1 Wednesday, 24 July 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Please continue, Mr. Mitchell.
8 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 WITNESS: DUSAN DUNJIC [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Mitchell: [Continued]
12 Q. Good morning, Professor.
13 A. Good morning.
14 Q. I want to move on now from the objectivity and impartiality of
15 your reports and ask you about some of your substantive criticisms of the
16 Prosecution's evidence. One of the main criticisms we've heard you
17 testify about and that's throughout your reports are the assumptions by
18 the Prosecution pathologists that the vast majority of gun-shot and other
19 injuries occurred in life and that these injuries were or contributed to
20 the cause of death. Now, the Prosecution experts explained these
21 assumptions very clearly in their reports, didn't they, Professor?
22 A. Yes, they explained the theory in the introduction, as John Clark
23 wrote that and everyone else wrote that in an identical way,
24 copy-and-paste system, they explained how difficult and impossible it was
25 to determine which wounds were created ante-mortem and which post-mortem
1 on the material that is skeletised, that was exhumed and so on and so
2 forth, and that is what is absolutely acceptable, and I said that all of
3 that is acceptable from a professional aspect. On the other hand, they
4 are now explaining their assumptions, the assumption that those people
5 had to have been in some way killed because there are corpses. The
6 second assumption was that the injuries in that case had to have been
7 ante-mortem, and then in the end, they refer to anthropological findings
8 as the only findings that could indicate that something was inflicted
9 ante-mortem. So I am actually criticising the generally accepted
10 assumption, and that applies to all, not just the anthropologist but also
11 the forensics experts who conducted the autopsies, the general assumption
12 that all of the injuries were inflicted ante-mortem, that all those --
13 all the corpses died from gun-shot wounds, and that there was a very
14 small number where the cause of death was not determined, where they
15 could not determine it, as there were no indications of any kind,
16 markings. I'm pointing that out because in this material this was
17 something that should have been put conditionally, and those parameters
18 should have been presented objectively that would speak to wounds having
19 been caused on the head as the cause of death but with the proviso that
20 it could have been assumed that such a person could have sustained those
21 injuries post-mortem, but that the cause of death was actually injury of
22 the chest --
23 Q. Professor -- Professor, let me --
24 A. -- they did have such cases --
25 Q. Let me stop you there --
1 A. All right, all right, all right. I understand. I understand.
2 Q. I just wanted to make sure the assumptions were very clear. You
3 understood that these assumptions were being relied on?
4 A. Yes, yes, I was participating [as interpreted] that the whole
5 time in my reports.
6 Q. Okay. And you'd agree that the Court has a lot of other evidence
7 on how those bodies ended up in those graves; correct?
8 A. Absolutely.
9 Q. Okay. So it's up to the Court to decide whether those
10 assumptions of the Prosecution experts is reasonable or not; correct?
11 A. I absolutely agree and I wrote it down, that it was up to the
12 Court to determine that. But it's not up to the forensics experts,
13 myself, Clark, Lawrence, and others, to say that the victims were killed
14 deliberately by execution and that injuries were inflicted deliberately.
15 That is not up to the expert; it's up to the expert to explain how the
16 injuries were caused, in which parts of the body, and for the person
17 conducting the autopsy to describe them in detail and to link them with
18 possible causes. But it's up to the Court, through all the presented
19 evidence other than the exhumations and the autopsies, through all the
20 presented evidence to establish whether that victim or that person who
21 was found killed, was it -- were they killed, were they executed, or was
22 this death caused by some other way. So for that reason I said that this
23 was up to the Court to include those elements, or rather, to decide and
24 not up to the experts who were providing very free conclusions.
25 Allow me, just permit me to tell you this, let me just give you
1 an example so that --
2 Q. Professor --
3 A. -- well, Haglund speaks about injury --
4 Q. -- let me stop you there --
5 A. Very well --
6 Q. Just come back to my question. It's the Court's role to decide
7 whether the assumptions of the Prosecution experts are reasonable or not;
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. All right. Let's -- I want to have a look at an example of one
11 of your analyses of a Prosecution autopsy report.
12 MR. MITCHELL: Can we have 65 ter 1D25489 in e-court, page 193 in
13 the English, 180 in the B/C/S.
14 Q. And what you'll see, Professor, is this is your analysis of a
15 body from the Ravnice grave.
16 A. Let me just find that. Very well.
17 Q. It's your early report from the Popovic case, Professor, the big
19 A. Ah, yes, yes, yes, yes.
20 Q. And we see here that on the fluoroscopy there was one
21 sharp-pointed copper jacket and some various other metal fragments --
22 A. Fragments.
23 Q. Yes. And --
24 A. I see.
25 Q. -- your comment is that there are no grounds to maintain that
1 these are gun-shot injuries. Is it your expert opinion, Professor, that
2 when the fluoroscope showed a sharp-pointed copper jacket in the body of
3 this individual, there are no grounds to maintain that this person has
4 suffered a gun-shot injury? That's your analysis of this?
5 A. Well, I am an expert for that and that's why I'm telling you now.
6 Look at this case, a skeletonised corpse with some skeletonised parts, a
7 copper jacket and some metal fragments were found. So the question here
8 is if these metal parts are part of a projectile that pass through the
9 soft tissue of the body or they were there subsequently from some other
10 body or from that area, they reached those described parts. My objection
11 is the description of the injuries are unfounded by the findings in the
12 main injuries here because below the fluoroscopy it says:
13 "Main injuries:
14 "Fractured blade of the left scapula with multiple bone defects.
15 Fractured 4th to 10th right ribs with many parts that are missing.
16 Fractured 5, 6, and 12 thoracic-vertebral bodies. Fracture of the right
17 radius ..."
18 Yes, these are fractures and by some logic of things they could
19 be created by a gun-shot wound, but based on such a description by any
20 forensics experts, regardless if there are metal fragments there or not
21 in the surrounding area, cannot conclude whether these are direct or
22 indirect fractures, whether those fractures were created by those parts
23 of the projectile or they were created in some other way.
24 What -- now we're going back to the beginning what you asked me
25 about. I don't have one element here on the basis of which I could
1 conclude that these are fractures caused by gun-shot wounds and that they
2 were inflicted ante-mortem. This is what I was talking about. What is
3 presented here is a finding which is not that detailed with certain
4 radiographic evidence and the cause of death is said to be injury of the
5 chest and abdomen inflicted by fire-arm with a finding that is seen here.
6 Somebody could draw a conclusion or they could say yes, gun-shot wounds
7 were found, but I know that this man was stabbed in the heart with a
8 knife which is not identified or that he was strangled. How could I know
9 that when that is not described ante-mortem? And this is precisely what
10 I'm talking about. And if I may digress, if you permit me, Mr. Mitchell.
11 Three weeks ago --
12 Q. Let me just come back to -- that -- we're not talking about just
13 metal fragments, we're talking about a sharp-pointed copper jacket inside
14 this person. That couldn't have gotten there without causing an injury,
15 could it?
16 A. And where is that sharp copper jacket found? Where is it
17 located? I'm asking you: Where is it? It's just mentioned here, but
18 where is it found in the body? Do you understand what I'm saying to you
19 now --
20 Q. I understand what you're saying, Professor --
21 A. -- what it says here, one sharp-pointed copper jacket --
22 Q. Yes, I'm just challenging the reasonableness of your assertion
23 that there are no grounds to maintain that these are gun-shot injuries
24 when there are quite obviously some very good grounds to maintain that
25 these are gun-shot injuries because there's a sharp-pointed copper jacket
1 inside this person; right?
2 A. I understand your legal formulation why you are disputing what
3 I'm saying because what needs to be proved is that it is so. All I want
4 to do is to present evidence to the Tribunal and to you that this finding
5 is not absolute proof for your assertion. In my comment I said that,
6 like in the majority of cases, a conclusion is disputable and it's not a
7 founded, grounded finding to state that this was inflicted by a fire-arm.
8 This copper jacket that was identified and that I know also came from a
9 projectile -- but I'm asking you where was it found? Was it embedded in
10 the bone or in some remnant of soft tissue and so on and so forth?
11 Therefore, I know that such a metal jacket can arrive secondarily if
12 bodies are piled one on top of another. This is what I'm talking about.
13 So I'm not criticising the findings; I'm just saying that this is an
14 incomplete finding for such an assertion, and the Trial Chamber would
15 have all the elements to prove everything. Would you like me to give you
16 an example? I just need three seconds without being interrupted.
17 Do you know that Tutankhamen, when they placed his body in an
18 x-ray in 1980 or 1976 for the first time, they established a fracture on
19 the right occipital bone, and only two years ago when they placed the
20 same body of Tutankhamen under a scanner and in an MRI, it was noted that
21 there were no fractures of the skull. But at that time in London they
22 asserted that in 1976, I don't know, whenever the first time he was
23 x-rayed, is that there was a fracture of the skull and that this was an
24 injury sustained in fighting, which is not true. So an x-ray is
25 something that is subject to a very serious discussion and it should be
1 taken very seriously.
2 So I have a radiographical finding here saying that a
3 sharp-pointed copper jacket is there. Where? How was it positioned?
4 This is what I'm talking about.
5 Q. Right. Let's move on, Professor.
6 You've been very critical of the Prosecution's autopsy reports
7 quite generally, so I just want to take a couple of minutes and ask you
8 about your own procedures and standards, Professor, that you implemented
9 when you were asked to examine some bodies in Eastern Bosnia in 1992.
10 You were part of a Serbian team that went to Zvornik on the 16th of May,
11 1992, weren't you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you went there because the Serbian Ministry of Health
14 received a request from the investigating judge in Zvornik to identify
15 150 bodies that had been collected in Karakaj and Bratunac; correct?
16 A. Now you're asking me about something that happened many years
17 ago, I assume -- yes, yes, we were there but I don't know any details.
18 But please, go ahead.
19 Q. Okay. Well --
20 A. Our professor was heading the team at the time.
21 Q. Yes, Professor Samuilo Pejakovic?
22 A. Samuilo Pejakovic.
23 Q. Yes. So you went to Karakaj on the 16th of May, 1992, and
24 examined 16 bodies in plastic bags in the slaughter-house; correct?
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. And you did a basic examination for age, sex, and any
2 characterisations that were useful for identifying these individuals?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And you found that four of them had identification on them,
5 identifying them as Muslims?
6 A. Believe me that I absolutely don't know the details. I did
7 provide a statement about it, but I don't recall the details. Perhaps
8 you can just give me some information and everything that is under my
9 signature I can confirm. I know that that was so, but I don't remember
10 the particulars. This was 20 years or more ago.
11 Q. Okay. So you did a basic examination but you didn't do an
12 autopsy on any of these bodies, did you?
13 A. No, no, we did not.
14 Q. Okay. So there's no formal autopsy report at all?
15 A. No. I think there are some photographs. I think I even showed
16 some photographs that we made for the purposes of identification, and
17 nothing more than that, to one of your investigators.
18 Q. Well, Dr. or Professor Pejakovic went down to Bratunac to look at
19 the 100-odd bodies in the primary school there, didn't he?
20 A. Yes, he went there alone. From what he told me or actually told
21 all of us, this was in the gym of the elementary school all together.
22 Since it was summer, the putrefaction was very pronounced so there was
23 concern that the infection would spread. So then he himself said that
24 that should be buried right away in order to prevent the possibility of
25 infection spreading. This is what I remember in this elementary school,
1 but we as a team who were with Professor Pejakovic, we did not go there.
2 Q. Yes. And so again this Serbian team sent over, didn't do any
3 autopsies. Professor Pejakovic said: Just put these bodies in a grave?
4 A. No -- yes, yes, yes, precisely. I think that when you asked me
5 that in order for everything to be clear to everyone it was -- I don't
6 know exactly which date it was. All of that began in a chaotic way.
7 Some actions began to happen and we got some information and requests to
8 help people over there in the field, for something to be done
9 there - that was still Yugoslavia, the jurisdictions were with the
10 republican ministries. So then there was some kind of military
11 jurisdiction and then police jurisdiction, then the investigating judge
12 would give an order: Can you as experts help us? What should we do with
13 all of those people we found dead on the streets? And I say: Well,
14 first of all we have to take -- see how many of them there were,
15 photograph them, try to identify them, and then bury them. That's how it
16 was exactly, and then they said: Well, there are a few dead people over
17 there, can you do something? So we said: All right. Let's see if we
18 can photograph them. If we can just take the basic parameters, if it is
19 a male, a female, what is the height, the length. And then they said:
20 Well, in some school over there near Bratunac, there is a large number of
21 bodies. Can something be done over there? I said: We cannot go there.
22 We don't know what this is about. We have to have a court order to do
23 autopsies. You cannot do an autopsy without a court order. Perhaps some
24 external examination can be done simply so that people are informed what
25 it's all about and so on and so forth. So that we -- all of that was
1 finished in the course of one day and we did not do any autopsies there.
2 The only thing we did was we photographed -- we photographed those people
3 in that place and we examined them. We even found those identification
4 documents, but I don't recall the details.
5 Q. Okay. The point is you and your colleagues were asked to look at
6 these bodies and did no autopsy reports at all, no description of the
7 mechanism of injury, no determination of cause of death, nothing like
9 A. No, at least I'm -- not that I'm aware of.
10 Q. Well, you'd agree, wouldn't you, that even if we accept your
11 criticisms of the Prosecution's autopsy reports - which we don't - you'd
12 agree that having an autopsy report with a short description and some
13 clearly defined assumptions is infinitely preferable to having no autopsy
14 report at all; correct?
15 A. Naturally, in normal circumstances.
16 Q. Well, let me ask you now about your evidence regarding the
17 enrichment of the graves. And I want to deal first with what you said
18 about Professor Wright's evidence on this point. You said in your
19 testimony on Monday at transcript 41752 that Professor Wright could not
20 rule out the possibility that the graves were enriched. Do you remember
22 A. Yes, yes, yes.
23 Q. And you said that Dr. Lawrence also couldn't rule out the
24 possibility that the graves were enriched?
25 A. Yes, as far as I remember and as far as my notes contain that.
1 Q. Well, Professor, you're correct about Dr. Lawrence. Dr. Lawrence
2 did say at transcript 22486 that he thought the variation in
3 decomposition was probably explained by the location of the mass grave,
4 but he accepted that he couldn't ascertain the time since death and so
5 there were alternative possibilities available. And then he stated on
6 three separate occasions that this was actually Professor Wright's area
7 of expertise and that these questions should be put to him.
8 Now, you're a forensic pathologist, Professor, do you accept - as
9 Dr. Lawrence did - that the question of whether the graves are enriched
10 is actually an archaeological question?
11 A. Well, you know what? I told you right away the school that I
12 belong to as a forensic physician. I don't think that Professor Lawrence
13 and I went through the same sort of schooling. As a forensic
14 pathologist, I can assess whether there was enrichment of the grave
15 primarily based on the decomposition of the body. The fact of the matter
16 is that an archaeologist would have specific knowledge relative to the
17 exploration of terrain, digging up the terrain, different types of soil,
18 et cetera, on the basis of which they can draw the conclusion as to
19 whether something was added at a later date. As a forensic expert, I
20 find this sort of information important in order to establish what sort
21 of decomposition can be found on the bodies in the grave and whether
22 there is a presence of putrefaction in the grave which may point to a
23 variation in times of death or times of interment. So in a way I believe
24 myself to be more competent in that field than the archaeologist who will
25 have a more narrow view of expertise. I have to have both his reports
1 and the autopsist's report in order to be able to establish that. I do
2 agree that the archaeologist would be able to establish whether it's a
3 primary or a secondary grave on the basis of artefacts found in another
4 locality, but I do assert that it is up to the forensic pathologist to
5 determine these issues.
6 Q. But you'd agree that on the specific question of whether there is
7 a single hole exhumed and a single deposit within that hole is a question
8 of archaeology?
9 A. The question should be formulated this way: Is there anything in
10 the hole or is there nothing? If a biological matter was buried there, a
11 man, an animal, a plant, in that case other specialities would be
12 involved in the investigation other than the archaeologist. If we're
13 talking about the mass graves where bodies were interred, the
14 archaeologist is there to establish the boundaries, the parameters of the
15 grave, to determine the features of the terrain, whether anything was
16 subsequently enlarged or not, et cetera. But without our forensic
17 examination of the position of the body, body parts, et cetera, nothing
18 much can be done. It's up to us. This is how we were taught and this is
19 how we did things. The archaeologist is a part of the auxiliary staff in
20 an investigation involving a mass grave.
21 Q. Well, let me be a little bit more specific then. When the
22 archaeologist is examining the grave and looks at the changes in soil
23 structure and whether or not that specific location has been disturbed on
24 one occasion or more than one occasion, that is the role of the
25 archaeologist, isn't it, to look specifically at the grave itself and see
1 whether that ground was disturbed once or more than one time?
2 A. My experience in the field shows that the best results are
3 achieved when the archaeologist begins to explore the space of the grave,
4 and when alongside forensic experts and technicians bodies are removed
5 and the surface beneath the corpses is explored and once the grave is
6 fully emptied, the archaeologist is to explore the grave-site again. And
7 so this is how it is best to approach the investigation of a grave where
8 more than one body was recovered.
9 Q. Well, Professor, you said that it was Professor Wright's evidence
10 that he could not exclude that the Glogova 1 grave was enriched. Let me
11 read you what Professor Wright said on the 1st of December, 2011, at
12 transcript 22313. And he was asked by Mr. Karadzic whether he found any
13 graves that were enriched. And he said:
14 "No. I understand the question and what you mean by 'enriched.'
15 I did not see any graves which I interpreted as having been opened up for
16 the purpose of depositing more bodies ..."
17 And then he went on and specifically said:
18 "I didn't see it at Glogova. I didn't see it at any of the
19 graves that are attributed to the Srebrenica event, but one of those
20 graves that we're talking about I did see in Bosnia but it was from 1992
21 killings ..."
22 So Professor Wright actually testified the exact opposite of what
23 you said, didn't he?
24 A. Well, let's clarify this.
25 Q. There's not much to clarify, Professor. You said he couldn't
1 rule out that the graves were enriched. And Professor Wright very
2 categorically said:
3 "I didn't see it at any of the graves that are attributed to the
4 Srebrenica event ..."
5 A. I don't know if we're talking about the same thing.
6 Professor Wright said that he could not rule out that some of the graves
7 were enriched at a later point. I don't know what the transcript says.
8 I listened to him say when he said that he could not rule it out. But
9 regardless of it all, what Dusan Janc wrote in his report confirms what
10 I'm saying now, i.e., that there were additional deposits of bodies in
11 some of the graves --
12 Q. We're going --
13 A. -- which precisely rules out --
14 Q. -- come to -- well, we're going to come to that shortly,
16 So Professor Wright testified that for the graves he exhumed he
17 didn't see any evidence that they had been opened up and enriched, and
18 that was the same testimony that Mr. Fredy Peccerelli gave about Lazete 1
19 grave at transcript 22741, where he said that there was no evidence that
20 Lazete 1 had been enriched either.
21 A. I know about Peccerelli.
22 Q. You say in your August 2009 report that you found
23 Mr. Peccerelli's report on Lazete 1 correct and acceptable. So you would
24 agree that his testimony that there was no evidence that that grave had
25 been enriched is also correct and acceptable, isn't it?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And Dr. Haglund, who led the exhumations at Branjevo, Lazete 2A
3 and 2B, and Cerska, was asked about this same issue by Mr. Karadzic at
4 transcript 23913. And he said:
5 "No, because most of these graves hadn't been added to. They
6 were -- bodies were taken out, not more bodies put in or put on other
7 bodies ..."
8 And then he goes on:
9 "I saw no indication of bodies having been there from previous
10 wars or previous burials. That didn't show up in what our findings
12 And then at transcript 23914 he said:
13 "It's become much more clear since then that we had little to go
14 on at that time. But when you have remains in a grave and you have one
15 person on the bottom, one person in the middle, and another person on the
16 top and these people are all wrapped around him because they're not
17 layered at all, then you know that these people were dumped in that grave
18 about the same time."
19 So, Professor, you've got the leaders of the Prosecution's
20 exhumation teams from 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, all saying that there is no
21 evidence in the graves that they exhumed, there's no evidence that those
22 graves were enriched. So you'd agree that those experts who led those
23 exhumations are in the best position to make that determination, aren't
25 A. They perhaps are in a position to view these matters; however,
1 from individual analysis that I conducted, this is not what follows.
2 Regardless of them having given these final opinions and findings, they
3 are not what follows from the state of matters. If you find bodies with
4 varied stages of decomposition in a single grave, that most certainly
5 indicates different times of death or times of interment. Now, the
6 evidence of Dusan Janc states precisely that, namely that bodies were put
7 in at different times. And my starting point was the statement by
8 Dusan Janc. It is a completely legitimate conclusion to draw, just as
9 they said that it was not up to me to conclude that -- that because
10 according to them there was enough evidence -- according to me there was
11 evidence, and according to them, that there were different times of
12 interment of these people. We could not have buried 300 people in a
13 single day, so it had to have been done at different times.
14 However, it wasn't just their evidence that I analysed. I
15 examined the individual analyses based on which they drew their
16 conclusions, and I saw that errors were made. I saw that opinions were
17 relatively unsubstantiated by findings, just as I indicated the case at
18 Ravnice. There is a finding there but I don't know how to interpret
19 it --
20 Q. Okay --
21 A. -- this is the point that I'm making. Therefore,
22 skeletonisation -- let me finish. Mummification. So skeletonisation,
23 when there is no soft tissue; mummification, when the tissue is dried;
24 saponification are other degrees of putrefaction. When all these are
25 found in a single location, in answer to a question -- just as Lawrence
1 said, that this reflected the degree of putrefaction in the pit itself --
2 now, in answer to the question as to whether this can explain the time of
3 death and whether it can point to possible different times of death and
4 different times of interment, he agreed with that possibility. He did
5 not rule out the possibility. So I'm talking as a forensic expert.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 13, although I see that there
9 is an indication that it should be repeated, the witness said that these
10 three degrees of putrefaction were found in a single grave.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 MR. MITCHELL:
13 Q. Professor, you keep coming back to Dusan Janc's corrigendum, so
14 why don't we look at that now. It's Exhibit D1975.
15 Let me be very clear, Professor. We don't contest that the
16 Glogova grave contained bodies from the Vuk Karadzic school in Bratunac,
17 from Potocari, Konjevic Polje, and one truckload along the grave --
18 sorry, along the Bratunac-Konjevic Polje road. But the point you're
19 making is that those bodies were deposited at different times; right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Well --
22 A. This is what follows from the supplement -- or rather, I'm sorry,
23 from the corrigendum to his report. This is what follows from it.
24 Q. Well, if you look at that corrigendum, it doesn't say anywhere
25 that those bodies were deposited at a different time, does it? This is
1 your assumption. If you look at the second bullet point, it says:
2 "The bodies of individuals from locations other than the Kravica
3 warehouse were also taken to the Glogova mass graves ..."
4 There is absolutely nothing about that happening subsequent to
5 when the Kravica warehouse bodies were put there, is there?
6 A. And when were the bodies taken over there from the Kravica
7 warehouse? At the same time as these others that were brought by trucks?
8 I'm asking you. What is the conclusion when he says "and along the road
9 a truckload of bodies"? So what does it mean to bring another truckload
10 of bodies? They were already interred and then --
11 Q. Professor, let me stop you.
12 A. -- subsequently brought over. How do you interpret it?
13 Q. Well, I'll tell you exactly how we interpret it. You need to
14 look at those three witness statements, don't you, to tell exactly when
15 those bodies were put in the grave?
16 A. So may I then know what these witnesses said? I only have this
17 report. Bodies of individuals from locations other than the Kravica
18 warehouse were also taken to the Glogova mass graves. So they were taken
19 or brought there. It is a lasting activity which has a certain duration.
20 These other locations include -- and now it goes on to say Bratunac up to
21 80 bodies, Potocari, Konjevic Polje, Bratunac is over here, Potocari is
22 over there, do you think it was all done in the space of one day or
23 perhaps later?
24 Q. Well, Professor, let me stop you --
25 A. -- his report which is based also on --
1 Q. -- before you speculate too much, those three witnesses make it
2 very clear that those bodies --
3 A. I am not speculating.
4 Q. Well, those three witnesses make it very clear that those bodies
5 were put in the Glogova grave while it was opened in the period from
6 approximately 14 to 17 July, which would mean that Professor Wright's
7 testimony that the Glogova grave wasn't enriched by a later deposit is
8 accurate; correct?
9 A. I do not base my opinion on witness statements. How would
10 Professor Wright in that case account for the different degrees of
11 putrefaction? He asserts that there was no later enrichment of the
12 grave, there were no later deposits of bodies. Then my question would
13 be: If all of them were buried at the same time, how is it possible to
14 bury this amount of bodies in the space of three days in the same grave
15 and have different degrees of putrefaction? This means that either times
16 of death were different or that they were brought from different areas,
17 which is confirmed here as the case. So if someone was buried in that
18 grave on the 15th of July, how did the body come to be skeletonised
19 unless the body -- unless the person died six months earlier.
20 So I'm telling you as a forensics expert, not just as an
21 archaeologist. So the witness statement is something that I can use only
22 to establish the approximate time of death. However, what I have been
23 arguing all this time on the basis of documents that I received as an
24 expert is that the victims that were recovered in these specific
25 locations were not buried in the space of five days, between the 10th or
1 the 19th of July, 1995, but that there were among them those who died
2 much, much earlier and even those who died outside of the Srebrenica area
3 in 1992 and 1993. This is what I'm talking about. I am trying to
4 present to the Court what the basis is of such conclusions that I'm
5 drawing as forensic expert.
6 Q. Let me tell you what Professor Wright had to say about the
7 different levels of putrefaction that you say can only indicate that the
8 bodies were deposited there at separate times. At transcript 22307 - and
9 this is when you were in the courtroom - he said:
10 "There was certainly differences in the stage of decomposition of
11 the bodies and that depended on where they were, where an individual lay
12 in the mass of bodies. If you're buried in a mass grave on the very edge
13 of the bodies, then you putrefy much faster and you're reduced to a
14 skeletal stage much faster than the individuals in the middle of the mass
15 of bodies. So they're not all at the same stage of decomposition, but
16 the differences in the stages of decomposition can be interpreted in
17 terms of where the body lies in the body mass when executed."
18 So do you accept that different rates of decomposition doesn't
19 necessarily mean they were buried at different times; it can actually be
20 a result of where the body is in the mass grave, can't it?
21 A. Allow me three seconds to find something. Precisely that which
22 Professor Lawrence said had to do with putrefaction in the mass grave and
23 the location of the body within the mass grave and that it had a bearing
24 on stages in decomposition and that is correct. However, what you went
25 on to read further, that it depended on where the body was shot dead, is
1 not correct, because not all the bodies in the grave were shot dead, not
2 all of them were executed. That's not --
3 Q. Professor, I didn't -- no, no, stop there --
4 A. -- true and I do not accept that. Now, the third thing which is
5 important which I'm trying to locate --
6 Q. I didn't say anything about where the bodies were shot dead. I'm
7 purely saying, as Professor Wright said, the location of the body within
8 the grave can affect the rate of decomposition, can't it?
9 A. That is all right, but you went on to read something else. Can
10 you read for me what it was in the transcript of Professor Lawrence?
11 Q. I don't know what you are asking, Professor. I didn't say
12 anything about where the bodies were shot, but I can tell you what
13 Professor Lawrence said or Dr. Lawrence said on this point at
14 transcript 22482, again when you were here. He said:
15 "There is often a great deal of variation in how fast a body can
16 decompose. In addition, work done on mass graves from the Second
17 World War demonstrates that. On the outside of the grave, the bodies
18 decompose faster than on the inside of the grave simply because of
19 proximity to air, to water, and that in the centre of the grave one tends
20 to see less decomposition because there is less oxygen, so a degree of
21 variation is not at all uncommon in a mass grave."
22 Let me ask you again, Professor, do you agree that different
23 rates of decomposition can be explained by different conditions within a
24 single grave?
25 A. Correct. However, during this court proceeding that I attended,
1 Professor Lawrence also said this: Variation in putrefaction also
2 indicates different times of death and different times of interment.
3 Now, in answer to this question put by Mr. Karadzic, he answered yes, and
4 this is what I'm claiming for the Chamber. It is not just the pit itself
5 and the position of bodies in that mass grave that have a bearing, but
6 also different times of death and different times of interment. You have
7 to mind this. When we're talking about different times of death, this is
8 something that we continue to disregard. The time of death does not have
9 to coincide with the time of interment. That's quite clear. Death could
10 have happened several months back and then the body may have been buried
11 with others. And if it died several months earlier, then you have
12 decomposition, skeletonisation, mummification, and saponification, and
13 then if you take this body and bury it together with three or four others
14 in a single grave, this time of death will not coincide with those other
15 times of death. That's what I'm saying.
16 Now, I suggested that Mr. Karadzic put that question to him at
17 the time and his answer was given on the 8th of December, 2012. That was
18 when I was listening to it. So I do accept this part of what he said,
19 what had a bearing on putrefaction, but do allow me to say this other bit
20 because it is, after all, part of my expertise. I'm not talking about
21 other things.
22 Q. Okay. Well, if you accept the evidence of the exhumation leaders
23 that each of these graves was a single interment, that the bodies were
24 put there all at one time, just accept the truth of that for a moment,
25 Professor, if that's the case, the reason why you see different rates of
1 decomposition in the grave is purely down to the different conditions
2 within the grave, isn't it?
3 A. Okay. And the question? I --
4 Q. Well, let me ask you again. Just accept the evidence of the
5 exhumation leaders that each of these graves was a single deposit. Just
6 accept the truth of that for a moment. If that's the case, the different
7 rates of decomposition within that grave can be explained purely by the
8 fact that it's a mass grave and there are different conditions within
9 that grave; correct?
10 A. This is a phenomenal construction of a question. If I say "yes,"
11 then I confirm the thesis. I will say "yes," however, with a caveat.
12 The different degree of putrefaction in one grave where there was a
13 simultaneous interment does not have to be only a reflection of
14 conditions in that grave but also a reflection of the time of death, the
15 way people died, and the conditions that the body was surrounded with
16 before burial. With that caveat that Lawrence also agreed with, I will
17 say yes. I will say that one of the conditions of the degree of
18 putrefaction and the appearance of the bodies in the grave is the
19 condition of the grave and the place where the body is found in the
21 Fine. Okay. I agree, but with the caveat that I've just
23 Q. Let's move to a different topic now, your theory about the DNA
24 connections between the primary and the secondary graves. Now, you
25 testified at transcript 41751 that if a body part in a secondary grave
1 doesn't have a DNA connection to a primary grave, then that secondary
2 grave is actually the primary grave for that body part. Have I
3 understood that correctly?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. And you say at various parts --
6 A. I apologise. It represents perhaps a primary grave for those
7 bodies which do not have a DNA connection with another primary grave.
8 Q. Okay. Well, we see, for example, in your most recent report,
9 your August 2012 report, that - this is at page 18 and the 65 ter number
10 is 1D25488 - you say that:
11 "Other bodies from these graves which were not connected by DNA
12 to other bodies were actually buried there primarily. In other words,
13 there is no evidence, no evidence, that the other bodies were moved."
14 Is that -- that's your evidence as you sit here, there is no
15 evidence --
16 A. Yes. This is the gist of my evidence and I will gladly repeat
18 Q. Okay. So you weren't aware then when you wrote this opinion that
19 it's an adjudicated fact in this case that there are ballistic, soil, and
20 other material links between those mass graves, between the primary and
21 secondary mass graves?
22 A. You mean what was said in the Vujadin Popovic case?
23 Q. Well, no. I'm just asking you, you say that unless there's a DNA
24 connection, there is no evidence that the other bodies were moved. And
25 I'm asking you whether you were aware that there are links between the
1 graves established by ballistics, by soil, and by material --
2 A. I was aware of that. I was aware of all the ballistic findings
3 and the artefacts, and I knew that the connection was established between
4 primary and secondary graves. This is correct. There are connections
5 between primary and secondary graves. However, I said that in those
6 secondary graves where there were connections with primary graves, a DNA
7 connection speaks of biological material and that biological material can
8 be connected to just one person for whom a DNA was established. Not all
9 the other bodies - and there were hundreds of them - were connected to a
10 primary grave. This is what I was saying.
11 So if we have ten connections here between a secondary and a
12 primary grave or a primary and another primary grave, you can ask me why
13 that would be the case because a body may be split. However, the other
14 bodies or the other body parts that are found in that secondary grave do
15 not have to originate from the primary grave, irrespective of the
16 projectiles that may have been found there. This is what I'm saying and
17 this is correct.
18 Q. Well, you'd agree that one reason why there mightn't be a DNA
19 connection between a primary and a secondary grave for a particular body
20 is because that body was dug up in its entirety from the primary grave
21 and moved in its entirety to the secondary grave? You'd agree with that,
22 wouldn't you?
23 A. Absolutely. This is one of the possibilities, a possibility of
24 that kind exists.
25 Q. Now, we've seen in your report, Professor, you cite to some
1 witness statements. You have the witness statement of the commander of
2 the road platoon from the Zvornik Brigade, Damjan Lazarevic, who was not
3 only at Orahovac, Kozluk, and Branjevo Farm during the initial burials;
4 he was also there while those graves were dug up to be reburied. Did you
5 have that statement?
6 A. Just a moment. I don't have that. I didn't use that, no, no. I
7 don't know what you're talking about, actually.
8 Q. Okay. So you didn't have any witness statements which actually
9 described the primary graves being dug up and the contents moved to the
10 secondary graves?
11 A. No, no. No. The only statements that I had in the
12 Vujadin Popovic case are the statements of the witnesses whose ERN
13 numbers I have provided. They describe the way how they tried to break
14 through from Srebrenica into the surrounding forests. As an expert, said
15 that it was not up to me to be the judge of their testimonies; it was up
16 to the Trial Chamber to do that. And I only used the segment from their
17 statement that indicated the way they were killed, what types of
18 fire-arms were used in those incidents, and what was important was that
19 we established that around Srebrenica during that period of time, between
20 the 11th and the 19th of July, when they embarked on that breakthrough to
21 the free territory outside of Srebrenica, they came across a lot of
22 bodies which were in the various stages of putrefaction. Alic Hasan is a
23 witness whose testimony I quote from, confirm that, and I found that very
24 important. The witness who testified here under an ERN number, he said
25 that he came across a group of a hundred killed people from Srebrenica,
1 and another witness stated that due to the shelling and artillery weapons
2 fire, one of their columns, that number between 3- and 4.000 people who
3 were withdrawing through the forest came under attack. Look here, 3- to
4 4.000 --
5 Q. Let me -- let me stop you there --
6 A. -- of people were crossing through the woods and they were
7 attacked --
8 Q. We --
9 A. -- hold on, hold on, let me -- let me finish. I have only these
10 witnesses, nobody else.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. I did not have that other witness whom you have mentioned.
13 Q. Okay. So when in your August 2012 report you said other than DNA
14 connections there is no evidence that the other bodies were moved, you
15 weren't taking account of witness statements, ballistic evidence, soil
16 evidence, or material evidence, were you?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So, sorry, "yes," you weren't taking account of those things?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. MITCHELL: Can we go to 65 ter 25488, page 21 in the English
21 and 18 in the B/C/S.
22 Q. This is your August 2012 report, Professor. You'll see
23 conclusion (d) or point (d), you say:
24 "The analysis" conducted to date "of the mechanism of injury and
25 the manner of injury in the cases I have analysed so far ... points to
1 the fact that in the majority of cases the injuries could have occurred
2 in combat, i.e., armed conflict, either by fire-arms, shells, or
3 explosives, and that all the exhumed bodies do not have the
4 characteristics of an 'execution' ('death by shooting') ..."
5 So that's your opinion, that all of the bodies exhumed lack the
6 characteristics of an execution by firing squad?
7 A. Are we talking about the chapter entitled the way deaths were
8 caused or the cause of death?
9 Q. It's down the bottom of the page, sub-point (d). It's on the
10 screen in front of you --
11 A. I can't find this.
12 Q. -- down the bottom of the page in the B/C/S.
13 A. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Now I can see it very well.
14 Q. Well, let me ask you the question again. It's your opinion that
15 all of the bodies exhumed lacked the characteristics of an execution by
16 firing squad?
17 A. If you read this carefully - I'm talking about exhibit (d) - I
18 said and I underline, the injuries inflicted by fire-arms, I'm trying to
19 rephrase now, do not show proof that they were inflicted by execution.
20 If you -- when you say "execution," you mean death by shooting, these
21 wounds do not have those characteristics. I wanted to emphasise that the
22 opinion that was given and that was that those were injuries inflicted by
23 execution and this is what Haglund describes as additional wounds from
24 bullets on the heads of several victims point to the fact that fire was
25 opened from close range, I do not agree with that opinion provided by
1 Mr. Haglund. And let me say why. If a body is putrefied or skeletised
2 and the bodies were in that condition, because that's how they were
3 described, and if there are ten wounds on that body, I as a forensic
4 expert, I don't know whether the wound in the occipital part of the head
5 was the first that was inflicted and it was followed by others or the
6 other way around. I cannot determine the sequence of the wounding. This
7 is not what we can do in our profession. I cannot accept this. I can
8 only say that there is a wound on the head, but I can't say whether --
9 Q. Professor --
10 A. -- it was inflicted by execution, i.e., whether the pistol barrel
11 was on the head of the victim. I can't even see the gunpowder traces.
12 This is what I'm talking about. This means that a majority of the bodies
13 which were injured from fire-arms do show characteristics of having been
14 wounded in a war conflict. Some of them even show elements that may be
15 accepted as being inflicted as a result of execution, and those were all
16 those people who had ligatures on their bodies. And as a forensics
17 expert, I may be in a position to conclude that they were executed. So
18 this is the explanation of what I wrote in my report.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gunpowder traces, the
22 Professor said "at the point of impact around the wound," this is what
23 the Professor said and this is missing from line 21. [In English] "I
24 can't even see the gunpowder traces ..."
25 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
1 MR. MITCHELL:
2 Q. Well, Professor, you've been critical of Dr. John Clark in
3 particular for allegedly stating that for the vast majority death cannot
4 be linked to conflict. And if we go back to page 11 in the English and
5 page 10 in the B/C/S of this report, and you'll see in the first
6 paragraph under point 4, manner of injury, you say:
7 "John Clark's position (presented in his report ERN 0308 0711 ...
8 is that," and you include this in inverted commas, "'for the vast
9 majority, death cannot be linked to combat ...'"
10 Professor, just have a look at, in your report, the phrase that
11 you've got in inverted commas in the B/C/S and then we'll take a quick
12 look at Dr. Clark's report and see if that phrase actually exists. You
13 can see that sentence there in inverted commas.
14 "'For the vast majority, death cannot be linked to combat ...'"
15 It's on the next page in the B/C/S. Professor, you can --
16 A. Now I can see that.
17 Q. -- see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. MITCHELL: Well, if we can have Exhibit P105 [sic] in
20 e-court, page 28 in the English and 32 in the B/C/S.
21 THE REGISTRAR: It's Exhibit P4105, Mr. Mitchell.
22 MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
24 MR. MITCHELL:
25 Q. And you can see here, Professor, there's absolutely nothing in
1 here that says "for the vast majority, death cannot be linked to combat."
2 If we zoom out the B/C/S a little bit, this is the exact page you were
3 referring to in your report, isn't it, 0308-0711?
4 A. No. Well, this is the report; however, this you will find at the
5 beginning and I kept on repeating that thing in my report. This is a
6 quote from that document.
7 Q. Well, Professor, you've specifically given --
8 A. Just a moment.
9 Q. -- this ERN and the words that you have quoted from the
10 translation in your report don't actually appear in Dr. Clark's report or
11 anything remotely like it. The point I'm making, Professor, is you've
12 quoted language from Dr. Clark's report or supposedly quoted language
13 that isn't actually there so you could set up an argument so you could
14 critique it; right?
15 A. Please --
16 Q. Perhaps we could take the break and --
17 A. I, I -- yes, give me a break. I'll then look at all the
18 documents because this is a direct quote from his report. Perhaps the
19 page indication is wrong, but this was quoted from his aggregate reports
20 dealing with all these three locations, the aggregate report this thick.
21 Q. Well, Professor, it can't be just a number -- an ERN mistake
22 because you actually quote. You say it's from the page that contains the
23 overall conclusions from the three grave-sites. So it's not just a
24 numerical error; you're obviously talking about this page.
25 JUDGE KWON: Mr. -- just a second.
1 Professor Dunjic, do you understand the question?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, yes.
3 JUDGE KWON: Shall we come back to this after the break so that
4 the --
5 MR. MITCHELL: Certainly.
6 JUDGE KWON: -- Professor could have a moment to take a look into
7 the entire report. And shall we continue?
8 MR. MITCHELL: I'm about to move to something slightly different,
9 Mr. President, so now --
10 JUDGE KWON: So if it is convenient --
11 MR. MITCHELL: -- would be a convenient time.
12 JUDGE KWON: -- shall we take a break.
13 Yes, we'll break until 11.00.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the Professor be provided
15 with the entire report from which the quote originates? Can he be
16 provided the report in hard copy?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no, I'll find it. I'll
18 find it.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have not more than 33 pages.
20 This is all I have.
21 JUDGE KWON: I think that the Professor has everything -- all the
22 documents. If necessary, through the Victims and Witnesses Section, he
23 can ask for further material, either to the Prosecution or the Defence.
25 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
1 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
2 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
3 Professor, did you have an opportunity to take a look at the
4 reports referred to?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did, I did. And I have to
6 apologise right away to say that Mr. Mitchell is right when he quoted
7 this page or when he cited this page. That is the original, the
8 document, that I mentioned as a number. However, the whole report is
9 30-odd pages in which Mr. Clark explained what he found in these three
10 locations. And as for what I wrote, that in that document, thinking of
11 the whole document, not just the overall conclusions, it says for a large
12 majority death cannot be linked to combat. And I found in his statement
13 of the 20th of February, 2007, in the Vujadin Popovic case where he said
14 in relation to these three locations, he drew a conclusion that for a
15 majority of the cases death cannot be linked to combat. So from his
16 overall conclusion, it arises that these people in these three locations,
17 Ravnice, Glogova, and Zeleni Jadar, were found with gun-shot wounds of
18 different calibres, and none of the men in these graves carried any
19 weaponry or military uniforms. In answer to the question whether these
20 are fighters or not, then on the 20th of February he said that a large
21 majority of deaths cannot be linked to combat, so I found that in the
22 main report for the Karadzic case on page 52. Therefore, that sentence
23 is part of his overall conclusions for these three locations. Then I, in
24 relation to that assertion and in relation to information as an expert
25 when I inspected the locations and these other documents, wrote that that
1 assertion, that it cannot be accepted that a large majority cannot be
2 linked to combat, said it could not be accepted and I explained why I
3 wrote that.
4 And you are right, Mr. Mitchell, to the extent that that is that
5 page 711, that's the last page here, the overall conclusions, and I
6 looked at his whole report which has over 30 pages, where, among other
7 things, he said later at the trial -- he stated this sentence, so that I
8 made an error that was not deliberate.
9 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
10 Please continue, Mr. Mitchell.
11 MR. MITCHELL:
12 Q. Just one more question on this particular thing, Professor.
13 We've reviewed Dr. Clark's report from cover to cover, and I believe it's
14 correct to say it doesn't actually mention the word "combat" once in this
15 whole report. It's not just this page.
16 A. Combat is not mentioned. That is a term that I used. I'm
17 talking about armed conflict, or rather, when I say "armed conflict,"
18 "oruzani sukob," I mean those woundings and injuries by various
19 instruments, especially when we're talking about shrapnel. Shrapnel is
20 not used for executions or death by firing. Therefore, I say that this
21 was in combat or was not in combat or was in a war conflict or not in a
22 war conflict. So this is where I make my difference so that it would not
23 be interpreted wrongly.
24 I said very precisely that for those cases where it was
25 established beyond doubt that they were tied, that they had ligatures and
1 so on and so forth, for those 450 to 500 people for whom it was
2 established that beyond doubt, I state as a forensics expert that it was
3 an execution regardless of the injuries inflicted, or rather, what they
4 were like by localisation, number, and so on and so forth. But as a
5 forensics man, I still claim that other injuries that were noted that
6 were caused by shrapnel, by shells, cannot be connected to executions.
7 And this is where I make my significant difference.
8 JUDGE KWON: Professor, as you know, our time is a bit limited,
9 so if you could keep your answer simple and short. Yes, thank you.
10 MR. MITCHELL:
11 Q. Professor, let's go back to your substantive criticism that all
12 the bodies exhumed lack the characteristics of an execution by firing
13 squad. And what I'd like to do now is go through two scenarios in this
14 case, one is an execution by firing squad and one is an execution that
15 involved the use of grenades, and get your views on whether what you saw
16 in the autopsy reports are consistent with that evidence.
17 The first scenario is based on the evidence we have for the
18 Branjevo Farm execution, and you reviewed some of the autopsy reports
19 from the Pilica site, didn't you?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. MITCHELL: If we can have in e-court 1D07723.
22 Q. This is the witness statement of Franc Kos who was a member of
23 the 10th Sabotage Detachment who was at the Branjevo Farm on the
24 16th of July, 1995, and who was convicted in the State Court for
25 participating in the killings there. What Mr. Kos says in this statement
2 "They unloaded 25 people," he's talking about the Branjevo Farm,
3 "half the bus. I say '25 people,' there may have been fewer. They took
4 them to the field in one group where Zoran Goronja was standing behind
5 the M84, who I had assigned as security. Marko Boskic was standing next
6 to him and then Marko Boskic told him, 'Step on it, kid. What are you
7 waiting for?' And then Zoran Goronja started shooting. He fired 10 or
8 20 rounds maybe, but since he was small and light, the M84 knocked him
10 And then Mr. Kos goes on to say that a number of soldiers
11 stepped-up and fired volleys from their automatic rifles and they did the
12 same thing with the second group. And there were many wounded, so he
13 went and put them out of their misery and shot four of them in the head.
14 So what Franc Kos is describing in his statement is an execution,
15 it's not armed conflict, is it, Professor?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And he described shots to the head, shots to the body, the use of
18 an M84 machine-gun, and the use of automatic rifles. Now, all of that is
19 consistent with the evidence that you saw in the autopsy reports for the
20 Pilica site; correct?
21 A. For the most part.
22 Q. Right. Well, Mr. Karadzic is calling Franc Kos as a witness in
23 his defence next week to give this evidence about the Branjevo Farm
24 executions. Professor, did they tell you -- did the Defence tell you
25 before you testified, before they asked you to take the stand and say
1 that this was armed conflict, that they were going to be calling evidence
2 that this was an execution a week after you testified?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have the reference.
4 Where did we say that these people who died in the Branjevo Farm died in
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic or Mr. Robinson, did the Defence ever
7 confirm they were executed in Branjevo Farm?
8 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President, we haven't taken -- we haven't
9 taken any position on that by any evidence so far that we've led.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
11 Shall we continue, Mr. Mitchell.
12 MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Mr. President.
13 Q. My question, Professor, was: Were you told that the Defence was
14 calling Franc Kos as a witness to describe the Branjevo Farm executions?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Let me just put two more pieces of information to you. This is
17 the evidence of Drazen Erdemovic now, which is Exhibit P332 in this case.
18 And at transcript page 10971 in that exhibit, Mr. Erdemovic said:
19 "The first people from that bus were blindfolded and their hands
20 were tied behind their backs."
21 That's consistent with the evidence that you saw in the Pilica
22 autopsy reports, isn't it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And Erdemovic also said that:
25 "We were ordered to shoot at them. They had their backs to us."
1 Now, evidence of shots to the back of the victims is also
2 consistent with the autopsy reports you reviewed, isn't it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. Professor, there were --
5 A. Just to be precise, in those cases where the entry wounds and
6 injuries were noted on the back of the body, from the head to the trunk
7 and the extremities, that is consistent in that part. You understand?
8 That is consistent with the testimony of this witness that you referred
9 to. I don't know what he said, that they were turned -- that their backs
10 were turned. So in that sense, I believe that is consistent with those
11 autopsy reports where the wounds or injuries were found on the back of
12 the corpses.
13 Q. There were 132 individuals exhumed from the Pilica Branjevo Farm
14 grave; correct?
15 A. Well, I cannot check that now. I assume that that is correct.
16 Q. Well, you can take my word that that's what it says in
17 Dr. Haglund's report, which is Exhibit P4321. And Dr. Haglund --
18 Dr. Haglund's report also says that 77 of those individuals had their
19 wrists bound and there were ligatures associated with a further five
20 victims. And your evidence in the Popovic case was that you didn't look
21 at the autopsy reports for the victims with ligatures; you only looked at
22 the ones without ligatures. Is that right?
23 A. That was when I testified?
24 Q. Yes. I'm just asking you to confirm that you only looked at the
25 autopsy reports for bodies that didn't have a ligature because you
1 accepted that the ones with ligatures were executed?
2 A. I accepted that those with ligatures were executed. Just one
3 moment. You said how many? 100? 130 -- Pilica ...
4 Yes, I have a list here from 2007. I cannot find -- ah, Pilica,
5 a large number of autopsies but there is no precise number. This is your
6 document --
7 Q. Right. The --
8 A. -- where it's listed by locations, but I did process Pilica --
9 Q. Yes --
10 A. -- those who did not have ligatures.
11 Q. Yes, that was the point I was getting at. You looked at the
12 autopsy reports for bodies without ligatures?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you accepted that the bodies which did have ligatures were
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Well, Professor, when forming your view that all of the bodies
18 exhumed lacked the characteristics of an execution by firing squad,
19 wouldn't it have been helpful for you to compare the injuries on the
20 bodies with ligatures who you accepted were executed with the bodies
21 without ligatures and see if there was any consistency between the
22 injuries on those two sets of bodies?
23 A. No, I did not do that. I accepted immediately that the bodies
24 with ligatures were executed. For the bodies for which there were no
25 ligatures on the arms and legs, the injuries that were observed were not
1 injuries which could be with certainty said to be caused by execution.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to repeat the
3 last sentence.
4 JUDGE KWON: Professor, Professor, probably you were speaking a
5 bit too fast. The interpreters were not able to catch the last
6 sentence --
7 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
8 JUDGE KWON: -- could you repeat it, please.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those bodies where there were no
10 ligatures on the arms or on any other part of the body for which I said
11 that they were executed and I accept that conclusion, that opinion,
12 that's one thing. All the other bodies where there were no ligatures and
13 if there were injuries I did not make a comparative analysis. Such
14 injuries by fire-arms are seen on people in the case of execution,
15 regardless of whether the front or the back of the body is facing that
16 direction. So by number and the localisation of the entry wounds, these
17 kinds of injuries can also be seen in armed conflict. That is what I
19 MR. MITCHELL:
20 Q. Yes. But you'd agree that it would be a useful thing to do to
21 compare the injuries on the group of bodies with ligatures with those
22 without because if those two groups have similar injuries, that would
23 suggest that they were killed in the same way; correct?
24 A. In a certain way, that could be accepted with certain caveats.
25 Q. Okay. Just one more point on this particular scenario. In your
1 big report, the combination of three reports that came from the Popovic
2 case, you make the point that where projectiles are found in a body, that
3 could mean the victim suffered a long-range combat injury because the
4 bullet might have slowed down and lost energy when it hit the victim. Do
5 you recall that -- those parts of your report?
6 A. I do remember that and I will reply immediately. In a certain
7 number of victims, projectiles were found, as we saw yesterday, in their
8 bodies. Those projectiles, as explained by ballistics and experts who
9 were your experts also, I agree, they have large speed and degree of
10 penetration. So the question is how you can find in one body three
11 projectiles, for example, the projectile shell, parts of the projectile?
12 What does such an autopsy finding indicate? To me as an expert, I as an
13 expert then answer that that would mean that in view of the
14 characteristics of a weapon, it means that either it was fired from a
15 large distance or the projectiles were passing through some kind of
16 obstacles which slowed them down or they passed through some bodies
17 previously and then stopped in the body where the projectile was found.
18 That would mean that. So from the forensic aspect, that projectile with
19 a large degree of penetration and speed in normal circumstances could
20 pass through the body and could cause certain injuries in soft and hard
21 tissue. But I also have to think in the option as to how and from which
22 distance the projectile was fired and did it pass through somebody's body
23 before that or through some other obstacle, meaning that it would be
24 slowed down.
25 Q. Well, let me --
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 2, the Professor said: But if
4 it stays, and that did not --
5 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreter did not hear the end of
6 that sentence.
7 THE ACCUSED: But if -- [Interpretation] But if it stopped, I
8 also have to think of options.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
10 Shall we continue, Mr. Mitchell.
11 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. Well, let me give you or describe to you how the Branjevo Farm
13 executions unfolded that day based on the evidence in this case. There's
14 a group of prisoners taken off a bus and lined up in the field and
15 they're shot, and then a second group is lined up directly behind those
16 dead bodies and they're shot. And this goes on for several hours with
17 each row lined up behind the one before. So as the bullets are passing
18 through those bodies, there are other dead bodies lined up behind them in
19 rows. So isn't another reasonable explanation for bullet fragments in
20 these bodies that the ones on the ground had been hit by bodies [sic]
21 passing through the prisoners who were then being shot at that particular
23 That's a reasonable explanation for why those bodies contain
24 projectiles, isn't it?
25 A. Absolutely, and I said that. That is one of the explanations
1 that is logical, a logical explanation. When you pass it through a
2 barrier, the barrier could be a body, a tree, a slab. So I put all of
3 these questions and this is something that applies to this one locality
4 where there are witness statements which would be consistent with the
5 ligatures as well. And so I'm not denying any of that.
6 Q. Okay. Let's move to the second scenario, which is an execution
7 involving grenades. And we see in your August 2012 report at page 13,
8 that's 65 ter 25488, and you're describing the injuries on the bodies
9 from the Ravnice, Glogova, and Zeleni Jadar 5 graves, and you say that
10 the blast injuries that are present on some of those bodies are
11 consistent with armed conflict.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And it's that point in your report where you refer to a number of
14 witness statements that describe armed conflict in the area; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. But you don't cite to a single witness statement that describes
17 the use of grenades at the Kravica warehouse, do you?
18 A. I only had these statements and I cited and quoted those.
19 Q. Okay. Well, let me read you something else from Mr. Karadzic's
20 Defence witness Franc Kos. And this is at page 15 of his statement where
21 he says:
22 "Members of the 10th Sabotage Detachment were at the Kravica
23 warehouse," and he says:
24 "Marko Boskic," who is another member of the unit, "headed
25 towards the depot, took two hand-grenades and then threw them into the
1 depot on the right-hand side in which the people who were alive were, two
3 So Mr. Karadzic's evidence from one of his witnesses is that
4 grenades were used at the Kravica warehouse. Now, that would assist you
5 in determining why the bodies in graves connected with the Kravica
6 warehouse had blast injuries on them; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, Professor, you've testified in a Srebrenica case at this
9 Tribunal before in the Popovic case, and you know that a significant body
10 of evidence about the executions exists. Did you ask the Defence for any
11 of those witness statements or any of that evidence when you were
12 drafting your reports for this case?
13 A. I received all the reports that were provided to Mr. Karadzic. I
14 already stated how many of them there were in electronic form. There
15 were files, folders, DVDs, images, et cetera. Everything that I received
16 I -- well, I managed to review a part of it. I did not seek nor did I
17 receive any sort of witness statements that you are now referring to. I
18 adhered to, or rather, I dealt with the forensic aspect of it.
19 In the Vujadin Popovic case, I received documents from the
20 Defence, the witness statements that I quoted where I concluded that
21 people were killed also by explosives. In some of the material related
22 to Kravica, there were elements where the use of explosives was
23 indicative. I'm not denying that.
24 You now told me that a witness said that two hand-grenades were
25 thrown in. Grenades would inflict smaller or larger injuries from
1 shrapnel and they might result in the death of several individuals on
2 whose bodies metal segments can be found. In those bodies where metal
3 segments were found, that's to say shrapnel, for those individuals it
4 could be said that they were killed by this sort of action.
5 However, let me say also this, that in other localities where
6 there is a presence of this occurrence, this does not exclude combat and
7 the fact that deaths were the result of combat. I cannot disregard the
8 evidence of the individuals who testified here who speak to a large
9 number of casualties, the use of mortars, PAMs, and other weapons of high
10 fire-power. Alic Hasan, Mehmet Alic, Enver Abdic, et cetera, they talk
11 about how people who were around them were killed. I want to say that
12 there is evidence of the use of very destructive weapons, shells, mortar
13 shells, PAMs, projectiles of high calibre, et cetera. On the basis of
14 this, I draw a conclusion that a large number of people were killed in
15 some sort of armed conflict and nothing more than that. I am not denying
16 it. I am only confirming.
17 Q. Well, Professor, you just said:
18 I cannot disregard the evidence of those individuals who talked
19 about armed conflict.
20 You did disregard all of the evidence about the executions,
21 didn't you? The Defence didn't provide it to you and you didn't ask for
22 it, despite seeing some of that evidence when you testified here in 2008
23 in the Popovic case?
24 A. I testified in the Popovic case and I explained and examined all
25 these cases; however, I did not have the statements of the witnesses that
1 you just put to me nor were these statements given to me by the Defence.
2 However, even what you have just told me will not in substance change the
3 main conclusion that arises from my expertise. So let's say I will
4 accept that 500 people were executed, but also that many people in the
5 area were killed in combat. I have to also emphasise, because of the
6 sake of the Tribunal and the truth, that a great many of individuals who
7 went missing and who are linked with the events in Srebrenica between
8 11 and 19 July 1995 were buried in these primary or secondary graves, but
9 that they were brought over there at a later stage or that their deaths
10 date far earlier than the events in Srebrenica. So there are three
11 groups of victims there, and I have to make this clear to the Tribunal
12 because the documents that I analysed confirm it.
13 You asked me a moment ago about Bratunac, about the 80 victims
14 that Mr. Pejakovic in that school -- that Mr. Pejakovic found and said
15 should be buried. That was 1992. And they are included on the list of
16 the Srebrenica victims. I don't see what sort of connection or link --
17 Q. Professor, you have just --
18 A. -- there should be and this is what I'm talking about --
19 Q. You have just completely made that up. Mr. Pejakovic went to
20 Bratunac, looked at a hundred bodies, and said: Bury them in a grave.
21 You have no idea who those people are, so how could you know that they're
22 on the Srebrenica missing list? You don't know who those hundred people
23 in 1992 were, do you?
24 A. Wait a minute, let's not talk this way. I'm not here to invent
1 Q. Well, you just said -- Professor, you just said that those
2 hundred people from Bratunac are on the Srebrenica missing list. You
3 don't know who those hundred people from Bratunac are, do you, that
4 Dr. Pejakovic or Professor Pejakovic went and looked at in 1992 and said:
5 Put them in a mass grave? You have no idea who those people are, do you?
6 A. I will prove it to you that I am not making it up. I know about
7 these individuals and I know what Professor Pejakovic did. However, in
8 the corrigendum by Dusan Janc - why do I keep going back to him? - says
9 that in Bratunac -- so bodies of other persons from -- other than those
10 from Kravica were brought to the Glogova grave and he says --
11 Q. Yet -- that's --
12 A. -- where from, including Bratunac up to 80 individuals. So I
13 am --
14 Q. Professor --
15 A. -- referring and relying on this document. It wasn't in 1992,
16 but these people were killed in Bratunac in 1992. When was it --
17 Q. Professor --
18 A. -- in 1992 that those people in Bratunac were killed --
19 Q. I don't know if you're deliberately conflating these two.
20 Professor Pejakovic looked at a hundred bodies in the school in Bratunac
21 in 1992. Dusan Janc is talking about 80 bodies from the Vuk Karadzic
22 school in 1995. They are completely separate things, aren't they?
23 A. It's not -- he's not speaking about 1995. Dusan Janc speaks
24 about Bratunac, 80 bodies, and around the school. So these locations
25 include the area in and around school Vuk Karadzic in Bratunac, up to
1 80 bodies, and this is written in the corrigendum by Dusan Janc. I'm not
2 inventing anything nor am I compiling things or collating them --
3 Q. So --
4 A. -- this is what it says.
5 Q. -- your expert opinion is that Dusan Janc is talking about the
6 same bodies that Professor Pejakovic looked at in 1992 and said: Put
7 them in a mass grave? That's your expert testimony, that those two are
8 the same event?
9 A. This is my expertise. Professor Pejakovic looked and examined
10 between 80 and 100 bodies in that school. He said that they should be
11 buried because of the risk of an epidemics. Where did those bodies come
12 from? Where they were buried? Where they were taken to? I don't know
13 nor does anybody present here know that. However, we have the report.
14 When I looked at Mr. Janc's report, I tied Bratunac and the school in
15 with this where they were probably buried, around the school, and these
16 are the bodies that he is referring to in connection with the correction
17 of the list of Srebrenica victims, no more. I don't know their names. I
18 don't know their exact number. So I am not speculating at all. I'm
19 merely drawing upon this document and the knowledge that I gained, and
20 unfortunately so, back there at the time, or rather, based on what I
21 heard from Professor Pejakovic.
22 Q. So a hundred nameless bodies buried in 1992 are on the Srebrenica
23 missing list, even though you have no idea who they are?
24 A. Yes. Just as Potocari 1 and Potocari 2 had those buried in them
25 from 1993. Tisova Kosa 1, and I wrote all of this in my report. People
1 who are precisely known to have died at such and such a time and where.
2 Even the BH army says that there were people who were killed in
3 connection with Srebrenica in combat in 1993, 1994 --
4 Q. Professor, just stick to the question --
5 A. -- all the way through to May of 1995.
6 Q. The question was, you made an assertion that those hundred bodies
7 that Professor Pejakovic saw in the school in Bratunac are on the
8 Srebrenica missing list. You have no idea who those hundred Muslims that
9 Professor Pejakovic saw were? You don't know their identities, do you?
10 Yes or no?
11 A. No, I don't.
12 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I don't have any further questions.
13 I'm not going to address the ABiH list with Dr. Dunjic. It's a
14 demographics issue. Dr. Tabeau's report specifically deals with this
15 issue, that's P4995, pages 93 to 98, that's our evidence and we rely on
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
18 Mr. Karadzic, do you have any re-examination?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Excellencies. Thank you.
20 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Let me start from the last issue, Professor.
22 You were asked if you had read all the witness statements. What was the
23 main bulk of material that you examined?
24 A. The main material was pathologists' reports and autopsy reports.
25 In addition to documents that may be used to estimate the time of death,
1 mechanism of injury, and circumstances prevailing in 1995 and after
2 July 1995. So these were the documents presented to me, exhumations,
3 method of work, method of exhumation, method of autopsy, et cetera. Now,
4 reports relating to certain locations by pathologists, anthropologists,
5 or archaeologists were the basis for the examination of individual
6 autopsy reports.
7 As an expert, my duty was not just toward you but toward the
8 Trial Chamber, the Defence, and the Prosecution to point to certain
9 illogicalities or to certain things that were not in line with the
10 medical profession, to point to possible deficiencies or shortcomings,
11 and to establish that the number of victims related to the Srebrenica
12 events of July -- or rather, to establish what the number is and whether
13 it is linked to executions only or to some other mechanism of injury at
14 some other time or in some other place.
15 Q. Thank you. At page 42 of today's transcript, Mr. Mitchell
16 described how the executions at Branjevo took place according to a
17 witness statement. It was said that the next line would stand behind
18 those who were executed. So if they stand behind them, how is it
19 possible for the bullets intended for them to end up in the bodies of
20 those who are in front of them?
21 A. I don't know if I understand you correctly. From what I
22 understood, the Prosecutor said that they were standing in front of those
23 who had already been executed.
24 Q. No, the other way around. At page 42, Mr. Mitchell said that the
25 disposition was exactly the other way around, that the first line would
1 be executed and that then behind that line the next row of people would
2 be executed. Under such circumstances, was it possible for the bullets
3 to kill that group of people and at the same time end up in the bodies of
4 those who had already been executed --
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, where did Mr. Mitchell say that the
6 second line was lined up behind or before the first line? Are you
7 referring to page 42, line --
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, line 19.
9 JUDGE KWON: All he said: And then a second group is lined up
10 behind those dead bodies.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Exactly, behind the dead bodies and
12 not in front of them.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
14 MR. MITCHELL: Perhaps it's -- my language wasn't precise enough,
15 Mr. President. I think it's clear when I say:
16 "As the bullets are passing through those bodies, there are other
17 dead bodies lined up behind them in rows."
18 That's the scenario.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was my understanding of it.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. However, Mr. Mitchell relied on the testimony of a witness who
22 said that they would have been lined up behind and not in front --
23 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, with respect, I think you are
24 confused about this. I mean, nobody would suggest that -- the bullets
25 may go through a front row and into the back row, but nobody's going to
1 suggest that they go through the front row into the back row and then
2 back into the front row. It's just a matter of common sense.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. On several occasions in the course of today's session, for
6 example, at page 28 and later, you were told that this was some
7 connection with Janc's report, that there were no indications of
8 executions. This is what was held against you when you said it.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have P04505, page 83.
10 Let's see what Investigator Manning had to say about this. No, the
11 number isn't correct. I said P04505. 4505. I apologise. There is a
12 mistake that I made. It's not the report. It's a different number.
13 It's 4502 it seems. 4504. Apologies. Can we have page 83 in Serbian.
14 It's 59, the pagination of the document, but the page in e-court is 83.
15 We have the right page in Serbian.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Professor, please, have a look at the 47 relatively intact
18 bodies. In respect of which of these bodies can one claim that they were
19 executed ?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the English version for
21 the parties? It may be page 59. There it is. Can we have the Serbian
22 version back.
23 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, if we could just confirm, I believe
24 we're talking about -- this is about Zeleni Jadar 5, but if Mr. Karadzic
25 could just confirm that.
1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, if we look at the previous
3 pages we will see exactly which one it is. I wasn't much dealing with
4 that. I wanted to take one page as an example. It deals with
5 47 relatively intact bodies. Zeleni Jadar 5.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see it down there. Can
7 you repeat the question now? I'm trying to read everything that is
8 written here.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Let's look at the top. 33 had a cause of death as gun-shot
11 wounds, one gun-shot and shrapnel wounds. Under 2, two had probable
12 gun-shot wounds. Three had possible gun-shot wounds, one possible as
13 gun-shot and shrapnel. And for 9 undetermined, and of these, seven had
14 small metal fragments present.
15 For which of these bodies can one claim in front of the Tribunal
16 that they were executed by firing squad?
17 A. In order to answer your question, as a professional, I would have
18 to have a look at the autopsy report for Zeleni Jadar 5 and state for
19 those who have gun-shot injuries and who had ligatures that they were
20 executed by firing squad, as I did previously. However, there is no
21 ligature for the 33 persons who were established to have died as a result
22 of gun-shot injuries. This is something that can possibly be said but
23 not claimed with certainty. This is not the sort of injury that would
24 militate in favour of either of these two options in my view.
25 However, the conclusions drawn here as to the cause of death are
1 quite interesting and I think quite proper. On the one hand, we are
2 given degrees of probability as to WHAT the cause of death which is much
3 more important than the actual cause of death. In one or two, cause of
4 death was established; and two or three, there was a probability,
5 possibly yes or no gun-shot injury; and under three, the injuries could
6 possibly be linked with possible cause of death. So definitely in those
7 cases where you cannot conclude that death was the result of gun-shot
8 injuries, for those definitely you could not say that they were executed
9 by firing squad, and this is what one could conclude on the basis of this
11 Q. Thank you. Do you know if there were one-body graves and what
12 did they contain? Multiple-body graves? How did the Muslim side
13 classify grave-sites?
14 A. I can't answer the question as to how those graves were
15 classified. There were mass graves containing multiple bodies. There
16 were smaller graves with fewer people who were buried there, 10, 20 of
17 them, and we also have one-body graves. The bodies were both brought
18 from the surface where they had been killed, either in a forest or in a
19 field, and in some reports that I perused previously, I saw that there
20 were also individual interments when people were individually buried.
21 But that was more in Central Bosnia and in Eastern Bosnia than elsewhere.
22 I can't remember where exactly in Central Bosnia and so on and so forth.
23 I'm familiar with those types of graves, but they were very few and far
24 between. And that was at the beginning of 1995 and in 1996 in the
25 presence of the prosecutor's office of the Federation and the witnesses
1 who pointed to certain graves and told them: This is where we buried so
2 and so. That's how they completed identifications. And then it turned
3 out that some groups of people who were exhumed were erroneously
4 identified and I wouldn't speculate about that.
5 Q. Thank you. Professor, on page 21 and on page 22 earlier today,
6 we heard allegations who quoted -- where the Prosecutor quoted his expert
7 that the degree of degradation of the bodies in the mass graves depended
8 on the microclimate in the grave and also that the skeletonisation is
9 more probable on the periphery of a grave than in its centre. Can you
10 tell us whether their findings confirm that in the peripheral parts of
11 the grave the bodies are more skeletised than elsewhere? Did their
12 findings show that there is a very clear geographical border, i.e., in
13 one angle the bodies are skeletised and in the other corner of the mass
14 grave the bodies are saponified?
15 A. What was asserted and what was said, I agreed with the fact that
16 the microclimate in a large grave, in a large pit, differs from one
17 corner to the next and it depends on the thickness of the pile of bodies.
18 And that the bodies that are on the periphery or closer to the surface
19 have undergone a different degree of putrefaction. This is one
20 theoretical aspect. What was very important here was the fact that in
21 those big graves one had to try and analyse post-mortem reports in order
22 to identify putrefaction on certain bodies, in order to compare that
23 putrefaction with the places where the bodies were located in such a
24 grave. This is the beginning of my answer. I didn't finish. I
25 apologise. I'll try and be very concise from now on.
1 This means that in post-mortem reports - and I'm trying to be
2 very objective here - post-mortem reports were very superficial in terms
3 of the description of putrefaction. This was all very generalised and
4 very imprecise. I trust Lawrence and Clark. I know that they are
5 forensic experts. They know how bodies change in a grave. However, in
6 the post-mortem reports that were part of the overall report, I couldn't
7 find the putrefaction described in a proper way, in a very concise way.
8 The pathologist who performed post-mortems varied in the way it described
9 bodies. Even Lawrence and Clark said at one point that the putrefaction
10 was not sufficiently described, and they tried to describe why there is a
11 difference. I started from that, and in the analysis of the putrefaction
12 and the decomposition of the bodies, I arrived at a conclusion that
13 putrefaction was not only subject to the difference in the conditions in
14 the graveyard but also the time of death and the time of interment and
15 this is a very important conclusion.
16 Q. Thank you. Can I go back to one point. If we accept the theory
17 according to which microclimate is decisive, has it been established that
18 certain parts of the grave led to skeletonisation without any
19 discrimination of all the bodies? In other words, were those bodies
20 mixed or were they separate and were they consistent with microclimate in
21 different parts of the graveyard? Did they provide proof that all the
22 bodies on one side were skeletised?
23 A. My shortest answer would be: No, there was no such proof. There
24 was no evidence to that effect.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 A. There were some general assertions to the effect that most of the
2 bodies were skeletised, that some of them were saponified, and so on and
3 so forth.
4 Q. Does that mean that on the periphery of the graveyards there were
5 saponified bodies, whereas there were some skeletised bodies in the
6 centre? Were there bodies adjacent to each other exposed to the same
7 microclimate of which one was saponified and the other skeletised?
8 A. Yes, there were such cases. There were differences between a
9 certain number of skeletised and a certain number of saponified bodies
10 with several -- displaying several degrees of saponification, and I said
11 that if such bodies were found in a very consistent microclimate such as
12 a graveyard, then we have to take into consideration the different times
13 of death and the different time of interment. However, the different
14 time of death is perhaps better than the different time of interment
15 because they could have all been buried on the same day but they could
16 already display different degrees of putrefaction. Mr. Christopher
17 Hamilton Lawrence agreed with that when I asked him the same question.
18 Q. Thank you. On page 16 and on, it was stated that there was no
19 subsequent interment and the Prosecution relied on its expert here.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's look at D1975 which is
21 Mr. Janc's corrigendum.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. While we're waiting for the document to be displayed, they showed
24 you bullet point 2, and you also heard a witness statement according to
25 which in Glogova 1 they were all buried between the 14th and the
1 17th of July. You will find this on page 16, I suppose, or thereabouts.
2 Please look at the first bullet point. Let's not skip the first
3 bullet point. If all the interments were completed on the 17th of July,
4 how come that the persons who were in Yugoslavia until the 26th of July
5 and they were still found in that grave?
6 A. My shortest answer would be that this is proof that there were
7 subsequent burials in that grave, and this is just one piece of evidence
8 testifying to that.
9 Q. Thank you. On page 4 --
10 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
11 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
12 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, perhaps I can be -- clarify this.
13 Grave L at Glogova, Professor Wright testified about that, it was
14 specifically excluded from this case. It's very clear that that's a
15 separate deposit on the side of the grave and that's not part of this
17 JUDGE KWON: If you could give the reference.
18 MR. MITCHELL: I'll look --
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes --
20 MR. MITCHELL: -- for that, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, shall we continue, Mr. Karadzic?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we also be provided citation
23 whether that was a one-off, 12 were buried, 10 were from Serbia, and they
24 were all buried on different dates.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. On page 4 earlier today, it was suggested to you that it is up to
2 the Trial Chamber to decide how things transpired, whether they
3 transpired in one way or another. And according to you, is the
4 Trial Chamber entitled to hear a second opinion which contests the first
6 A. It is not a question for me, as a matter of fact, but what I am
7 duty-bound to say and as an expert is my opinion. I have to share with
8 all of you what I have noted that may be of some assistance to clarify
9 the events and the developments, and I have to tell you whether something
10 may or may not be accepted from the professional standpoint and how
11 things can be interpreted.
12 Q. Thank you. We're waiting for a document. And now I would like
13 to go back to what was discussed yesterday on page 100, and that was the
14 destruction of artefacts.
15 A. Artefacts, yes.
16 Q. Yes, I agree. Did you do it intentionally? Were you forced to
17 do it because of something?
18 A. I did not understand. Did I do it intentionally?
19 Q. Now we're talking about Racak, we are talking about those samples
20 that deteriorated.
21 A. No, no, no, no.
22 Hold on. I didn't answer. Something's going on when we're
23 talking about those samples that we took from Racak for DNA analysis that
24 Mr. Mitchell asked me about. Those samples were taken to the forensic
25 institute -- actually, we're talking about Radonjic Lake, not about
1 Racak. Those samples taken from the bones and the tissues they were
2 taken, I was in charge of the whole procedure, they were taken to the
3 Forensic Medicine Institute and they were placed in the freezer and that
4 was in 1998. In the meantime, when the bombing took place in 1999, the
5 notorious bombing, and when there were outages of electricity, that
6 freezer did not have the supply of electricity. There was no additional
7 cooling energy. And then in 2000 or 2001, that is, three and a half
8 years later, the samples were supposed to be taken out. They were in
9 nylon bags with markings, some of the markings were within the bags, some
10 of them were on the bags, and that's why the samples were mixed, some of
11 the markings had been lost, and they had deteriorated in the meantime.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 A. That was the reason.
14 Q. Thank you. I want to finish before the break. So this was not
15 done intentionally?
16 A. Of course not. Absolutely not.
17 Q. On page 89 you were asked about the difference in the treatment
18 of civilian clothes found on the casualties in Kosovo and those in
19 Bosnia. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what were the formations on the
20 Serbian side that were engaged in Kosovo, were they civilians or who were
21 they? What could have been the casualty as a result of fighting as
22 opposed to the casualty as a result of execution?
23 A. Now you have forced me to try and remember things as they
24 happened in 1998. In Kosovo we had the KLA as a terrorist organisation
25 that was terrorising both Albanians and Serbians, Albanians who didn't
1 want to join them, they were Albanians. And on the other side we had the
2 so-called legal subjectivity and the territory was defended by the army
3 and the police. On the one side we had people in uniform and on the
4 other side we had KLA members who did not sport any specific uniforms
5 before -- I don't know what year. However, they were all in civilian
6 clothes. Some did have military uniforms, but their uniforms were not
7 complete. And they also had special units, i.e., they had the police of
8 which we learned at the time that they wore black jeans and black leather
9 jackets. This is the information that I received and now I'm sharing it
10 with you. They mostly wore civilian clothes. Later on they were
11 provided with their uniforms with some insignia and so on and so forth.
12 Q. Thank you. In other words, if you found a Serb casualty in
13 Kosovo not wearing a uniform, would that allow you to conclude that that
14 person was a civilian, unlike in Bosnia where a Bosnian war was waged by
16 A. That is beyond the scope of my professional expertise; however,
17 among the casualties in Kosovo there were mostly Serbs, civilians,
18 peasants, elderly women, and obviously middle-aged males. But they were
19 all civilians wearing civilian clothes. And it is a well-known fact that
20 they were killed because of their ethnic affiliation. Among them, there
21 were a lot of Albanians who were killed because they didn't want to help
22 the KLA and the third group were Albanians who were of a different
23 religion. They were also killed.
24 And as far as the second segment goes, I wrote that in my report
25 and I also stated it. As far as I know, from newspapers and from very
1 documents in Bosnia, the conflict involved the Army of Republika Srpska
2 on the one side and the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the other side.
3 At first, the BiH army involved people who did not have military
4 uniforms. They were members of the Territorial Defence, home guards, or
5 whatever they were called. I'm sure that you know it better than I do,
6 but this is what I know.
7 Q. Thank you. In your statement that is 5 -- 25380 relating to
8 Kosovo, you found some victims who were women. Would that provide a
9 basis to conclude that these were civilians?
10 A. In those specific cases I can say absolutely. First of all,
11 these were three or four women, two women were over 75 years old, they
12 were sisters. There was one younger woman - who was killed together with
13 her husband - who had just given birth, but they managed to hide the
14 child. They were killed and burned in a vehicle and thrown into the
15 Radonjic -- into a channel or canal of the Radonjic Lake. And the fourth
16 woman was found later, together with her husband. They were killed
17 because they allegedly came from abroad and did not want to help the KLA
18 because they all had to finance the KLA at that time. That is for those
19 four persons, women, that I recall. And they were all wearing civilian
20 clothing. And for them I can absolutely claim that they were total
21 civilians and innocent.
22 Q. Thank you. In your statement 25381, you established that the
23 victims in Racak under their civilian clothing wore military underwear,
24 all the same, and boots which were issued by the military. So they come
25 from the military arsenal, are part of military equipment?
1 A. Yes, I said that and I testified to that here. Those long johns
2 are long male underwear, grey, which is worn in the army; and the boots
3 also were specific, they had specific markings indicating that this would
4 be an army batch or contingent. And what I recall and from what I can
5 remember now, these were already markings of a company, or rather, a
6 dispatch or delivery from some firm that uses the letter O with two dots
7 above it.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender these two
10 statements by Professor Dunjic that were also used by the Prosecutor.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I think what is more important
12 than the clothing is the fact that the traces of a gunpowder explosion
13 were found on the palms or hands of those victims from Racak and they
14 also had injuries that are characteristic for fire-arm wounds when a
15 person is semi-bent behind some kind of shelter or shield or cover. And
16 this is something that I said to the Prosecution and this is also
17 something that was established by the Finnish team headed by a professor
18 who was heading the team and then the -- also another member of the team
19 was Helena Ranta.
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the name of the
21 first Finnish person who led the team. And could Mr. Karadzic please
22 repeat his question.
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, could you repeat your question.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I said yesterday you left it up to
25 me whether I would tender these statements or not and I am now tendering
1 these statements.
2 JUDGE KWON: Have we ever looked at those documents -- statement
3 at all?
4 Mr. Mitchell.
5 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I think the statements are --
6 JUDGE KWON: Referred to --
7 MR. MITCHELL: They're referred to. Their content is irrelevant
8 to these proceedings. I put two propositions to Professor Dunjic that he
9 changed his opinion on the significance of civilian clothes and winter
10 clothes, and I think he's explained, both to me and to Mr. Karadzic, the
11 reason for those differences. So I don't know that the underlying
12 statements provide any further clarification.
13 JUDGE KWON: Given that points have been already made, I wonder
14 whether we need to admit it separately.
15 Yes, Mr. Robinson.
16 MR. ROBINSON: Well, these statements do corroborate what he
17 said, so if there's any doubt about the fact, they're corroborated by the
18 statement. But if there's no dispute about that, it's not necessary.
19 MR. MITCHELL: I don't think there's any dispute.
20 Professor Dunjic said one thing about civilian clothing in one statement,
21 one thing about winter clothing, and it's different now.
22 JUDGE KWON: Why don't we leave it at that. In general, the
23 Court -- the Chamber has some reservation cumulating a lot of documents.
24 Thank you.
25 Shall we continue?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Professor Dunjic, did you come across data that there were ball
4 bearings in the bodies which come from hand-grenades?
5 A. Yes, in a number of localities, I think this was Zeleni Jadar 5,
6 I cannot remember the precise localities, but some ball bearings were
7 found in some bodies from shot-guns but also from some other devices.
8 Q. Thank you. And did you know -- or actually, we saw from the
9 material relating to San Antonio that there is awareness of the fact that
10 there were wars in that place before Srebrenica. Even Dean Manning said
11 in response to my question that there was some fighting that continued
12 after Srebrenica. So not even Mr. Manning knows. Do you know the number
13 of victims of the 28th Division before 1995?
14 Line 3, it should say "nisu imali svest" There was no awareness.
15 A. I don't have information which would indicate to me how many
16 victims there were before July 1995 among the soldiers and civilians of
17 the B&H army, but I know that there was fighting there before July,
18 between 1992 and 1995, and that a large number was killed in that
19 interval on both sides.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we look at 1D9323 in e-court,
23 Unfortunately we don't have a translation. I think we don't have
24 a translation.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Professor, can you help us, does it say here above these
2 tables --
3 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
4 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
5 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I'd like some showing of provenance
6 of this document. It doesn't have an ERN by the looks of it.
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is something that was seized
9 on the computers in Zepa, their entire communications with the Main Staff
10 of the 28th Division. The 28th Division had a computer full of these
11 documents and this is one of those documents.
12 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Mitchell.
13 MR. MITCHELL: I'd object to any use of a document --
14 JUDGE KWON: Shall we collapse --
15 MR. MITCHELL: -- without an ERN and without --
16 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Shall we collapse it for the moment.
17 Yes, please continue.
18 MR. MITCHELL: I'd object to any use of a document without an ERN
19 and without a translation. We have absolutely no idea what this is.
20 MR. ROBINSON: Well, that would mean that only documents that
21 were produced by the Prosecution could ever be shown to a witness. So
22 we -- if the fact that it doesn't have an ERN isn't dispositive of
23 that --
24 MR. MITCHELL: That's not what I was saying, Mr. President. It's
25 the combination of not knowing where it came from and the lack of
2 JUDGE KWON: When the Chamber or the parties cannot be satisfied
3 with the provenance, you object to the use of it. That's the point?
4 MR. MITCHELL: I object to the use of it until I have a
5 translation so I can see what it is for myself.
6 MR. ROBINSON: Well, that's not how we've been proceeding,
7 Mr. President. So I think the document can be used. The issue of
8 provenance will go to its admissibility, but nevertheless, we can proceed
9 further than we have right now by allowing the witness to answer
10 questions about the document. And if there's no adequate showing of
11 provenance, it won't be admitted.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber tends to agree with Mr. Robinson's
14 observation. Let's see how it evolves, whether the witness is able to
15 make any comment on this.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Could you please just confirm for us whether it says that this is
18 an overview of casualties --
19 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic --
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. -- of units in the 28th Division on the --
22 JUDGE KWON: Why don't you ask the witness to read it out.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Could you please read the heading and you can skip the rest until
25 the title of the tables.
1 A. Well, allow me. I understood that the Judge was saying this.
2 This is a report by the Army of Republika -- B&H sent to the command of
3 the 28th Division, then we have the number, Srebrenica, the 3rd of April,
4 1995. And then the subheading is: "Report on losses of the
5 28th Division," and then there is a chunk of text. And then it says:
6 "Overview of losses or casualties of units of the OGA on the 31st" --
7 JUDGE KWON: Just a second --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- "of December 1994" --
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
10 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I don't think we should be jumping
11 any chunks of text in this document. I think every word should be read
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not a problem for me at all to
14 read it. I just thought I would cut the whole process short.
15 JUDGE KWON: Professor, could you read out the first sentence --
16 first line of this document.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says at the top: Copy of -- not
18 that. You mean this: "Armija, Army of the republic --
19 JUDGE KWON: Not that one --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- of BiH.
21 JUDGE KWON: You're right, Mr. -- copy of something. It's in
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE KWON: And the --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Defence --
1 JUDGE KWON: Just --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- of the republic, military
3 secret, strictly confidential.
4 JUDGE KWON: If you could concentrate on answering the question.
5 Can you see the last page -- the last line?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 JUDGE KWON: Last line of this document. Could you scroll down.
8 The "page" is also English.
9 THE WITNESS: Da, "page 1."
10 JUDGE KWON: So could you explain to us what this document is
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you scroll up, please.
13 This document, this is a report about military casualties of
14 personnel of the unit A8, Army 8, on the 31st of December, 1994. So
15 these are --
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, accepting --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- total casualties.
18 JUDGE KWON: Accepting that, why does that document have English
19 words? Do you have any clue? That was my question.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really don't know.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, I think that I
22 cannot finish before the break, so we will try to find the document in
23 EDS with its ERN number, the same document. But these things in the
24 computer were --
25 JUDGE KWON: [Previous translation continues]...
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- pre-programmed. That's the
2 computer programme.
3 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Shall we have a break for 45 minutes and
4 resume at 1.20.
5 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.36 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 1.28 p.m.
7 JUDGE KWON: Some further information, Mr. Mitchell.
8 MR. MITCHELL: Two very short points, Mr. President. I withdraw
9 my objection to the last document showed by Mr. Karadzic, 1D9323. We
10 have a different version of the same document in our collection. We've
11 uploaded that into e-court as 65 ter 22548 [sic] and there's been a draft
12 translation done over lunch. So we can see at least the first part in
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you very much.
15 MR. MITCHELL: The second point, Professor Wright testified at
16 transcript 22268 about the Glogova L sub-grave appearing between the
17 17th and the 27th of July. And Your Honours may recall in the
18 notification for Professor Wright which was filed on the 28th of
19 November, 2011, we specifically withdrew -- there is a separate report
20 that Professor Wright did on sub-grave L, we withdrew that report because
21 the victims aren't associated with scheduled incident E-3.1 which is the
22 Kravica warehouse killing. So Professor Wright quite -- or quite
23 deliberately, we didn't lead evidence from Professor Wright on grave L
24 because it's not associated with that schedule E incident.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
1 Mr. Karadzic, shall we use 22548 instead of this one?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm afraid that it's 25458.
3 JUDGE KWON: Could you give the number again, Mr. Mitchell.
4 MR. MITCHELL: 25458.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
6 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, while we're waiting, I just notice
7 that we're sitting without Judge Lattanzi.
8 JUDGE KWON: Oh, yes. Thank you for the reminder. She cannot be
9 with us due to her official functions until the end of today.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, may we --
11 JUDGE KWON: I was told that we have some draft translation.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Do you confirm, Professor, that this is also the 31st December
16 and that the heading and everything else is identical?
17 A. Yes, that's the document in question, 3rd of April, 1995.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go to the following page in
21 JUDGE KWON: That's all we have, Mr. Karadzic.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The table has not been translated,
23 just the text. Can we then go to the last page in the Serbian language.
24 Five pages are missing. ERN numbers are 1375 plus six or five pages.
25 1380 or 1381 are missing, and in the previous version the whole document
1 was there in its entirety.
2 MR. MITCHELL: I've no objection if Mr. Karadzic wants to use his
3 B/C/S version with this English translation.
4 JUDGE KWON: Fair enough.
5 Shall we go back to the document 1D9323.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we go to the
7 penultimate page, the last is of no consequence, the penultimate page.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Professor, could I please ask you to look at the totals. The
10 columns are: Killed, slightly wounded, seriously wounded, total losses.
11 How many were killed before the 1st of January, 1995?
12 A. According to this table that you have just shown me, the total
13 number of killed was 1607, 1.607. Among the group of seriously wounded
14 there was 654. Among the group slightly wounded, there were 2.501.
15 Total losses, 4.762, and those who went missing, 225. 1.607 killed; and
16 225 missing; seriously wounded, 654; slightly wounded, 2.501, this is on
17 page 11 of this document.
18 Q. Thank you. Professor, the documents that you perused, did they
19 differentiate between the casualties among the 28th -- the 128th [as
20 interpreted] Division and those that were inflicted in July of 1995, was
21 there a difference?
22 A. No, I have not come across such a document.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
24 document. Can the document be completed, both the English and Serbian
25 versions thereof.
1 JUDGE KWON: We'll mark it for identification.
2 MR. MITCHELL: Yes, no objection.
3 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI D3897, Your Honours.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Thank you, Professor, sir, a big thank you for your effort and
6 the work that you have done and thank you for your testimony.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Professor. That concludes your evidence.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to thank you for your
9 patience. Some answers may have been a bit lengthy, but I thought that
10 it was necessary for me to clarify things to make everybody understand
11 what I wrote about. Thank you. May I go now?
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 JUDGE KWON: I understand that, Mr. Nicholls, you have some
15 matters to raise.
16 MR. NICHOLLS: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Actually, having
17 looked at the issue again, I don't have a preliminary. We can just
19 JUDGE KWON: Next we are going to hear the cross-examination of
20 Mr. Keserovic, whose examination-in-chief was concluded .
21 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct, Mr. President.
22 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry, Your Honour, I need just one minute for the
23 computer to boot up.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE KWON: How are you, General?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm well, thank you.
2 JUDGE KWON: I would like to advise you that your solemn
3 declaration that you made previously is still in effect. And today we'll
4 continue with the cross-examination by the representative of the Office
5 of the Prosecutor. You understand that?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
8 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 WITNESS: DRAGOMIR KESEROVIC [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Nicholls:
12 Q. Good afternoon, Professor.
13 A. Good afternoon.
14 Q. The first thing I wanted to ask you about is some of your
15 testimony that we heard a couple weeks ago and parts of your report it's
16 related to. I'm first referring to your report - you don't need to look
17 at it now - for the parties at page 22, para 14, and Mr. Brown's report
18 para 2.81 and paras 2.92 to 2.98, specifically regarding the situation in
19 Vecici, Kotor Varos.
20 You remember talking about that in your report and in your
21 testimony here?
22 A. I remember that.
23 Q. Now at T 40939, Mr. Karadzic asked you about Mr. Brown's analysis
24 of what he called the case of Vecici, and you testified at 40940:
25 "Quite simply, disarming is a basic prerequisite for any
1 disarming and any such actions, and as a result, a lot of conflicts took
2 place in which many residents of Vecici perished.
3 "Q. Did Mr. Brown observe that out of all the many Muslim and
4 Croat villages, it was only the village of Vecici that clashed and
5 suffered as many victims?"
6 And you said:
7 "Well, I did say that Mr. Brown analysed this particular locality
8 only, and this incident involving Vecici where there were quite a few
9 casualties is presented without any analysis, et cetera, which led to the
10 conflict where they actually perished."
11 So I want to talk a moment about the casualties in Vecici.
12 MR. NICHOLLS: 65 ter 00719, please. Okay.
13 Q. Now, this is a combat report, 1 KK combat report, 4 November
14 1992. It's cited in Mr. Brown's report at 443 and 740 footnotes. And it
16 "Green Berets pulling out of Vecici village fell into our ambush.
17 Forty of them were killed during the clash and another 20 members of the
18 so-called BH army were captured. Another 150 members of Green Berets,
19 mostly women and children, surrendered in the evening hours ..."
20 You seen this report before? Did they give it to you? It's
21 cited in Mr. Brown's report.
22 A. I'm not sure that I saw all of the report. I am not sure that I
23 saw all of its paragraphs.
24 Q. All right. Well, we gave the Defence a hyper-linked CD, I
25 believe, with all of his documents and his footnotes linked to it. Did
1 they give that to you when you were preparing your critique?
2 A. I received documents from the Defence. Those are the documents
3 that Mr. Brown refers to in his conclusions, i.e., in his comments.
4 Q. Okay. Well, did you receive all of the documents that Mr. Brown
5 footnotes in his report, yes, no, or you don't know, or you don't
7 A. Those that are mentioned in footnotes, I believe that I have been
8 provided with those documents, yes.
9 Q. Okay. So you had this one and this talks about 40 --
10 40 members -- 40 casualties and it's talking about Vecici in November;
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. NICHOLLS: May I tender that, Your Honours?
14 MR. ROBINSON: No objection.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6462, Your Honours.
17 MR. NICHOLLS:
18 Q. And just before we move on, clearly this is sent to the
19 Main Staff?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. NICHOLLS: Could I have 65 ter 00293.
22 Q. This is also 4 November, also from the 1 KK, also to the
23 Main Staff. And this is at Brown's footnote 445. And if you look at
24 paragraph 2, do you remember seeing this document? You remember this
25 one, right?
1 A. I think that the document contains the same information as the
2 previous one. The contents are virtually the same. Only the sequence of
3 paragraphs is different. However, what is mentioned --
4 Q. Wait a minute, wait a minute --
5 A. -- under bullet point 2 again refers to Kotor Varos.
6 Q. Thank you. Just in case my question wasn't clear, what I was
7 asking you was: Do you remember seeing this document? Do you remember
8 this document when you were preparing your report?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you're right, the content is similar and it's related, but
11 let's look at what it says in paragraph 2 -- section 2, rather.
12 "In the area of Kotor Varos, there was a clash between members of
13 the Muslim forces and our units, because of the refusal to negotiate on
14 moving out of the Vecici village area. About 40 Green Beret members were
15 killed and about 200 were captured. A brutal massacre of the captured
16 members of the Green Berets started because of the wounding of four and
17 killing of one soldier of the Kotor Varos Light Infantry Brigade, and the
18 burning of wounded soldiers on Gola Planina (Jajce).
19 "Measures to prevent further massacre were taken through the
20 22nd Light Infantry Brigade."
21 So this also says that 40 members of the enemy were killed in
22 combat because one soldier was killed and four wounded and the -- and it
23 states that the brutal massacre of prisoners started. This is also sent
24 to the Main Staff; right?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. NICHOLLS: May I tender that, Your Honour?
2 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, I don't have any objection, but so
3 far all that's been established from these two documents is that they say
4 what they say they say. I think if there's some substance to this
5 cross-examination, he ought to be allowed to comment on it or some
6 question ought to be asked about it.
7 JUDGE KWON: I expect some to be coming.
8 MR. NICHOLLS: Yeah, I'm going to show him one more document and
9 then, having put these three chain of related documents together, ask him
10 to comment. So again, I would tender it.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6463, Your Honours.
13 MR. NICHOLLS: Now if I could have 65 ter 00722, please.
14 Q. This is from the next day, also from the 1 KK, also to the
15 Main Staff, situation on the territory in paragraph 4.
16 "The situation in Kotor Varos municipality is still very complex.
17 After they refused to return the weapons and surrender to the Army of
18 Republika Srpska, Muslim extremists from the village of Vecici attempted
19 to fight their way through towards Travnik.
20 "In the clash against the Army of Republika Srpska, following the
21 death of one soldier and the wounding of several others, more than
22 150 extremists died in combat."
23 Now, this document also says one soldier killed and several
24 wounded, but now it says 150 deaths in combat, and that's no way correct,
25 is it? There weren't 150 deaths in combat. This is a sanitised report
1 of the massacre, isn't it? That's the question.
2 A. It says unambiguously here that over 150 extremists were killed
3 in fighting, and I can tell only based on what I read whether they were
4 really killed in fighting.
5 Q. Well, how many times have you seen 150 combatants killed in one
6 day of fighting and how many times have you seen one report that says
7 after one soldier was killed and four wounded, a brutal massacre started,
8 and then another report saying after one soldier was killed and several
9 wounded, 150 were killed in combat?
10 A. It is not commonplace. I don't remember that I ever saw so many
11 people being killed in combat in this way.
12 Q. Right. Now, when you were answering Dr. Karadzic's question, you
13 talked about casualties and he talked about the case of Vecici. If
14 people are killed in a brutal massacre, they aren't casualties, are they;
15 they're victims?
16 A. As far as I can remember, I did not analyse the way those people
17 died. I did not establish the number of deaths nor did I analyse how
18 that was done. I just provided my opinion about Mr. Karadzic's position
19 as well as the commanders primarily of the 1st Corps. When Vecici was
20 blockaded and when negotiations started --
21 Q. Okay. Let me --
22 A. -- they thought that the civilian population should be
23 protected --
24 Q. Okay. I understand that. That's what you talked about in your
25 report. What I'm talking about is in your testimony here when you talked
1 about casualties and you had this document available to you, you said you
2 didn't analyse how it occurred. So in your expert testimony to the
3 Trial Chamber, calling these casualties, you didn't point out that there
4 was also a document which referred to these deaths as the victims of a
5 brutal massacre?
6 A. Yes, it is possible that I did not talk about the manner of death
7 and the number of those who died. I focused more on the attitude of the
8 Serbian side towards the issue of Vecici.
9 Q. Okay. Well, we'll talk a bit more in a minute about the issue of
10 punishment in the 1 KK for soldiers who committed crimes. But before we
11 get to that, are you aware of anybody being prosecuted for the Vecici
12 massacre, either in your personal experience since you were at the 1 --
13 well, you weren't at the 1 KK at that point, either from your personal
14 experience or from your research?
15 A. In the 1 KK, the military court and the military prosecutor
16 initiated proceedings and conducted investigations against some
17 individuals who had participated in those events. I don't know anything
18 about the epilogues of those activities, I didn't analyse them. I don't
19 know how that all ended up.
20 Q. Okay. So the answer is -- this is November 1992, this is when
21 the military courts had been running for some time, the Banja Luka
22 military courts. You're not able to point me to any prosecution during
23 the war for 1 KK soldiers for this crime; right? That's what you just
25 A. For Vecici, no, nothing for Vecici, no.
1 Q. All right. Let me just look at what you said a moment ago.
2 MR. NICHOLLS: May I tender that, Your Honours?
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6464, Your Honours.
5 MR. NICHOLLS:
6 Q. Okay, you just said at page 80, line 1:
7 "In the 1 KK, the military court and the military prosecutor
8 initiated proceedings and conducted investigations against some
9 individuals who had participated in those events. I don't know anything
10 about the -- of those activities, I didn't analyse them. I don't know
11 how all that ended up."
12 That's what you just said. Let me tell you what it says in your
13 report, page 20 of the English:
14 "Many actions which we have mentioned were taken systematically
15 so that subordinate personnel would not commit criminal or other offences
16 against non-Serbs, and when they did occur, the perpetrators were
17 arrested and criminally prosecuted."
18 And this is what you said at T 40955 when you testified here on
20 "I repeat that he," and here you were speaking of the 1 KK
21 command, "gave priority to incidents and criminal offences that
22 undoubtedly did happen, but that was not prevalent conduct and they had
23 never been encouraged or ordered by anyone. And if they happened, they
24 always ended up by discovering the perpetrators and prosecuting them or
25 applying appropriate measures against them."
1 So my question is: How could you testify last week that these
2 cases always ended up by discovering the perpetrators and prosecuting
3 them, when - as you say today - you didn't analyse those cases and you
4 don't know how they turned out?
5 A. I said that I don't know specifically how those cases relative to
6 Vecici ended. I don't know the individuals, I don't know the epilogue,
7 how many persons and what measures were taken. But I said that I knew
8 that judiciary bodies did conduct proceedings relative to that case.
9 Q. You said:
10 "If they happened, they always ended up by discovering the
11 perpetrators and prosecuting them," that's what you said, speaking about
12 these incidents generally. Do you stand by that now, that these crimes
13 were always prosecuted?
14 A. Proceedings were always conducted. Those people were processed
15 and those proceedings ended in one way or another. I don't know of any
16 major or more significant crimes that were committed that were discovered
17 and that were not prosecuted by the judiciary bodies in 1 KK. They
18 always conducted investigations and took measures in order to deal with
19 such cases.
20 Q. Well, I'll put it to you, and it's impossible to prove this
21 negative at the moment, that nobody was arrested or prosecuted for the
22 Vecici killings. If you know the name of somebody who was prosecuted or
23 a case number or anything like that, please tell me.
24 A. Yes, I said that I didn't know names.
25 Q. All right. Do you know that the victims of that killing, their
1 bodies have still not been found? Did you know that? They're still
3 A. In the material that I analysed and in the process itself, I
4 encountered data that a number of those people, or rather, victims were
5 not found. Therefore, yes, I knew that part.
6 Q. Thank you. Let's talk about another crime quickly, another major
7 notorious crime. This one was -- occurred approximately 16 days before
8 you arrived at the 1 KK. You arrived on 17 June 1992; correct?
9 A. Yes, on the 17th of June, 1992, at the Army of Republika Srpska,
10 and at the 1st Krajina Corps on the 21st of June of the same year.
11 Q. And let's look at this event just over two weeks before you
12 arrived. Have you heard about the mass killing at the Velagici school in
13 Kljuc which took place on June 1st, 1992, in which 80 civilians were
14 murdered in the school?
15 A. I did hear of the event at the Velagici school.
16 Q. And you agree with me it was the murder of 80 civilians; right?
17 Approximately 80, might not know the exact number.
18 A. I would need to look at the document. There are reports which
19 state the precise number. There are many documents. I don't know all
20 the numbers of -- by -- just like that. But I know that there was an
22 Q. Okay. Well, we can agree that this incident is a mass killing of
23 Muslims, right, by VRS soldiers?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is this incident another example of your testimony that the
1 perpetrators were always discovered and prosecuted?
2 A. The reports, or rather, this incident or crime was not concealed.
3 It was reported on through regular channels and measures were ordered for
4 the perpetrators to be found and processed. I would like to emphasise
5 once again that I did not analyse either the numbers of those killed, nor
6 did I deny in any way that criminal acts occurred. But I spoke and
7 emphasised that this was never the official policy, either of the
8 authorities or of the Army of Republika Srpska, and that always in every
9 place they ordered and emphasised the protection and the respect of all,
10 protection primarily, first of all, of the civilian population, of
11 prisoners of war, and the adherence to the laws and customs of war.
12 Q. All right. But that's not all you said. What you've also
13 testified to is what I've quoted about three times, that they always
14 ended up by discovering the perpetrators and prosecuting them. Now, you
15 will agree with me that in this case the perpetrators were discovered
16 because everybody knew who they were but they weren't prosecuted, that
17 the 1 KK military courts let them go.
18 A. As far as I can remember, in this case and in cases in general
19 that have to do with incidents in the territory of the Kljuc
20 municipality, since this refers to that municipality, proceedings were
21 conducted, perpetrators were found and arrested. As for whether they
22 were released later or not, that was the decision of the court. But
23 today we still have persons who took part in these events who are serving
24 prison sentences of several years in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Proceedings
25 were conducted, proceedings are conducted now before courts.
1 Q. Right. So we'll move on to this, but the reason they're serving
2 their sentences now, their eight-year sentences, of that about length,
3 like the murder of Omer Filipovic, the reason they're serving their
4 sentences now is because they weren't prosecuted until after 2000; right?
5 A. During the war they were not all -- without doubt, not all of
6 them were sentenced then and sent to serve their sentence. But the
7 proceedings were conducted. As for the way they ended is something that
8 is for a different type of analysis that I did not do.
9 Q. Okay. Well, I don't want to belabour this, but you do analyse
10 this because you said to this Court that people were always captured and
11 prosecuted and you did that in relation to showing how the 1 KK and the
12 authorities did their job. So is your view that the 1 KK is doing its
13 job and all it can to prevent crime and the RS authorities are doing all
14 they can to prevent crime in 1992 when the perpetrator is punished by a
15 civilian court in 2006? That goes to the credit of the 1 KK?
16 A. The 1st Krajina Corps and the authorities, without doubt, did
17 everything to prevent any perpetration of crimes in the AOR of the corps,
18 unnecessary killings or anything else. And they ordered that measures be
19 taken against the perpetrators. These were the documents that I cited in
20 my findings. The 1st Corps did not issue a single document without in
21 particular emphasising the protection of all, emphasising that this
22 should be done without regard to ethnic, religious, or any other kind of
23 affiliation --
24 Q. Let me stop --
25 A. -- in such circumstances --
1 Q. Let me stop you because we're not talking about prophylactic
2 orders before the crimes happening. What I'm talking to you about now is
3 what happens after the 1 KK soldiers commit mass murders. You tell me of
4 one Serb soldier case that you know of convicted during the war, other
5 than Stankovic, for crimes committed against Muslims or Croats, murders?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that it is beyond the
7 expertise. This is something that should be put to the president of the
8 court, Novak Todorovic. He was available to the Prosecution and he did
9 state this information.
10 JUDGE KWON: Did he not deal with this part in his evidence?
11 MR. NICHOLLS: He did, Your Honours. That's the part I've quoted
12 about four times, that everybody was punished.
13 JUDGE KWON: It's a fair question.
14 Can you answer the question?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are examples. While
16 preparing and speaking only with two judges from that time, the military
17 tribunal in Banja Luka, Nikola Tomasevic and Srdjan Forca, they stated
18 that each one of them individually reached -- or passed, handed down a
19 number of convictions against Serbs for atrocities against Muslims or
20 Croats. Among them was also one death sentence which was commuted later.
21 MR. NICHOLLS:
22 Q. All right. You know about the Velagici massacre, you heard about
23 that. You tell me, do you know if anybody was prosecuted for that crime
24 during the war at all, even though all 12 suspects were known? By
25 "prosecuted" -- let me rephrase that. Strike that.
1 You tell me if anybody was convicted of that crime which occurred
2 in June 1992, before the end of the war, when those men stayed serving in
3 their units?
4 A. I don't know the answer to that question, whether anyone was
5 convicted. I cannot.
6 Q. Okay. Well, we can move on, but then I think you'll agree with
7 me that your statement last time you testified here - and I'm not
8 accusing you of anything - but when you said that the perpetrators were
9 always identified and everybody was convicted and punished, words to that
10 effect, that in fact you were wrong?
11 A. I'm not sure that I said that all were convicted, but I did say
12 that proceedings were conducted and I stand by that, that every case that
13 was discovered, for every such case orders were issued that perpetrators
14 be found and that proceedings be initiated against them and that they
15 should be held responsible for that. I said that, but as for the final
16 outcome, whether everybody was convicted and sent to serve their
17 sentence, I don't think that I said anything like that in that form. I
18 said that proceedings were conducted and that appropriate orders for that
19 were issued.
20 Q. What you said was at T 4095 [sic]:
21 "I repeat, he gave priority to incidents and criminal offences
22 that undoubtedly did happen, but that was not prevalent conduct and they
23 had never been encouraged and ordered by anyone. And if they happened,
24 they always ended up by discovering the perpetrators and prosecuting them
25 or applying appropriate measures against them."
1 So by "prosecute," if they just take a criminal report and then
2 send the soldiers back to the front, you include that in your statement,
3 right, as "prosecuting"?
4 A. Criminal proceedings, yes, launching an investigation in terms of
5 finding the perpetrators and conducting the proceedings.
6 Q. Let me move on to something else that you feature in your
7 testimony. You testified to the effect that wherever the army was
8 involved, it prevented inter-ethnic conflicts and that everybody felt
9 safer when the JNA was there. That's at 40956, that everyone felt safer
10 when the JNA was there. And at T 4095 [sic] you were asked:
11 "General, was the army involved in preventing inter-ethnic
12 conflicts and did that have a negative effect on the combat-readiness of
13 the corps and its units? Was that something that Mr. Brown noticed, that
14 certain elements were allocated to prevent such conflicts?"
15 And you answered:
16 "Throughout the whole period and especially 1992, elements of
17 units and even entire units were involved in the activities and the
18 internal areas surrounded by front lines. They established organs and
19 regimens and situations that would provide protection for the population
20 living in the area ..."
21 And little bit further you said:
22 "The sole purpose was to make the area more peaceful and safer.
23 After all, the people everywhere including in Bosnia-Herzegovina felt
24 safer if they had army units deployed in certain areas."
25 You remember saying that; right?
1 A. I did write about this without doubt. I don't know whether that
2 is the way you said it word for word, but the gist of it is what you have
3 said, yes.
4 Q. All right.
5 MR. NICHOLLS: Could I have P03660, please.
6 Q. While that's coming up, did you know Branko Basara personally by
7 any chance? The 6th Krajina Corps commander -- the 6th Krajina Brigade
9 A. During the war, or rather, at that time I did not know him. I
10 met him several years after the war personally in a brief meeting. So
11 no, we did not know each other personally.
12 Q. All right. Well, this is his war record, his handwritten war
13 record of the 6th Infantry Brigade, his brigade in Sanski Most. And just
14 so you know, in an interview with the OTP he confirmed that this was his
15 handwriting, that he wrote this document.
16 MR. NICHOLLS: And I'd like to go to section 4 which is on page 2
17 of the English. It should be page 3 of the Serbian original.
18 Q. Yeah, and if you -- it may be difficult to read, but if you can
19 read section 4 is the part I'm going to be directing you to, where
20 Mr. Basara, writing the history of his brigade, says:
21 "On 3rd April 91," that's the way it's written, should be 92,
22 "the 6th was transferred in complete order and with utmost secrecy from
23 Jasenovac to the area of Sanski Most so that everyone was surprised.
24 With the arrival of the brigade on this territory, the Muslims and Croats
25 became afraid, and the Serbs heaved a sign -- a sigh of relief."
1 Now, it's not a huge point, but Basara was there, he arrived in
2 Sanski Most. You said everybody felt safer when there were there and
3 they were there to prevent inter-ethnic conflicts. When the 6th Brigade
4 showed up in Sanski Most, Muslims and Croats became frightened and the
5 Serbs gained confidence; right?
6 A. It says here that with the arrival of the brigade, the Muslims
7 and the Croats became afraid and the Serbs heaved a sigh of relief. What
8 the reason was and how Basara experienced this, I must say I did not have
9 the opportunity to see this document before now. But --
10 Q. Well, excuse me --
11 A. -- I would --
12 Q. -- sorry, continue. I'm sorry, continue. I shouldn't have
13 interrupted you.
14 A. So I don't remember seeing this document in handwriting the way
15 we see it here, but undoubtedly, in 1991, already in the Sanski Most
16 area, among other places, paramilitary organising of Muslims and Croats
17 took place. I emphasise paramilitary because at that time in 1991 until
18 May 1992, the only legal armed force in that area was the Yugoslav
19 People's Army. There was illegal arming, and the fear of Muslims and
20 Croats could have also been due to the reason that they were organising
21 in a paramilitary way, they were illegally obtaining weaponry, and they
22 were preparing, without doubt, for conflict and did not have anyone else
23 to go into conflict with other than the Serbs in that area.
24 And why did the Serbs heave a sigh of relief? The Serbs
25 responded to the call of the federal state and the then-JNA, they were
1 mobilised and took part in the resolution of problems that were there in
2 the Republic of Croatia. Their families stayed behind in Sanski Most
3 literally without protection. And now when the brigade returned, it was
4 normal that they heaved a sigh of relief and that they felt a bit better.
5 Q. Okay, well, first of all, you said this wasn't available to you.
6 It was available to you as Ewan Brown's footnote 132, just for the
8 Let me look at another part of what Mr. Basara writes in his
9 history. He says:
10 "Since our task as a JNA unit was to prevent conflicts between
11 the nationalities, that is, to prevent the slaughter of the Serbian
12 people, we could not publicly arm the Serbs. We then worked along the
13 two lines: First, organising and arming the Serbian people, and
14 second ... persuading the Muslims and Croats to remain loyal and that we
15 could live together ..."
16 So this does support Ewan Brown's two-track theory which he
17 discussed and you criticised in your report and in your testimony,
18 doesn't it?
19 I won't go through this entire part of this, but you can see
20 Basara writes about how they employed tricks to arm the Serbs legally and
21 the Serbs only.
22 A. We cannot think of this in any other way than it being Basara's
23 personal position and he wrote that - we saw it on the first page - when
24 he already retired. I did not find this to be incorporated into any
25 official position, order, instruction, direction, and that the brigade
1 behaved in this way. Why Basara, once he retired, wrote this in this
2 way, that is now more a question for him.
3 Q. Well, we will ask him when he comes here because he's on the
4 witness list. And just for the record, I'm sure you recall he retired at
5 the end of 1992, not some late date. And as for this being his personal
6 opinion, he was the commander and he wrote this as the war record. So
7 it's not just a personal opinion, right; it's his history?
8 A. This is perhaps his working notebook that he was keeping, but
9 it's not a war diary. A war diary is a formatted work that is maintained
10 by the command of the unit, not by the commander.
11 Q. I understand that. That's not what I'm saying this is. It's
12 obviously not that. It says "war record" on the top.
13 I'll move on to one last question on the last part of this.
14 MR. NICHOLLS: If we could go to the Serbian page 5, page 3 of
15 the English.
16 Q. If you look at number 6, which is circled:
17 "With the recognition of BH by Europe, war broke out between the
18 Serbs and the Croats and Muslims, and the JNA withdrew from the territory
19 of BH. The 6th left the forces of the JNA and became the Army of
20 Republika Srpska. Its tasks changed, and then the Muslims and Croats
21 became adversaries and the brigade was given the task of disarming them,
22 preventing the slaughter of the Serbian people. The 6th then prepared
23 the way for the seizure of power and secured the take-over of the
24 territory and the municipalities of Sanski Most and Kljuc. The villages
25 of Hrustovo and Vrhpolje put up resistance. Our units successfully
1 cleared those areas."
2 So Basara tells us in this that -- his record, that the sole
3 purpose was not to make the area peaceful and safer; it was also to
4 defend the Serb people from slaughter, to arm Serbs and only Serbs, to
5 disarm Muslims and Croats, and prepare for the seizure of power. That's
6 what the 6th Krajina Brigade was doing, wasn't it?
7 A. No. That is not correct. The 6th Brigade arrived in Sanski Most
8 because it had been mobilised in the area in the first place. It was its
9 base territory. That brigade was supposed to be there. I didn't find a
10 single order, a single document where the 6th Sana Brigade would be asked
11 to disarm only Muslims and Croats; rather, that brigade is ordered to
12 collect the weapons illegally owned by the population, irrespective of
13 their ethnicity.
14 Second of all, Basara says here that he created conditions for
15 the arrival of the Serbian authorities in the area, which is not correct.
16 The authorities were established after the multi-party elections and
17 continued to exist. That local government had members from the Croatian
18 and Muslim ethnic groups in Sanski Most. At that moment, there was
19 nobody who wanted to establish some new authorities, which means that it
20 is not correct that conditions were being created for some take-over. It
21 is true that the 6th Brigade had a task to protect the Serbian population
22 in view of the fact that in the previous two world wars they suffered at
23 the hand of their neighbours: Croats and Muslims. There are entire
24 areas that had faired badly in the previous wars. That brigade was
25 tasked with preventing inter-ethnic conflicts and with disarming those
1 who had illegal weapons.
2 Everybody was entitled to possess arms legally because nobody
3 made a distinction between ethnic groups, to say that only certain
4 ethnicities would be members of the brigade. Before the conflict broke
5 out in the former Yugoslavia, the 6th Brigade had members from the Croat
6 and Muslim ethnic groups in proportion with their representation in the
7 general population. Nobody prevented them from participating in the
8 tasks that the brigade was supposed to carry out according to the plan of
9 the former JNA.
10 Q. Okay. So we'll move along, but is your testimony then that in
11 Sanski Most, the 6th Krajina Brigade disarmed Muslims, Croats, and Serbs
12 equally? And they didn't just disarm Muslims and Croats. Is that your
14 A. What I'm saying is that the brigade's task was to collect, or
15 rather, to seize all the illegal weapons that existed at the time. I'm
16 not saying that an equal numbers -- number was disarmed because the Serbs
17 responded to mobilisation and were issued with weapons legally in the
18 unit, whereas, at the same time, the Muslims and Croats didn't respond to
19 mobilisation and most of them did not possess their weapons legally.
20 Q. Let me stop you there and we're going to move to the issue of the
21 moving out of the population which you discuss in your report at page 24,
22 where you say in the newly arisen situation, living together was
23 impossible and the resettlement and separation was in no doubt one of the
24 options. You stand by that, living together was impossible? That's your
25 view of the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992? Let's say April/May
2 A. This is my position and this is how it was when you couldn't live
3 in a state as the former Yugoslavia had been. That state was much more
4 comfortable for everybody. And when a peaceful solution could not be
5 found - Bosnia and Herzegovina was in the same boat - people had to lose
6 their rights, some of the people had to lose their rights in order to
7 provide for conditions for the people living together. There was no good
8 solution for Bosnia and Herzegovina. All the documents show that and
9 those documents are of political nature and they will tell you that the
10 Serbs kept on searching for a peaceful solution; however, they didn't
11 find understanding on the other side.
12 Q. Okay --
13 A. -- Bosnia and Herzegovina is still burdened with --
14 Q. Let me stop you because we'll move on and be able to explain more
15 of that when we get to the area I'm moving to. When you were here in
16 this case earlier, you testified at 40945 to 40946, you criticised
17 Mr. Brown saying:
18 "Muslims and Croats moved out and Mr. Brown treats this in his
19 findings as forcible departure. In some paragraphs he also refers to
20 that as ethnic cleansing which was done under the pressure put on them to
21 bear by the Serbian authorities and that was the key and main reason why
22 the population decided to move out."
23 And then you go on to say:
24 "What I find to be really significant and what I deem to be
25 significant is the fact that the population mostly moved out because of
1 the fact that in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a conflict had
2 started, a war had started, and there was a state of insecurity that
3 reigned and everybody tried to leave the area if they could do that,"
4 et cetera.
5 So your thesis is that there was no forced departure of Muslims
6 and Croats. They just moved out because, like all people, they were
7 scared of the war and left areas of combat; right?
8 A. Yes, in 1992 Bosnia-Herzegovina was divided. Its territory was
9 divided between the three peoples. According to the principle of ethnic
10 majority. Each of the peoples under those conditions tried or at least
11 wanted to go to a place where they would be safer or where they thought
12 that they would be safer, and they thought that they would be safer where
13 they were a majority and where they could exercise their rights. That
14 was the essence of their departure. Everybody left, everybody moved out,
15 not only Muslims and Croats. Not only the two ethnicities moved out from
16 the territory of Republika Srpska. The Serbs also moved out from the
17 territory of the Muslim Federation or the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
18 as it was called at the time --
19 Q. Okay --
20 A. -- both Muslims and Serbs moved out from Herceg-Bosnia so that --
21 Q. Okay. And that includes Sanski Most, right, that analysis? If
22 you could answer that "yes" or "no." You say people weren't forced to
23 leave from Sanski Most, Muslims and Croats?
24 A. In my report I mention a lot of documents issued by Mr. Karadzic,
25 the Main Staff of the army, 1 KK, the civilian authorities. And those
1 documents show that they insisted that no pressure should be put to bear
2 on the population, forcing them to move out. They were encouraged to
3 choose freely where they would live. What they were requested to do was
4 to comply with the authorities that had been legally elected in the area.
5 Q. All right. Let me show you P03645 very quickly. These are the
6 Sanski Most Crisis Staff inclusions. This is 7th of May, 1992, item 1:
7 "The Crisis Staff of the Sanski Most Serbian Municipality shall
8 operate as a War Staff as of today.
9 "Crisis Staff is ... exclusively used in public.
10 "2. Mladen Lukic and Mirko Vrucinic shall hold talks with the
11 Commander of the 6th Krajina Brigade, Colonel Basara, to get him involved
12 as a member of the War Staff of the Sanski Most Serbian Municipality and
13 to agree on transforming the JNA into the Serbian Territorial Defence."
14 So this is even before the 16th Assembly Session, but you will
15 agree the Crisis Staff is reaching out, operating secretly as a war
16 staff, to get Basara more involved; correct?
17 A. There were individual attempts, like in Sanski Most, to have the
18 army unit placed under the local government. You will see it in the
19 findings that the situation was very similar in Kljuc. However, the
20 armed forces and the system of command was strictly regulated and it is
21 based on the principle of the unity of command and singleness of command.
22 All the units are under a single command. It was not possible or at
23 least I did not find a single document which would show that that
24 conclusion was ever implemented, that the staff and whatever it may be
25 called, a Crisis Staff or the war staff, ever placed that unit under its
1 command. I don't think so.
2 Q. Yeah, and I wasn't saying they were placed under its command. It
3 was under the command of General Talic, but he was becoming involved with
4 the war staff; correct?
5 A. Crisis Staffs, or rather, a war staff as an institution does not
6 exist. You will not find it in the rules, regulations, laws, acts,
7 anywhere. There were staffs for extraordinary situations, but not war
8 staffs. A Crisis Staff is a form of institutionalised action in an area,
9 usually a municipality, that unifies all incumbents and all those who are
10 interested in overcoming the war situation in the easiest possible way.
11 One of its members is the commander of a military unit or the commander
12 of the Territorial Defence. It is possible and it is true that they
13 probably asked for the brigade commander to become a Crisis Staff member.
14 MR. NICHOLLS: Are we stopping at quarter to, Your Honour? One
15 more quick document then --
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
17 MR. NICHOLLS: -- hopefully quick. P02613.
18 Q. It's a Crisis Staff decision, 22nd of May, from their meeting on
19 the 21st of May. And it begins:
20 "On the basis of a proclamation by the president of the
21 Presidency of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
22 Dr. Radovan Karadzic, the Crisis Staff of Sanski Most will implement the
23 decision on general mobilisation of forces and equipment in the republic
24 and hereby issues the following instructions to that effect ..."
25 "(d) the commander of the 6th Krajina Brigade, Colonel Basara,
1 and the commander of the Serbian Territorial Defence, Colonel Anicic, are
2 hereby instructed to protect vital facilities in the town, above all the
3 water supply system, the transformer, the silos, et cetera."
4 MR. NICHOLLS: If we can go to the next page in English.
5 "4. As far as disarming paramilitary formations in Sanski Most
6 is concerned, Colonel Basara and Colonel Anicic are charged with putting
7 this into practice:
8 "(a) the final dead-line for handing in weapons is 2000 hours on
9 24 May 1992."
10 And then in subparagraph (b), it talks about trying to ensure
11 peace in Sanski Most and so on.
12 Q. This document shows that, in fact, the civilian authorities,
13 Rasula and Vrkes, are working with the 6th Krajina Brigade commander,
14 Basara, with the TO, Anicic, in order to prepare combat activities;
16 A. Well, this is not about combat activities. This is about the
17 control of the territory and protection of the infrastructure in the
18 territory. Army units can be engaged on those tasks together with the
19 police units and the Territorial Defence units.
20 Q. It's about them disarming together; correct?
21 A. One of the tasks would be disarming, or rather, insisting on
22 weapons being returned within a certain dead-line. We did that as well,
24 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honours, that's a good time.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll adjourn for today and continue tomorrow
1 morning at 9.00.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.47 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 25th day of
4 July, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.