in that pile. Now I know there are secondly and tertiary graves where
16 parts of those individuals were not in that first grave, that group of
17 individuals, but bodies that had been removed from that grave ended up in
18 secondary and tertiary graves and part of those individuals belong to the
19 people that were -- in the -- what part that I was able to -- we were --
20 out team was able to -- exhumed.
21 Q. I may not have been very precise. This is my assumption: There
22 was fighting. Some of those who died in fighting were discovered only
23 through you four weeks later, and then machines were used to collect the
24 bodies from the surface. If a body that was collected in such a way from
25 the surface and you, yourself, mentioned the fact that there may have
1 been mechanical collection from the surface, would it have been easier
2 for such a body to be torn apart by such a machine a month after the
3 death than it would have been for such a body to be torn apart if it was
4 scooped by the machine immediately after the death?
5 A. The same.
6 Q. But you said that a body in an advanced state of decomposition
7 is -- is easier to disintegrate, to tear apart, than a fresh body.
8 A. Yeah. Usually if it's -- if it's decomposed, yeah.
9 Q. Now, another possibility. Can we rule out the possibility that
10 one sanitisation drive from one battle-field collected some bodies whole
11 and tore some other bodies apart, depositing them in one location,
12 whereas another group of bodies were collected elsewhere and placed in a
13 different grave?
14 A. That's a possibility, but I think we know now that that's not
15 true, because all the buses brought those people out the same day, but
16 that's not part of my report. This is stuff that I learned afterwards I
17 didn't know about.
18 Q. And who told you that, and how do you know that there were no
19 people buried there beforehand? I'm talking in principle. I'm not
20 talking about any particular grave site. How do you know that in each
21 sanitisation bodies are not added to an existing grave?
22 A. I'm sure it does happen. If the bodies were out, you know, say,
23 like, three weeks or so that you said, I think we'd see some difference.
24 In a deep grave like that we would have been able to tell there was
25 something going on. If one pile was in -- torn apart but wasn't -- they
1 were -- they were sort of save underneath that amount of dirt and they
2 were doing -- going through adipocere and not regular decomposition that
3 you would on the surface, and I think if we'd seen another part of the
4 grave that -- that looked really different than the one we did and it was
5 that deep, we would have some questions about that. But, of course, we
6 didn't run into any other -- other groups of bodies down there, only at
7 that one. And I'm saying in general also, so ...
8 Q. Thank you. But regarding Lazete 1 and Lazete 2, within Lazete 2A
9 and B show certain differences. Did anyone ever give you the task to
10 determine which grave sites would be related to sanitisation and which
11 ones would be related to executions?
12 A. Well, in -- in the Lazete grave, once that grave was opened, they
13 got to the atmosphere, and I think that they could have -- they would
14 have -- they would have decomposed a bit more and faster because of that,
15 but if you look at the bodies still in there, they're in pretty good
16 condition. It's just the parts that were pulled off and fell off that
17 were different.
18 Q. Is there a single grave where the degree of decomposition is
19 approximately the same across the grave? In other words, is it the case
20 that there is a large range in terms of decomposition?
21 A. Yeah, there is a difference in the decomposition. The bodies
22 that are in the mass, where the mass grave is, the bodies are together,
23 they retain fluids from the bodies and -- and they're, like, sealed
24 together. But when you go around the periphery of the grave, one part of
25 the body may be sticking into that mass and maybe the legs or the head or
1 one part will be sticking out all by themselves. They'll be more
2 decomposed than the ones in the mass themselves. But throughout I found
3 when these graves were in piles pretty much the people within the pile
4 are going to be pretty much the same decomposition as -- or preservation
5 throughout that mass.
6 I could show you pictures of those things, those kind of things,
8 Q. Is that the only explanation, or is it one of the possible
10 A. That's when they're all dumped in together and--- at one time,
11 yeah. I, offhand -- I'm not sure I'm clear on what -- what the question
12 is, but they pretty main -- they maintain pretty well. I mean they're --
13 they happened in the Katyn graves. After some 1993 they were doing --
14 they did some exhumations, and those bodies are still -- have saponified
15 tissue on them. It's amazing.
16 Q. You're talking about Katyn in Poland.
17 [No interpretation]
18 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat the question. We didn't have the
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Concerning variations in the degree of decomposition, is the only
22 explanation the one you just gave, that bodies were in a pile and that
23 different conditions apply, or is it just one of the possible
25 A. That's one of the possible explanations. In -- in dry -- in a
1 really dry desert, for instance, like in Iraq, you have bodies that have
2 been in for a year or two, and they may be of -- they're -- they'll maybe
3 get more like mummified because there's not a lot of -- I just happened
4 to do one grave that they were -- they were sort of laying in a single
5 layer, but they were mummified and they were rather deep. And when you
6 talk about the Cerska grave, although -- and you can see that was a
7 shallow grave, a lot of those bodies are partially decomposed and the
8 bones are free and defleshed and some parts of the bodies are still
9 there. It would depend upon if other bodies had been laying on top of
10 them -- for protecting them from the heat and the sun and the warmed up
11 gravel that was around them. So, yes, there are different environments
12 where these -- where various different kinds of things happen to the
13 remains as far as decomposition.
14 Q. I'm sorry, I'm waiting for the interpretation. When we take into
15 account the grave -- was it Pilica where you found that the grave is 28
16 metres long and only 14 per cent of it was filled with bodies; is that
18 A. Yes. Of just the floor. It was of the floor of the grave, yeah.
19 Q. Thank you. Now, in your opinion, that's a primary grave; right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Let us now try to establish what happened there. How did it come
22 about that a grave 28 metres long of a regular shape was dug and then
23 only 14 per cent of it is used? More precisely, did anyone warn you that
24 somebody -- did somebody tell you that it could have been a trench that
25 was later almost accidentally used to bury people?
1 A. I've not heard anything like that, no.
2 Q. But you know that there was combat there and the positions
4 A. I'm not aware of the -- of the combat situation in -- in the war.
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Mitchell.
6 MR. MITCHELL: Can I clarify? Is Mr. Karadzic citing to
7 something in the trial, or is it his position that there was combat in
8 Pilica, because I don't think we've heard any evidence that there was
9 combat anywhere near this location.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Mr. Karadzic, what did you mean by "there"?
11 Did you mean that there was combat in the Branjevo Military Farm?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm saying the entire area is
13 criss-crossed with trenches, and I'm asking the witness if he has an
14 explanation how come a big grave like that was dug and then only 14
15 per cent of it is used? Did he take into account the possibility that it
16 was once a trench that was then opportunistically used to bury people.
17 JUDGE KWON: We heard the answer from the doctor. Please move
18 on, Mr. Karadzic.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Do you agree that this one mass grave, although we couldn't
21 really call it a mass grave because there was only one body of an elderly
22 gentleman was there, used to be a trench, and do you remember you found
23 shell cases of a large calibre there from bullets that he probably fired
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Before you answer, Dr. Haglund.
1 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
2 MR. MITCHELL: Which grave are we talking about now? The body of
3 one elderly gentleman --
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. --
5 Mr. MITCHELL: -- there, used to be a trench.
6 THE WITNESS: Nova Kasaba, is that what you're talking about?
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. I don't know how that man died. He had -- well, I know how --
10 his -- he had a -- a blunt trauma to his head, and he was buried in a --
11 in a very shallow grave. I have no idea of who put him there or if he
12 was connected to the other three graves that we have at -- at that time.
13 Q. Did you go there or did somebody give you this information? Were
14 you there at the time of the exhumation?
15 A. Yes, of course. I was gone during one when the -- there was
16 another grave found there that had six individuals in. One had 7, one
17 had 19, 1 person in one grave, and then there were 6 in another grave. I
18 think I was at the autopsy area that day, but I was informed about all
19 the stuff when I came back the next day. And I can see the photographs
20 and things like that.
21 Q. Thank you. We've heard testimony here from a man who attended
22 the exhumation that that particular grave used to be a trench and has all
23 the characteristic of a trench. I'm asking you now, do you accept the
24 possibility that trenches, once captured --
25 JUDGE KWON: You are wasting time by not giving precise
2 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
3 MR. MITCHELL: I was going to ask for a citation and also just
4 for Mr. Karadzic's reference, point out if he's referring to
5 Mr. Baraybar, there are two sets of Nova Kasaba graves. So those two
6 sets of graves shouldn't be confused.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. I think this is Nova Kasaba 4 that I'm talking about, and you
10 spoke about that in the Krstic trial, page 3765. In Nova Kasaba 4, you
11 saw 19 bodies. And in another one, you found one. It could be Kasaba 4.
12 I think one body was found there.
13 JUDGE KWON: Do you have the transcript, Doctor, with you?
14 THE WITNESS: Of the --
15 JUDGE KWON: The Krstic trial. It's 3765.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
17 MR. KARADZIC:
18 Q. "Who had no determined cause of death. Skeletal remains which is
19 explainable because of the relatively superficial nature of the body
20 compared to the depth of the ones that were fleshed at the same site."
21 A. Yes. He could have been in there longer. He could have been
22 found decomposed somewhere and put in that shallow grave. I don't know.
23 All I know is he had, I think, blunt trauma to the head, and he was
25 Q. [Interpretation] Did they inform you that he was buried in a
1 trench and shell casings of a large calibre were found next to his body,
2 and they could have been fired only by the man himself?
3 A. I -- I don't recall that at all.
4 Q. Thank you. Please look at this: The Trial Chamber put very
5 interesting questions to you in the Krstic case. Look at page 3769.
6 Judge Wald asked you whether they were placed that way, and you say --
8 JUDGE KWON: Let us find the page.
9 THE WITNESS: 3765 --
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 3773 should be the page and goes on
11 at 3774.
12 THE WITNESS: Three.
13 JUDGE KWON: Bottom of the page.
14 THE WITNESS: And this is 377?
15 THE ACCUSED: 3773. [Interpretation] We can move on to the next
16 page now.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Your answer was not heard here, but Judge Wald wonders how it is
19 possible for somebody to be hit by 20 bullets if that was an execution.
20 How long does a man keep standing after being hit by a high velocity
21 bullet from an automatic weapon?
22 A. Still I'm looking at 3773, and I'm trying to find that --
23 JUDGE KWON: Then why don't we rely on the e-court. Let -- let
24 us show the doctor the bottom of page 3773. You see Judge Wald's
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, okay.
2 JUDGE KWON: And if you're done with this page, let us know so we
3 can move to the next page.
4 Next page.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes. Mm-hmm. May I stand up just a second?
6 JUDGE KWON: I beg your pardon?
7 THE WITNESS: Could I stand up for just a second, here?
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, of course.
9 THE WITNESS: The people that shot these people that were lined
10 up along the other side of the road--
11 JUDGE KWON: If you could speak to the microphone. Yes, that
12 would be sufficient.
13 THE WITNESS: They did that spray-type shooting. They stood with
14 automatic weapons across from him with these people facing forward for
15 the most part, and just spraying those people with shots. That's why so
16 many of them were -- some of them were shot 20 times. And they could be
17 shot again in the grave but some of them were probably still alive when
18 they hold them in. So, yes, he could have 20 shots on him.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Let's look at the text to the bottom of the page. Is it the case
22 that in Cerska, the grave about which Judge Wald was asking, the victims
23 fell down a slope, according to what you determined?
24 A. They either fell over the slope or had been rolled over after
25 they fell. Maybe some of them fell in a row. They were rolled over each
1 other, rolled down the incline.
2 Q. Thank you. Let's follow your answer from page 22 and now we can
3 move to the next page. From line 22, sorry.
4 This is your first answer; right?
5 A. Mm-hmm.
6 Q. Were you aware that there had been or could have been
7 opportunistic killing and opportunistic grave robbing and manipulation of
8 graves and tampering by people who didn't know what was where?
9 A. And where is this statement he's asking us. I guess our question
10 is ...
11 Q. I'm putting my question, and if you don't -- if you answer, I
12 don't have to call up that passage. Were you aware that there could have
13 been opportunistic killing there and that bodies may have been buried at
14 different times?
15 A. Well, they were buried by machines that dug the graves, and there
16 was one big smear. I didn't see any differences. There were tracks
17 going over there and they were continuous, so ... I think it happened
18 around the same time. It could have been separate episodes but around
19 the same time.
20 Q. Look at your answer to Judge Wald's question starting at line 5,
21 and your answer begins at line 9, and then let's read till the bottom of
22 the page.
23 A. Yep. Okay.
24 Q. [In English] But one question --
25 A. Yes, I said it may have happened at different times, yeah, you're
1 right, you're correct. I'm sorry.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we see the bottom of the page.
3 You say you are sure they did not intend to leave body parts and
4 that was your impression. Can we see the next page?
5 A. That is true. And the reason they didn't -- for instance, in the
6 Lazete grave, that area, that drainage, driving those big machines there
7 destroyed all the brush and grass. All there was was mud, and it was a
8 continuos big area of mud. And we found that the graves alongside there,
9 alongside the embankment going up into a small forest, when people came
10 back, the people -- the people driving the trucks likely weren't the
11 individuals that did the killing. They wouldn't know, and even if they
12 took somebody back there that had been there, that surface was -- the
13 extent of that surface of area that -- the potential grave, they wouldn't
14 know exactly where those bodies were. It would look similar to them.
15 They would get close to them, but they didn't know, but they're digging
16 in there blindly. That's why they leave things behind. And that's why
17 they missed some things. They missed Lazete 2A, and they miss this one,
18 the Branjevo Farm grave, when the graves were being robbed.
19 Q. So as we can see at the very beginning of this page, all of that
20 is your impression; right? And please take a look at your answer to the
21 next question starting from line 5.
22 [In English] "Many -- I think there is many, many possible
23 reasonable explanations we could make."
24 [Interpretation] Is that your position?
25 A. Yes. It could be done at night. It could be done with
1 individuals who are not familiar with the graves. They didn't know the
2 extent of the graves. There are -- yeah. There's not a single answer to
3 these questions. It's dependent upon the -- it's --
4 Q. Thank you. Just as that is uncertain, there is also the
5 possibility of opportunistic killings; right? 3775 is the page
7 [In English] "There has subsequently been another Nova Kasaba
8 grave that has been exhumed, and I'm not sure how many individuals. I
9 believe it was less than hundred. I am not sure, but I think my
10 experience with homicides basically is oftentimes, although there may be
11 some systematic approach to some killings, some are more opportunistic
12 and you have a smaller group rather than a larger group. It's as simple
13 as that."
14 A. Yep.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Is that right?
16 A. That's what I said, yes.
17 Q. Thank you. Now can we establish the following: A grave of 28
18 metres, Pilica, was it dug first and were people brought there then and
19 executed, or was the execution carried out first and were they then
20 brought to that grave?
21 A. That's a question I cannot answer. I don't know an answer,
22 excuse me.
23 Q. But then it is quite unclear why -- or, rather, how this
24 happened. Why would somebody dig a big grave and have a small execution,
25 or if they already carried out an execution somewhere out in the field,
1 then they brought the victims there to -- to at that grave. Isn't that a
2 bit perplexing? Would you agree?
3 A. Well, no I don't. I can't answer that because I don't know an
4 answer. I haven't talked with these people.
5 Q. Thank you. Let us take a look at your report Lazete 2 from the
6 introduction onwards. In Serbian it's page 13.
7 Is it correct that Lazete 2 was investigated already on the
8 14th and 15th of April, 1996?
9 A. Page 13 of Lazete, what you said?
10 JUDGE KWON: I think it's first page of executive summary.
11 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. Fine.
12 JUDGE KWON: The last sentence --
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The introduction. It says,
14 Chapter II, "Introduction," and then --
15 THE WITNESS: Is this is on beginning page or page 13, because
16 page 13 is a ...
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In Serbian, it's page 13. There is
18 the introduction first and then the third paragraph says preliminary
19 investigation at Lazete 2.
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. That was prior to exhumations. This was when I was -- I came at
22 that time to look at the site. There was -- the only digging that was
23 done was we found an individual who was lying on the surface, and so we
24 sort -- it was a skeleton, and we bagged him up and put him in a -- in
25 a -- above where we thought the grave was and buried him so he would be
1 there when we came back, because the animals would -- there was a lot of
2 dogs and things around that -- we just want to protect that remains but
3 we photographed where we got it from, et cetera. But we did not -- I had
4 not much idea what was going on there until we opened up the grave. That
5 was just sort of an assessment.
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, the original English version says
7 "Preliminary reconnaissance."
8 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. It says "preliminary investigation"
9 here in the translation, "istraga." I'm sorry, so it's a mistranslation
10 and this is an official translation of that. However, all right.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. How many times was Lazete investigated, re-dug? And what
13 happened in April, is that authorised or unauthorised? According to our
14 legal system that would have been unauthorised digging. Who was it that
15 gave the order to have this carried out?
16 A. We didn't -- all we did was bury a gentleman there, and I wasn't
17 exhuming graves at that point. I do know we did -- when we did the
18 exhumation in that part where the bodies had been robbed from, as I told
19 you it was very wet and it was a very deep grave, and the water caused
20 some collapse into that area where that robbed grave was, Lazete 2B, and
21 it was dangerous, and so I made everybody get out of that grave, and we
22 filled it up, and then when the grave in front between the road and
23 the -- the Ovcara -- or Lazete 1 grave was done, I had marked in my
24 report there were still bodies that -- there was one body -- I knew
25 because the legs were sticking out, and so then they noted that and then
1 they went back in and dug that and got, I think, 19 people out that we
2 had to leave in there because of the danger of continuing the exhumation.
3 Q. Thank you. So in April of 1996, this was carried out, the first
4 probes. Then the first visit by Physicians for Human Rights was on the
5 19th of August, 1996, and that's when the first exhumations took place.
6 Were you interrupted by the rain then?
7 A. Yes. I comment on that in my report.
8 Q. Thank you. And then at the end of 2001, the investigation at
9 that particular grave was done or ended; right?
10 A. I'm not quite sure what it was. I think it was probably around
11 that time. If you say it's 2001 and you have seen the report, you're
12 correct. I have no idea. I knew it was a few years later.
13 Q. Thank you. Could you please take a look at the next page. It
14 says that this started on the 26th of August and went on until the
15 1st of September. The post-mortems were carried out in the temporary
16 morgue in Kalesija under the supervision of Dr. Robert Kirschner, the
17 director of the international forensics programme of the organisation
18 called Physicians for Human Rights. So he was the director of that
19 programme; right?
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could we please have a
21 page reference when this kind of material is quoted? Thank you.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Have you found it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So he was the director, and as I had asked, and I was told that
1 he was not.
2 A. He was the director but he wasn't around most of the time when he
3 would ask some -- one of the pathologists to be the director at that time
4 when he was gone, but of -- I think he was there at that time, because
5 this -- I'm not sure if he was there at the time. I didn't keep track of
6 his calendar. I know he had to go back and forth to the United States
7 and other places, an so -- but he officially was the director of the
8 autopsy and the pathologist.
9 JUDGE KWON: For the Registrar, it's page ending with 1643.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. When was this report submitted?
12 A. This report was submitted June 15, 1998. Is that what you're
14 JUDGE KWON: He said Lazete 2.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. But it was concluded by mid-September. Wasn't it handed in at
17 the end of September 1996?
18 A. No, it wasn't. After I got done with that, I had 25 volumes of
19 -- or 12 or 25 volumes to write, put together, and it took me a year and
20 a half to get those, and I prioritised those four graves that were being
21 done first -- or excuse me, the trials were going on where these
22 particular things were upon. The Ovcara grape was the first one that I
23 did. So that's why some of these things lingered for a long time. It's
24 just that I can only stay up 14, 15 hours a day and work on these things,
25 and I only had one helper to do that, so ...
1 Q. Thank you. Please take a look at the next sentence then that is
2 repeated very often when the final conclusions are being drawn up about
3 the cause of death.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could we please have a
6 JUDGE KWON: Let's find the reference and then go on.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] It's the same page that you
8 mentioned a moment ago.
9 A. Page 2 of the report, yeah.
10 Q. "Autopsies, examinations of victims began on August 26." That's
11 the beginning.
12 JUDGE KWON: We just -- further down.
13 THE WITNESS: I see that, yes.
14 JUDGE KWON: For the benefit of the interpreters. Yes. Carry
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. It says that:
18 "Finalisation of cause and manner of death as well as editing of
19 final autopsy reports was facilitated by ICTY legal advisor
20 Peter McCloskey. The pathology summary was written by forensic
21 pathologist Page Hudson, M.D. Other contributing authors to this report
22 are noted in the Acknowledgements (Section) IX, Volume I of this report."
23 Mr. Haglund, in several of your reports you acknowledge
24 Mr. McCloskey for his active participation in the establishment of
25 conclusion on the cause and manner of death as well as editing final
1 autopsy reports; isn't that right?
2 A. Yes. I had to put that in there because I wanted people to be
3 aware that he didn't make changes at anything. He just went around the
4 world to see the particular pathologists. I had done particular cases,
5 had them look it over, and if there was a change to -- made these
6 pathologists made the change, not McCloskey.
7 Q. I saw that in your testimony in the Tolimir case. However, do
8 you agree that -- this, that you are acknowledging him for is not really
9 courier's work. That is a very fundamental way of participating in the
10 work, and of course the OTP must find this embarrassing. So he did take
11 part in this endeavour and was acknowledged by you, duly acknowledged;
13 A. When I mean finalisation, he got the -- if there was a change or
14 anything done -- this was up in the air at the time there was this
15 investigation going on. He finalised it by taking it all to the doctors
16 and having them look at the papers, make sure they were comfortable with
17 it. If they weren't, they changed it. That was the finalisation. I
18 don't mean he did anything to finalise it, but he carried all the things
19 around the word being a finalisation to this, basically. I didn't mean
20 that he signed anything or determined cause of death for anyone or
21 anything like that, no. Maybe I mis-worded this in a way that don't make
22 sense to some people, but it made sense to me.
23 Q. Thank you. It makes sense to the Defence, too, but we just have
24 to have this established if that's the way it was.
25 Please look at Serbian page 79. I don't know what the English
1 page would be. It's before the blindfolds or the ligatures.
2 A. Is this in the same case that we're looking at here, the
3 Lazete -- Lazete.
4 Q. Yes, yes.
5 A. Okay, and I'm looking now, just before -- what part? Could you
6 please tell me again. I'm [indiscernible] [overlapping speakers]
7 blindfolds. Okay, I'll -- I'll --
8 Q. In Serbian I have page 79, number 3, Lazete 2, external
10 A. Okay. Let me get here and I'll find it here.
11 Q. Number 3, external examination.
12 A. I will find it.
13 Q. Two pages before the one that we see now in Serbian. Two pages
14 before this graph that we see. [Overlapping speakers] This is 8, number
15 8. This is 7 and 8. Eight in Serbian, 7 in English. Could we have 3?
16 A. Okay. I have it. I have it. It's my problem.
17 JUDGE KWON: What's the page number?
18 THE WITNESS: Forty-nine, I think that's where we are talking
19 about [overlapping speakers]
20 JUDGE KWON: Are we looking at the right page on the monitor?
21 THE WITNESS: Page 48 is where the blindfolds are. That was the
22 blindfolds. Is that what you wanted or what?
23 JUDGE KWON: I think he refers to the previous page.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no. It's not the right page in
25 English. Number 3. Yes, yes. This is it. Number 3.
1 JUDGE KWON: Page 48.
2 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Forty-eight, right there. So what is the --
3 what is the question there about that?
4 JUDGE KWON: And for the record, in e-court page 61, probably.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. So your answer given to Judge Wald in response to her question
8 about the possibility of different times of burial, please take a look at
9 this. If we look at this range of decomposition or degradation, does
10 that also open that possibility, if you will?
11 A. I want to look at her question if I could and see my answer. Are
12 we still around 3775 or ... could you tell me where Judge Wald asked that
13 question, what page it would be on the testimony?
14 JUDGE KWON: Her question started from 3773.
15 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
16 JUDGE KWON: Continuing to 37 --
17 THE WITNESS: Right.
18 JUDGE KWON: 76.
19 THE WITNESS: Right. I just want to know what particular page
20 we're looking at.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 3775.
23 THE WITNESS: Okay.
24 MR. MITCHELL: Correct.
25 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
1 MR. KARADZIC:
2 Q. [No interpretation]
3 [In English] "Yes, that's very interesting. They may have
4 appeared at different times. I have no idea."
5 [Interpretation] That was your answer.
6 A. It would have been a short-term time, but yeah.
7 Q. What about this conclusion from paragraph number 3, external
8 examinations? Does it provide a range in decomposition, and is that your
9 answer to Judge Wald too?
10 A. That -- yeah, there was that range, especially in -- not so much
11 in Lazete 2A, but in 2B, yes, there was a lot of differential
12 decomposition. There were bones. There were bodies that were
13 semi-saponified. There was -- there was a range, but that was because of
14 the opening of the grave.
15 Q. If I were to tell you, Mr. Haglund, that as a physician I would
16 want to have a distinction made between a sanitisation grave and a grave
17 that was the result of an execution, does that become one of the possible
18 explanations of these differences in Lazete A and B? So that is to say
19 burials after sanitising of the terrain, what you describe, these
20 different changes now, and on the other hand, a grave after a possible
21 execution. Would that be one of the possible explanations as well?
22 A. I never considered that. I've always thought it was about the
23 same time period but that, you know, there might be a little change. I'm
24 not sure. That -- that I do not know. But now with identifications
25 being made we -- we know when these people disappeared.
1 Q. Let me ask you about these identifications?
2 A. Let me -- let me-- let me just also say the people that went in
3 when it was drier, they feel that that was one trench and there were
4 piles of bodies put in and then they were covered up and then another
5 part of the trench would be filled. Now, I think that was probably their
6 idea and I don't -- you've already interviewed that individual who was in
7 charge of doing the second exhumation. He was from Guatemala.
8 Q. Let us take a look at this. This is the sequence. There is an
9 exhumation, bodies are handed over to Amor Masovic. They are taken for a
10 postmortem either to Kalesija or Visoko; right?
11 A. They -- they went -- I think at Kalesija. It was just by -- it's
12 a short way out of Sarajevo, or next to the -- where the US Army base was
13 where we had it done, so -- and -- and then I would think that the 2002
14 would be done at -- at another facility which I had never seen, so they'd
15 actually made another -- we were working in a destroyed clothing factory
16 or -- and they -- they were able with much more funding to have a real
17 stabilised place. That's why their -- that's why there's probably
18 difference. I wasn't -- didn't think about that, but that's what
19 happened I'm sure.
20 Q. What would have stopped Amor Masovic from placing on the table in
21 the meantime the corpses that he already has in Tuzla, any corpses that
22 he wanted to place on that table?
23 A. What table would that have been? He had no -- he had no
24 connection to our bodies till we turned them over when we were doing it
25 in 1996. I'm not quite sure. And then when they did the other
1 autopsies, they would have done the autopsies before they released them
2 to Masovic. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask me.
3 Q. When was the identification carried out? On the basis of DNA;
5 A. Some of them were done probably in the late -- more towards the
6 late end of 1990. Probably didn't start doing DNA, because I took the
7 DNA samples to the United States. It would have been -- we didn't get
8 identifications till 1996. Probably 1997, 1998, sort of. These were
9 difficult identifications. They were done by mitochondrial DNA, which
10 is, you know, more of a problematic thing, and -- but the other
11 identifications that have been done by the group ICMP, and it's a --
12 actually a real DNA lab, they had two great big storage areas with about
13 4.000 bodies in each one, and they were -- they still are doing -- these
14 are the people -- I don't know if they're near Tuzla. I think they're
15 near Tuzla that -- where they have their -- their laboratories and areas
16 where they do -- go over the skeletons and try to put pieces together.
17 Now they can do that with the DNA. So I -- I -- I don't -- Masovic
18 really had nothing -- I don't know if he -- I had no idea what he was
19 involved with. I first met him and we made a deal, or we made an
20 understanding of how these things would be transferred to the -- to the
21 Bosnians and -- but what they did, I don't know, because I didn't go back
22 there for a long time.
23 Q. Thank you. If I put it to you that they were identified --
24 actually, the remains of a person who died in 1982 were also identified,
25 and if I told you this, what would you say to that? How is that
2 A. Let me see.
3 Q. No. This is not something that you wrote. I'm putting this to
4 you, and I'm telling you that a person was identified who died of natural
5 causes in 1982, and you didn't do that, of course, what would you say to
6 that? What would be your comment?
7 JUDGE KWON: Before you answer, Dr. Haglund.
8 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
9 MR. MITCHELL: Again, is this a hypothetical question or is it
10 based on the evidence in the case? And if it is, I'd like a cite.
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We will submit the exhibit when we
13 talk about ICMP findings. I'm now just asking the witness, because he
14 was convinced that the bodies were not being manipulated when they were
15 handed over to the Bosnian government, and I'm putting it to him that a
16 person who died of natural causes in 1982 was identified as one of the
17 victims of the incident that happened in July 1995. Did you know that?
18 A. I'm not aware of that at all, but I know that some exhumations
19 were done in cemeteries and could have been picked up there, but I don't
20 know. We really don't have an answer to that. Interesting thing to
21 think about, but ...
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
23 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
24 MR. MITCHELL: And I think if that's the foundation of the
25 question, then we'd actually like to see that exhibit now, if possible.
1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I intend to disclose it in a more
3 systematised -- systematic form, and I'm now asking the witness whether
4 he is aware of that. I'm going to present it when we discuss ICMP
5 findings. I'm just asking the witness whether he was aware of such a
6 possibility, yes or no.
7 Can we go to the following page.
8 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We heard the witness's answer.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. The following page. Summary number 8 -- number 8, summary of
11 postmortem findings.
12 A. Okay. Summary.
13 Q. [In English] Number 8. [Interpretation] I'll apologise. Let's
14 stick to bullet point 5 before we move on. Go back to 5 for a moment,
16 Could you discern and were you informed about the custom that
17 even Serbs and especially Muslims wore bandannas? Could you discern
18 between a bandanna and a blindfold? Could you discern between any piece
19 of cloth worn around the head and a blindfold?
20 A. Well, I don't know. I'd have to review all the clothing. I
21 don't -- I don't recall having seen hats on any of these individuals, but
22 I -- so I couldn't answer that. I saw things on -- blindfolds on people,
23 and then I saw other people's -- other cloth, the same kinds of cloth,
24 the same shape that, if you took the blindfold off and held it out it
25 would be the same shape. I just assumed that they were blindfolds next
1 to people.
2 Q. However, if the hosts had informed you of that and if they had
3 shown you photos of combatants with pieces of cloth around their
4 foreheads, that would have been of some help to you; right?
5 A. Possibly. I don't know.
6 Q. Thank you. And now can we go to bullet point 8.
7 JUDGE KWON: Two pages further.
8 THE WITNESS: The pathology summary is what you're looking at, I
9 think. Or are we looking more in the -- in the -- I'm not sure if we're
10 looking in the report or if we're looking in the --
11 JUDGE KWON: We have it before us, "Pathology summary." He
13 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] [indiscernible] what
14 document we're looking at here. Okay. So what -- the question is?
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Well, it says here the bodies were from Srebrenica. Were you
17 told that or was there a way for you, yourself, to establish that they
18 were all from Srebrenica?
19 A. Yes, through the Red Cross. They were last seen in Srebrenica
20 alive and not after that by the people that were there. And that was in
21 the documents usually, I think, that ICRC got. They wanted to know where
22 the person was last seen alive, et cetera.
23 Q. However, they were not identified at the time; right? So you
24 were in no position to tell who was who. Nobody was; right?
25 A. Well, they were not different than any other graves that I
1 assumed and wrote that they were part of the Srebrenica people. That's
2 where these people were all disappearing at the same time, and like that
3 other information with the flyovers and things like that, we knew when
4 the graves were made, so -- it's a good question though.
5 Q. Thank you. In any case, if new bodies were added to a grave, to
6 any grave, then the previous one underneath was already overgrown with
7 grass; right?
8 A. You mean if you opened up a grave afterwards to put more people
9 in or -- you're talking about putting more people in the grave after the
10 first grave's done and grass has grown over the top, is that what you're
11 saying? Okay. And you're saying that got dug up again and the grass got
12 on top of the ones previously there -- I'm not sure I quite understand.
13 Q. In response to the Judge's question, you responded that burials
14 may have taken place at various times. For example, if somebody buried
15 bodies in 1993 or 1994 -- 1994, could that grave already be overgrown
16 with grass by 1995, and in that case would it have been identified as an
17 undisturbed grave at that time?
18 A. No. You'd have to get in the grave to find out if it was a
19 disturbed grave. You know, the grass grows very fast, and if -- if -- I
20 see -- I can't recall any of -- well, actually, the Cerska grave, there
21 was a lot of plants that had grown up. You can tell that they were very
22 young compared to the other area outside of the grave area, but it had
23 grown up at the same time, so it was consistent with one burial.
24 Q. Can we now look at -- for the missing body parts and can you
25 please look at the paragraph before that in your report. It would be on
1 page 58. In e-court it would be on page 71.
2 A. Page 58.
3 Q. It sayings here that pathologist description often concerned
4 missing body parts, but this did not say whether the grave comprised the
5 remains of at least one bone. Wouldn't this indicate a rather
6 superficial approach to the task at hand to a rather not precise approach
7 to the job?
8 A. Yes. The -- I think you're saying that the pathologist would
9 have -- of -- of -- name missing parts or body parts differently than any
10 other anthropologist did, and the anthropologist went through and got
11 them all together and looked at what the pathologist had -- had done and
12 they made it all one -- one approach, and so that they took care of that,
13 actually. I can say that. Last line. And it's presented in the
14 appendix of the book.
15 Q. Thank you. Now can we look at page 61 of your report? I don't
16 know what the corresponding page this would be in e-court.
17 JUDGE KWON: Seventy-four.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Number 2, digging or disturbance of the grave and removal of the
20 body parts between primary burial and the forensic excavation. It says
22 "Disturbance of the grave between primary burial and final
23 exhumation process at least for shallow graves is traditionally the
24 result of scavengers or exposure of the grave due to erosion. The
25 activities of humans may also result in loss of body parts. Lastly,
1 bones can disappear during the period of burial during -- due to
2 diagenesis (bone deterioration)."
3 That is your conclusion; right?
4 A. We didn't run into any bone deterioration in any of the graves
5 that we were in. I mean, the bones that were buried were in good
6 condition for the most part. Albeit they were fractured and things like
7 that and -- but we did see any. That was a general response to shallow
8 grave question.
9 Q. Thank you. You have listed all the reasons in this paragraph.
10 However, had you known that combat had taken place here and that bodies
11 were buried in different times, would you agree that sanitisation may
12 have fallen under the category "human activity"?
13 A. Now you're talking about sanitisation, about removing remains or
14 something like that?
15 Q. That's cleaning the former combat ground and removing casualties
16 from the site after combat.
17 A. None of those graves that we did, that never came to my mind.
18 There were no -- I don't think that there was anything to lead me to
19 believe that had happened.
20 Q. Did you exclude that possibility? Is there a way to exclude such
21 a possibility?
22 A. Are you thinking that there was a battle and parties of both
23 sides were buried in this grave? Is that -- are you talking about that
24 or -- I'm not really sure. Or are you talking about one battle and
25 people in it and somebody tried to remove them because they're their
1 people and that was the only side that was buried? I don't understand
2 the -- not quite. If you could delineate that for me a bit, clarify
4 Q. I'm going to put the Defence case to you: During combat, the
5 side that controls the area buries its own victims with dignity in the
6 presence of their families, whereas the victims that had fallen on the
7 enemy's side were buried in mass graves. That's how we discovered 50
8 Serb mass graves in the area that we liberated in March 1993.
9 And now my question: Do you know that the enemy soldiers, the
10 enemy victims that are left behind in your own territory, do you know
11 that after every combat they are buried? And when we're talking about
12 grave disturbance due to human activity, would that be one of such human
13 activities that would lead to the disturbance of a grave? Can you
14 exclude that as a possible cause?
15 A. Well, I certainly don't know if every combat individual is
16 buried. Yes. A disturbance would certainly have -- activities would
17 lead to disturbance of a grave, but of -- I really feel confident of
18 saying these are non-combats when they have -- blindfolded and their
19 hands tied behind their backs and they're all intermixed and it happened
20 in the same kind of time period. So, no, it -- it may pertain to some
21 situations, but it certainly wasn't any situations I was involved in the
22 graves of.
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, your time is up, and I have to ask how
24 much time would you need to conclude your cross-examination.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I would be happy with an
1 entire session but somehow I'm not hopeful. I don't think you'll give me
2 as long as that.
3 JUDGE KWON: Dr. Haglund, let me put this on behalf of the
4 accused whether I'm correctly representing him or not. For the purpose
5 of convenience, let's suppose a secondary grave. Would you exclude a
6 possibility that the Serbs, when the -- burying the bodies of those
7 victims brought the -- the other bodies who died at the field,
8 battle-field, and buried together at the same time?
9 THE WITNESS: Well, that's a possibility that people could be put
10 in another grave if they're --
11 JUDGE KWON: At the same grave.
12 THE WITNESS: At the same grave. That's possible, yeah.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We'll --
14 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure it -- it deals with these particular
15 graves, but yeah -- yeah, I'm sure that people do that, yeah. Yeah.
16 JUDGE KWON: We'll take a break for half an hour and resume at
17 quarter to 1.00.
18 Mr. Karadzic, you will have up to half an hour to conclude.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 JUDGE KWON: And do you have some re-examination, Mr. Mitchell?
21 MR. MITCHELL: Not at the moment.
22 JUDGE KWON: Then we may continue with Mr. Ruez, albeit briefly.
23 MR. MITCHELL: Correct. He's -- I believe he's ready. He's here
24 and ready whenever Dr. Haglund concludes.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope you know how old I am,
2 Your Honours. It would be easier for me to continue with Mr. Haglund
3 until the end of today's day and then continue with Mr. Ruez tomorrow.
4 This pace is really killing me.
5 JUDGE KWON: Let me consult my colleagues.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE KWON: Time is precious. We will continue with Mr. Ruez's
9 Half an hour.
10 --- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic. Please continue.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Do you agree with me that in the case of graveyards in
16 Nova Kasaba, the autopsy report is somewhat lacking in terms of the
17 description of injuries and traumas? To be more precise, only diagnosis
18 were given without any descriptions that might be verifiable and based on
19 which an expert anywhere until the world could draw the same conclusions?
20 A. There were hundreds and hundreds of slides taken, and basically
21 the autopsy information could be looked at by somebody else and they
22 could compare those photographs with what the pathologist had to say.
23 These are not ten-page, you know, pathology reports. These are hitting
24 the high points, what they needed.
25 Q. However, do you agree with me that an autopsy report everywhere
1 in the world should lead to the same conclusions? An autopsy report
2 based on a postmortem which was done by the book, descriptions based on
3 facts and based on the scientific procedure should lead to the same
4 conclusion by any expert anywhere in the world; right?
5 A. Yeah, I would think so.
6 Q. However, in Nova Kasaba all we see are diagnosis and not the
7 findings; i.e., there's no description of the procedure which ultimately
8 led to those diagnoses.
9 A. They put down a cause of death. You're right. People could look
10 at the photographs and see the -- we're talking about gunshot wounds for
11 the most part. You can see these on the slides that we took of -- of the
12 gunshots, and they're all categorised and are here at the Tribunal.
13 Q. However, the Defence needs to check that. The conclusions cannot
14 be verified based on what the pathologists have provided us with.
15 A. You'd have to take that up --
16 JUDGE KWON: Excuse me. I'm sorry.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Mitchell.
19 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I think it was clear before.
20 Nova Kasaba is not in the indictment, and so this line of questioning has
21 little -- little purpose. It's obviously relevant, but there are far
22 more relevant things that could be dealt with.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes. He was informed of that factor, but we cannot
24 exclude that line of questioning because it may relate to the credibility
25 of his expert report in general. But given the limited time, I'm a bit
1 disappointed, Mr. Karadzic, not to raise more direct and relevant issues
2 with this witness.
3 Yes, please carry on, Mr. Karadzic.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Just one more question regarding Nova Kasaba, although I don't
6 know to what extend it's not admitted, because it's in the transcript
7 from Krstic.
8 Is it true that only six ligatures were tied behind the back?
9 A. If that says it, it's probably correct.
10 Q. I would like to draw your attention just to a few more things
11 from the grave known as Pilica.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes?
13 MR. MITCHELL: If we are going to deal with Nova Kasaba, then we
14 should be accurate. The report actually says 27 of the 33 victims
15 recovered from the Nova Kasaba graves had their hands bound behind their
16 back, and that's VIII in the executive summary.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Now we are moving to Pilica. Very well.
18 Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic, but be precise when --
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I just want to say that it
20 follows from pathology findings that only 6 were tied behind the back.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. However, Mr. Haglund, did you encounter any cases where the
23 ligature is only on one hand?
24 A. I don't recall. I'd have to -- I'd have to look at the -- at
25 the -- the report, because it's been a long time since -- to remember all
2 Q. Thank you. Let us look at Pilica. Section D. Section D.
3 Pilica; A, use of territory; B, distribution of remains; C, the nature
4 and condition of remains; and D is the cover over the grave.
5 It says --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters would appreciate a reference.
7 JUDGE KWON: Let us find out the proper page and then continue.
8 What page do you have?
9 THE WITNESS: 61.
10 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, what page do you have in your version?
11 Are we looking at the correct page? No. It's Branjevo Farm.
12 Yes? What's its P number or ...
13 MR. MITCHELL: The 65 ter is 2452, and I think we're being
14 directed to page 61 in the hard copy. I'm not sure what that is in
16 JUDGE KWON: We will find out. Are you referring to this page,
17 Mr. Karadzic, "The Grave Fill"?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I believe that's it. It is.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, page 74 in e-court. What is your question?
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Look at the conclusions, or, rather, the bases [In English] that
22 these observations would suggest. [Interpretation] Can you read this?
23 JUDGE KWON: We all can read it, and what is your question,
24 Mr. Karadzic?
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Does this also suggest the possibility of phased burial wherein a
2 number of bodies was placed in the grave first and others were added
3 later? You should also look at the previous paragraph which mentions
4 partial fill, partial human remains, et cetera. Does this also indicate
5 that burial was carried out in stages, that the grave was opened and
6 reopened a number of times?
7 JUDGE KWON: Well, don't -- I find it difficult to follow your
8 question, how it follows from this passage. Why don't you reformulate
9 your question.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Haglund, D, the first paragraph under the sub-heading D says
12 that except for localised areas, [In English] Just a moment:
13 [As read] " ... grave filled from which partial human remains
14 were recovered and from the field directly associated with the major body
15 assemblage. Other soil excavation -- excavated from the original grave
16 space was not permeated with the order of decomposition. Soil -- a soil
17 sample collected from the [indiscernible] below zone was more like the
18 surface soil."
19 [Interpretation] How do you explain that this was certainly
20 unusual and that you observed it?
21 Let me try to assist you. Let's move on to the summary of
22 possible scenarios. Can we look for the summary of possible scenarios.
23 It's four, five pages further.
24 A. Page 64.
25 Q. Look at the first scenario, which says that dismemberment,
1 disarticulation of individuals occurred as they were scraped off the
2 field by machine for transportation to the grave. Where was the
3 execution carried out so that they had to be collected and transported?
4 A. Well, according to flyover, they were being shot out in a field
5 on the road from this farm.
6 Q. And that's where they were buried, too; right?
7 A. No. They were buried down -- down the field from that area
8 around the corner where the grave had been dug.
9 Q. That very long grave that was not utilised more than 14 per cent,
10 that's the one; right?
11 A. There was 14 per cent of the floor of the grave covered with
12 bodies. It didn't mean -- it doesn't say that there weren't other bodies
13 in it. There were bodies removed from it. We know that now.
14 Q. But you never found anywhere any trace that something else was
15 there in the other part of that grave, and you found there was no
16 evidence that something else had been there.
17 A. I believe some of the body parts that we found were found in
18 other graves. They made these piles, I think, now when I look at the two
19 possible scenarios and more information that I have now. There were
20 other piles of bodies in the grave, and they were cleaned out very well.
21 They had taken everything down below the floor. And I don't know where
22 all that dirt went, but I think they used -- that soil just went down and
23 down and down and down, and I think what they did is just filled up what
24 they took out, and they filled it up by pushing soil from the field in
25 there, fresh soil. I just think that but I don't know for sure.
1 Q. Let us look at the rest of the first scenario. If we could
2 scroll down. You say this scenario does not suggest subsequent
3 disturbance of the grave after the first burial. It also does not
4 explain the additional number of victims that were allegedly killed in
5 Pilica, nor does it explain why such a large space had been prepared for
6 the grave. This conclusion sounds reasonable to me.
7 Right? Is this conclusion consistent with what you found?
8 A. No. It was consistent with the second scenario. I did not know
9 that at the time.
10 Q. Ah-ha. You know that now, but at the time you write this, you
11 didn't know that.
12 A. That's right. That's why I put two possible scenarios there.
13 That none of them say that it's true one way or another. There's two
14 possible scenarios.
15 Q. Thank you. Can we see the second scenario. This scenario would
16 account for recovery of a single undisturbed body assemblage and body
17 parts. It would also explain dismemberment in presence of the kinds of
18 body parts as well as their extremely jumbled orientations in the body
19 assemblage. It could also explain the suggestion of additional
20 disturbance at the grave site subsequent to primary burial and the
21 absence of many of the additional victims suggested to have been killed
22 at Pilica. These are alleged to have been killed at Pilica, these
23 additional victims, or has it been established that they had been killed
24 in Pilica?
25 A. I wouldn't know if they were all killed there. Some of them
2 Q. Thank you. And now in this summary of conclusions, which I
3 believe is the next page, Chapter VII. You talk again about different
4 bases of decomposition, the interaction of many factors. Now that we
5 know some bodies were dismembered, that there was a surface layer and
6 various degrees of decomposition, we cannot rule out the possibility that
7 all the bodies, all the corpses, were buried there, too, can we? Is that
8 true? Different scenarios are possible; correct?
9 A. I just say it's not definite -- not a definite -- that I didn't
10 have enough definite information to make this decision.
11 Q. Thank you. How did this misunderstanding in your team occur --
12 or, rather, this difference of opinions between you and Dr. Kirschner?
13 Who and why made the decision that Kirschner's final procedure with the
14 findings should be corrected?
15 A. Well, I -- that was something that Dr. Kirschner did. I have no
16 idea. I -- I think he did it to -- to make it easier to put the
17 information out to people. He didn't generally change much, but I -- I
18 don't know. I never had this conversation with him.
19 Q. Thank you. But there was some misunderstanding, some tensions
20 occurred, and you said here in the examination-in-chief that some of
21 those tensions arose because Dr. Kirschner, as the chief pathologist,
22 finalised the findings of other pathologists and then an intervention was
23 made to change that; correct?
24 A. I don't think there was tensions at that time, and I think the
25 people, they -- some of the pathologists actually filled out our forms,
1 and then they did some of their own reports, or we never got those, but
2 we got what they had done for our -- our needs at that time.
3 Q. Do you agree that in this finding about Pilica 2 you acknowledged
4 Mr. McCloskey for his contribution in finalising the conclusions and
6 A. I think we had this conversation already. I don't know what else
7 I can add to this comment.
8 Q. We discussed it in connection with the different graves and grave
9 sites, and in this one, too, you acknowledge Mr. McCloskey; right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. Do you stand by what you said in the Tolimir case?
12 A. Every -- every one of these cases had to be reviewed, all of
13 these cases that we did, so I'd have the same statement in -- in each of
14 these, that McCloskey would be in there, because he did finalise -- get
15 these things finalised by going around the world. We had to take all
16 these autopsy findings to each person that had originally wrote them.
17 Q. I would now like to know about this misunderstanding that
18 occurred. It did occur. There was some objections to your work, and
19 Mr. McCloskey suggested in this case or in some other case that some of
20 your junior colleagues had complaints. Were they really younger
21 colleagues, or were they four or five experienced professionals who
22 had --
23 A. Experienced professionals had nothing much to say. It was some
24 other people that -- they had worked really hard and [indiscernible] if
25 you have a hundred people that are doing things, everybody is not happy.
1 So, that's fine. They can complain. They can do and say what they want
2 to say. The majority of the people had nothing to say at all but that
3 things were done very well and these were people who were much more
4 experienced. So -- and oftentimes these people did very good work, so
5 they can complain if they like.
6 Q. I will disregard what was not admitted in Rwanda, but did this
7 committee, this panel conducting the investigation in San Antonio, or
8 this inquiry, was it related to you or Dr. Kirschner?
9 A. It was Dr. Kirschner. This thing was basically about
10 Dr. Kirschner but there were some of these other complaints so they
11 tossed them into this thing, which is fair.
12 Q. These complaints about your work, weren't they at the source?
13 A. The source of this beating in Texas with these people? That's
14 what you're asking? No. It was the autopsy questions that -- and the
15 signing, the changing of -- of some of the wording of pathologists. But
16 since there was some complaints about me, four or five out of a hundred
17 people, they tossed them in too.
18 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, it's time to wrap up your
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Could we see 1D5021. Are you familiar with this person,
22 C.E. Moore, C. Elliott Moore who wrote this letter?
23 A. I know Elliott very well, yeah.
24 Q. Do you see that he's voicing complaints against you and
25 Dr. Kirschner alike, which would suggest he's not taking either side?
1 A. Well, that's fine.
2 Q. Do you see all the objections he has in your case, as well as
3 saying that Dr. Snow and others resigned from Physicians for
4 Human Rights? Could we see page 2. The last box at the bottom.
5 A. Yeah, well they could do that if they were in a snit. They could
6 do that, absolutely.
7 Q. [No interpretation]
8 [In English] "The removal of the remains went very fast, almost
9 too fast. For in some cases not all of the skeletal elements (hands and
10 feet, for example) that went with the person being removed did not get
11 into the right body bag because of crowding within the burials ...,"
12 [Interpretation] and so on.
13 [Interpretation] So we see that this is another way with regard
14 to speed and the placing of body parts into wrong bags, there could have
15 occurred an impression that they were dismembered; right?
16 A. Well, we didn't pull feet off of the bodies to put them in bags.
17 There were extra feet, and if they -- when they got to the autopsy area,
18 that was sorted out. So I'm not aware of this particular one. I don't
19 recall it, but ...
20 Q. Can we have the next page. Look at the top:
21 [In English]"These may account for the non-associated hands and
22 feet as well as other skeletal elements that were recovered later in the
23 excavation. Agree with C.C. Snow ... that on a good day, only 20 bodies
24 should be removed at that time a time."
25 [Interpretation] How many bodies were removed from these graves
1 on a daily basis?
2 A. Well, I'd have to look at it. I have every one -- every report
3 has the numbers of bodies released, taken out every day. So I can't
4 remember all these. It was many, many days.
5 Q. Can we have a look at what it says down there. Can we actually
6 look at the bottom of the page. We don't really have much time, so let's
7 see the bottom of the page.
8 JUDGE KWON: I said you had half an hour and then you reserve
9 this question to the last moment. Come to your last question.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. So do you see this here:
12 [In English] Why was the San Antonio inquiry done in the first
14 [Interpretation] Do you see that?
15 A. Where is this now? I'm --
16 Q. The last box on this page.
17 [In English] "Why was the San Antonio inquiry done in the first
19 A. Is this the -- is this the inquiry itself or is that in my report
20 or what? Where is it?
21 JUDGE KWON: He introduced -- this is a letter from Dr. Moore,
22 the second to one of the attorneys, Defence attorneys, at the Tribunal
23 whose name is Meek and Ostojic. Would you like to see the first page
24 [overlapping speakers]
25 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] Yeah, I would like that --
1 JUDGE KWON: This was shown to you but probably you didn't see.
2 It is not part of your report.
3 THE WITNESS: Yeah, okay. That's -- I was confused.
4 JUDGE KWON: Why don't we show the first page to the doctor.
5 This was shown to you when Mr. Karadzic asked you about Dr. Moore in the
7 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, okay. And this is in part of their
8 report, I see. Okay. Okay.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Do you see this that on the last page some experts established
11 that this was a case of sloppy science, and that was said in relation to
12 this work in Bosnia. Could you please have the last page displayed
13 because we don't have time. Namely Dr. Snow established [In English]
14 meant by sloppy science.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
16 THE WITNESS: That's his opinion. He wasn't there. And the
17 people -- some of the people that complained, complained to him. That's
18 the way things were. There weren't that many complaints. And it wasn't
19 sloppy. If you read this whole thing here, they say under the conditions
20 we were working on, it was pretty much very good. To read the whole
21 thing that they wrote in Texas.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
23 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I just want to clarify. It may
24 have been a translation error, but what Mr. Karadzic put that experts had
25 established that this was a case of sloppy science whether --
1 JUDGE KWON: We can read this document.
2 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
3 JUDGE KWON: Your last question, Mr. Karadzic.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Haglund, can we take it this way, that what you testified in
6 the Tolimir case also reflects your position.
7 A. I would assume so.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, since I don't
9 have enough time, may I tender the Tolimir transcript, at least the
10 cross-examination, if not the entire transcript? You will find it
11 useful, because the Trial Chamber put quite a few questions as well.
12 JUDGE KWON: My answer is no, but I have to consult my
13 colleagues, but in order to put -- tender that part, you should have
14 shown to the witness or asked the same question.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But the witness said that he
17 assumes that what he said was correct. He accepted that to be his own
19 JUDGE KWON: That's not a proper way to admit the transcript.
20 Yes, Mr. --
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I tender this last document
23 JUDGE KWON: No. Call Dr. Moore, Mr. Karadzic.
24 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
25 MR. MITCHELL: I don't have any questions, Mr. President, but I
1 would like to tender the San Antonio report. I overlooked that during my
2 direct examination. That was --
3 JUDGE KWON: Was it not tendered?
4 MR. MITCHELL: No.
5 JUDGE KWON: No position. That will be admitted.
6 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P4338, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Well, that concludes your evidence,
9 Dr. Haglund. On behalf of my colleagues and the Tribunal, I'd like to
10 thank you for your coming to The Hague again to give it.
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE KWON: Now you're free to go.
13 THE WITNESS: Okay. Fine. And I appreciated your questions.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Haglund.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE KWON: I take it Mr. Ruez is waiting, or is it practicable
17 to continue with Mr. Ruez, Mr. Mitchell?
18 MR. MITCHELL: He's here --
19 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
20 MR. MITCHELL: -- I'm told, so he's available.
21 JUDGE KWON: While he's being brought in, the Chamber will issue
22 a brief oral ruling. In the meantime, let's bring in the witness.
23 The Chamber will now issue an oral ruling.
24 On 17th of January, 2012, during the testimony of
25 Witness Pyers Tucker, the Chamber admitted associated exhibit at P4230, a
1 summary of three intercepted conversation from March 1993, between,
2 number one, General Mladic and the accused; number two, Vinko Pandurevic
3 and General Milovanovic; and number three General Mladic and
4 Vinko Pandurevic. In the relevant portion of his amalgamated statements
5 discussing Exhibit P4230, Mr. Tucker says "I have been told this is the
6 record of three conversations produced by Croatian intelligence services"
7 and then proceeds to discuss how the intercepted conversation relate to a
8 meeting he had on the 11th of March, 1993, with General Morillon,
9 Branko Grujic and Vinko Pandurevic.
10 The Chamber recalls its previous rulings that intercepts are a
11 special category of evidence which, before being admitted, requires
12 further evidence about their authenticity and reliability from sources
13 such as the relevant intercept operator or a participant in the
14 intercepted conversation. The Chamber considers that summaries of
15 intercepts such as those in P4230 fall into the same category and
16 therefore that Exhibit P4230 was not sufficiently authenticated for it to
17 be admitted through Pyers Tucker. The Chamber thus reconsiders its
18 decision of 17th of January, 2012, to admit P4230 and orders that the
19 documents be marked for identification as MFI P4230.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 JUDGE KWON: My apologies, Mr. Ruez, for your inconvenience. For
22 the remainder of today's session of, i.e., 15 minutes, we'll hear some
23 part of -- the introductory part of Mr. Karadzic's cross-examination.
24 WITNESS: JEAN-RENE RUEZ [Resumed]
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Ruez.
3 A. [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
4 Q. Thank you. This rudimentary knowledge of the Serbian language,
5 is that thanks to some special connection with Serbs and Serbian women,
6 more particularly?
7 A. No. In fact, "dobar dan" is probably the only word I learned
8 during my six years of mission in Bosnia and Republika Srpska.
9 Q. Thank you. For starters, let me ask you -- actually, I'll be
10 going to and fro because my time is short.
11 You said that on the basis of photographs, aerial images, that
12 is, it was concluded that something had been tampered with or not; right?
13 A. This is right.
14 Q. And now from this exhibit, and I forget the number, could we get
15 this aerial image 242?
16 JUDGE KWON: Can you -- in Mr. Ruez's book.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Ruez, does this give enough reason to conclude that between
20 the 7th and 27th of September something had happened there?
21 A. Yes, absolutely.
22 Q. In your view, which part had been tampered with, the one that
23 runs parallel to this line?
24 JUDGE KWON: Well, we can ask the witness to mark on the image.
1 THE WITNESS: It is the entire size of the primary mass grave
2 that is seen being disturbed on this photograph. If we compare the left
3 one with the right one, you can see that the lines or the stripes here on
4 the photograph are not the same than these ones, but the most specific
5 thing is that you have this little -- little pile here that is the push
6 of the heavy equipment which is not visible on the left part.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Thank you. None of the rest had been touched; right?
9 A. It -- it might have been touched, since when heavy equipment
10 rolls over the surface it leaves also some traces.
11 Q. Is this the same angle?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. Is the lighting the same? Were the weather conditions the same?
14 A. I could not say.
15 Q. Thank you. What about the structure on the left-hand photograph?
16 Is it different from -- I mean, the overall surface on the left-hand
17 photograph, is it the same or is it somewhat different in relation to the
18 one on the right-hand photograph, namely the parts that had not been
19 tampered with?
20 A. The fact is that when we say the angle is more or less the same,
21 it's not exactly the same. These type of platforms don't necessarily
22 overfly an area with the same angle. So indeed the line of vegetation at
23 the left is slightly different.
24 Q. What about the structure of the surface on the left hand? Does
25 it not look different, the overall surface and its structure when you
1 compare it to the one on the right?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted? Although
5 it's already been admitted but its been marked.
6 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit it as the next Defence exhibit.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 2045, Your Honours.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Can we look at picture number 177. Was this your first mission
11 in April 1996?
12 A. Yes, it was.
13 Q. This bone collection, was it collected from the surface or had it
14 been dug out?
15 A. The collection was made on the surface.
16 Q. And the things that look darker, were they not dug out? Was all
17 of this simply found on the surface?
18 A. All what is on this picture was found on the surface.
19 Q. Thank you. What else was included in your first mission in
20 April 1996?
21 A. The list was quite long, but do you mean during the entire
22 mission or only during the moment we went at the -- at the dam?
23 Q. The entire visit to Bosnia in April 1996. How did it come about?
24 What was its objective? What were its goals, and what are the goals that
25 were achieved?
1 A. Okay. The -- the goal of the April mission was purely dedicated
2 to locate and have a first look at the most important places that we
3 could attempt to spot thanks to the information coming from the witness
4 statements that we took during the summer 1995. So it included the -- to
5 go to the Orahovac area both at the school and at the execution sites.
6 It included the dam.
7 Q. Could I please ask you to pause at this point, because I'd like
8 to divide this question up because I put three questions in one. There
9 was a visit to Bosnia in April in 1996. Who decided that this visit
10 should take place?
11 A. I did prepare and organise the entire mission of 1990 -- of April
12 1995, as I did for all the missions we conducted in Bosnia, but mainly in
13 Republika Srpska.
14 Q. Thank you. At that point in time, what was your job? What was
15 your position?
16 A. At that time, I had the position of an investigator. There was
17 no specific team dedicated to the Srebrenica investigation.
18 Q. Where were you an investigator? Where were you employed?
19 A. I was employed at the OTP, the Office of the Prosecutor.
20 Q. From when?
21 A. I started to work at the OTP 7 of April, 1995.
22 Q. Thank you. And who gave you this task, or did you, yourself,
23 have this freedom to seek your own missions, if you will?
24 A. In a way I had the freedom to select whatever mission. I was
25 informed of this one by another employee at the OTP whose name is
1 Jean-Pierre Gejjy, Golf-Echo-Juliette-Juliette-Yankee, and who informed
2 me about this mission following a meeting he had at the -- with the
3 Prosecutor and the main assistants of the Prosecutor.
4 Q. And that was an official mission; right?
5 A. Like all the missions we conducted in any -- in any case.
6 Q. Were there also people who came and who were not on a mission
7 from the OTP or who were not employed by the OTP?
8 A. No. For the first mission I left with one investigator from
9 another team, one interpreter. We received the assistance on the spot of
10 a second interpreter, and later in August, another investigator came. So
11 we were in fact three people during the summer 1995 on the ground in the
12 Tuzla area to start the -- the collection of statements among the 25.000
13 refugees who were in this zone.
14 Q. Thank you. Can we briefly take a look at 188 from this album,
15 and then I'll be done.
16 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Could you please tell the Chamber what this thickest blue/grey
19 line is that separates Nezuk from Petkovci, for instance, to the best of
20 your knowledge?
21 A. The grey line symbolises the location of the confrontation area.
22 JUDGE KWON: Given the proceeding which will take place after
23 this, we will adjourn for today. We continue tomorrow at 9.00. Thank
24 you for your understanding.
25 The hearing is adjourned.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 1st day
3 of February, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.