1 Tuesday, 24 April 2001
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning. Please be
6 seated. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning to the
7 technical booth, the interpreters, the registry staff, the counsel for the
8 Prosecution, and the counsel for the Defence.
9 We are going to resume our case, and I think that we have two
10 witnesses for today, Mr. Deretic. Am I right? Is it going to be
11 Mr. Deretic or Mr. Stojanovic?
12 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. You are
13 quite right, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Can we call the witness to the
15 witness box? Yes.
16 Mr. Usher, will you please bring in the witness.
17 Mr. Deretic, who will this witness be?
18 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] The next Defence witness is Witness
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness DD/8. Can
22 you hear me? Can you hear me?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please read the solemn
25 declaration given to you by the usher.
1 WITNESS: WITNESS DD/8
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
4 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated. Please
6 approach the microphone. I think that the interpreters had difficulty in
7 hearing you. Please move up a little and make yourself as comfortable as
8 possible. Thank you very much for coming, Witness DD/8. That is how
9 we're going to call you in order to protect you. You have requested
10 protective measures. For the moment you will be answering questions put
11 to you by Mr. Deretic. I know already that he is going to ask for a
12 private session, so I'm going to do that, instead of him, straight away.
13 I think that there's something else that we need to deal with.
14 Witness, the usher is going to give you a piece of paper with your name
15 written on it. Please tell us whether that is indeed your name. Will you
16 check, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. So let's go into
19 private session now, please.
20 [Private session]
13 Page 10842 redacted private session.
25 into open session.
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Deretic, you may continue.
3 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Witness DD/8, after the beginning of the war in the municipality
5 of Prijedor and the former Bosnia and Herzegovina, where were you?
6 A. I was in Prijedor.
7 Q. Do you know when Prijedor was attacked?
8 A. On the 30th of May 1992.
9 Q. On that day did you suffer any unpleasantness?
10 A. I did.
11 Q. Could you tell us what happened to you?
12 A. I can. On the 30th of May, about 1600 hours, a group of soldiers
13 came. They took me out of the house, both me, my family, and two of my
14 workers, and they took us to the police station. We were kept there for a
15 short while, and then we headed towards the sports hall Mladost. Again we
16 were kept there briefly. They came to fetch us with some jeeps or Kombi
17 vans. They took us to the yard of the police station, and then buses
18 came, and with those buses they drove us to Keraterm.
19 Q. Were you all brought to Keraterm on that occasion?
20 A. No. They released my wife and children. Only myself and my two
21 workers were taken there.
22 Q. In those days did you have a private business of your own?
23 A. Yes. I had my own bakery.
24 Q. When you mentioned those two workers, were they workers who worked
25 for you in your bakery?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Were they of Albanian ethnicity?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Could you tell us whether they also ended up with you in Keraterm?
5 A. Yes. They were a father and son, and on the 5th of May -- no, I'm
6 sorry, the 5th of June, they released us. They released me and the father
7 of the underaged boy who stayed there and was later transferred to
9 Q. When you're talking about this person who was underaged and was
10 later transferred to the Omarska investigation centre, can you tell us
11 what happened to that boy later on?
12 A. Later on he was released home and he came back to my place.
13 Q. Witness DD/8, after you arrived at the Keraterm investigation
14 centre, were you interrogated?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you tell us, upon your arrival, where you were put up?
17 A. I was placed in hangar 1, hangar number 1.
18 Q. Could you also tell us who interrogated you?
19 A. A SUP inspector called Modic.
20 Q. Do you know his first name?
21 A. I think it was Gazimir or something like that. I'm afraid I don't
23 Q. Do you remember in those days were there other people, in addition
24 to inspectors from Prijedor, interrogating detainees?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Where did those other people come from?
2 A. They came from Banja Luka.
3 Q. After you were taken for interrogation, can you tell us what you
4 were interrogated about?
5 A. Well, he treated me very nicely. I was under no pressure
7 Q. But what did they ask you? What did they question you about?
8 A. First they asked me whether I had any weapons. Then secondly,
9 whether I was a member of any party. Third, whether I was contributing
10 funds to a party, and so on and so forth.
11 Q. During your stay in Keraterm, how many times were you
13 A. Once.
14 Q. Were you physically or mentally abused, beaten, or mistreated?
15 A. No.
16 Q. How long did you stay in Keraterm?
17 A. Until the 5th of June, 1992.
18 Q. What happened to you then?
19 A. They let me go home.
20 Q. Do you remember who released you from Keraterm?
21 A. I think the chief of the SUP in those days.
22 Q. What was his name?
23 A. Simo Drljaca.
24 Q. When you were released, did you receive anything in writing?
25 A. I did, regarding movement, except during the curfew in Mladen
1 Stojanovic #15 Street. That is where I lived. That is my address.
2 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could I ask the usher
3 to distribute to Your Honours, my learned friends from the Prosecution,
4 and the Defence, a document. I should also like to ask the usher to be
5 kind enough to put a copy of this document under the ELMO, if possible, in
6 the Serbian version.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Krystal, can it be marked
8 for identification, please.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. It is D21/4.
10 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Could you please put it on the ELMO
11 in Serbian, the Serbian copy, the Serbian version of the document.
12 Q. Witness DD/8 --
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Deretic, perhaps it would be
14 better to give the Serbian version to the witness and put the English
15 version under the ELMO. In that way we can all follow.
16 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
17 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Susan Somers.
19 MS. SOMERS: Excuse the interruption, but the document bears a
20 name. Would it be perhaps preferable to go into private on that so that
21 it's not viewed on the ELMO or that there's some protection so that it
22 doesn't go to the public gallery?
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. It's always possible to
24 put the document if the technical booth does not transmit the image
25 outside the courtroom. But as we all have the document, it may not be
1 necessary to put the document under the ELMO, and we can discuss it in
3 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, Mr. President. I
4 was just going to ask for a private session in view of the data given in
5 this document, which can reveal the identity of this witness.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Maybe, then, it would be better
7 to go into private session now, straight away. In any event, the
8 interpreters tell me that they don't have the document, so perhaps next
9 time, Mr. Deretic, you should make a copy for the interpreters so that
10 they can follow.
11 [Private session]
5 [Open session]
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may continue, Mr. Deretic.
7 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Q. Witness DD/8, before you arrived at the Keraterm investigation
9 centre, did you know a person called Zoran Zigic?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Since when have you known him?
12 A. Since 1983 or 1984, something like that.
13 Q. Can you tell us where you met him?
14 A. Yes. I met him at the railway station and the bus station in a
15 cafe. He used to work there as a taxi driver. I had a compatriot and a
16 friend working there as a waiter, so I often went there, and that is how
17 we met and that's how we came to know one another.
18 Q. When you reached the area of the railway station and the bus stop,
19 would you sometimes be in the company of Zoran Zigic?
20 A. Yes, on several occasions.
21 Q. When you were together, did you feel any kind of antagonism
22 towards you emanating from Zoran Zigic, any kind of repulsiveness?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did he know at the time what your ethnicity was?
25 A. He did know, as I had a lot of other people of the same ethnicity
1 who had their own shops, I had this friend who was a waiter, who was
2 working in Kozara Turist. We socialised, and everyone knew who everyone
3 else was, and I never felt that I was treated in any way differently from
4 all the others.
5 Q. Would you see Zoran in the company of your compatriots too?
6 A. Yes. They were there and I was there, and there were people from
7 all over the place. There were Serbs, and Muslims, and Croats, and
8 Albanians. We all mixed together. Not every day of course, but whenever
9 we happened to get together.
10 Q. After you were brought to the Keraterm investigation centre, did
11 you see Zoran Zigic?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. Can you tell us what he was wearing when you saw him for the first
15 A. He was wearing a camouflage uniform and a red beret, and a
16 bandaged left hand.
17 Q. When you saw him there, what was he doing; do you remember?
18 A. I don't know. He walked around the compound. He was shouting
19 that his hand was hurting him and so on. Sometimes he would be yelling,
20 and other times he would be laughing. In my opinion, he was always
22 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could I ask you
23 again, in view of the next few questions, that we go into private session
24 very briefly again.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Let's go into private
2 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Deretic, please
18 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Witness DD/8, since when have you been living in Prijedor?
20 A. I am living in Prijedor since 1980.
21 Q. Did you know Albanian families living in Prijedor?
22 A. Yes, I know them all. I know all the people who had shops.
23 Q. Did you ever hear of an Albanian from Prijedor whose name was
24 Jasmin Izeiri?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Jasmin Izeiri?
2 A. No, I don't. I've never heard of him.
3 Q. In Prijedor, did you know a family by the name of Izairi with an
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I -- yes, we have the
7 right name in the record now. Thank you.
8 Q. Can you tell us, please, where that family lived in Prijedor and
9 what it did for a living?
10 A. Yes, I can. The Izairi family were in a village on the
11 Ljubija-Prijedor road called Hambarine and they had a pastry shop. They
12 had a shop there by the primary school in Hambarine. They were two
13 brothers. They had children.
14 Q. Do you happen to remember their names?
15 A. Yes. The old one is called Huzeir, and before the war he went to
16 Germany. Whereas the younger one was Rasim. He was in the camp in
17 Omarska, and later on in the military camp at Manjaca. And then he was
18 exchanged, and he now lives in Germany with his brother and his family.
19 All of them are alive and well.
20 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I should like to ask
21 the usher to distribute another document, please, like he did a moment ago
22 and place an English version on the ELMO, but for that we need a private
23 session, please, and to give the witness a Serbian version.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Deretic, do you want -- you
25 want a private session because ...
1 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Well, actually we have already
2 mentioned the names here, so you're quite right, Mr. President, we don't
3 really need a private session. I apologise. So I withdraw my request.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
5 What number will that be, madam registrar, please?
6 THE REGISTRAR: D22/4.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Deretic, please
9 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Witness, you told us that prior to the war you had a private
11 business; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. You have before you a document issued by the Municipal Commission
14 for the Economy and Public Planning of Prijedor. Is that a body which
15 issued work permits?
16 A. Yes. The only organ able to issue work permits is that one.
17 Nobody else is authorised to issue work permits.
18 Q. Do you know, without this document in front of you, whether Izairi
19 Rasim could have had a pastry shop and worked as a pastry man without this
20 document? Could he have been a pastry worker without having a decision of
21 this kind?
22 A. No, he could not.
23 Q. Did you yourself have the same kind of document with your name and
24 surname on it?
25 A. Well, yes. Of course I did, yes.
1 Q. Did this kind of document have to have a protocol number?
2 A. Yes, it did. That was compulsory.
3 Q. And one more question.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Was this decision issued for a set time period or for an
7 indefinite time period?
8 A. It was for an indefinite time period.
9 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I think
10 we can take down the document from the ELMO. I thank the usher for his
12 Q. Witness, once again, please: The Rasim -- the brothers Rasim and
13 Husein Izairi and their family, are they alive today?
14 A. Yes. They're all alive, and I saw Rasim quite recently, and I
15 know that for sure, because three months ago I was with him. I came from
16 Germany. I was in Germany and spent two or three hours with him. We had
17 been friends before, so I visited him in Germany and he told me
18 everything, and they're all alive and well.
19 Q. After you were released from the investigation centre of Keraterm,
20 were you still in Prijedor? Did you continue to be in Prijedor?
21 A. Yes, until the 25th of November, 1992.
22 Q. Did you leave Prijedor after that date?
23 A. Yes. I went to Belgrade and then I went to Prizren, to my
24 brother's place.
25 Q. After you were released from the Keraterm investigation centre,
1 from the time of your release up until your departure for Belgrade and
2 Prizren later on, did you ever see Zoran Zigic outside the Keraterm
4 A. Yes, I did. I saw him two or three times, I think, but in
6 Q. During the time you spent in the Keraterm investigation centre,
7 did you personally see, or did you hear from the people who were there
8 together with you in Room 1, that Zoran Zigic physically abused anybody,
9 beat them, or killed anybody?
10 A. No. While I was there, no.
11 Q. And my last question: Can you tell us, please, briefly, what you
12 think about Zoran Zigic as a person, from the period that you used to see
13 him around?
14 A. Well, he was a normal man, always proper. I don't know what else
15 I can say. We weren't any great friends, but we were acquaintances. We
16 knew each other. And I have nothing to notice. I can't say that I
17 noticed anything in particular.
18 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.
19 Mr. President, the Defence has no further questions. However, I
20 should like to ask the usher to present one more document which is
21 directly related to this witness' testimony. Mr. President, this is a
22 document, or rather a certificate, from the centre of public security of
23 Prijedor that in the Prijedor municipality there was never an individual
24 registered by the name of Jasmin Izeiri, with an "e."
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Krystal, may we have a
1 number for the document? Can you tell us? I think it's clear, but can
2 you tell us?
3 THE REGISTRAR: It's D23/4.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Deretic, are you going to
5 ask the witness a question? Have you got a question for the witness with
6 this document in hand?
7 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] No. I have already asked my
8 questions, and the witness has said that that individual never existed in
9 the Prijedor municipality, a person by that name, and that he never saw
10 anybody by that name in Keraterm either.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers.
12 MS. SOMERS: I fail to see the relevance of this particular
13 document, Your Honour, and I therefore -- perhaps if the Chamber is minded
14 to consider it, to voir dire the counsel on what the purported relevance
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Deretic.
17 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your Honours, if we
18 read the indictment and the charges against my client, the Prosecution
19 states that our client killed Jasmin Izeiri, with an "e," and that was
20 somebody who lived and worked in Prijedor. With this document, we show
21 that a person with that name never existed in Prijedor, and that document
22 proves it.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers.
24 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, I disagree with counsel in that it's
25 talking about a residence registration, does not indicate they've
1 exhausted the various spellings, and I think this is not conclusive of
2 anything. There is an allegation in the indictment, and there may be a
3 variation on spelling. As it was, the witness indicated he didn't
4 recognise the name initially because of variations on spelling, and this
5 has absolutely no conclusive value. Additionally, I don't see that this
6 witness is the one who can attest to anything brought in by a record from
7 a public security centre, and again it is not dispositive of the issue of
8 spelling or other data.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. The
10 Judges will confer.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. We have the
13 document. We know the position of the two parties, and what we're going
14 to do now is proceed with the cross-examination of the witness unless you
15 have any more questions, Mr. Deretic, and I take it you haven't. Very
16 well, thank you.
17 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Not for the moment, Mr. President.
18 Thank you.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Witness DD/8, you are now
20 going to be answering questions put to you by the Prosecution, and I see
21 Ms. Susan Somers on her feet.
22 Ms. Somers, your witness.
23 Cross-examined by Ms. Somers:
24 Q. Witness DD/8, do you have any training in either law, public
25 administration, government management, or record keeping for official
1 records? Are you a person trained in any of those disciplines?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Are you in a position to say that you have viewed every single
4 document issued by every official in Prijedor to determine whether or not
5 a particular file number or any type of number is on every type of
6 document? Can you tell us whether you have that type of expertise to
7 state with certainty how every document must look from Prijedor?
8 A. Well, let me tell you, I have had a lot of practice. I have had
9 at least ten shops, ten bakeries, and I got ten decisions in that way. I
10 didn't receive any decision without a number on it, but I'm not an expert,
11 of course. I'm not a clerk or anything like that.
12 Q. And your -- these are commercial enterprises, is that correct, the
13 shops you are talking about are commercial not government enterprises?
14 A. Well, that's right.
15 Q. So in your limited experience in connection with documents
16 concerning your shops, you can only talk about what you've seen on your
17 documents; is that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Thank you. You left Keraterm on what date, please? If you could
20 remind us.
21 A. That was a Friday, the 5th of June 1992.
22 Q. Did you ever live in Sanski Most?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. From when to when?
25 A. I came from Prizren to Sanski Most in August 1996, and I
1 returned -- I went back to Prijedor some two months ago. I don't remember
2 the exact date, but about two months ago. Otherwise, I came -- I visited
3 Prijedor when I lived in Sanski Most.
4 Q. So your statement about continuously living in Prijedor since 1980
5 is not entirely accurate. You, in fact, lived in Sanski Most for a period
6 of time between 1980 and now.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Deretic.
8 Just a moment, Witness.
9 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness never
10 said 1992, that when he left Prijedor in 1992 that he lived in Prizren all
11 the time, that is to say, outside Prijedor.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers.
13 MS. SOMERS: I will rephrase it, Your Honour.
14 Q. When you left Keraterm, you returned to Prijedor; is that
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In the same residence you had before you were arrested and sent to
19 A. Well, the same place, but the house had burnt down when I came
20 from the camp, and I -- so I lived in part of my bakery because I had this
21 bakery and -- in this house and yard. So that's where I went.
22 Q. You indicated you were familiar with Zoran Zigic. Do you know
23 Dusan or Dusko Tadic?
24 A. No, I don't.
25 Q. You did not have conversations with Dusko Tadic in Keraterm
1 between, let us say, the 3rd and the 6th, which would cover the 4th and
2 5th of June 1992?
3 A. No.
4 MS. SOMERS: I'd ask for private session, please.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, let us move into private
7 [Private session]
13 Pages 10861-10870 redacted private session.
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Now, Ms. Susan Somers.
20 MS. SOMERS:
21 Q. Witness DD/8, will you tell us through which procedure you went to
22 get your property back in Prijedor, and was it the property you left? If
23 you could clarify that point.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Deretic.
4 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm afraid that
5 Ms. Somers is right. Through the answers, I'm afraid that this witness
6 will disclose his identity because I am familiar with the situation in
7 town, and I know how many such families there are over there. I'm sorry
8 for interrupting, but I have only the best intentions in doing so.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Perhaps it would be
10 safer to redact this reply of the witness from the transcript and go into
11 private session.
12 So let's go into private session. We'll be having a break around
13 11.00, Ms. Susan Somers, just so you know.
14 [Private session]
13 Page 10873 redacted private session
13 Page 10874 redacted private session.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and English transcripts
2 [Open session]
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are now going to have a
4 half-hour break.
5 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 11.37 a.m.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
8 Mr. Deretic, re-examination on your part.
9 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
10 Re-examined by Mr. Deretic:
11 Q. Witness, please, do you remember my learned friend the Prosecutor
12 asked you something with respect to the uniform worn by Zoran Zigic? Do
13 you know whether it was a camouflage uniform?
14 A. Yes, it was.
15 Q. Do you remember, in those few days that you spent in the Keraterm
16 investigation centre, whether you happened to notice, underneath the beret
17 that you mentioned, whether Zoran had dyed hair?
18 A. I don't know. He had a beret like this and something on it there,
19 but I don't know.
20 Q. Did you notice him wearing earrings in his ears?
21 A. No, I didn't.
22 Q. During those days, did he happen to wear fingerless gloves, black
23 ones of any kind?
24 A. No. I didn't see.
25 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, now we have a slight
1 technical problem at this point. The questions, during the
2 cross-examination posed by my learned colleague, 90 per cent of those
3 questions refer to a document that my learned colleague relied on and
4 referred to. I have several questions with respect to that document, but
5 I don't know how to proceed technically, because I haven't got the
6 document, nor have I had an opportunity to see the document.
7 MS. SOMERS: May I respond, Your Honour?
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Susan Somers.
9 MS. SOMERS: [Previous translation continues] ... To Mr.
10 Stojanovic and Mr. Deretic, and they said to me they didn't want it. We
11 have the documents, the booth has been provided with them, and I'm unclear
12 what this particular assertion is about, but we have the document and it
13 was offered prior to the break.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Deretic.
15 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] My colleague, Mr. Stojanovic, tells
16 me now that that really was the case, but unfortunately he didn't tell me
17 this until now. So without making any further problems, we wouldn't have
18 enough time to study the document. We have no further questions. I do
19 profoundly apologise, because my colleague failed to inform me of the
20 matter in the meantime. He didn't tell me.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Deretic, that is your
22 decision. If I was in your place, I would have a lot of questions to ask,
23 but I can't do your work, so it's up to you to decide what you're going to
25 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] In view of the fact that
1 Mr. Stojanovic has already talked to our learned friend of the
2 Prosecution, we are going to end our redirect here. We have no further
3 questions. Thank you.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.
5 Judge Fouad Riad, do you have any questions?
6 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Yes.
7 Questioned by the Court:
8 JUDGE RIAD: Good morning, Witness DD/8.
9 A. Good morning.
10 JUDGE RIAD: I just have a few clarifications to ask you about.
11 You mentioned that you did not undergo any mistreatment when you were
12 taken to the investigation centre. Did you notice around you other people
13 being mistreated or were they all as fortunate as you were?
14 A. No. There were beaten people who had been brought to Keraterm,
15 but that was outside. I was inside all the time and I didn't see who beat
16 them. And those who had been beaten, they were put to the side, to one
17 side, so we didn't have any contact with them, neither did we know who
18 beat them, because there were a lot of soldiers there, a lot of policemen
20 JUDGE RIAD: But the fact remains that there was mistreatment?
21 A. Well, yes, but not inside, just outside.
22 JUDGE RIAD: Not in the rooms at all or people were called out and
23 so on --
24 A. No.
25 JUDGE RIAD: -- where you were? Would people be called out, for
1 instance, for anything?
2 A. Well, there were cases like that. There were cases like that.
3 JUDGE RIAD: But you were never called out?
4 A. No. Not me and not my workers either, my employees.
5 JUDGE RIAD: Yes, I see. And during all your stay, you never
6 suffered. How was your -- all right. The mistreatment concerning the
7 persons, as far as the food was concerned and that sort of thing, how was
8 it, or the hygienic conditions?
9 A. The hygienic conditions were no good at all. There wasn't any
10 food when I was there. But when our families learned that we were there
11 before that, they didn't know where we were. And then our families would
12 send in the food. But afterwards I heard later on that there was food.
13 JUDGE RIAD: You mentioned that Mr. Zigic never abused anybody
14 during your stay.
15 A. While I was there I didn't see it, nor did I hear anything like
17 JUDGE RIAD: But you said you were always inside your room, so
18 were you able to see what was happening around?
19 A. No, not outside.
20 JUDGE RIAD: And then you said that he would be always -- you said
21 the word I think "intoxicated" and always yelling. How did you reconcile
22 this with not being abusive? Was he yelling at people? Was he
24 A. Well, he always used to shout and make a noise, and that's why I
25 assumed he was only drunk. But inside, as I say, he never came in and
1 abused anyone inside. As for outside, I can't say. I don't know.
2 JUDGE RIAD: What do you mean by "inside," inside your room?
3 A. Yes. It wasn't a room, it was a hangar. A place -- I don't know
4 how to explain it.
5 JUDGE RIAD: One of the rooms, not everything?
6 A. It wasn't a room. It was like a garage, a storeroom. That kind
7 of thing.
8 JUDGE RIAD: How many people were in it?
9 A. In number 1 there were about 120 people.
10 JUDGE RIAD: Where you were?
11 A. Yes. Yes.
12 JUDGE RIAD: How big was that? You said a hangar, how big was
13 that hangar?
14 A. Well, I don't know exactly the number of metres, but about 20
15 metres long, and about 3 or 4 metres wide. I said less than 20 actually,
16 I said too much. Twenty is too many.
17 JUDGE RIAD: Compared to this place, how would it be?
18 A. No, a lot smaller. Half the size even. Quite -- very much
19 smaller. Perhaps three of the rooms we were in would make up one of these
20 courtrooms. This is three times the size.
21 JUDGE RIAD: With regard to one of the documents here, I won't
22 tell you the number of it, it's -- I think it's D23/4, concerning the fact
23 that Izairi, Jasmin has never made his residence registration in the
24 territory of the Prijedor municipality. Now, do you have to have a
25 registration to visit in Prijedor or to move around? Not to live in, just
1 to visit and move around?
2 A. No, it never existed. I don't know. Maybe there should be, but I
3 don't know that anybody registered that way.
4 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Judge Fouad
7 Madam Judge Wald has the floor.
8 JUDGE WALD: Witness, just a couple of questions. When you saw
9 Mr. Zigic in Keraterm, you told us that he was usually intoxicated, he was
10 shouting or yelling. What, in your view, in your impression, was his job
11 in Keraterm? Did he have a job? Did he have an official function there
12 or was he just a visitor?
13 A. I don't know that.
14 JUDGE WALD: You couldn't tell in the times that you saw him
15 whether or not he had a regular job there or was just there?
16 A. I can't tell you. I would see him every day. Now, what he was
17 doing, whether he had a regular job or just came there, I really couldn't
19 JUDGE WALD: Did you see him generally in the day, at night, or
21 A. We couldn't see anybody at night so it was during the day.
22 JUDGE WALD: So you saw him during the day, and you saw him
23 generally in an intoxicated condition, but you don't know whether or not
24 he was just there or whether he had a regular job; is that right?
25 A. I don't know, no.
1 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Now, as to these documents that you say you
2 signed to help the families of certain dead persons get certain kind of
3 pension rights, do you know whether or not those families of those dead
4 persons for whom you signed the documents, do they still live in the
5 Sanski Most area? I don't want to know their names or anything. I just
6 want to know if they still live there. This was 1998 and 1999. I just
7 want to know if the families, to your knowledge, still live in the area?
8 A. I don't understand what you mean. You mean those who were --
9 JUDGE WALD: You told us that you signed documents, and you signed
10 them, you didn't know -- you told us that you didn't know what they said.
11 You were told it would help the families to get pension rights or some
12 kind of rights to some kind of money on behalf of the people who had been
13 killed. That's what your testimony was. I'm just asking you whether you
14 know whether the families on whose behalf you signed those documents, do
15 they still live in that area?
16 A. No.
17 JUDGE WALD: They don't live in that area. They live some place
18 else; is that what you're telling us?
19 A. I think that one of the families lives in Sarajevo and the other
20 one lives in Tetovo. That's what I think. I'm not sure.
21 JUDGE WALD: All right. Thank you.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam Judge
24 Witness DD/8, I, too, have a few questions for you.
25 You told us that you would see Mr. Zigic in Keraterm all the days
1 that you were there, all the days, every day. Did you ever see him arrive
2 or leave, his arrival and his departure?
3 A. No, I didn't. I didn't see him. I was inside, as I say.
4 Sometimes when I would go out, if you beg my pardon, to go to the toilet,
5 I would see him; otherwise I wouldn't go out for anything else.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Do you know, for example,
7 whether he drove a minibus?
8 A. I don't know.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Do you know if he drove or
10 arrived on a motorcycle, a moped?
11 A. I don't know.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. Now, to go
13 back to your statement, the statement that gave rise to the questions
14 asked you by Ms. Susan Somers, the Prosecutor: At one point you said that
15 it was a ludicrous or comic statement, ridiculous. You used a word like
16 that. Now, did you know the names of the judges that Ms. Susan Somers
18 A. I know one of them but not the other.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Did any of them ask
20 you personally to sign the declaration?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What did they ask you, in
23 precise terms?
24 A. They didn't ask me anything. [redacted]
2 [redacted]; that is to say, one of the women
3 was left without the husband and the other without his children, the man,
4 and he said, "I have to send it to Sarajevo for the children to be able to
5 get pension benefits." He said, "I've written everything down," and all
6 he said was that I should come and just sign. And I said, "Okay. No
7 problems," and I went and signed. I didn't sit down, he didn't question
8 me, he didn't ask me anything, for me to give a statement. That's how it
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Did he read the statement out to
12 A. No. It was just on the table. I went, I signed. I was in a
13 hurry because I was working, you know, I was working, so I didn't have
14 much time. I just quickly went and signed. And he said, "Everything is
15 okay. Everything is in order. Goodbye. Goodbye." That was it. I
16 haven't got a copy. I don't know anything about it. That was how it
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Where were you when you signed?
19 A. Well, he called me up in the shop that I was in and he said, "Come
20 to the office. Everything is ready, just waiting for your signature."
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So they came to see you in your
22 shop; is that right?
23 A. That's right. The judge came to my shop. He had breakfast there,
24 because I had the burik type of pastry that people like. And he said,
25 "These people have come to me. The two sons were killed and the children
1 remain. I've done everything necessary. I've got the statement. All you
2 have to do is to sign it for it to be sent on to Sarajevo so the children
3 can reap the pension benefits." And I said, "Okay, if that's the case."
4 And then he went back to his office and I left too. I lived near the
5 courthouse and I went there, signed, and that was it.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just one moment, please.
7 Another question, Witness DD/8. The judge, was he alone? Did he come
8 alone or was he accompanied by anyone?
9 A. Alone. Alone.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And you, were you alone or were
11 you in the company of anybody?
12 A. Alone.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In your shop, were there other
14 people there who were able to see your meeting?
15 A. Well, there were lots of clients. The shop was full. But he just
16 called me up to a table and told me what he told me.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So it's quite possible that the
18 other people saw you with the judge; is that right?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Do you remember the
21 date when you signed the declaration?
22 A. No. No. I have absolutely no idea.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Okay. You said that
24 you don't know, you have no idea. But clearly, it was after the conflict;
25 is that right?
1 A. What conflict do you mean? I don't understand. Which conflict?
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The war perhaps.
3 A. After the war, yes, of course. Yes.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. And do you have an
5 idea as to how many years later that was?
6 A. Well, I think it might have been 1998, 1999 perhaps. I don't
7 really know. I think it was 1998.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. Now, what
9 happened with respect to one declaration? Did the same -- statement. Did
10 the same thing happen with the other statement that happened with the
11 first statement?
12 A. Yes, the same thing. The same thing. But a young guy came.
13 Somebody mentioned his name, but I don't remember it. He came and told me
14 that I had to sign another document for another person this time, a person
15 who had died and disappeared, disappeared from Omarska, actually, and he
16 said that I should help the family of that person because he had
17 disappeared and his wife and children were left. And he said he had the
18 statement and all I needed to do was to sign it, and that's what I did. I
19 went and signed, the same way. But that was later. That was after that
20 first occasion.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Witness. I have a
22 question for you which you can answer if you want to, but you need not.
23 Is it normal for you to sign something without looking at what you are
25 A. Well, if you trust somebody, you don't need to read it through.
1 In the old days a word was a word; you didn't even have to sign anything
2 if you gave your word.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So can I infer from that that
4 you had confidence, you trusted the person who asked you to sign this
6 A. Yes. Yes.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Could you try and go back to
8 that time and place and the circumstances that existed at the time? Could
9 you tell us what were really the reasons that prompted you to sign at the
11 A. I was sorry for those children. According to what I was told,
12 they had nothing. Their father had gone. Their mother wasn't working,
13 and this was a way for them to get a few pennies, as we put it.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Witness DD/8. We
15 have no more questions for you. You have answered questions put to you by
16 the Defence, the Prosecution, and the Judges. We thank you very much for
17 coming and we wish you a safe journey to your place of residence.
18 You have to wait a few moments for us to pull down the blinds so
19 that you can leave safely. So don't move for the moment.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Deretic, before we bring in
23 the next witness, I think you are going to ask for the admission of these
24 three exhibits, D21, 22 and 23, all of them /4.
25 MR. DERETIC: [Interpretation] Precisely so, Your Honour. I had
1 intended to do that, but I have to be quite frank that in -- before doing
2 so, I wanted to change places with my colleague, Mr. Stojanovic.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Susan Somers, we
4 didn't talk about D23/4. We have talked about D23. What about the other
5 documents, what is your opinion?
6 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, as to 22/4, no objections. As to 21/4,
7 no objections. The only continuing objection is as to 23/4.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Chamber therefore orders the
10 admission into evidence of Exhibits D21/4 and D22/4. With respect to
11 Exhibit D23/4, in view of the reasons given by the parties, and
12 considering the document to be relevant to the case, and that the Chamber
13 reserves the right to attach to it appropriate weight, the Chamber admits
14 that document as well.
15 So now, Mr. Deretic, regarding the next witness.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission
17 I shall be taking over to examine the next witness. It is Mr. Mirko
18 Barudzija, and I would like to ask the usher to bring him in.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We have not requested any
21 protective measures for this witness, so there is no need for the blinds
22 or the screen or anything.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Very well. The witness
24 will take the solemn declaration, and then we'll see afterwards.
25 Witness, can you hear me well?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can, well.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please read the solemn
3 declaration given to you by the usher, please.
4 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
5 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
6 WITNESS: MIRKO BARUDZIJA
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The usher is now going to pull
11 up the blinds.
12 In the meantime, Mr. Stojanovic, yesterday my impression was that
13 we were going to begin the expert witness testimony tomorrow. I see that
14 now we have a witness of fact and an expert witness; is that correct,
15 Mr. Stojanovic?
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, do you have
18 any observations to make regarding the fact that we have here an expert
19 witness about which we have still not made a decision?
20 I apologise to you, Witness. We have some minor points to rule
21 upon before you begin your testimony, so please excuse us for a moment.
22 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, the -- because as we had discussed this
23 with the Chamber earlier about whether we could go forward on this type of
24 case -- I'm sorry, with this type of witness and we indicated of course,
25 it happens frequently. The issue for us was whether or not we would
1 accept the report, the expert statement that was filed allegedly under 94
2 bis, although this is a mixed fact expert witness.
3 We do not accept the report, and we will cross-examine on the
4 report, the opinions in the report, as well as any facts which may be
5 elicited. And if the Chamber is minded to allow us to proceed that way,
6 then this would be, I think, the best resolution for any objections we may
7 have raised. It wasn't even an objection per se. It was nonacceptance of
8 the report and desire to cross-examine.
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] May I remind you, maybe I'm
12 wrong, but I had the impression that the Chamber had already ruled and
13 accepted the witness to speak in this capacity.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, I was going to
15 give you the floor to begin your work. So Dr. Barudzija, thank you very
16 much for coming. You are now going to answer questions put to you by
17 Mr. Stojanovic.
18 Please proceed.
19 Examined by Mr. Stojanovic:
20 Q. Witness, for the benefit of all those present and for the record,
21 will you give us your full name, please.
22 A. My name is Mirko Barudzija, and if I add my title, it is doctor.
23 I am a medical doctor, a specialist surgeon.
24 Q. When and where were you born?
25 A. On the 2nd of January 1943 in the village of Kuhari near Sanski
2 Q. Are you married?
3 A. I am.
4 Q. Do you have any children?
5 A. I have two children and a wife.
6 Q. What is your ethnicity?
7 A. A Serb.
8 Q. What is your religion?
9 A. I am of Orthodox faith.
10 Q. Could you tell us a little more about your education and training,
11 what schools have you graduated from?
12 A. In 1973, towards the end of the year, I graduated from the school
13 of medicine. I worked --
14 Q. Will you tell us where was that?
15 A. In Belgrade, the medical school in Belgrade. After that, I went
16 to my place of birth, Sanski Most, where I started working as a general
17 practitioner for all of five years. And after that, in 1978, I moved to
18 Prijedor to specialise in general surgery.
19 Q. Did you complete your specialisation?
20 A. Yes, I did, in 1984 in April.
21 Q. Where? Where did you acquire the title of specialist?
22 A. In Belgrade.
23 Q. Are you a primarius or senior consultant?
24 A. Yes, I have been for the past two years.
25 Q. What does this title actually mean?
1 A. It's a kind of honorary title, a recognition and tribute for many
2 years of successful effort in the field of medicine.
3 Q. Are you a forensic expert?
4 A. Yes, and I am registered with the basic court in Prijedor.
5 Q. Since when?
6 A. I think it is since 1994.
7 Q. Are you still a forensic expert?
8 A. Yes, I am still registered as such. And they do call me for
9 consultations from time to time.
10 Q. Allow me to ask you something now about your medical experience
11 acquired through practice. How many years do you have of service behind
12 you as a doctor, as a physician?
13 A. It is now 28 years that I have been a medical practitioner. First
14 as a general practitioner for five years in Sanski Most, and then in
15 Prijedor for the purpose of specialising and I worked as a trainee
17 Q. Have you also worked abroad?
18 A. After spending a short time in Prijedor, there was a mission of
19 medical and technical exchange with Libya to which I volunteered to work
20 as a physician, and I was in a general hospital there for 14 and a half
22 Q. Where did you work in Prijedor?
23 A. In Prijedor I have always worked in the hospital.
24 Q. What is the name of the hospital?
25 A. It is called after a doctor called Dr. Mladen Stojanovic, and it
1 still bears his name.
2 Q. Since when have you been employed in that hospital?
3 A. Since May 1988.
4 Q. Could you tell us a little more about that hospital, how big it
5 is, when it was built, how well-equipped it is, and the condition it was
6 in during the war of 1992?
7 A. We moved into that hospital and started working in it in 1986. It
8 is a big hospital with about 500 beds which means that it can accommodate
9 as many patients. It is a general hospital. Formerly it was a regional
10 hospital intended for the whole region covering Prijedor and the
11 surrounding towns including Sanski Most. That is no longer the case
12 because of the latest developments. So it now covers only Prijedor and
13 the immediate surroundings, therefore, a few municipalities.
14 Q. Regarding the wartime period, from 1992 on, what were you doing in
15 terms of your professional obligations?
16 A. For us doctors it was a very arduous period, a difficult one,
17 physically and mentally. We had a great deal to do. We had a large
18 number of patients, wounded and sick people. We worked day and night when
19 the war started. We would spend three weeks in hospital, non-stop,
20 without going home. We worked around the clock at the polyclinic, as well
21 as in the admission ward and in the surgeries, and the intensive care
22 unit, where we had the service for reanimation. So we had an unbelievable
23 amount of work to do.
24 Q. What exact post were you occupying in 1992?
25 A. In 1992, in May, or maybe perhaps June, I was appointed head of
1 the surgery department, mainly for the civilians, which was situated on
2 the second floor of the building.
3 Q. Does that mean that as a surgeon you had a great deal of
4 experience with wartime injuries?
5 A. Yes, certainly. There was far too much of that kind of
6 experience. Patients would go through the emergency ward. All of those
7 that needed to be treated with minor injuries, these were treated in the
8 small surgery; others who had to be admitted to the ward were admitted;
9 and the third group would be sent immediately to the surgeries. I was in
10 the polyclinic, in the ward and in the operation room, and I operated on a
11 large number of patients and also assisted in the performance of
13 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down for the benefit of the
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, I will.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. What was the situation in 1992 in your hospital in Prijedor
18 regarding the ethnic composition of the medical personnel?
19 A. When the war started, the composition was mixed. We could hardly
20 tell who had the majority. There were a large number of staff from all
21 three ethnic groups and we worked together as colleagues. Of course there
22 was a normal amount of nervousness because of the difficulties, but
23 nothing personal or based on ethnicity.
24 Q. What was your attitude towards doctors of other ethnic groups?
25 A. My position was always one of a good colleague. I had every
1 respect for them and their knowledge and their skill, as they showed
2 respect for me, and we had absolutely no prejudices. I was above such low
3 feelings. I never shared any such feelings. And the same applies to this
5 Q. Being head of the department, did you dismiss anyone?
6 A. Out of the question. On the contrary. I insisted that people
7 worked, because we needed them. As the war started, many of our
8 colleagues abandoned us, so that very few of us were left. So that was
9 out of the question. But even if we had plenty of staff, it would never
10 have occurred to me to dismiss anyone.
11 Q. What kind of experts and professionals were these doctors of other
12 ethnic groups?
13 A. They were good experts. One or two may have been more irritable
14 than another, but these were minor matters that could easily be overcome.
15 Q. Do you know anything about the Serb takeover of power in Prijedor?
16 A. Just before power was taken over in Prijedor I heard sort of
17 informally that this would happen. No one knew exactly who would be in
18 power, but in the morning, to be precise, on May 1st, I heard that the
19 Serbs had won power on the 30th of April, 1992.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, I'm sorry for
21 interrupting you. We have heard a lot about this. Perhaps you could move
22 more rapidly to the questions that this witness can give you more specific
23 answers to. We have heard from many witnesses responses to questions
24 regarding the conflict.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I do wish to
1 link up the position of this witness to the conflict.
2 Q. Did injured people come to your hospital then?
3 A. Just before the end of May, injured people started coming in.
4 Maybe the first arrived on the 26th of May.
5 Q. On the 30th of April or May, on May the 1st, after the takeover of
6 power, did you have any injuries?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you know anything about the attack on Prijedor? Was there an
9 attack on Prijedor that year?
10 A. Yes. I know that very well. If I may explain in a little more
12 Q. Just tell us when it occurred, if you know.
13 A. The 30th of May. That is when it started in Prijedor.
14 Q. Do you know who carried out the attack?
15 A. Allegedly some people came from the outside, crossed the Sana
16 River early in the morning, about 3.30, and attacked the municipality, the
17 museum, the SUP building, and so on. A smaller group of men, some 30 or
18 so of them. They were noticed early in the morning. We saw them passing,
19 under arms, heading towards SUP. My son saw them early in the morning and
20 he reported to the police that something was happening.
21 Q. After this attack was carried out, did wounded people come to your
23 A. On that day, yes. Throughout the 30th there were many of them,
24 wounded and dead. It was a real war that day in Prijedor. Houses were on
25 fire. There was street fighting, sniper nests, and the like.
1 Q. Could you perhaps give us at least a rough estimate of the number
2 of wounded?
3 A. The figure that we have is about 30 wounded people over a 24-hour
4 period, belonging to various ethnic groups.
5 Q. You said that they belonged to various ethnic groups. Were they
6 all brought to the hospital?
7 A. All the people who were wounded were brought to the hospital.
8 Q. So not just Serbs, but members of other nationalities?
9 A. Yes, absolutely all of them. They had nowhere else to go. The
10 hospital is on the road to Banja Luka, and we were the first to do the
11 triage. Those we could treat in Prijedor, we did; and those that we were
12 unable to treat, we sent on to Banja Luka.
13 Q. Were there any dead? I have to be very precise. Was anyone
14 brought in dead or did any wounded person die in the hospital?
15 A. The rule is for the dead not to be brought to the emergency ward.
16 They are taken directly to the morgue. Apparently there was a total of 17
17 dead that day, belonging again to all nationalities, all ethnic groups.
18 The number is 17.
19 Q. Does this number refer to the attackers as well as those who were
20 allegedly defending or allegedly defending [as interpreted], whichever you
22 A. As far as I know, that was the total number of dead that day.
23 Now, who belonged to what, I couldn't actually tell you, and how many of
25 Q. You mentioned the morgue. Where was the morgue situated?
1 A. It was situated at the end of the hospital, the opposite side of
2 town. There's a mortuary there and that's where the dead were taken.
3 Q. If I understood you correctly, do you mean in the same building as
4 the hospital?
5 A. Yes, within the composition of the same building, a component part
6 of it in fact.
7 Q. Among the wounded was there anybody who worked in the hospital,
8 the staff?
9 A. Yes. His name was Goran Dragojevic. He was an ambulance driver
10 and he was the first patient that morning, a defender who defended
11 Prijedor when the attack began. He was brought to the hospital
12 first -- no. He was brought in a civilian vehicle, but he had gone to
13 town. I don't actually know why he went into town. To bring somebody
14 back into hospital, or maybe he went privately. I don't know. But that's
15 what happened.
16 Q. Was he seriously wounded?
17 A. Yes, very serious, and his life was threatened, so that we had to
18 send him to Banja Luka urgently for treatment there, at a
19 high level -- Banja Luka is our clinic where we send any particularly
20 difficult cases.
21 Q. Did he survive?
22 A. Yes, he did. He lived, but he is a serious invalid. He works in
23 the hospital today in a cafe, as an invalid. He works in a cafe attached
24 to the hospital.
25 Q. You mean in the same hospital?
1 A. Yes. There's a little coffee shop in the corridor, in the hallway
2 of our hospital, and he has his own little cafe there, cafeteria.
3 Q. Can you tell us, because we're interested in the period quoted in
4 the indictment, which is April until the end of August 1992, so can you
5 tell us how the patients were treated, the wounded people were treated, in
6 view of their ethnic structure? Did everybody enjoy the same treatment,
7 that is to say, the Muslims, the Croats, the Serbs, the Albanians, or
8 whatever? Did they all enjoy the same type of treatment?
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, I apologise - I
10 apologise to you too, Doctor, as well - but I think we're going to take up
11 too much time, Mr. Stojanovic. I think that Dr. Barudzija has come here
12 to speak about one particular wounded individual, Mr. Stojanovic, so why
13 go into those ramifications? What is your objective? What are you trying
14 to achieve, Mr. Stojanovic?
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wish to draw the
16 credibility of the witness and the credibility -- establish the
17 credibility of him and his institution which will be a background for the
18 credibility of what we wish to prove directly.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, perhaps it would
20 be best to go to the facts. We're professional judges. We don't need to
21 hear someone come here and -- don't need you to tell us whether the
22 witness is credible or not. We are able to judge that ourselves. And as
23 I said, the witness is here to speak about one particular wounded person,
24 so go ahead. Credibility is something that the judges will deal with.
25 Don't worry about that, Mr. Stojanovic.
1 Go ahead, please, to the heart of the matter.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Does that mean that I can go
3 ahead with the question I asked and hear the answer? May the witness
4 answer the question I just put to him, or shall I move on, or some other
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, in general terms. In
7 general terms, please go ahead, yes.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, perhaps the witness has
9 forgotten the question.
10 Q. My question was a general one and that was: What was the medical
11 treatment and attitude towards the wounded and patients of different
12 ethnic groups?
13 A. I apologise, but I did not forget your question at all. We were
14 just interrupted. I will tell you. It was very highly proper. I was
15 chief of surgery and I know that very well, and I stand by what I say.
16 Q. I -- my question was this: Did they enjoy the same treatment?
17 A. Yes, as I say, they did. With respect to treatment and with
18 respect to hygiene, medical treatment, food, the beds, and sheets, and
19 everything else. They enjoyed the same treatment. We always paid
20 attention to that from the start because they were all people, human
21 beings, and people we knew. So we doctors, you know, were never overly
22 burdened by certain aspects. We didn't have time. We did our job. We
23 did our work.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Dr. Barudzija, do you know Zoran Zigic?
2 A. I know Zoran Zigic, and I've known him from the very outset of the
3 war when he came to the hospital. That was the first time that I met him
4 and saw him.
5 Q. You have provided the Defence of Mr. Zigic with a finding; is that
6 so, this year?
7 A. Yes, that is correct.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I should like to
9 ask the usher to assist us and present a document to the witness. It is
10 the report, the finding, that was handed in some 25 days ago. So it's not
11 a new document. Exactly on the 30th of March, it was handed in to the
12 registry on the 30th of March to be precise.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam registrar, is it an expert
14 report or just a document, Mr. Stojanovic?
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is the findings.
16 I would just like to ask the witness whether it is, in fact, the finding
17 that he handed in to the Defence?
18 A. Yes. This is my report, my finding which I handed over.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, just a moment,
21 Madam registrar, have you got a number or has this expert report
22 already got a number registered by the registry, because we have had
23 experience with expert witnesses of Mr. Mladjo Radic. Now we didn't give
24 a number, we used the registry number -- registration number of the
25 registry. So madam registrar, we have to identify all the documents, and
1 do you have a number or can we use the other one?
2 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. President, I would like to number it now, and
3 since it's being used at the moment, I could give it a number D24/4.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, when you mention
5 the document, it would be best, perhaps, to refer to it in the following
6 terms, D24/4 for purposes of identification.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for your assistance,
8 Mr. President.
9 Q. Witness, do you stand by everything you put down in that expert
10 finding and opinion of yours?
11 A. Yes, I do, in entirety. I stand by what I wrote in the finding.
12 Q. What was the basis for your finding, on the basis of what did you
13 compile it? Let me remind you that there are several areas that you speak
14 about in your expert finding.
15 A. I compiled my finding, that is to say, as a doctor, I did treat
16 the wound initially, and so I agreed to carry out the whole procedure on
17 the basis of my experience. And I think medically speaking, I have no
18 comment to add. The finding was compiled on the basis of my own personal
19 experience because Mr. Zigic was, in fact, my patient on that occasion
20 when he was wounded. He came to the hospital. He was examined at the
21 emergency ward of our hospital. He came on his own two feet. He walked
22 in accompanied by one or two of his associates.
23 Q. May I interrupt you, Doctor, at this point, and I'll go back to
24 the details later on. So Zigic, the injury to Zigic's finger, was that
25 what you did every day and --
1 A. Yes, that was our routine.
2 Q. Did you have any medical documentation?
3 A. Yes. We write out a diagnosis and finding to the patient. We
4 hand a copy to the patient. We write it, enter it into our book of
5 protocol for the small surgery, small theatre, and if the protocol has
6 been kept, then it should be found under such and such a number.
7 Q. Did you look at the medical documents?
8 A. Yes, I did. On the basis of a copy of the protocol for the
9 finger, and it says there that Mr. Zigic came for the first time and came
10 once again for his injury to be controlled, and it was an injury to the
11 finger of his left hand.
12 Q. Was there a case history?
13 A. Well, no, because he was returned. He was sent back from the
14 emergency ward and told to come back for a check-up, and this was written
15 in and the patient was told to come in for check-ups every other day to
16 have the wound bandaged because the wound was caused by a gunshot.
17 Q. Are you talking about Mr. Zigic's first injury or second?
18 A. No. I'm talking about the first injury relating to his index
20 Q. In the findings you also speak about another injury which occurred
21 on the 19th of August 1992 concerning Mr. Zigic. On the basis of what did
22 you make your findings?
23 A. I didn't see that particular wound, but I made my findings on the
24 basis of the medical documentation found in the protocol which gives a
25 diagnosis of this second injury. And I said it was an injury to the head
1 and lower jaw, or rather the chin.
2 Q. On the basis of what were you able to make your findings with
3 respect to Emsud Bahonjic?
4 A. I did not have Bahonjic as a patient either, but I was able to do
5 this on the basis of his medical records from which it was quite clear
6 that he was suffering from high temperature and had dehydrated, loss of
7 bodily fluids.
8 Q. We'll go into the details later, but in these two cases, that is
9 to say, Zigic's second injury and the treatment of Emsud Bahonjic, were
10 they hospital records; records made up in your hospital?
11 A. Yes, that's right. I did this on the basis of the hospital
12 records and the case history because I did not treat Emsud Bahonjic
14 Q. Do you know whether the medical records were taken out by anybody
15 else? Was it taken out of the hospital?
16 A. In preparing for my job here and to be able to stand on firm
17 ground, solid ground, to speak in that way, I went to our archives and I
18 asked to look at the protocols. The nurses said that they had a protocol
19 dating back to 1992. I took those protocols, and when I looked at them in
20 my own office, I saw that Zoran wasn't among them, neither was Bahonjic.
21 Everything happened later on. There was nothing of that in those two
22 protocols, so I wasn't able to see anything with respect to the injuries
23 of Mr. Zigic and Mr. Emsud Bahonjic.
24 Q. Do you know who took the documents away, where the documents were
25 taken away?
1 A. Well, one day there was news that reverberated, that some
2 officials had turned up from the international forces. That they
3 contacted the director of the hospital, and with his agreement, he handed
4 over the documents without any photocopies made of those documents or
5 without having records of it in the hospital.
6 Q. However, did you previously, before that event, before the
7 documents were taken away, did you have an insight into those documents
8 and were they copied, that is to say, were you presented with copies?
9 A. The copies were presented by the Defence. I was not able to find
10 them at the hospital as far as Mr. Zigic and Mr. Emsud Bahonjic are
11 concerned. And it is upon that basis that I used the facts that I
12 proceeded to compile in my finding.
13 Q. To go back to the injury to Zigic's finger, do you know when it
14 occurred exactly?
15 A. It occurred, and it says so here, and I agree with that, on the
16 29th of May 1992. That's when he came to me for the first time because of
17 an injury to the index finger caused by firearms, and the diagnosis was,
18 in Latin, "vulnus sclopetaria digiti indicis manus lateralis sinistri"
19 and, in brackets, "amputatio digiti indicis manus lateralis sinistri
20 traumatica." Translated it means that the injury was inflicted by a
21 firearm and the index finger of the left fist, left hand was lacerated
22 through trauma. So it was a violent injury.
23 Q. Can you tell us something else, something more about this injury?
24 What did the wound look like?
25 A. Well, I remember it very well as if it was yesterday. I
1 remembered it because I gave a lot of thought to it. The wound had
2 occurred several hours before Zigic came to us, four or six hours
3 previously. The wound was such that it was irregular -- of irregular
4 shape along the edges, irregular surface, which means that there was a
5 slight bleeding and there was some -- there was some dark spots. It
6 looked as if there was some burning on the surface.
7 It was a very painful wound. The whole hand was painful and
8 swollen, but he was courageous, didn't complain of the pain too much. He
9 was brave. So we were able to deal with his wound properly.
10 We cleaned up the wound, and we mechanically discarded the tissues
11 that needed to be discarded, and later on the wound was disinfected by the
12 usual medical disinfectants such as hydrogen, Asepsol, and iodine, and we
13 had to repeat this procedure several times to ensure that there was no
14 infection as a result of this wound caused by firearms.
15 Q. The bleeding and the wound as you saw it, were there any
16 indications as to what caused the wound?
17 A. Yes. It could have been from close to -- from a close distance, 2
18 or 3 metres away, at close range.
19 Q. Could you tell us, were you able to assess whether -- would you
20 say it was a serious wound?
21 A. Well, with respect to the treatment, they were routine treatment
22 that we -- the kind that we apply many times a day. It meant primary
23 dressing of the wound, cleaning it up, using appropriate agents to clean
24 it, and bandaging the wound.
25 Q. And do you remember what state the patient was in when he came to
2 A. Mr. Zigic was as I became accustomed to seeing him in hospital,
3 that is to say he was calm, but -- and he always seemed to be pretty
4 serious. He had a loud voice when he spoke, slightly neurotic. He seemed
5 a little nervous, but nothing special concerned to other -- the usual type
6 of conduct for people of that kind and in that situation.
7 Q. On that occasion and later on, did you notice that he was under
8 the influence of alcohol?
9 A. Later on the situation was different. He would come in tipsy very
10 often, and I warned him that alcohol was detrimental to wounds because it
11 affected blood circulation, and was not conducive to alcohol. It made it
12 more difficult for the wound to heal, and it can also lead to allergy
13 because if you take antibiotics or other medicines and drink at the same
14 time, this could cause allergies.
15 Q. Could you be more specific and describe what you did to Zigic's
16 wound the first time?
17 A. The first time we cleaned the wound and put on a bandage, gave him
18 the necessary medicaments, and told him to come back for check-ups.
19 Q. Do you know whether he had anything over the wound? I am speaking
20 about the first time he came.
21 A. No. There was no protection placed on the wound, and I put a
22 first bandage on it.
23 Q. I think that there has been a misunderstanding. What I want to
24 ask you is what you did to the wound when he came the first time. First
25 of all you protected it, you say. Did you place a bandage on it?
1 A. Well, I think I said that, but let me repeat: I took him into the
2 small surgery, where we cleaned up the wound. We administered what is
3 known as the first bandage on the wound.
4 Q. Did you put any plaster on the wound?
5 A. I say in my finding "immobilisation by plaster." Now, whether the
6 technician, the nurse, had done that, I don't know, but he left the
7 surgery with a bandage on his hand. I can't say. I can't claim whether
8 there was or was not.
9 Q. And what was the -- how did you protect the wound? Did it
10 make -- was it noticeable?
11 A. Well, yes, because the left hand was bandaged up. It was all
12 bandaged up. And he held his hand up against his body. It should have
13 been held in the height of his right breast, at his right breast. I
14 noticed that he held his hand inside his jacket. The nature of the injury
15 requires the hand to be supported.
16 Q. You showed us a gesture. The transcript does not reflect
17 gestures. Could you explain again?
18 A. Well, he kept his hand inside his jacket, and a support of this
19 was his body, leaning on the pocket, the inside pocket of his jacket.
20 Q. Was the bandage a thick one? Did it make his whole hand thick?
21 A. Yes. It enlarged his hand. It was much larger than was normal,
22 much larger than the right hand, for example.
23 Q. In view of your experience and qualifications as a forensic
24 physician, can you determine the degree of pain for such a wound, the
25 customary degrees of pain for wounds of this kind?
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and English transcripts
1 A. Wounds of this kind are fairly frequent, so we have a lot of
2 experience with them, and if you ask for a classification that we have
3 adopted, standard classification, there are three degrees of pain.
4 The first degree is the high-intensity pain level, when the person
5 suffers severe pain, and this type of high-intensity pain lasts for about
6 12 hours from the moment the wound is inflicted.
7 After this high intensity pain, which lasts 12 hours, we come to
8 the second level of pain, second degree, which is one we term the medium
9 intensity of pain, and that stage lasts much longer. It can last up to
10 three weeks, and did so in this case.
11 Then we have the third degree or third level of intensity, and
12 that is what we term low-intensity pain, which usually lasts for a total
13 of six weeks. And even after that period we don't send the person back to
14 work, but he is sent for rehabilitation first, so that sick leave for
15 injuries of this kind can last up to six months in our country. We send
16 them to spas usually.
17 After any kind of amputation there is acute pain and the nerves
18 are still very sensitive. So these sensory nerves are very sensitive and
19 register any change in temperature, in humidity levels, movement, the
20 holding of objects or when they come into contact with anything painful to
21 the touch.
22 Q. Did this pain extend to the arm and other parts of the body?
23 A. Yes. That's quite normal, because pain affects the organism, the
24 human body as a whole. So particularly the armpit, where the lymphatic
25 glands are located, they would be swollen and painful to the touch, and
1 this leads to -- the patient experiences fear. He fears infections,
2 complications to the wound, makes the patient moody and introspective,
3 largely. The patient becomes largely introspective.
4 Q. What are the physical -- what is a person wounded in this way, how
5 is he able to move physically? What are the effects on his physical
7 A. Under normal conditions, if the patient undergoes the therapy
8 prescribed, he is not able, from my experience, to do any strenuous
9 tasks. It would be very painful for them to do so.
10 Q. If the individual were to hit something with that hand, how would
11 he feel?
12 A. I think that the person would experience greater pain than the
13 person being hit. Now, whether there is a way of doing this in any other
14 way, as a physician I can only say that this can be done with a lot of
15 analgetics or perhaps drugs. Only under those circumstances might that be
16 possible, because pain is neutralised in that way and aggressiveness of
17 that kind could be possible.
18 Q. You spoke about the degrees of pain, the intensity of pain, and
19 the physical abilities of the person wounded. Were you speaking -- were
20 you saying all this under normal conditions, if the wound is treated
22 A. Yes, and it cannot be otherwise.
23 Q. But what happens if the patient does not stick to doctor's orders
24 and does not follow the instructions, what happens then?
25 A. In that case the situation changes completely. An infection might
1 set in, the wound might become septic and might ultimately present a
2 danger to the person's life. You have to administer anti-tetanus
3 injections, antibiotics, and the patient must be kept quiet; no movement.
4 And if you add to this dust, humidity, and any other adverse conditions,
5 this would make the situation even more difficult.
6 Q. Would that prolong the pain?
7 A. Yes. It would prolong the pain and the pain would become worse,
8 and the infection, if the wound becomes infected, that means more pain.
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I see -- I'm
10 looking at the clock and I see that it is 1.00. Is this an opportune
11 moment to take a break perhaps?
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. We are going to take a
13 break. Thank you. Before we adjourn, I shall ask the usher to accompany
14 the witness out of the courtroom, before we adjourn for luncheon.
15 We're going to take a 50-minute recess.
16 --- Recess taken at 1.02 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 1.59 p.m.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
19 We are going to continue with the testimony of Dr. Barudzija so,
20 Mr. Stojanovic, please continue. You have the floor.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Barudzija, we broke off when we were discussing the primary
23 treatment of Zigic's finger. My next question is: What check-ups are
24 necessary and how such an injury had to be treated later on?
25 A. In view of the fact that this was an injury inflicted by firearms,
1 which is always contaminated by infection and other external factors, the
2 injury has to be checked very regularly, at least every other day, and
3 large doses of antibiotics, analgetics need to be administered, and the
4 patient needs to rest. And all of this is to prevent infection of the
5 wound, because this kind of a wound is prone to infection, and that is why
6 such precautions have to be taken.
7 Q. Did Mr. Zigic come for those check-ups?
8 A. Mr. Zigic did come, but not regularly. He did not respect the
9 rule of coming every other day, but he would come after several days and,
10 as a result, the wound became infected.
11 Q. What was the state of the wound at those check-ups?
12 A. The condition was such that there was reason to believe that there
13 was infection and the doses of medicines had to be increased, and there
14 was a possibility of him having to be admitted into hospital.
15 Q. You mentioned that he came for check-ups irregularly and earlier
16 you mentioned the use of alcohol and how it affected his treatment. Did
17 both these factors complicate the injury?
18 A. That is inevitable, and the wound was infected. The finger or the
19 part of the body that was injured was -- had signs of infection,
20 reddening, swelling, secretion from the wound, festering of the wound.
21 Q. What was the consequence of this condition of the wound and how it
22 affected your further treatment of it?
23 A. Once such a condition was established, we suggested
24 hospitalisation, and Mr. Zigic was admitted to the military ward of the
25 Prijedor hospital where he was treated for several days and his wound was
1 dressed daily.
2 Q. Was there a threat of sepsis of the whole body as a result of
4 A. Exactly. That is why we admitted him into hospital, because you
5 never know what can happen. The wound can become septic and the problems
6 become very serious in that case.
7 Q. Can such a septic condition lead to death if it is not treated?
8 A. If it is not overcome at the level of the bloodstream, if the
9 bacteria are not destroyed in the bloodstream, then it attacks the body
10 organs and this can indeed lead to a fatal outcome.
11 Q. You said that he was admitted into hospital. Do you know when
12 that was and for how long he was hospitalised? Did you state that in your
14 A. I think, yes, I find it in my report. He was admitted on the 21st
15 of June 1992 to the military department, and he was kept in hospital until
16 the 26th of June, that means the same month of the same year. So for a
17 total of five or six days he was hospitalised. Admitted on the 21st of
18 June and discharged on the 26th of June.
19 Q. Do you know how he was treated during that time?
20 A. The treatment was that the wound had to be dressed every day,
21 sometimes twice a day, but at least once a day. Then higher dosages of
22 antibiotics administered intravenously, the painkillers or analgetics, and
23 frequent cleaning of the wound by a surgeon to clean the pus, the edges,
24 and to thoroughly cleanse the wound.
25 Q. In your report you say that you examined case history number 112
1 and the discharge paper dated the 26th of June 1992, number P0054676.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With the permission of Their
3 Honours, I would like the usher to be kind enough to assist me in showing
4 the expert these documents one by one.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Krystal, what will be the
6 code, the number for identification?
7 THE REGISTRAR: D25/4.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Doctor, would you be kind enough to examine whether that is indeed
10 the case history that you referred to in your report?
11 A. Yes. That is the first page of the case history, where the
12 particulars of the patient are entered: the name, the year of birth, the
13 place of birth, the day of admission. It says here the 21st of June,
14 1992, diagnosis vulnus manus sinistri. It means that he was admitted
15 after an injury of the left hand with firearms. And we have the date of
16 discharge the 26th of June, 1992. That is that document, and I can
17 confirm it.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence will
19 certainly tender this document into evidence. We have also attached an
20 English translation, so I don't know whether we can give it numbers A and
21 B, D25/4 A and B, because we have it in B/C/S and in English. In any
22 event, I should like to thank the usher and I would suggest that we show
23 the witness the second document that I have already mentioned. There are
24 copies of the English version.
25 THE REGISTRAR: This document will be labelled D26/4.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Doctor, can you please confirm whether that is also a document
3 that you referred to in your report?
4 A. Yes. This is the discharge paper from the hospital, which states
5 when the patient was admitted, that is, the 21st of June, 1992; the date
6 when he was discharged, that is, the 26th of June, 1992; the diagnosis,
7 which reads: status post vulnus sclopetaria manus sinistra et amputatio
8 digiti secundo manus sinistra inflamatio. That is the diagnosis in
9 Latin. And here it says why he was admitted. He was admitted because of
10 the inflammation of a previous injury. The treatment, that is, bandaging,
11 dressing, antibiotics and analgetics. Advice and recommendations: rest,
12 check-up in three days. Head of department: Dr. Barudzija. And there's
13 Dr. Milic, who is the departmental doctor. There is no signature of
14 either of us, and I can explain why. Sometimes I just simply didn't have
15 time to sign these discharge papers. That is as far as I am concerned.
16 Why the doctor in charge of the department didn't sign it, I really can't
17 tell, but it is quite authentic and reliable and it testifies to the
18 presence of this patient at the military ward of the general hospital in
19 Prijedor during this time period.
20 Q. Thank you. And my last question relating to this injury: This
21 injury of the finger, did it result in any lasting disability for
22 Mr. Zigic?
23 A. It is a hand that is involved. This is a prominent part of our
24 body which one sees every day. That hand no longer has a finger. This is
25 something that is conspicuous for the people around the patient, and it
1 has an impact on the patient. There is a certain degree of disability and
2 deformity of the hand, which certainly has a psychological effect on the
3 patient, because he no longer has that finger, which reduces the value of
4 the hand, and it has a certain humiliating effect. All these things
5 certainly cause frustration for the patient for many years; in fact, for
6 as long as he lives. There is definitively disability and mutilation and
7 deformity, which is also of a permanent nature.
8 Q. Thank you. In your report you also refer to other injuries of the
9 accused Zigic that occurred on the 19th of August, 1992. Can you tell us
10 what kind of injuries are involved?
11 A. The Latin diagnosis is vulnus lacerocontusum capitis et mandibulae
12 regiae barbae. This is an injury inflicted with a blunt object on the
13 head and the lower jaw, in the area of the chin. This was a light injury
14 of the body, consisting of a cut on the scalp, because the skin there is
15 very tight, and using a blunt object, a laceration is caused, with the
16 edges of the laceration being uneven; a haematoma; a feeling of numbness,
17 which means when you touch that part of the body the patient doesn't feel
18 anything. And in the area of the chin there was the same kind of injury
19 as on the scalp, with light bleeding, because such injuries do not bleed
20 as heavily as those inflicted with a sharp object.
21 Q. In connection with this injury on the chin, could it have left a
23 A. If it was not treated and stitched initially, if this was not done
24 by a surgeon, probably it would leave a scar of irregular shape and which
25 would be ugly up to a degree because, after all, that is the face.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence would now like to
2 tender another document. It is a certificate number 024202 -- sorry,
3 number 02402 of the 24th of July 2000 issued by the director of the
4 hospital and we have it in English as well.
5 THE REGISTRAR: This certificate is D27/4.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Q. Mr. Barudzija, finally, in your report, you also mentioned the
8 treatment of a person called Emsud Bahonjic. Did you personally treat
9 that individual or did you write your report on the basis of the
10 documentation in the possession of the hospital?
11 A. As far as Mr. Emsud Bahonjic is concerned, my finding is based
12 exclusively on medical documentation. I never saw the patient. He did
13 not come to see me for an examination, and I wrote the finding on the
14 basis of medical documentation which says that he was brought to the
15 hospital twice. The first time on the 11th of June 1992, and the second
16 time on the 15th of June 1992 from the Keraterm collection centre in a
17 febrile state, which means that he had a high fever and that he was
18 dehydrated, which means that he had lost bodily fluids caused by his fever
19 and, of course, sweating.
20 He was sent to the internal medical office for examination. He
21 was examined by an internist, and the diagnosis mentioned above was
22 confirmed. He was again returned to the surgical ward where an injury of
23 the knee was established. It was a contusion, a contusion of the soft
24 tissue of the knee. It doesn't say here whether it was his left or right
25 knee. After examination by a surgeon, and there is no indication that a
1 bone was fractured, he was probably given an immobilisation dressing and
2 advised to soak the dressing in alcohol and water and to rest and then to
3 come for a check-up.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, excuse me for
5 interrupting you. This document D27/4, what does it have to do with which
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think we are talking about
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but even the usher in the
10 courtroom knows that the document has to be shown to the witness. He's
11 been waiting for a long time over there for you to give the document to
12 the expert witness. Otherwise you will have the objection of the
13 Prosecutor immediately. At least have the witness confirm the document.
14 The usher is waiting.
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. This is
16 a technical matter. You have helped me. The document only corroborates
17 what Mr. Barudzija has already stated. It has been issued by someone
18 else, but I will certainly accept your suggestion and ask the usher to
19 show that document to the witness.
20 So let's go back to that event for a moment. That is the injury
21 to Zigic's chin and the certificate issued by the director of the
23 Q. Could the witness look at that certificate.
24 A. Yes, I have the certificate. It is quite authentic and reliable.
25 The diagnosis is written in in a slightly changed form. There is no
1 mention of the chin, only of the head and lower jaw. The chin is not
2 mentioned, probably omitted by mistake, signed by the director, Dr. Gojko
3 Krneta, a specialist of internal medicine. But the document is quite in
5 Q. Is a number under which the treatment was registered mentioned?
6 A. Yes. It is 02-402 dated the 24th of July 2000. The date when it
7 was issued.
8 Q. No, but in the text of the certificate, is there a number
9 mentioned of the protocol number?
10 A. No. There's only one number, 04-402, dated the 24th of July
11 2000. That is the protocol number for this certificate.
12 Q. Yes, but on the basis of what was it issued? Will you please read
13 the text.
14 A. This is to certify that examining the military protocol of
15 patients for 1992 file number 971 dated August 19, 1992, Zigic Zoran
16 underwent medical examination. Diagnosis: Vulnus lacerocontusum capitis
17 et mandubulae regiae barbae, in brackets, laceration of head and lower
18 jaw. Signed by the director.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And I wish to thank
20 the President of the Chamber for his assistance. That is as far as
21 document D27/4 is concerned.
22 If I may, I shall now like to go back again to the treatment of
23 the other patient. May I thank the usher as well for his assistance. I
24 don't think we will need him anymore for any other additional documents.
25 Q. You also refer here to Emsud Bahonjic. You said that he came
1 twice on the 11th of June and the 15th of June to the hospital. Was he
2 treated at your department as well?
3 MS. SOMERS: Objection, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Susan Somers.
5 MS. SOMERS: I object to the questioning about Bahonjic inasmuch
6 as there is an indication, this physician, surgeon had nothing to do with
7 him. At best, he is relying on someone else's notes, and he has not
8 established he is custodian of records capable of coming to any type of
9 conclusions about the medical condition of a man he never saw.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is our submission
12 that this objection should not be accepted. The witness, who is also an
13 expert witness, has told us that his opinion is based exclusively on
14 documentation, but he was head of that department, a person who is very
15 well-acquainted with his job and the documentation of his hospital. And
16 he said himself that he personally did not treat this patient.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Stojanovic. You
18 can cover the path covered by the doctor. You have the document here
19 before you, and then we can talk about it, put it to the witness.
20 I put a question. I see the transcript. What I asked,
21 Mr. Stojanovic, was whether he could cover the same path as the witness,
22 and that is relying on the documents that we have here in the courtroom.
23 That is the question that I am putting to you, Mr. Stojanovic.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness did so.
25 He had photocopies of the protocols. Those copies are in our possession.
1 The Prosecution of the Tribunal has the originals so that I think that the
2 Prosecution is well aware, and we have written evidence that these
3 documents were seized, and all this can be checked through the documents,
4 through the files.
5 The finding of Dr. Barudzija states that he examined the documents
6 and the protocols and that he established when this patient was treated.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We already know that. We are --
8 we have understood your position.
9 Ms. Susan Somers.
10 MS. SOMERS: So far, Your Honour, counsel has not presented to the
11 witness, nor has the witness spontaneously presented any documents
12 concerning Mr. Bahonjic's condition, and we have no indication of what
13 particular documents he may or may not have relied on. What may or may
14 not be in the possession of the Prosecutor for the purposes of this
15 witness giving direct evidence now is not the issue. At best, this
16 witness is speculating. Every other phrase has been, "He probably this,
17 he probably that," which I think is an indication of no firsthand
18 knowledge, and inability to render an opinion medically, and certainly not
19 any factual basis.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 A. I apologise. May I try and be of assistance, Your Honours?
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, you are going to
24 conduct your examination-in-chief. We have to complete this testimony.
25 We have to come to the end. You are either going to show the witness here
1 the document which the witness used, or if you don't have the document, by
2 asking the witness which document allows him to say this, where did he
3 find the documents that he used, and that is the least you can do.
4 So that will be sufficient for the Chamber to have an idea of the
5 purpose and the credibility. Therefore, the witness must answer these
6 questions with precision. He mustn't say, "Probably they did this or
7 that." No. "I verified through the documents that they actually did this
8 or that." So please proceed.
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That was
10 of the greatest assistance.
11 Q. Mr. Barudzija, on the basis of which documents have you reached
12 these findings about the treatment of a person called Emsud Bahonjic?
13 A. I made the solemn declaration at the beginning, saying that I will
14 tell the truth, and I will tell the truth. I found it in the protocol.
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have already
16 found something. I have to explain. The protocol we did present to the
17 registry when Mr. Zigic's testimony came up, but the Tribunal service sent
18 back these documents, with the remark that it was really difficult to
19 translate it because the handwriting was largely illegible, and as we all
20 know, doctors' handwriting tends to be illegible. So we only rely on the
21 B/C/S version. At this point in time we can present part of that protocol
22 in B/C/S to the witness.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, it is not -- the
24 document isn't absolutely necessary. What you could do is to ask the
25 doctor, when he affirms something, to say what he is asserting, in fact,
1 and what the basis is for his assertions. The witness can tell us what
2 the document is. But of course, if you do have the document, you can go
3 ahead and show the document to the witness.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Microphone not activated]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm not getting any
6 interpretation at this point, Mr. Stojanovic. Just a moment, please.
7 Your microphone was not switched on.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. Could I call upon
9 the usher to show the document to the witness? It is a copy of part of
10 the protocol.
11 Q. Doctor, are those the sections of the protocol --
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please, Mr.
14 May we have an identification number, Ms. Krystal, for this
16 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Mr. President. It is D28/4.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
18 Go ahead, Mr. Stojanovic.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Dr. Barudzija, was it on the basis of this document and documents
21 of this kind -- if you look at the bottom left-hand part, you will come to
22 the name of Emsud Bahonjic. Was it on the basis of such documents that
23 you made your findings?
24 A. I see his name here, but I don't see the diagnosis. There was a
25 diagnosis, and I saw the diagnosis myself. It should also be included in
1 the protocol.
2 Q. Perhaps you could look on the following pages. It should be
4 A. Mr. Stojanovic said, quite rightly, that there has been a mix-up
5 in the protocol, so I find it difficult to find my way. I can't see the
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic --
8 A. Oh, here it is.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, we are now
10 referring to D28/4, but we ourselves have not got a copy of that document,
11 so how do you propose to proceed? What do you think you're going to do at
12 this stage? Are you going to use this document and show it to the
13 witness, and neither the Judges nor the two parties have the document, or
14 are you going to distribute the document to the Prosecution and the
15 Judges? How do you intend to proceed, Mr. Stojanovic?
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, an expert
17 witness -- I don't think it is necessary for an expert witness to be
18 presented with the entire documentation on the basis of which he gave his
19 expert finding, because there can be many documents of that kind. All we
20 intended was to have him explain how he arrived at his finding, what
21 document he relied on. But there are a very great number of documents.
22 Not even the protocol would be sufficient. So we did not wish to tender
23 this document in any way; we just wished to use it as an explanation, to
24 explain how the doctor arrived at his findings.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Therefore, Mr. Stojanovic, we
1 don't have to identify the document.
2 Ms. Susan Somers, what is your position in this regard?
3 MS. SOMERS: This is a discussion about a deceased patient whom
4 this expert, this doctor, never saw, and because he is relying entirely,
5 entirely, on documentary evidence, it would be inappropriate not to have
6 him explain every point from every document from which he drew his
7 conclusion, given that he had absolutely no dealings with the patient,
8 never saw the condition of the man when he came in, never saw the
9 condition of the man when he went out, nor had anything to do with his
10 treatment. He is dependent 100 per cent on documents or rumour.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, I think that
13 perhaps we understood each other -- did not understand each other earlier
14 on. I don't know whether it was properly expressed in the transcript. I
15 will try and speak slowly so that my words can be entered into the English
16 transcript. I am fully conscious of the fact that we have interpreters
17 standing between us, between you and me.
18 What I wanted to say was that we are here, we have a witness
19 before us who did not observe -- he did not see the patient. He observed
20 documents relative to the patient. Therefore, the object of the testimony
21 ultimately is what you saw. What did you see and what did you read which
22 allows you to conclude such-and-such a thing, this, that, or the other?
23 Therefore, your questions must be two, in my opinion, or at least
24 to rotate around two basic questions: What did you see and read,
25 documents? What documents did you see and did you read? That is one
1 question, which would be a basic question, a nucleus. The other nucleus
2 would be: What are the conclusions that you draw from your reading and
3 from your study of the documents? So that is the second nucleus and
4 pivotal point around which we should rotate.
5 That is the orientation of the Chamber, Ms. Susan Somers. We're
6 giving that orientation to the Defence counsel for their
7 examination-in-chief. And we did not show the witness all the documents,
8 all the documents that he saw. I would say that we are here in a written
9 say, not to say hearsay; a written say rather than a hearsay. So that is
10 the technical aspect.
11 Mr. Stojanovic, have you understood what I am saying? Therefore,
12 carry on along those lines, follow those directions and that guideline;
13 otherwise, if you step outside this track, then Ms. Susan Somers will step
14 in and use your time. Having said that, please proceed.
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, Your
17 Q. Mr. Barudzija, on the basis of which documents were you able to
18 make your findings?
19 A. I compiled my findings exclusively on the basis of medical
20 documents, medical records, and the patient protocol for the patients in
21 the internal medicine department, and I was able to see exactly -- I'm
22 sorry that I can't find it now, because I did certainly see the diagnosis,
23 which in Latin was status febrilis dehidratio, which means temperature and
24 loss of fluid, dehydration. And one more diagnosis, and that was
25 diagnosis contusio genus. I found this, contusion of the knee, contusio
1 genus, with a fixation, bandage, and the person was sent home. We can't
2 find the first point, although it certainly exists. We just can't find
4 Q. So in the document in front of you, you have found --
5 A. The surgical diagnosis, contusio genus. That means contusion of
6 the knee.
7 Q. I should now like to ask the usher to show you another document
8 and to ask you whether it relates to your first diagnosis. Is that the
9 document on the basis of which you made your own diagnosis?
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have found a copy of it. Would
11 the usher hand it to the witness, please.
12 A. Yes, I see it. I see that it says Emsud Bahonjic. The number is
13 3286, born in 1962, in Kozarac. The diagnosis is status febrilis
14 dehidratio, and sent on to an internal medicine physician. That's what it
15 says. The document is all right.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, I apologise, but
17 once again, are you going to show the documents to the witness or not?
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think we've shown it to the
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have the documents.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Both diagnoses have been
22 shown, presented to the witness, to the witness. They are just copies in
23 the B/C/S language, but I hope you will understand the difficulties we are
24 having. I have evidence that the Tribunal took the originals on the 30th
25 of October, 2000, and issued a certificate to that effect. Without
1 leave --
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You don't want to tender those
3 documents into evidence, is that right? Because otherwise we are going to
4 have to mark them and identify them. That's the point.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we would like to do
6 so, but we only have a B/C/S copy, a version in B/C/S.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. But for the facts, it's
8 not necessary for the -- you to show the documents to the witness. If you
9 follow our guidelines, you can do what you like, because you are talking
10 about documents. Otherwise we are going to lose a great deal of time,
11 Mr. Stojanovic.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our basic intention
13 was that Mr. Barudzija's finding actually was based on the documents and
14 we basically do not consider that we ought to substantiate his findings
15 from each and every document upon which he based his findings. I think
16 that we have presented to the doctor documents and that he has confirmed
17 that it was on the basis of that document that he was able to make his
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, please follow
20 our guidelines. Otherwise, we are going back and forwards all the time.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we think that the
22 expert witness has explained the groundwork and background for his
23 findings, and we consider that that is sufficient.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please proceed then,
25 Mr. Stojanovic.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Witness, these diagnoses, can you tell us the date? You said
3 there were two dates according to the documents, two dates when you looked
4 into this matter. What was the diagnosis on the 11th of June, on the 11th
5 of June, in fact, and on the 15th of June 1992?
6 A. As far as I can see from what I have before me, the first
7 diagnosis status febrilis and dehidratio was reached on the 11th of June
9 Q. At that time, according to those documents that you looked into,
10 was any bodily injury noted on Emsud Bahonjic?
11 A. At that time, no, it doesn't appear here. Under the date the 11th
12 of June 1992, it does not appear. Whether it was omitted by chance
13 accidentally or whether it was an oversight or something else, that is
14 possible too. But the surgical diagnosis appears, the second time under
15 the number 3230 when he was sent for X-rays and the diagnosis was contusio
16 genus or contusion of the knee, a blunt knee [as interpreted] of the knee,
18 Q. So that is a second diagnosis?
19 A. Yes, that is the second diagnosis and another date, a second date.
20 Q. What date?
21 A. Probably the 15th of June 1992, although I don't find it in the
22 protocol, just as I do not have it for the above. Probably the dates --
23 Q. Can you tell us about the character of that wound?
24 A. Which wound, the second?
25 Q. Yes, the second one.
1 A. It was an injury which was not serious and if the recommendations
2 of the physician were followed, it should heal in two to three weeks. It
3 was a light injury leaving no permanent damage on condition that the
4 patient adhere to the medical regulations and postulates which means that
5 the patient didn't engage in any strenuous physical activity to make his
6 state worse which would lead to problems such as inflammation, et cetera,
7 and this would have adverse consequences.
8 Q. Could the injury lead to the death of Emsud Bahonjic as it stood?
9 A. This type of injury, under the given circumstances, as I said,
10 could on no account bring about death because it was an insignificant
11 injury, that is to say, it wasn't mortally dangerous and usually passes by
12 itself, even if you treat it and if you don't treat it. Of course it's
13 always better to treat it, but it would pass anyway. It was an injury
14 caused by -- a blunt injury as we call it.
15 Q. Was he treated by qualified staff?
16 A. It says that he had seen a surgeon, that a fixation bandage had
17 been placed on the injury and was sent home. That's what it says here.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
19 questions for our witness. I thank you for your indulgence and for your
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
22 Mr. Stojanovic. I don't think we're going to start the cross-examination
23 in the five minutes that we have at our disposal. I see Mr. Jovanovic on
24 his feet. You have a question, go ahead.
25 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I'm
1 going to need precisely five minutes, if I may. I have two questions to
2 ask this witness.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, please go ahead.
4 Cross-examined by Mr. Jovanovic:
5 Q. Mr. Barudzija, I am attorney Zoran Jovanovic, counsel for the
6 accused Mlado Radic of Prijedor. Could you please try and remember --
7 think back to May 1992, cast your mind back to May 1992. The part of the
8 month before injured people began to come in in greater numbers, as you
10 Could you tell me what the situation was like in the hospital with
11 respect to the medical material, medicines, drugs, anaesthetics, that kind
12 of thing; did you have everything you needed?
13 A. It was like this: We had already entered a period of crisis in
14 that time in our country, in the state. There was problems with salary.
15 There were shortages of the various material, and this was reflected on
16 our hospital as well. Already at that time we had a lot of trouble in
17 coming by the sanitary material we needed, and we had to postpone all less
18 important and urgent cases to be able to take in the urgent surgical
19 cases. We didn't have enough films which -- for x-rays which were vital
20 to us.
21 Q. I apologise for interrupting you, Doctor, but please tell us with
22 respect to anaesthetics, what was the situation there?
23 A. As regards anaesthetics, the situation was we had to save them for
24 urgent cases, and the directors said that all our normal regular work
25 ought to be stopped and to focus on emergencies, the emergencies that
1 cropped up. And I think that we felt a war was coming on, and we tried to
2 save on our reserve, to save them for emergency, urgent cases.
3 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, I have no further
4 questions, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see, looking at the transcript
6 that you have no more questions, Mr. Jovanovic; is that right? Because I
7 wasn't able to follow the interpretation. But is that right, you have no
8 more questions?
9 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour, yes.
10 Thank you very much, Mr. President. I have no more questions.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. What about the other
12 Defence counsel, any other questions? No, there don't seem to be. I
13 don't think that we're going to start the cross-examination today. We
14 need the few minutes that we have left to clarify the question of expert
15 witnesses for tomorrow.
16 Dr. Barudzija, we're going to stop there for today. Tomorrow
17 you're going to come back. And now I should like to ask the usher to
18 accompany Dr. Barudzija out of the courtroom.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 [Witness stands down]
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We have a matter to clarify.
22 The question is to see where we stand, Mr. Stojanovic, with respect to the
23 presence in the courtroom of the experts Nedopil.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are ready to
25 accept their findings without any examination. They were called by the
1 registry, designated by the registry. We accept their findings. We see
2 that they are highly professional people and we -- after hearing
3 Mr. Barudzija's testimony, we don't need any additional questions.
4 I don't know their addresses. I was not able to contact them, but
5 I'm quite ready to accept their findings without any additional
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, I think that
8 the sole objection, if I see correctly, is that -- was the following: You
9 objected to the admission of the report because the Defence did not file a
10 motion for the admission of the report. Therefore, if the document is
11 admitted, you would like to have a chance to cross-examine the expert.
12 Now, I would like to ask you, or rather I'd like to know what your
13 position is. If the Chamber tells you that we don't think that it is an
14 omission but not an important one because, ultimately, the Defence asked
15 within the terms of Rule 74 bis, medical examination. The Chamber ordered
16 these medical examinations, and the Chamber considers that it is true that
17 the Defence would like, in principle, to have those reports and that
18 examination that it called for and to have it tendered into evidence.
19 My question now to you is: Is the fact that the motion tardily
20 made is the sole objection, the sole grounds of your objection, in fact,
21 can you give us your position with respect to the admission of the
23 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, there are points raised in the report
24 which the Prosecution wished to have additional evidence on. There were
25 certain matters raised by the Zigic Defence which had not been raised
1 prior to the onset of the Defence case. And there are some of these
2 issues tangentially touched upon, perhaps not with the same type of
3 emphasis, because it was unclear, I would assume, to the examining
4 physician that a certain Defence was going to be set forth.
5 The Prosecution have relied in good faith on the representations
6 that the Defence was going to call these persons. They were listed as the
7 last witnesses on the revised, revised witness list, and it would still be
8 our position that there are some matters not on credibility. We think
9 that these are registry people they have been recognised as expert, but
10 there are some points which I think would be of -- that need clarification
11 and I think would be of assistance to the Chamber on certain questions
12 that were raised between the doctor and the patient.
13 If the Chamber, because of time constraints, and I do understand
14 that, we are all operating under them, is minded simply to accept the
15 report, I would ask that at the expense of the Defence we might have an
16 opportunity to ask Dr. Nedopil, only one would be sufficient, I think
17 either can do it. I think Dr. Nedopil's stature, in terms of his being
18 the head of the department, might be more helpful. But we would like at
19 least to reserve the option of calling him for a few questions at the end
20 of the Defence case, but at the expense of the Defence.
21 Again, a limited inquiry and I can -- if the Chamber admits the
22 document, then I still would again like the chance to get a bit more
23 explanation. Otherwise argument on the document may be a little bit
24 hampered. I'll have to leave it in the Chamber's hands. This is why we
25 asked. Again it has nothing to do with their credentials. They appear to
1 be quite solid.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, do you have any
3 comment in response to this suggestion by Ms. Susan Somers?
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated].
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No translation.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. My mistake.
7 We did submit a request to the registry on the 30th for this report of the
8 expert witness to be admitted into evidence, and in accordance with our
9 obligations under 94 bis of the Rules, that it be forwarded to the
10 Prosecution so we would not be tardy in our obligations. Later on I was
11 called up by phone by the registry and was told that this has already been
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, excuse me. I
14 gave you the floor for you to react to the suggestion made by Ms. Susan
15 Somers, and that is: If the Chamber decides to admit the reports, she
16 needs to have at least 20 minutes to put a few questions to one only of
17 the two experts, at the end of the Defence case. That is the suggestion
18 that I would like you to react to. Do you agree? If you do not agree,
19 tell us, if you don't have an opinion.
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is the right of
21 the Prosecution to make such a request. I only think that it is
22 not -- they are not entitled to choose between the two. In fact, Dr. Hoff
23 is far closer. In my opinion, it would be correct to call both of them
24 and also give us the right then to ask a few questions. So I'm not
25 questioning the right of the Prosecution to examine these witnesses.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And what about the time when
2 this would be done? When would this be done?
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, this question is
5 a very simple one. If you tell me tomorrow or the day after the two
6 experts will be here, no problem. You have just told me that you never
7 had any contact with these people, so I believe it is very difficult to
8 obtain their presence tomorrow or the day after. So that's why I'm
9 telling you: Tell me whether you agree with the suggestion of Ms. Susan
10 Somers, and that is that these experts be heard at the end of the Defence
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Fine.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Judge Wald reminds me that you
16 have to do everything yourself to bring them here, because they have been
17 called by you. Is that clear to you? They are not registry witnesses;
18 they are Zigic Defence witnesses. Do you understand that, that you have
19 to make all the necessary arrangements to bring them here?
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that is
21 clear. Though we asked for other expert witnesses, we were given these.
22 But we are satisfied. We will do our best, of course, with the assistance
23 of the registry.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, you asked for a
25 medical examination, right, in accordance with Rule 74 bis of the Rules of
1 Procedure. You are familiar with that Rule, I think. So very well.
2 We'll see. Because the consequence, Mr. Stojanovic, is that if you don't
3 call the witnesses, there will be no report, and it's a shame. Because
4 after all, the Tribunal spent some money on that. So we've decided that
5 matter now.
6 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So the Chamber renders its
8 decision orally concerning the admission of the reports of the expert
9 witnesses for Mr. Zigic. You know that the Defence counsel for the
10 accused Mr. Zigic has filed five expert reports. The Prosecution
11 responded on the 12th of April, 2001, objecting to the admission of the
12 five reports, for reasons which I am not going to repeat and which you are
13 familiar with. The question of the report of Dr. Barudzija has already
14 been decided, and we will not consider it now.
15 As for the reports by Mr. Nedopil and Hoff, the Chamber notes that
16 this report was ordered by it following the request by Mr. Zigic and
17 pursuant to the provisions of Rule 74 bis of the Rules of Procedure and
18 Evidence. After having discussed, just now, the matter, the Chamber
19 decides to keep for the Defence of Mr. Zigic the possibility to call these
20 two expert witnesses at the end of the Defence case, and the Prosecutor
21 will have the possibility of cross-examining each one, or one of the two,
22 for 20 minutes.
23 Concerning the reports of Mr. Aleksic and Cejovic, the Chamber
24 notes the objections made by the Prosecution, as well as the fact that the
25 experts will be called to testify before the Chamber. The Chamber is of
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and English transcripts
1 the opinion that the Prosecutor should have the opportunity to present its
2 objections to the reports, including the question of the curriculum vitae
3 of the experts during their cross-examination. The Chamber therefore
4 admits the written reports of Mr. Aleksic and Mr. Cejovic.
5 These two experts will be examined by the Defence, in order to
6 complement their reports, for a period of 45 minutes per report. The
7 Prosecutor will benefit from the same amount of time for her
8 cross-examination of each of the experts, and we will proceed in that way
9 because the Defence wanted also to have the chance to examine the
11 I think with that decision, the question has been resolved, but
12 nevertheless, I see Ms. Susan Somers on her feet. Yes, Ms. Susan Somers.
13 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. Just a point of
14 clarification. Mr. Aleksic had two reports. Is the Chamber admitting
15 both reports?
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Both reports.
17 I think that is sufficient for today, and we already have the
18 framework for tomorrow, don't we, Mr. Stojanovic? You have the decisions
19 that you need, don't you?
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. We agree with everything.
21 Thank you, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So we'll be here again tomorrow
23 at 9.20.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.15 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 25th day of
1 April, 2001, at 9.20 a.m.