1 Wednesday, 25 April 2001
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.25 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [No interpretation]
6 [Interpretation] I see that there is no English translation or
7 rather no transcript, English transcript. I think it -- yes, I think it's
8 working now.
9 Good morning, Dr. Barudzija. Can you hear me?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Have you had a
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have. Thank you.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. We're going to
15 continue with your testimony today. I see that it's going to be Ms. Susan
16 Somers asking you questions which you will answer.
17 Ms. Susan Somers, your witness.
18 WITNESS: MIRKO BARUDZIJA [resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
21 Cross-examined by Ms. Somers:
22 Q. Dr. Barudzija, your wartime experience or your experience in the
23 military, did it include some time in the Croatian theatre, and if so,
24 what years and where, please?
25 A. That is correct. I was in western Slavonia, I left on the 17th of
1 November 1991 for Slavonia. I was at Bijela Stijene and later on, in
2 Benkovac which is western Slavonia as a doctor of the sanitary company
3 working as a surgeon.
4 Q. You left on the 17th of November for Slavonia. And how long did
5 you serve in --
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. How long did you serve in Slavonia?
8 A. I was in Slavonia intermittently until the war broke out in
9 Prijedor on the 30th of May 1992, and I stayed in the hospital there and
10 spent my entire time after that there up until leaving for Jasenica, later
11 on, Bihac, that is.
12 Q. And from 17 November 1991 until 30 May 1992, approximately, you
13 were in -- you were in the Croatian theatre and were you attached to a
14 particular military?
15 A. It was the medical corps and I was part of the medical corps or --
16 medical corps attached to the garrison of the army.
17 Q. What was your rank?
18 A. I had the rank of captain.
19 Q. When you returned to the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, did you
20 continue to be in the military?
21 A. Yes, I did. I was still in the medical corps or company and
22 catered to the army.
23 Q. When you were in Croatia, were you part of the then JNA?
24 A. At the beginning, yes, we were all members of the JNA until the
25 Serbian army was formed, that is to say, the army of the Republika Srpska.
1 Q. And that is the army in which you served when you returned to the
2 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
3 A. Yes, that's right. I am still.
4 Q. To clarify if you belonged to a particular brigade or a particular
5 unit, medical corps of what, any particular unit, brigade?
6 A. Yes, it was the motorised brigade, a motorised brigade. I think
7 it was the 43rd Motorised Prijedor Brigade. From Prijedor, the 43rd.
8 Q. The Commander of the brigade was?
9 A. The Commander of the brigade was Colonel Arsic.
10 Q. And to which corps did this belong?
11 A. It was the Banja Luka Corps. I don't know what number, which in
12 order, but the Banja Luka Corps.
13 Q. Commanded by whom?
14 A. As far as I know, General Talic.
15 Q. Were you a member of the SDS?
16 A. I was never a member, no. I can say that for sure.
17 Q. Did you work with an individual named Milan Kovacevic?
18 A. Yes, I did. It was my director.
19 Q. He was a member of the SDS, was he not, a prominent member?
20 A. Yes, he was. He was a member of the SDS, yes.
21 Q. Did you work with a physician named Bereta, I believe?
22 A. That's right. There is a Dr. Bereta. He is a physician
23 specialist in organisational matters for the health service.
24 Q. And that would be Aleksandar Bereta; is that correct?
25 A. That's correct, yes.
1 Q. He was also a member of the SDS who became an official of Prijedor
2 subsequently to the time in this indictment; is that correct?
3 A. Yes. He was a deputy of the assembly.
4 Q. As a member of the SDS?
5 A. Member of the SDS, deputy of the assembly.
6 Q. And Dr. Milomir Stakic was also a member of the SDS?
7 A. I know Dr. Milomir Stakic very well. He's a colleague of mine.
8 He worked in labour medicine in the health centre and was President of the
9 municipality in 1992 onwards.
10 Q. Member of the SDS?
11 A. Yes, that's right.
12 Q. And you alone of all these physicians were not a member of the
13 SDS; that is your testimony?
14 A. I was not. No, I was not a member of the SDS.
15 Q. Do you consider yourself a political person or a person who voices
16 political opinion in the territory of the Republika Srpska?
17 A. May I say that that is not what I am. I'm not interested in
18 that. I just don't have the time nor do I have any affinity along those
19 lines, and even if I wanted to, I suppose there would be many other people
20 and a lot of competition, so I am happy to be what I am. I have come to
21 terms with that.
22 Q. So there is no ambiguity, I asked you if you were a member of the
23 SDS, your answer was no. Are you today a member of the SDS?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you ever serve on any crisis committee at any level, regional,
1 municipal, or higher perhaps, Crisis Staff, crisis committee?
2 A. No, no, no, absolutely not, no.
3 Q. Following -- are you familiar with the fact that Milan Kovacevic
5 A. I am aware of that.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, I apologise
7 but perhaps you could move on to another area. I think we seem to be
8 losing time, unless you explain to us why you are asking all these
10 MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour. There is a point and it's the
11 second part of my question. Thank you.
12 Q. In connection with the death of Dr. Milan Kovacevic, did you
13 organise protests accusing the international community for biased
14 treatment against the Serbs, and did you speak about this on RS television
15 and did you indicate that the complaint was lodged against the Tribunal in
16 the Hague?
17 A. That is a fact. At the time I was what they called the
18 transitional director, provisional director, and from the municipality,
19 they said that I should head a protest rally. I know that -- knew that
20 that was a rather sensitive situation and I had nowhere to go. I accepted
21 to do that. It was a peaceful rally. We went from the hospital to the
22 municipality, a letter was written and I read it out, as things stood.
23 Q. Provisional director of what?
24 A. The hospital. Dr. Kovacevic was taken away, I was his deputy, and
25 according to the hospital statute and the rules of procedure, I
1 automatically took on the function of director, but I was acted -- the
2 acting director for a very short period of time, not more than a month.
3 Q. Who from the municipality said that you should head a protest
4 rally? Name, please?
5 A. Somebody called from the army. I can't remember his name now. He
6 was the minister for the army.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic?
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was cautioned
9 yesterday by you, and I accepted that, to not to step outside the topic of
10 the testimony, and I accepted your criticism, which was justified. I
11 think that my learned colleague Ms. Somers is doing the same today but
12 going much further, and she is conducting an investigation about other
13 individuals and activities which have nothing to do with the subject of
14 the testimony and the expert report. Thank you.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, I didn't, of
16 course, oblige you to conduct the examination-in-chief in a certain way, I
17 just asked you to apply methodology, of course, and not tell you what
18 subjects you were to treat. The other observation was that we established
19 the rule here -- as you know there are two possibilities of interpreting
20 Article 90, I don't know the line of it now, but which establishes the
21 scope of cross-examination. There is a strict interpretation and a more
22 flexible one, a less strict one, and we followed that rule and restricted
23 the Prosecution with respect to time mostly, as you know. The questions
24 that Ms. Somers is asking are pertinent ones and I myself asked Ms. Susan
25 Somers to go a bit faster. I think she could have got to this point
1 faster, but the questions I think are pertinent and touch upon the
2 witness's credibility.
3 So Ms. Susan Somers, please proceed.
4 MS. SOMERS:
5 Q. Dr. Barudzija, the question I asked you was who from the
6 municipality said that you should head a protest rally; name, please?
7 Your answer: Somebody called from the army, I can't remember his name
8 now. He was the minister for the army.
9 A. Yes, that's right. That's quite true. And I really can't
10 remember the name. I would gladly tell you the name but it was somebody
11 from the ministry. I don't know. There was some misunderstandings around
12 that whole subject. I wasn't very ready to take up that job, and he was a
13 little angry with me. I don't know -- I can't remember his name but I do
14 know that it was somebody from the army ministry, attached to the
16 Q. What was the date of this protest that you were not prepared to
17 take up but took up?
18 A. It was a nice day, possibly summer, but I don't remember the date
19 or the month. All I know is that the weather was fine. I would tell you
20 otherwise. Why shouldn't I? It was warm, it was very warm. We went in
21 T-shirts, shirts, so it was a hot day. Probably sometime during the
23 Q. Was the SDS sponsoring this?
24 A. I couldn't tell you those details for sure. Probably it was,
25 because the doctor belonged to the SDS so probably he was the initiator.
1 Q. The doctor belonged to the SDS, the dead doctor belonged to the
2 SDS so probably he was the initiator, that is your testimony?
3 A. Yes. No. No. No. No. He belonged to the SDS and the SDS, the
4 party, had probably organised the rally. Not him. He was alive when the
5 rally was to take place. He was in The Hague.
6 Q. Yesterday, you were asked by Mr. Stojanovic about the Serb
7 takeover in Prijedor and the question was only referring, unfortunately,
8 to LiveNote, I have no official translation, but it was page 55 of
9 LiveNote. Question: "Do you know anything about the Serb takeover of
10 power in Prijedor?" Answer: "I heard sort of informally that this would
12 Can you please tell us through what informal back channels you
13 heard that there would be a takeover by the Serbs of power in Prijedor?
14 A. Well, it was rumoured in town about a meeting of some kind at the
15 municipal level of the authorities, and agreement. That's what I heard
16 and they had to vote on it at the meeting.
17 Q. Do you know an individual, a physician possibly a surgeon named
18 Mirsad Resic?
19 A. I know my colleague very well. We worked in the Prijedor hospital
20 for many years. We cooperated very well. He was a sort of nervous man,
21 but he was very good especially for the patients. They liked him.
22 But he had some psychological problems of his own, but this didn't
23 reflect on his work or on us or anything like that. He would be a
24 boisterous person, sometimes rather loud, and shout at the paramedics and
25 sometimes at us colleagues. But he was a very good doctor, very
1 conscientious, and he did everything for the patients regardless of
3 And on one occasion I said if I had to have an operation myself I
4 would choose him. I thought very highly of his professional qualities and
5 him as a conscientious person. That is quite certain.
6 Q. He was the chief of surgery in Prijedor hospital until, perhaps,
7 May 1992; is that right, perhaps April 1992 until the takeover of power;
8 is that correct?
9 A. Yes, it is. That is correct.
10 Q. What is his ethnicity?
11 A. He is -- how can I put it to use the modern term -- Bosniak
12 Muslim, I suppose.
13 Q. And upon the takeover of power, he was removed and you were
14 appointed to take his place; is that correct? You became the chief of
15 surgery when he, as a Muslim, was removed; right?
16 A. Yes, that's right. Quite right, yes.
17 Q. Your -- I believe you called it primarius status that was given in
18 1999, did that go with the position, the position of chief of surgery?
19 A. No, that is independent and everybody -- people can get the status
20 of primarius if they have 20 years of service, a lot of experience, and
21 good results in their work over that period. Those are the criteria for
22 being accorded the title or status of primarius, and usually it is given
23 prior to somebody retiring close to the end of their working life.
24 Q. After you were appointed to take over the position of chief of
25 surgery from the Muslim doctor, Resic, did he continue to work as a
1 surgeon in the hospital?
2 A. Yes, that's right. He continued to work in the hospital of
3 Prijedor in surgery, and I was the chief.
4 Q. Did he have a brother who was also a physician or surgeon and, if
5 so, the name please?
6 A. Yes, he did. His name was Hasim Resic, his brother. He died, if
7 you don't know, he died in Sanski Most three years ago.
8 Q. Is there any truth to information received that these two surgeons
9 or physicians were not permitted to leave the hospital at Prijedor but had
10 to work there despite their lowered status? Any truth to that?
11 A. Well, let me explain.
12 Q. Please do.
13 A. The times were like that. People began to be afraid, and I saw
14 that people were afraid and that some of them wanted to leave, and they
15 were given -- relieved of their duties but some of them were retained.
16 But if anybody wanted to leave, it was up to them. They could have left,
17 and I didn't want to keep anyone back nor could I. I left that up to
18 the -- my colleagues to decide.
19 The times were difficult. There was a lot of danger, and if
20 people were able to save their skins, why not. I would let anybody that
21 wanted to leave leave, and many people did do that very shortly afterwards
22 so that only two surgeons stayed on working in the hospital. I am sorry
23 as a colleague of theirs.
24 Q. They had to stay on, as I understand it, from your testimony.
25 They had to stay there. Just yes or no. Just yes or no.
1 A. Well, that was possible too. But they were also afraid, afraid of
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... answer my question. One
4 other question concerning this and then we'll move on. Who appointed you
5 to the position that had been occupied by Dr. Resic and also, please
6 forgive me, I should have asked you how long did Resic occupy the
7 position? Who appointed you?
8 A. I don't remember the exact time, but I know that it was for quite
9 long up until the war in 1992, and then I was appointed by the hospital's
10 director, Dr. Rada Elenkov, a lady doctor, and she's still the director.
11 She appointed me the chief of surgery in 1992, that was in May.
12 Q. Is she a member of the SDS or was she at the time?
13 A. I couldn't say for sure. When you asked me about my colleagues, I
14 knew that because we talked about it. But I am not in daily contact with
15 her, nor am I as intimate with her. I don't know her that well, and I
16 couldn't say. But I assume she is, because nobody could hold a function
17 of that kind without being a party member. So I can only assume that she
18 was. But I can't say for sure. I'm not sure.
19 Q. Yesterday, referring to LiveNote page 56, you mentioned that, "All
20 wounded were brought to the hospital." My question to you was: Were all
21 the wounded who were brought to the hospital treated? Were all wounded
22 that were brought to the hospital treated, in particular, non-Serbs?
23 A. I said that yesterday. I was very resolute and I stand by it. We
24 adhered to Hippocrates oath. All the doctors we worked on the basis of
25 that oath. Perhaps there might have been an omission, but in general, we
1 followed Hippocrates oath and we did do that. Let me say --
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic.
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I should like to ask my learned
4 colleague Ms. Somers when asking the doctor questions not to remind him of
5 the pages but of the event. Because when she says, "On page 56, you said
6 doctor," the doctor has no idea what it refers to. That is my objection
7 or comment.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. You are
9 right in principle, but it is also true that Ms. Somers did both things.
10 She recalled the transcript page and the events for the witness.
11 I think you did that, did you not, Ms. Susan Somers.
12 MS. SOMERS: Yes, for the benefit of Chamber and for counsel, I'm
13 trying to at least --
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I didn't understand it that way.
15 I didn't understand what event it referred to so I do apologise. Thank
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Stojanovic, we -- for
18 your benefit, perhaps Ms. Susan Somers could repeat the question.
19 So would you do Mr. Stojanovic that courtesy.
20 MS. SOMERS: Yes, sir.
21 Q. Yesterday, there was a reference, in particular, concerning the
22 events of the 30th of May to all wounded being brought to the hospital.
23 My question to you was: They may have been brought, but can you tell us
24 were all wounded, and particularly non-Serb wounded treated even when
25 brought to the hospital?
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Is that clear, Mr. Stojanovic,
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Go ahead, Ms. Somers.
5 MS. SOMERS:
6 Q. Doctor, you have answered it earlier. Yesterday you mentioned
7 that the dead were not to be brought to the hospital but rather to the
8 morgue, and you cited to that being according to a protocol. Where was
9 the morgue, please, for the dead from Omarska and from Keraterm
10 Investigative Centres or camps? Where was the morgue for those dead?
11 Tell us, please.
12 A. I said yesterday that the morgue was within the composition of the
13 building. It was the western wing of the hospital, the western wing, I
14 remember to explain that now. That's where the dead were taken and left.
15 Q. So any and all dead from Keraterm camp and/or Omarska camp or
16 perhaps Trnopolje camp would also have been taken to the morgue; is that
17 your testimony?
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Stojanovic?
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this was not a
20 subject of the examination-in-chief, and the doctor cannot know. He
21 wasn't present in those three camps all the time to be able to know
22 whether a person was taken out of there. And when Ms. Susan Somers says
23 "all the dead," the doctor would have had to be present in the camps to
24 know whether all of them were dead or taken out.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, I understand
1 your objection. You have made it. But if we take up one page of the
2 transcript in order to voice that objection, it is takes up a lot of
3 time. Please be more synthetic, concise. With respect to whether or not
4 it was part of the examination-in-chief, I already gave you an answer this
5 morning. As regards the orientation of the Chamber with respect to the
6 question Ms. Susan Somers posed, we have an expert witness and it is not
7 easy to lead an expert witness. So he is an expert witness, he has his
8 autonomy and his independence and he can answer by himself. If you keep
9 developing your objections, then you will run the risk of leading, and
10 that is what I wish to avoid, Mr. Stojanovic.
11 But please proceed, Ms. Somers.
12 MS. SOMERS:
13 Q. Doctor, my question to you was about the dead from Omarska and
14 Keraterm. Are you in a position to answer that question?
15 A. All I can say is that the dead were brought to hospital. Where
16 they came from, I don't know. It could have been from the front, from the
17 terrain -- from the field. Only the dead were brought to the hospital.
18 Whether they were all brought, I don't know, but dead people were brought
19 to the hospital, and then the process of identification took place. They
20 were the -- the corpse was prepared for burial and there is a whole
21 service that caters to that kind of thing.
22 Q. Can you recollect, in the course of the period, let us say, April,
23 1992, until end of August, 1992, can you recollect treating any persons
24 from either Omarska or Keraterm Investigation Centres who died? And, if
25 you know, following their deaths, not necessarily in your care, but
1 following their deaths, were they taken to the morgue at the hospital?
2 A. The rules exist. Everybody dying in a ward in hospital are taken
3 to the morgue, and that's where they remain until further processed. Now,
4 who was from where, I can't remember again. We had so much work to do
5 that I didn't actually pay attention to things like that. Whether
6 somebody was brought in from Keraterm and died in hospital at the ward, I
7 don't remember that they did, but I can't guarantee, I can't say for sure.
8 Q. Yesterday, you indicated that, "Those we could treat in Prijedor,
9 we did, and those we were unable to treat, we sent on to Banja Luka."
10 Please tell us the criteria for being able to be treated in Prijedor
11 hospital and the criteria for being able to be treated in Banja Luka?
12 A. Well, the Prijedor hospital is a general hospital. We do have
13 specialist physicians catering to specialist types of job, but what we
14 were not capacitated for, which was not -- such as head injuries, serious
15 head injuries, and neuro -- that required neurosurgery or blood vessel
16 surgery, transplantation, prosthesis, things of that kind. Orthopedics
17 was another field with serious injuries to the extremities. We would send
18 those off to Banja Luka which is the clinic with the specialist surgeons
19 and physicians there. Everything else was done in Prijedor. We did it
21 Q. In your medical view is delivery of a child - in other words
22 attending to child birth - a fairly ordinary matter?
23 A. Could you repeat that question? I didn't follow you.
24 Q. Sorry if it's not clear. As a physician or surgeon, in your
25 medical opinion, do you view the process of child birth and the services,
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and English transcripts
1 the medical services, attendant to child birth as routine, capable of
2 being done in Prijedor hospital?
3 A. Yes, of course. We have a gynecology department and that is
4 routine daily surgery. We do Cesarean section and so on.
10 A. Well, possibly it happened but I don't know for sure. Under
11 normal conditions, that should not occur. And if it were to occur, it was
12 human error and the physician was not conscientious enough and he has to
13 bear the responsibility for that. He was perhaps tendentious, I don't say
14 he was, but I'm just speculating that that might have happened.
15 Q. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you referred to
16 Dr. Kovacevic as someone you worked for, is that correct, at the time,
17 someone you worked for, or under?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Was he working in the hospital during the time of April -- end of
20 April, let's say 30 April, to beginning of August or end of August, 1992?
21 Was he still performing medical services there?
22 A. He was the director, the manager, and he was usually on duty. He
23 had several duty shifts and he worked as an anesthesiologist. He would
24 enter the theatres of operation, he was in charge of some surgeries of the
25 wounded, and if there had -- if there was a gynaecology problem, surgery
1 that had to be performed he would do that as well, like a Caesarean or
2 something of that kind. But I don't think there were many such duties
3 that he did because he had a number of other duties in the hospital as --
4 and elsewhere, as the President of the Municipal Assembly of Prijedor
5 after 1992.
6 Q. But your testimony is that during that time period, you can
7 recollect he did work as an anesthesiologist in Prijedor hospital; is that
8 correct? Did I understand you correctly?
9 A. Maybe I cannot remember exactly the period of time in question,
10 but I am sure that he worked in the hospital during the wartime, that he
11 worked as an anesthesiologist and that he was sometimes on duty. There
12 are records to that effect which can be checked if necessary.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Somers, I'm sorry to
14 interrupt you. Could you please speed up your questioning so that we can
15 benefit from the presence of this expert witness, that is, the fact that
16 he took care of one specific patient, which is of interest to us?
17 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour I ask you to bear with me only in this
18 instance because he is a mixed-fact expert witness. He's actually the
19 only mixed-fact expert witness that we have from this and therefore I have
20 to approach both angles. I do apologise.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Ms. Somers but as
22 regards facts, the Chamber has heard a lot of evidence so far and we know
23 a lot about it.
24 MS. SOMERS:
25 Q. How many times did you enter -- well first of all let me ask you,
1 were you ever on the premises of Keraterm Investigative Centre or camp
2 and/or Omarska Investigative Centre or camp?
3 A. Only once. Maybe, maybe twice but I don't remember that second
5 Q. Dates please?
6 A. On that occasion, I was in Keraterm but it was pursuant to the
7 orders issued by someone in the hospital. I was simply informed to go to
8 Keraterm and to perform a triage of the wounded and to bring those who --
9 who needed special care to hospital. So I left and went there and I
10 selected, as far as I remember, 20 seriously wounded patients and I
11 transported them to hospital in a van. I found Dr. Hasim Resic, now
12 deceased, and I told him to go to the outpatient clinic and to examine
13 those people and to see if anyone should stay, should remain in hospital,
14 and to let others go back. That was done on one occasion. I remember
15 that. It was -- it's possible that it was done on one more occasion as
16 well but I don't remember that second occasion, but I know that I once
17 went to Keraterm and did that.
18 Q. Dr. Barudzija you talked about 20 seriously wounded patients and
19 transporting them in a van. Tell me, please, what date did you do this?
20 I want the exact date and year. Month, day, year.
21 A. I don't remember the date but it must have been in the month of
23 Q. Describe please the nature of the serious wounds, what types of
24 injuries were you sent to manage?
25 A. As a surgeon, I focused mostly on surgical problems of the
1 wounded. In most of the cases their limbs were wounded, both lower and
2 upper limbs, they also had head injuries, injuries on the body. Open
3 fractures, neglected fractures with inflammations, very large contusions
4 under the skin, which one could see with one's bare eye and it was quite a
5 sight. I'm talking as a surgeon, as a physician.
6 Q. Where were these people found within Keraterm? Were they in one
7 place or were they scattered?
8 A. The Keraterm camp consisted of an open area which was situated in
9 front of a number of garages and I found them outside, outside those
10 garages in the open area. And that is where I examined them and selected
12 Q. Excuse me for interrupting you, would that have been outside of
13 what is known as Room 3, Dr. Barudzija?
14 A. I don't remember that particular room. I haven't heard of such
15 room, but it is possible that there was such a room there. All I know was
16 that they were standing outside a garage. It was very hot. It was
17 summertime and I found them there outside. Some were lying down, some
18 were sitting or walking around holding their heads.
19 Q. Dr. Barudzija, let me see if this might help in refreshing your
20 recollection. A detainee from Keraterm who knows you from having been
21 treated or having been in the hospital described a situation as, "First
22 name not known. Barudzija, a surgeon at the hospital in Prijedor." Now,
23 this is on the morning of the 25th of July 1992, "a surgeon at the
24 hospital in Prijedor, and Mico, last name unknown, a male nurse born
25 without one arm arrived in the morning. Barudzija told Sikira to take
1 volunteers out of the rooms. They were then ordered to take the bodies
2 out of Room 3.
3 Three prisoners were taken out from Room 1 among whom I knew Sead
4 Jakupovic et cetera. Bodies from Room 3 were carried out and after two
5 hours, they were loaded on to a trailer. The survivors from the incident
6 were ordered to line up. Barudzija and Mica singled out the injured
7 prisoners and ordered them to join the bodies on the truck. The truck
8 left and used the road leading to Tomasica and Omarska mine.
9 The survivors, not injured prisoners, were put back in Room 3
10 after it had been cleaned. On 27 July 1992, they were put in a bus but I
11 do not know where they were taken. I did not see them again."
12 Does that help you remember the time in Keraterm?
13 A. You know, everything that you have just read is pure lie. I never
14 went there with a person by the name of Mico. I'm sure that that was not
15 me. Somebody was trying to invent things. I'm 100 per cent sure that I
16 was not there, and you cannot accuse me of that. I don't know -- I know
17 Mico. He would go with some other people to camps. He was not with me.
18 And all I saw in the camp was what I saw on that particular occasion when
19 I was in Keraterm.
20 This is a pure fabrication and lie. This is just an invention
21 which is meant to soil my name. I cannot confirm -- I cannot acknowledge
22 that. That wasn't me. I wouldn't -- I would never have done such a
23 thing. It's simply not my style. It's not me. I would have violated the
24 Hippocrates oath.
25 Q. Let me ask you about a detainee in Keraterm by the name of Edin
1 Ganic. Do you recall coming to treat Edin Ganic in Keraterm?
2 A. I remember a person by the name of Edin who was in hospital who
3 was staying there at the ward. Whether it was a person by the surname of
4 Ganic, I don't know. It was a very young fellow with fair hair, blond.
5 He was very nice. I talked to him. He had a bone injury which he was
6 treated with Dr. Begic. That is all I can remember.
7 Q. A bone injury, perhaps being a broken knee; does that ring a
9 A. Most probably so. He was hospitalised there at the traumatology
10 ward so he must have had a fracture of some kind. Whether it was a lower
11 leg fracture or a knee fracture, I don't quite remember. But I think it
12 was a knee fracture.
13 MS. SOMERS: If the usher would be kind enough to distribute two
14 exhibits, please.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What is going to be the number
16 of the exhibit?
17 THE REGISTRAR: The hospital release form exhibit will be 3/268.
18 And the hospital discharge sheet will be Exhibit 3/269.
19 MS. SOMERS:
20 Q. Dr. Barudzija, what will be in front of you in a moment in your
21 language is a document which was -- if I am correct, it was seized by the
22 Office of the Prosecutor from the premises of the hospital, and it is a
23 hospital release form concerning an individual named Edin Ganic who was a
24 detainee at Keraterm.
25 You have the document in front of you, Doctor? Thank you. It is
1 a release form which, in your language, the original bears two signatures,
2 one by Dr. Istvan and your own as chief of surgery.
3 Is this the same person with the type of injury discussed by you
4 that you saw in Keraterm?
5 A. Here, it states that it was a fracture of the knee so that was the
6 young man in question, Ganic. The fracture of the kneecap. The release
7 form is an original one. It was signed by the chief of the ward, myself.
8 The initials are here as well, and it was also signed by Dr. Istvan Pap.
9 Edin was operated on, as far as I can see from here, and the
10 surgical part of the treatment was finished and he was supposed to come
11 back for a check-up within three weeks with an X-ray through the cast,
12 taken through the cast.
13 Q. Did he come back?
14 A. As far as I remember, no, he did not. He didn't come back to the
15 hospital. Well, he needn't have to come back to the hospital. He only
16 had to show up for the check-up. I don't know whether he did that or not,
17 but he didn't come back to the ward.
18 Q. Where was the check-up to be held?
19 A. The check-up was to be held in our outpatient clinic, surgery
20 number five, where usual regular check-ups are performed by a surgeon who
21 is there on duty until noon, and all of those who need to undergo a
22 check-up must report to him. This can be seen from the paper. And all
23 recommendations are entered into this paper. And I believe that this is
24 the young man in question that I talked about.
25 Q. Were you the attending surgeon? Did you perform the operation of
1 whatever intervention was given, were you the person who did it?
2 A. This falls within the area of traumatology, and Dr. Begic was in
3 charge of traumatology. The name of the surgeon is not here, but I
4 believe it was him who performed the surgery. I didn't do it. I am a
5 specialist for abdominal surgery and the injuries of internal organs.
6 Q. Do you recollect Edin Ganic telling you how his knee got to be in
7 that condition? Do you normally ask your patients how injuries occur?
8 A. This is not something that we would discuss. I didn't ask him
9 about that. I didn't have enough time to waste on such discussions. He
10 would have probably told that to the surgeon who performed the surgery.
11 He was closer to him so probably he described the way he had been injured
12 to him, that is, to his surgeon.
13 Q. I'd like you to look at the second document rather quickly so we
14 can move on. It is Prosecution's Exhibit 3/269. And it is a document by
15 a -- a document of discharge from your hospital also seized, I believe.
16 And it discusses an injury I believe an arm injury to a Zoran Pavlovic who
17 was a Croat detained in Keraterm.
18 Your signing this document, does that indicate that you at some
19 point had some contact with the individual, with the patient?
20 A. The discharge paper is here for Zoran Pavlovic from Puharska born
21 in 1965 came to the surgery on the 1st of July 1992, discharged on the 9th
22 of July 1992. The description of the diagnosis is given here in Latin.
23 Q. Were you aware --
24 A. And we see that he had sustained a fracture of the knee, an injury
25 to the right shoulder, and both kneecaps. That was the diagnosis that was
1 made upon admittance. He was discharged from hospital and a cast was
2 placed on his fracture, therapy was recommended with pain killers, and the
3 checkups were to be held in the time indicated here. I myself signed the
4 paper. He was released from hospital, so I think that discharge paper,
5 the release form, is in order, and I agree with what it contains.
6 Q. Thank you, Doctor. I'd like to ask you, if you know, what caused
7 the injuries that you acknowledge in this document? And I will ask you
8 specifically, as there has been evidence given in a parallel case,
9 Keraterm, about this injury, indicating that the arm, nose, leg injuries
10 were occasioned by Zoran Zigic and Dusan Knezevic. Did he tell you this
11 when he was seen by you?
12 A. Frankly, one cannot see from this release form how the injury was
13 sustained. Maybe it is contained in the history, in the case history.
14 Maybe it was recorded by the surgeon who admitted him, but here it is not
15 clear. I may have had contact with him. I signed that release form. But
16 I don't know the details. To be quite frank, I don't know how it was that
17 he was injured, how he had sustained his injuries. I don't know who it
18 was who may have injured him. I simply don't know. It is not that I'm
19 trying to justify myself; it's just that I am not aware of it.
20 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Working our way to the injuries described
21 yesterday before we arrive at your treatment of Zoran Zigic, I would like
22 to ask you some questions about matters concerning the treatment you
23 referred to on Emsud Bahonjic.
24 A. As regards Emsud Bahonjic, I said yesterday that I had compiled my
25 findings upon an analysis of the relevant medical documentation. I didn't
1 have any other information. I did not have the patient in front of me and
2 I did not have any direct contact with him. Whether it happened when he
3 came to see us because of his knee injury, I don't know. As regards his
4 first visit to the hospital, you can see which of the doctors admitted him
5 and who sent him to the hospital. You can see it from the papers. But in
6 any case, he was not with me. I didn't see him directly.
7 Q. Thank you, Doctor, for making that clear. I would like to ask
8 you, because you did choose to comment on his treatment, if you would,
9 when the usher distributes the next exhibits, please? Yesterday, counsel
10 for Mr. Zigic referred to a protocol and a -- there was some mention of
11 Mr. Bahonjic's name being listed there, and I located it and I wanted to
12 ask you for a little bit of clarification from it, please. It will be
13 distributed to you in a moment. Yes. There are two, Mr. Usher. There is
14 a second one yet, please.
15 THE REGISTRAR: This exhibit will be marked as 3/270.
16 MS. SOMERS:
17 Q. Before we look at these exhibits, I would like to ask you if you
18 were informed, or if you know, having received any information about his
19 condition on arrival to your hospital. Did you know anything about his
20 general physical appearance when he arrived in Prijedor hospital? Do you
21 see it anywhere indicated or anything that might assist you? The first
22 time I believe you mentioned was 11 June, 1992, and now is being
23 distributed another protocol from, I think, 15 June, 1992.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers, there are two
25 protocols. Are they two documents or just one document?
1 MS. SOMERS: It appears that there is a protocol with different
2 dates. We don't know if it came from a larger book but one is for 11
3 June, Your Honour, and if I can assist you with trying to tell you --
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, in terms of organisation,
5 organising our work, I think it would be advisable to have two numbers for
6 the document.
7 MS. SOMERS: I think it was separately distributed.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, then, but we need a
9 number, Madam Registrar, please.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Okay. The first exhibit that was distributed,
11 which I numbered already at 3/270, at the top right-hand corner the number
12 is 01909332.
13 The next exhibit will be 3/271, and at the top right-hand corner
14 the number is 01909333.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] There is an English version and
16 a B/C/S version of the document, am I not right?
17 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Mr. President, we always have the B/C/S as A
18 and the English as B.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.
20 Please continue, Ms. Somers.
21 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Doctor, to make it a bit easier, in your language a document --
23 I'm looking at the protocol which has 11/06/92, and that would be
24 Prosecutor's Exhibit 3/270. Are you able to locate the page there that
25 has a reference to Emsud Bahonjic? It appears on the third page, as I
1 have it, with number 3230 as his identifying patient number, 3230. And
2 just to explain, we will be looking at the last column all the way across,
3 for reference to the Chamber. Unfortunately, the A3 paper was not
4 available, but it is -- there is a second page that would continue with
5 it. Do you see that, Doctor, where it says Bahonjic, Emsud, gives a date
6 of birth, mentions Kozarac, and it does say "Keraterm" -- I think it says
7 "Keraterm," am I correct? Am I reading that correctly? Have you found
9 A. Yes, yes. I have it in front of me and it is clear.
10 Q. Does it say "Keraterm"? It indicates that that was -- what is at
11 the top of the column where the entry "Keraterm" appears? What
12 information is being asked at the top of the column?
13 A. Here, we can read his name and surname, the place of residence
14 where he comes from, and here, there is a note, an observation, which is
15 similar to the previous one, that is that the individual in question is a
16 prisoner from Keraterm, so he was brought to the hospital in that capacity
17 as a prisoner from Keraterm, with a diagnosis status febrilis. The name
18 of the doctor who examined him is not here. It must have been one of the
19 surgeons but he did not sign his name. It is mentioned for the first time
20 here on the number 3286, and that is correct. The second time, he came to
21 the hospital --
22 Q. Can you just wait, Doctor, before you go on to the second time?
23 I'd like to ask you for a little bit of explanation. Now, the information
24 that is contained on the document you just read from, where he's got the
25 patient number, I think it was 3230, nowhere indicates his appearance at
1 the time of arrival at Keraterm -- at the hospital. Am I correct?
2 Because I have not studied -- the writing is very difficult for me here.
3 It doesn't say his physical appearance.
4 A. I think I already said it on two occasions, I did not see the
5 patient. I simply cannot know what kind of state he was in, physically
6 speaking. Somebody else must have examined him.
7 Q. I'm not asking whether you had seen it. I'm asking whether this
8 chart, this protocol, reflects that kind of information. Do you
9 understand me now?
10 A. Oh, yes. The diagnosis and the interpretation of the diagnosis, I
11 think that it would indicate a serious clinical state. The patient had a
12 high temperature, he was dehydrated, which probably constituted a very
13 serious state, very serious condition. So he was sent to a specialist. I
14 don't know whether he was actually admitted to the ward or not, but the
15 condition was very difficult. And this kind -- this type of diagnosis,
16 dehydration and temperature, is a very serious one and it requires
17 admittance to the hospital. If -- should his condition improve, he would,
18 with this type of diagnosis, be sent home. He was probably thirsty, his
19 lips was probably chapped and broken. He was probably in a very difficult
21 Q. Thank you, Doctor. I'd like to draw on your medical expertise
22 right now and ask you -- this Chamber has heard testimony from various
23 witnesses, Witnesses AD, Witnesses N, about the condition or the physical
24 appearance of -- very close in time to the date of this hospital
25 intervention, and Witness AD indicated that "Emsud had already been beaten
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and English transcripts
1 upon his arrival in the camp. His eye, one of his eyes, was black and
2 blue and his nose was fractured. He was all covered in blood. He had
3 even more bruises. He had bruises on his back as well as his head and
4 legs. No medical assistance was given to him in the detention centre."
5 This is -- if in fact this was the physical appearance of a man brought to
6 your hospital, would you expect it to be noted somewhere in addition to
7 the febrile and dehydrated state? Would that be a normal expectation in
8 good medical practice?
9 A. In any case, the person who examined him should have described
10 what he looked like. That is standard practice. It should be entered as
11 well. We are fully aware of the fact that a protocol is essential. One
12 might have to refer back to them so they must be complete. Here we only
13 have two diagnoses plus the knee injury. There is no further diagnosis in
14 the protocol.
15 Q. Looking at the second protocol, Doctor, which --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
17 MS. SOMERS:
18 Q. Looking at the second diagnosis, Doctor, which you had begun to
19 read, which is Prosecution Exhibit 3/271, the number which you referred to
20 a bit earlier was number 3286, for Emsud Bahonjic. This refers to the
21 15th of June, 1992, and again I understand, Doctor, that you did not treat
22 him. This is from observation. Are you able to glean from this protocol
23 whether or not Mr. Bahonjic was admitted to the hospital for treatment?
24 A. On the basis of what it says in this protocol, he was not admitted
25 to hospital. A fixational bandage was placed and he returned home. That
1 is, he was returned to where he came from, and I don't know where he had
2 come from, but he wasn't admitted to hospital, nor was hospitalisation
3 necessary at the surgery ward. It can be done at home.
4 Q. Doctor, this Chamber has heard testimony that at that point in
5 time, the individual could not stand, could not speak, was so badly beaten
6 up as to be pretty much rendered helpless. Would you have expected some
7 observation to have been recorded to that effect, according to good
8 medical practice, on this particular document that you are reading to us?
9 A. Absolutely so, yes. That must have been introduced into the
10 protocol on condition that the person who admitted him was conscientious
11 and did his job properly in accordance with Hippocrates oath. He could
12 not sidestep any serious condition of that kind, but I don't know what
13 happened, what the motive was, why this happened. I don't know.
14 But of course he should have written in all that data at least the
15 most prominent diagnosis like a fractured nose, contusions, haematoma
16 under the skin, that the man was not able to walk. That kind of person, a
17 patient like that, must have been admitted to hospital. He is a hospital
19 Q. Doctor, yesterday, Mr. Stojanovic asked you, and I'm reading for
20 the benefit of those who have LiveNote from page 89, Question: "Could the
21 injury lead to the death of Emsud Bahonjic as it stood?" Your answer:
22 "This type of injury, under the given circumstances, as I said, could on
23 no account bring about death because it was an insignificant injury, that
24 is to say, it wasn't mortally dangerous and usually passes by even if you
25 treat it, and if you don't treat it, of course it's always better to treat
1 it, but it would pass anyway."
2 Do you still stand by that?
3 A. As far as this diagnosis is concerned, I still stand by it
5 Q. But if, in fact, this diagnosis does not fully represent the
6 condition of the patient as brought in and as released, would you come to
7 a different conclusion if his condition were as I had described it to you
8 from the testimony of witnesses?
9 A. In that case, the situation changes and quite certainly, the man
10 was in danger. But I don't see that diagnosis here. It is not before me,
11 and I don't have it in front of me.
12 Q. Did you ever come to learn that Emsud Bahonjic, in fact, did die
13 after returning to Keraterm?
14 A. I don't remember that either, and I didn't hear about it. I don't
15 know. Lots of things happened. For me to be able to remember one
16 individual, I wasn't interested in -- he wasn't somebody close to me. He
17 wasn't a friend of mine. He wasn't a relative of mine. He wasn't a
18 patient of mine so I don't know why you expect me to ask after him. He
19 was actually unknown to me until this protocol, until I looked at the
20 protocol. And no, I didn't hear about it. It wasn't talked about. The
21 first time I heard about it was from my lawyers that the patient had
22 succumb, that is to say that he had died.
23 Q. Who are your lawyers?
24 A. And I thought he was alive, actually I didn't know that he was, in
25 fact, dead.
1 Q. Which lawyers are you referring to, please?
2 A. Well, Mr. Stojanovic and Deretic.
3 Q. When you see or have seen that on the protocol, it shows the point
4 from which a patient came to your hospital as Keraterm, a detention
5 facility or camp, and the recommendation on release is sending home, did
6 you, as a -- as the chief surgeon, chief of surgery, have a reasonable
7 well-founded expectation that aftercare such as cleansing of wounds,
8 taking care of the wounds would take place, was that a reasonable
9 expectation on your part?
10 A. Well, in principle, that is so, as it should be. But the
11 situation was different. They very often bypassed me as the head, and I
12 wrote -- if I had examined somebody and released him to go home, that
13 should have been respected but very often, it was not respected. They
14 were taken back to where they had come from. So if it was a camp, they
15 went back to camp. If they had come from their homes, then they would be
16 taken back home.
17 The authorities were above me. I was just there like the head of
18 a service, to supervise as far as I was able to within my competence to
19 see that things ran properly in the ward, department to ensure that we had
20 the necessary medicaments, X-rays, films, everything we needed for
21 diagnosis and treatment, and to release the patient treated after having
22 received proper treatment. That was what I could do.
23 Q. Doctor, you had seen a patient, Edin Ganic, from Keraterm, and he
24 was released. He was sent back. Did you, as a responsible surgeon, as
25 chief of surgery, order or task someone at Keraterm to perform aftercare,
1 to watch out for these patients who had you seen?
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic.
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the question is
4 quite improper with respect to what happened. It was stated that he
5 returned back. Edin Ganic didn't put it that way. I don't want to say in
6 front of the witness anything directly with what it had to do because you
7 are constantly cautioning me about that.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic, for
9 giving consideration to that and drawing it to our attention.
10 Ms. Susan Somers.
11 MS. SOMERS: I stand corrected, Your Honour. I appreciate that.
12 I believe that that is a correct observation, and I withdraw that question
13 as to Edin Ganic.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well.
15 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much for correcting me.
16 Q. I would like to ask you, Doctor, and because you are an expert,
17 you can answer a question in the hypothetical. You have seen the protocol
18 and the diagnosis and the discharge papers on Emsud Bahonjic, and you have
19 just indicated that it was a serious condition. Sending a man like that
20 back to Keraterm, in your professional judgement, would it not require
21 substantial aftercare?
22 A. I have to clarify some things. I said that it could have been a
23 more serious condition. Maybe it was, maybe it was one of medium severity
24 which did not require admission into hospital. As far as I know, the
25 doctors at the internal medicine department were all conscientious so if
1 the man had been in his condition, they should have admitted him. So if
2 his condition was indeed severe, it would have required hospitalisation.
3 I gave my opinions on the basis of the diagnosis, that is to say,
4 that the situation was serious but could be taken care of by giving an
5 intravenous drip and then sent home. So maybe it was not serious enough
6 to warrant hospitalisation; on the other hand, maybe it was.
7 Q. Doctor, arriving now at the injuries of accused Zoran Zigic, I'd
8 like to make sure that it's clear. Did you treat him in the first
9 instance, for the very first time in May when the finger injury occurred?
10 Was that you as the treating physician or surgeon? Your report makes it
11 less than clear.
12 A. I think that it says in the report clearly that he was my first
13 patient, that is to say, that he came to me in hospital first. And I did
14 treat the wound in the small surgery. I talked to him and his two pals.
15 Everything passed calmly. He listened to what I had to say, and we got
16 everything done properly and in order.
17 According -- first aid was given on the spot. Whether somebody
18 had bandaged his hand there or not, but I gave him first aid in the
19 hospital for his hand.
20 Q. That was on the 29th of May. Did you ascertain whether or not the
21 injury actually occurred on the 29th of May or earlier on a different day?
22 A. On the basis of my examination of him, and I said yesterday that
23 the injury had been inflicted that day, but maybe several hours before he
24 had come to the surgery for help. It is my opinion and my experience as a
25 surgeon that I base this on.
1 Q. Did you talk to him? Did you talk to him when he came in? Was he
2 able to speak to you?
3 A. Of course. We knew each other, and he was glad to see that I was
4 the attending physician. And if he needed anything, he would come and ask
5 me in hospital. So we had a sort of friendly chat.
6 Q. Why did you have to draw on your long experience as a surgeon to
7 ask him when the injury occurred?
8 A. I didn't ask him, as far as I know, when he was injured, but I
9 assessed it according to my experience as being several hours before. I
10 did not ask him that. He can say that himself. I didn't ask him when he
11 was actually injured.
12 Q. Did he tell you when he was actually injured?
13 A. He didn't tell me that either.
14 Q. Doctor --
15 A. He just showed me the finger that had been injured.
16 Q. Mr. Zigic explained to this Court in an unsworn statement on
17 transcript page 9452 that, "During the armed conflicts in Kozarac on the
18 24th of May, I was part of the security forces of the Prijedor Police
19 Station," and indicated in the rest of that paragraph that he, at that
20 time, on that day, injured his finger.
21 Does the fact that five days intervened have any effect on
22 anything you may have written in this report about that incident, the
23 initial phase of treatment?
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the conflicts
1 lasted for a long time in the Kozarac area. Mr. Zigic never said --
2 quoted the exact date as to when it happened and we cannot, on the basis
3 of that, go on to ask: Does the fact that five days intervened have any
4 effect, et cetera et cetera? This was nowhere present in Mr. Zigic's
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] [In English] It's enough.
7 [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers.
8 MS. SOMERS:
9 Q. If you came to learn that a number of days or at least more than
10 one day had transpired between the occurrence and the seeking of
11 treatment, would that change anything in your report concerning that
12 particular first phase of treatment?
13 A. In that case, the wound would have been infected and would have
14 looked quite different, and he would probably have been admitted. There
15 was no pus, it was not a pusy injury, it had no signs of inflammation that
16 had set in earlier on, and it was as I have already described to you.
17 Q. So then if that amount of time had gone by, and the wound didn't
18 appear infected, would you conclude that it wasn't a terribly serious
20 A. That is always a serious injury when you have the loss of a
21 finger, because the bone has been shattered. So it would have been a
22 serious bodily injury. That is how it would have been qualified and
23 categorized regardless of whether there was inflammation, infection, or
25 Q. He came in on his own two feet, that was your testimony, and you
1 just indicated that he was accompanied by two colleagues. Do you know who
2 those two colleagues were?
3 A. No, I didn't know them, but it's normal for a friend to help a
4 friend out in adversity, and he was accompanied by his friend. But I
5 didn't even look at them much. I didn't know them. I just attended to
6 Zoran Zigic as my patient. I focused on him and his injury. So the two
7 others are not prevalent in my memory.
8 And they weren't actually allowed to be in my surgery. They would
9 have to stand outside. There were a lot of people outside, and that's
10 where they were. So it was difficult for me to remember who these two
12 Q. Did you ask Mr. Zigic how the injury occurred or did you come to
13 your own conclusion that it was a gunshot injury?
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, [In English]
15 leave the room to the witnesses to conclude.
16 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, there is a substantial contradiction,
17 and I'd like to get at that contradiction, if I may.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but you could ask your
19 question openly, "What is your conclusion?" You could put it that way
20 instead of saying, "Did you conclude that it was" et cetera et cetera,
21 "the result of a gunshot injury?"
22 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. On what did you base your conclusion that the injury to his index
24 finger of the left hand was a gunshot injury?
25 A. Well, I cannot state this without oral information from the
1 patient. I arrived at my diagnosis on the basis of the protocol and
2 medical records, documents, and that is where I got the diagnosis that the
3 injury was inflicted by a firearm, and that's what is stated in the
4 protocol. I could not -- I didn't ask the man. He didn't tell me
5 anything on the occasion.
6 Q. Mr. Zigic told this Court that -- in connection with the conflicts
7 in Kozarac -- again transcript page 9452, that, "I had in the vehicle a
8 hand grenade, and as I was running short of ammunition I used the hand
9 grenade, but due to haste and fear and lack of caution, I injured and cut
10 off the index finger on my left hand myself." Would that have changed
11 anything in your report, any conclusion you drew, if you knew that it was
12 not a firearm but a hand grenade?
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic?
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I cannot check out
15 the transcript, but I think that Mr. Zigic, as far as I recall by
16 listening to him, he didn't say a hand grenade. He said a hand-held
17 launcher, or that is to say a weapon with a barrel, not actually a hand
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, this type of
20 objection can be the object or subject of your redirect. Why interrupt to
21 make the objection? You could have asked that question yourself later on
22 when the opportunity comes for your re-examination. You could have
23 clarified that point later on.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may, these -- this type of
25 weapon inflicts quite a different type of injury, and it raises this whole
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand very well what
3 you're saying, Mr. Stojanovic. I do understand. What I was telling you,
4 and what I'm telling you now, is that the right time to ask that is during
5 your re-examination. The witness can answer this question now and will be
6 later answering your own questions in your redirect.
7 So having said that, please proceed, Ms. Somers.
8 MS. SOMERS:
9 Q. Doctor, from what I take your answer to be, it may have changed
10 your assessment of your report, or the conclusions drawn in your report;
11 is that correct?
12 A. I stand by what I have said, that I took the diagnosis from the
13 medical records, and gunshot injury or an injury caused by explosive
14 devices is similar, and it would be difficult to differentiate without
15 getting oral information to tell us whether it was a shrapnel, a bullet
16 wound or anything similar.
17 Q. If an individual pulls the pin on a grenade and the grenade
18 explodes, would you not expect a substantially different kind of injury,
19 with greater involvement?
20 A. There would not be too much difference. The state would be more
21 or less the same. There would be a high temperature. The blood vessels
22 would have been disrupted. The edges would have been ragged. There would
23 have been coagulation. There would have been foreign particles in the
24 wound and particles from the environment. The only thing is that in that
25 case, if that had happened, as far as I can tell, the injury would be more
1 or less the same, very similar, which means that there is a problem in
2 diagnosis unless we get the exact, correct data. We usually ask but I
3 didn't ask him, but that is my subjective -- that is what happened and it
4 is up to the injured person to say or tell us what he wants to tell us
5 about how he came by the injury. But as I say, the wounds themselves
6 would be very similar. Both of them would have caused destruction and
7 great damage to the tissue.
8 Q. It is not clear whether, when you talk about mechanical removal
9 of, I guess, dead tissue, did you in fact perform an amputation on the
10 29th of May? And if so, what level amputation medically did you perform?
11 To what point on the digit was it performed?
12 A. That digit was practically wholly blown away. Just a bit of the
13 phalanges remained. I didn't perform reamputation. All I did was clean
14 the wound, bandage it, and told him to come back for a checkup. Later on,
15 when he came to the ward, it was reamputated because the tissue had to be
16 removed. So reamputation took place at the ward in the surgery and not in
17 the outpatients' department. I'm sorry that we don't have these findings
18 because you would clearly be able to see that, what I wrote down and what
19 I did.
20 Q. Doctor, your recommendation or the -- what you did was cleaning
21 with appropriate agents, would that be tweezers and scissors, and what
22 types of agents are you also referring to for that type of serious injury?
23 I believe yesterday you made reference to iodine and something else that
24 was stocked normally in medicine cabinets. Was that what you used at the
25 time? I think hydrogen peroxide may have been the other agent.
1 A. Yes, yes. Those disinfectants were used, hydrogen, Asepsol and
2 iodine which comes last, the iodine bandage, in fact, after mechanical
3 cleaning of the injury. It was a highly dirty injury which had to be
4 mechanically cleaned a great deal, and all foreign particles and tissues
5 that had dead tissue removed. Parts of clothing, if that had been there,
6 or some wooden particles or anything of that kind, as well as dead tissue;
7 that is all cleared away. And then the disinfectants are used plus an
8 iodine bandage, and then the patient is sent -- is given recommendations
9 as to how to proceed in future.
10 Q. Doctor, I want to ask you, when you said on page 40, line 1, for
11 the benefit of the Chamber and counsel, "That digit was practically wholly
12 blown away," are you referring to the entire left index finger as being at
13 that time, the entire finger, being almost wholly blown away?
14 A. It was blown away, there was just the proximal part that was left,
15 the proximal part, part of that, perhaps a little more. I'm not quite
16 sure. I can't say 100 per cent what actual portion of the joint and digit
17 remained, but a large portion had been blown away. And reamputation can
18 be conducted low down on the finger, which means dearticulation, where the
19 whole joint is removed and then stitched up. So that is the reamputation,
20 if that is what you mean.
21 Q. As a non-medical person, could you explain -- if you could hold
22 your finger up perhaps and explain what is the proximal part? If you
23 could demonstrate to us what is the proximal part of the finger? What are
24 you referring to?
25 A. On the basis of what I had said, it would be in this region here,
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and English transcripts
1 perhaps a little below the joint or a little above the joint, but this
2 portion of the finger remained, that bit.
3 MS. SOMERS: Pointing, for the record, to an area about one inch
4 or perhaps a little over, from where the finger joins the hand.
5 Your Honour, will we be pausing at 11.00?
6 A. As far as I remember, that is what it was.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I think this is an
8 opportune moment to take a break. Would the usher please escort the
9 witness out of the courtroom first, after which we will have a short
11 May I remind you, Ms. Somers, that according to my calculations,
12 you have, give or take, ten minutes more, so organise your time, please.
13 MS. SOMERS: If I could just ask the Chamber, our calculations
14 gave me approximately 20 more minutes. No, 15, 15, I'm informed by Ms.
15 Gustin. We counted them yesterday. If the Chamber would indulge me the
16 15, I would be grateful. It was a medical report as well as fact evidence
17 that had to be crossed.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic?
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, according to our
20 calculations, we have it at five minutes, according to our calculations.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I have the Registrar's
22 calculations and they are the ones that are going to count. They are
23 going to be valid. Ms. Somers, I am always waiting for you to give us a
24 little gift and to end before your time is up. I keep expecting that from
25 you. So not one hour 45, one hour 40, one hour 42. So please try and
1 organise yourself to ask the questions that you feel to be absolutely
2 necessary. Having said that, we adjourn for half an hour.
3 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 --- Recess taken at 11.04 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
7 Ms. Somers -- I think we have to wait for the witness. Yes,
8 Ms. Somers, I think we can now continue with your 12 minutes.
9 MS. SOMERS:
10 Q. Dr. Barudzija, I have a question about a comment in your report on
11 page 2 where you are talking about intensity of pain, essentially three
12 degrees of pain. And in your paragraph, where you discuss number one,
13 high intensity pain, the last sentence of your paragraph is, "Great pain
14 was also caused by applying the bandages and immobilisation i.e., placing
15 the injured part of the body in an immoveable position."
16 Normally, in medical practice, is not immobilisation used to
17 decrease pain as part of a traumatised body part? If you can explain it
18 quickly because time is running, but I'd like a quick explanation of that
19 please. If immobilisation means restriction of movements, does that not
20 decrease pain?
21 A. Well, you're quite right about that, but this text here refers to
22 the actual moment of placing the cast or some other type of immobilisation
23 on the injured part of the body. Of course the purpose of the
24 immobilisation later on is to decrease pain, but the process is painful
25 during the actual immobilisation at the time the cast is placed on the
2 Q. Doctor, a finger injury with one finger only involved, could not a
3 bandage have been placed on the traumatised finger of Mr. Zigic,
4 restricted to that finger only, with possibly a small extension to the
5 wrist area and that would have held the hand sufficiently to reduce pain
6 and to serve the purpose? It would have provided a measure of
7 immobilisation that is practical. As I understand it, can you not put a
8 gyps on there, did you?
9 A. No, I don't remember. I told you yesterday that I didn't remember
10 whether the cast gyps was placed in the plaster room. I don't know. But
11 it is true that a bandage can be placed only, but there are other types of
12 plasters. The whole fist can be put in a cast, only portions of it, and
13 if you immobilise the whole hand, then you will considerably decrease
15 Q. Thank you, Doctor.
16 I'd like to move on and ask the usher to distribute three
18 And while that is occurring, I will ask you -- I think it will not
19 be difficult to concentrate, I hope. The hospitalisation on the 21st of
20 June that was the subject of your testimony, you expressed concern about
21 the ability to stay still, and I was interested to know if a guard was
22 posted outside of Mr. Zigic's hospital room to keep him there or if it was
23 in a locked ward, or if the room door itself was locked so that you can
24 assure us that you are 100 per cent sure that although hospitalisation was
25 ordered for perhaps up to five days that, in fact, Zoran Zigic stayed in
1 the hospital for those five days.
2 Can you give us a 100 per cent assurance by anything you did to
3 guarantee that result?
4 A. Mr. Zoran Zigic was placed in our military department which was on
5 the third floor of the hospital. It was part of the surgery ward where
6 only members of the wounded members of the Serbian army were
7 hospitalised. The other part was purely civilian. Mr. Zoran Zigic did
8 not have any particular, any special surveillance. We did not have any
9 such cases. They were our combatants. We didn't need to supervise them
10 in any special manner, but we had guards, police, which separated the
11 civilian and the military parts so that no mingling was possible and no
12 ill-intentioned visitors would be allowed in, or people who wanted to
13 sneak around, to intimidate people, and to do other things which are not
14 allowed in medical ethics.
15 So that is the reason why we had those guards. They were in
16 charge of providing security for them, and we had military men at the ward
17 as well.
18 Q. Was Mr. Zigic, as a patient, free to move around?
19 A. Yes, within the ward, the military ward, but it was prohibited for
20 them to come downstairs to the second floor ward where civilians were
21 placed, civilians of all ethnic groups, and that is something we took
22 special care of.
23 Q. Thank you, Doctor. My question, though, goes further. Although
24 it is clear from what you say that he could not mingle with the civilians,
25 he could go downstairs to the main entrance, if he wanted to, could he
1 not, bypassing the civilians, which was the object of the security? Yes
2 or no?
3 A. Technically speaking, yes, but it was difficult.
4 Q. I'd like to turn your attention to the three exhibits before you,
5 the one exhibit which is a temperature chart, which I would ask for the
6 number on. I will only briefly ask you about these. This is a
7 temperature chart covering the hospitalisation of 21st June, 1992 of Zoran
8 Zigic. If you can look at that, if you read across the actual B/C/S
9 chart --
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers, we need to identify
11 the document, please, or documents.
12 MS. SOMERS: Thank you. While we are doing that, the other two
13 documents are I believe what you would call protocols for Zoran Zigic, one
14 of which would have the number 61 identifying Zigic, and the other would
15 have 332 as Zigic's identifying hospital number. Those three documents,
16 starting with the temperature chart, I would ask to be 3/272. And then
17 the second document, a protocol, which is -- has the number 61 as Zigic's
18 identifier, the English translation has 01908881, that would be
19 Prosecution's 3/273. And the remaining document with identification
20 number of Zigic, 332, is 3/274.
21 Q. Looking at 3/272, the temperature chart I would like to ask you,
22 please -- these are documents that came into the possession of the Office
23 of the Prosecutor through either search of -- through a search. Can you
24 tell me, please, the graph, as it were, the charting of the temperature,
25 suggests temperature taken twice a day. Would that be correct, normally,
1 twice a day? Just yes or no?
2 A. Yes, yes, in the morning in -- before the noon and after noon.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. There are two visits and temperature is always taken.
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... date, it looks like the 22nd,
6 it appears there is no line for temperature, and it is unclear on the
7 26th, whether or not the discharge occurred morning or evening. But there
8 is no line -- there is no entry for temperature on the 22nd, nor is there
9 one on the 26th, and there is a letter P on the 24th. Does that suggest
10 unavailability of the patient for taking the vital signs? Can you comment
11 on that quickly?
12 A. It is a matter of diligence on the part of the paramedics, whether
13 the nurses are going to take the temperature on a regular basis, apply new
14 bandages, or not. It is possible that this was not taken on the 22nd and
15 the 26th as regards the temperature. This is something that happens quite
16 often, although it is exposed to severe criticism. But you know how
17 people are.
18 Q. Thank you, Doctor. It is also possible, is it not, that the
19 patient was simply not there to have his temperature taken? Would you say
20 that is a possibility or are you 100 per cent sure that it was hospital
21 error? 100 per cent sure?
22 A. Both are possible.
23 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Quickly looking, only for the purpose of
24 asking you to look at the other two documents, 3/273 and 274, you are
25 familiar --
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Somers, let me remind you
2 that your time has expired. Would you please finish this question?
3 MS. SOMERS: I would ask the Court for about two more minutes. I
4 would be grateful -- I know the Chamber has in the past indulged where
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Would you please finish with the
7 analysis of this document? And that's it. Ms. Somers, once you give me
8 an opportunity to be very strict with you when it comes to your time, I
9 probably won't have to be very strict. Would you please finish this
10 question, finish the analysis of this document? You knew at the time you
11 continued your cross-examination after the break that you had only 12
12 minutes left. Would you please continue?
13 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. I will not question -- I've
14 indicated these documents from the seizure and I will not ask any
15 questions on the others. I would like to have instead of that one
16 opportunity to ask another question, in my time, if the Court will indulge
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I told you that you could finish
19 the analysis of this document only. The document that you have not yet
21 MS. SOMERS: I wish not to ask -- I think they can explain some
22 things to them, argument can be made from them. If I may take one moment
23 and ask one last question that I think it's important for the Chamber to
24 hear an answer to?
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.
1 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, we agree. We will grant
3 you this time.
4 MS. SOMERS: I appreciate that.
5 Q. I would like to ask you for one interpretation. You discussed the
6 injury of the 19th of August in your report and you -- it is on page 2 of
7 your report, the injury of the 19th of August, to the head area of
8 Mr. Zigic. You indicated that that injury was inflicted with a blunt
9 instrument. What type of blunt instrument did you understand to have
10 inflicted that injury to Mr. Zigic's head area, and chin area or jaw
12 A. Well, it can be a fist as well. But it can also be a wooden
13 object, something of that kind. But it can also include a human fist. It
14 is also considered to be a blunt object.
15 Q. And as my last part B of that question, if you were to learn that
16 in fact it was a gunshot injury that caused this -- a gunshot that caused
17 this type of injury, would you stand by everything you have said in your
18 report about the injury?
19 A. It's difficult to determine when it comes to the chin.
20 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much. No further questions. Thank
21 you to the Chamber for its indulgence.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Somers.
23 Mr. Stojanovic, if you have any additional questions for the
24 witness, you have the floor.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your
1 Honour. I don't think I will have too many questions for the witness.
2 Re-examined by Mr. Stojanovic:
3 Q. Mr. Barudzija, do you know who Witness Y is which was mentioned by
4 the Prosecutor?
5 A. No, I do not.
6 Q. In your testimony, you mentioned Dr. Pap Istvan. What was his
7 ethnic background?
8 A. He was a Hungarian.
9 Q. Do you know that Zoran Pavlovic, who was mentioned by the
10 Prosecutor, was a Croat?
11 A. You mean whether I know that?
12 Q. Yes. Do you know the individual? Do you know his ethnic
14 A. I may have seen him during the examination, but I didn't know what
15 his ethnic background was. I was never interested in such things. So I
16 couldn't tell you whether he was a Croat or a Serb because this type --
17 this particular surname can be found in both ethnic communities, Serb and
19 Q. Yesterday, you told us that you noticed traces of soot on the
20 injury. Does that indicate to the possibility of firearms being used to
21 cause the injury?
22 A. Yes, but that soot can be also of a different origin, but it can
23 also be the result of the use of a fire weapon.
24 Q. We have mentioned protocols several times, in particular, the ones
25 referring to Mr. Zigic and Mr. Bahonjic. Do you know who, at the time,
1 was in charge of protocols? Who was recording the data that is contained
2 in these protocols?
3 A. They were taken in clinic number 2 for emergency cases, and there
4 are four technicians working in each shift there. I know their names.
5 They are still employed there. But I think that there was also a nurse
6 who worked in that particular surgery at that time. She was doing some
7 other work. The technicians were applying the plaster, and she was in
8 charge of administrative side of the work. But sometimes even a doctor
9 who was in charge of that particular case would also do that.
10 Q. Were you able to recognise their handwriting?
11 A. I don't think I would be able to do that even today. I know only
12 one technician who has an excellent, beautiful handwriting in Cyrillic
13 script, and I would be able to recognise his handwriting. As for the
14 others, I don't know, and I think they write in Latin script.
15 And the diagnosis were recorded by physicians.
16 Q. So the diagnosis in the protocol were always entered by
18 A. Technicians, that is paramedics as well, but in the case of some
19 more serious diagnosis, then the physician would enter the relevant data.
20 Usually it was in the case of wounds related to the war.
21 Q. Let us go back to Mr. Zigic's finger injury. If he had been
22 injured by a hand grenade which was the hypothesis for the question which
23 was put by my learned colleague, would that have caused, in principle,
24 some other injuries on his body?
25 A. Logically speaking, yes, because, after all, it's a hand grenade.
1 He could have destroyed himself.
2 Q. When Zigic came to see you, did you notice, did you observe any
3 other injuries on his body?
4 A. No. No, I didn't notice any other changes whatsoever on his body
5 or his clothes. All I noticed was the injury on his finger.
6 Q. You spoke about the temperature which is taken by paramedics, by
7 nurses. Is it possible that at the time of temperature taking, the
8 patient is absent? Is it possible for him to be absent from the room? Is
9 it possible for him to be found in downstairs, in the restaurant, in the
11 A. Well, it is possible for the patient to be elsewhere. He may have
12 had a visitor at the time or gone to the toilet, to the restaurant, and
13 stayed out of the room for a while, but this would have normally been
14 recorded somewhere.
15 Q. We heard that it was possible for him to reach the main exit, for
16 the patient to reach the main exit, but could that go unnoticed in view of
17 the fact that there were guards presented there as you said?
18 A. Well, that would have been observed by them, and the patient would
19 usually consult with the doctor to do that, but he didn't consult with
20 me. If I let anyone go, I would write it down. But of course it is
21 possible for people to just stray away from their rooms, and they may have
22 made a mistake consciously.
23 Q. Would the guards notice that?
24 A. Well, it was their duty to notice such cases, but they didn't have
25 to. They needn't have noticed it.
1 Q. On the temperature chart, we mentioned a letter P, could it mean a
2 visit, poseta?
3 A. No, P stands for previjanje, that is the change of bandages on the
4 wound which must be performed.
5 Q. I have a somewhat unusual question. Would you be able to inspect
6 your findings at the time today, in the courtroom, on the basis of a
7 direct examination of Mr. Zigic's finger?
8 A. I would like to do that, to see how the treatment was completed,
9 whether we managed to do a good job both functionally and aesthetically
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this would be the
12 suggestion and the proposal of the Defence. You probably haven't had such
13 a case so far.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No, Mr. Stojanovic, it is not
15 necessary. If the witness wishes to do it at the end of his testimony to
16 know if he has done a good job or not, I think he can do that. He has the
17 perfect right to proceed with such an examination, but not here in the
18 courtroom. I don't think we need that.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
20 Q. Let us go back to letter P. Mr. Zigic, at the time his
21 temperature was taken, could he have been with the nurse having his
22 bandages changed or was it usually done there?
23 A. No, those two activities are separated. The temperature is
24 usually taken in the morning, and the bandages are changed at around
1 Q. You said about the chin injury that it was inflicted with a blunt
2 instrument, speaking of the injury in August 1992. Was that finding of
3 yours based on the documentation that you had access to?
4 A. I did write it down, but I also stated a moment ago that such a
5 type of injury is very difficult for an expert to judge, because it could
6 have been the result of a bullet just having grazed that part of the
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. This
9 concludes my examination of the witness.
10 Thank you, Witness.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.
12 Judge Fouad Riad has the floor.
13 Questioned by the Court:
14 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
15 [In English] Dr. Barudzija, good morning.
16 A. Good morning.
17 JUDGE RIAD: I'd like to get some more clarification of two
18 points, perhaps, or three. We have here in Exhibit 26/4, I think, and how
19 you mention -- it's mentioned that Mr. Zigic was hurt in his manus
20 sinistra, that's the left hand. Just, I want to be sure that I understood
21 you rightly. You said that this was a lasting disability to a certain
22 degree. That's what I noted down.
23 What do you mean by "to a certain degree"?
24 A. Well, the disability is expressed in degrees 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and
25 going up to 100 per cent. So it is in degrees and percentages with
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and English transcripts
1 respect to the parts of the body. So according to nomenclature and
2 classification, his injury would be below 20 per cent. So if I wrote 10
3 per cent for the whole hand, 10 per cent disability for the whole hand.
4 JUDGE RIAD: With 10 per cent or 20, can he use it, to what degree
5 can you use it?
6 A. Well, you can use the hand when everything is completed, when the
7 wound has healed, the tissue regenerated, when there is no more pain and
8 sensitivity and that takes six months roundabout. A man who had suffered
9 that kind of injury would be able to engage in quite a lot of physical
10 activities, carry weighty objects and support things, but he wouldn't be
11 as agile with his hand as he would otherwise.
12 JUDGE RIAD: Did you have the opportunity to know if Mr. Zigic was
13 left-handed or right-handed?
14 A. I don't know that to this day. I didn't ask, I don't know.
15 JUDGE RIAD: You also spoke of -- or at least we understood that
16 you headed the protest against the Tribunal at a certain moment. What was
17 your main grief or accusation of the Tribunal, or protest?
18 A. Well, it was subjective and prejudice. It was our man. We didn't
19 consider him to be guilty. And so we wanted to say that on -- through our
20 protest. We wanted to let that be known, that it should be mitigated and
21 that the problem be solved. There is a lot of subjectivism, I can't say
22 there isn't, because emotions are emotions and feelings are feelings. I
23 didn't know what Mr. Kovacevic had actually done. I wasn't informed of
24 the actual substance. I just relied on what people said. So I had no
25 access to the actual substance of what he had done. I was there as an
1 ordinary -- well, man.
2 JUDGE RIAD: You were heading the manifestation. Did you --
3 A. Yes, yes, I did head it but I explained under what circumstances.
4 There was some things which I didn't like. They -- I sort of felt they'd
5 used to me to get the thing over with and that they knew that I wouldn't
6 be -- continue to be the director, that I was just the acting director and
7 that I wouldn't continue in that position. So that now, today, I have no
8 position. I am not a director, I am not the chief. I am deputy chief.
9 And I'm not satisfied with my status and that is a grievance of my own, my
10 own personal grievance, and it will remain with me. I would like to have
11 avoided the whole situation, not to have been involved in it at all.
12 JUDGE RIAD: And apart from this being upset about Mr. Kovacevic
13 being here, did you express any other grievances? Did you have any other
14 grievances against the Tribunal?
15 A. No, absolutely not. That was all it was. Somebody had to lead
16 the rally, and I was ordered from the municipality, from one of the
17 functionaries, that it should be me. And God knows what should have been
18 done. It wouldn't have been -- it would have been difficult for me to
19 refuse. I knew that it would go into the world through the media. I was
20 conscious of all that. But I was there and I couldn't refuse. That's the
21 kind of man I was. I had to face what there was to face and do it.
22 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Dr. Barudzija.
23 A. You're welcome, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Fouad Riad.
25 Madam Judge Wald has the floor.
1 JUDGE WALD: Dr. Barudzija, we have seen from a few of these
2 exhibits and you have mentioned in your testimony, having looked at the
3 records of Emsud Bahonjic, and also you told us about one trip to Keraterm
4 in which you triaged patients, deciding who should go to the hospital to
5 be looked at to see if they had serious wounds. My question to you is
6 over that summer, from May 30th to, let's say, August, when you were in
7 the hospital in Prijedor, did you know about or have the impression that
8 there were others or large numbers of other patients who came to the
9 hospital from the camps, either Keraterm, Omarska? Did you know about any
10 other patients, and if so, roughly how many, apart from the trip that you
11 told us about and Bahonjic?
12 A. I stand by what I said earlier on. I know about the Keraterm case
13 but not about any others. And I wasn't actually interested. Wounded
14 people did come in. There were a lot of them. We put the civilians on
15 the second floor, the army was housed on the third floor, and that would
16 be all that I could tell you about that. I did hear about the Omarska
17 camp, I heard of its existence, that it existed, that it was working and
18 that it was operational. I did hear that, yes.
19 JUDGE WALD: My question - and then I'll go away - was whether or
20 not you heard over that summer about patients from Keraterm or Omarska
21 coming into the hospital even if they weren't personally treated by you?
22 A. Well, once again, what I can tell you is -- I couldn't tell you
23 anything else. I -- all I can say is no. All I knew was about the
24 Keraterm case. I went there and people from Keraterm kept coming in for
25 treatment, and on the -- from what I heard, they came from other camps as
1 well, and they probably went to other doctors, but I couldn't swear to
2 having seen that myself. Probably they did come in, yes. We had teams of
3 doctors who went to the camps and visited the patients there and then
4 brought them to hospital, both doctors and paramedics. That is possible,
5 but as I say, I didn't actually see any.
6 JUDGE WALD: Would those patients who came from the camps be in
7 the civilian wards? Would they have been treated in the civilian wards?
8 You talked earlier about military versus civilian wards. Would the
9 prisoners have gone to the civilian wards?
10 A. All the wounded of different ethnic groups and suffering from
11 different diseases would be placed on the second floor. All three ethnic
12 groups were on the second floor, with the usual type of injuries which
13 were not actually war injuries. And if there were war injuries, then they
14 would be Muslims and Croats and Albanians or Romanies or gypsies or
15 anybody else who was wounded in the course of battle, during the war.
16 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Now, you told Judge Riad in answer to his
17 question that you didn't know whether Mr. Zigic was right- or left-handed
18 so let me ask you a hypothetical. If a person had an injury like
19 Mr. Zigic's, and this is an assumption, and it was to his left hand but he
20 was a right-handed person -- I say if, that's hypothetical, we don't know
21 at this point. If he was a right-handed person but had an injury to his
22 left hand, just the same as Mr. Zigic's, would that person, within a week
23 or two of the first kind -- the first type of treatment that you described
24 in your report, not when he came back with the infection but the first
25 type of treatment, within a week or so of that, would that person be able
1 to drive?
2 A. Well, it depends, you can drive with one hand. It's against the
3 rules but you can do it. It's possible.
4 JUDGE WALD: Okay, could --
5 A. You know from your own experience that one sometimes drives with
6 one hand and under some circumstances -- you can't deny that. One can't
7 deny that.
8 JUDGE WALD: I can't deny you can't, but not from my experience,
9 Doctor. On the same hypothetical, could that person lift parcels? In
10 other words, with his good hand?
11 A. Well, yes, up to a certain weight, as far as his body was able to
12 support this on the right-hand side.
13 JUDGE WALD: Would that person be able to fire a firearm, fire a
15 A. If he's right-handed, why not?
16 JUDGE WALD: Okay. I'm asking the questions but I've got your
17 answer. And finally would that person be able to strike somebody or wield
18 a blunt instrument, hit somebody with a bat or something like that?
19 A. Well, yes, if the right hand was functional and he was using his
20 right hand, he would be able to perhaps help himself a little with the
21 left hand. It would be painful if he actually used his left hand.
22 JUDGE WALD: Right, I understand. My last question is -- you
23 talked in your report, I believe, supplemented in your testimony, about
24 how the ideal treatment of an injury like Mr. Zigic's would be to have
25 rest and you would -- you would recommend rehabilitation and you wouldn't
1 expect that it would be back at full performance for maybe a couple of
2 months, that sort of thing. My question to you is: In your experience -
3 and you've been in the military as a medical corps person as well as a
4 civilian doctor - in your experience, and especially during this period of
5 wartime, would the army or the police service, as part of the state
6 apparatus, would they have insisted that somebody go back to work right
7 away, who had an injury like Mr. Zigic's? In other words, would they
8 insist that that person be mobilised and go back to work within days or a
9 week of an injury like Mr. Zigic's?
10 A. Well, that could only be the will of the patient, but otherwise,
11 if he had a medical chit from us, nobody could change that, and they
12 wouldn't be able to unless he, the patient himself, expressed a desire to
13 interrupt his sick leave and go back to work, and then it would be at his
14 own -- on his own head.
15 JUDGE WALD: So just to reiterate, you, as a medical physician,
16 would have given such a person a medical excuse not to go back to a job
17 right away; isn't that correct? And it would be up to the patient what
18 they wanted to do, that's what you're telling us, right, whether they
19 wanted to go back to work or not?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam
24 Dr. Barudzija, I also have a few questions for you. First of all,
25 I should like to have you confirm something. I think that you said that
1 the first time when you examined Mr. Zigic, you concluded that it was an
2 injury which had been caused by a firearm several hours earlier on, and
3 that he did not complain of pain very much. Was that the third part of
4 your conclusion?
5 A. That is correct, because Mr. Zigic is a very firm, courageous
6 person. He could suffer a lot of pain, in my opinion, but the injury
7 itself was very ugly to see. It was a serious injury.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Doctor. My
9 following question is the -- is the -- was the pain more severe at the
10 beginning or perhaps later, 7 or 15 days later?
11 A. The most severe pain comes at the beginning, within 12 hours after
12 the injury is sustained up until the intervention and the hospital until
13 the plaster cast is placed. Later on, the patient usually receives
14 painkillers, he's resting, and the antibiotics are effective. So the pain
15 is the most severe in the first 12 hours in this type of injury.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I will now try to link two
17 questions. When, exactly, did Mr. Zigic have good reasons to complain
18 about the pain, at what point in time?
19 A. Well, at the moment, at the very moment he was injured, and also
20 during the actual treatment of the wound, at the cleaning. So those two
21 particular moments would be most painful, would be the most painful ones
22 for him.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. The hospital where
24 you work, did it have any competences in respect of detention centres,
25 that is, did it have any particular obligations in terms of taking care of
1 the wounded and the sick?
2 A. Yes, that is exactly what we had to do. We had to take care and
3 treat the wounded. That is the main purpose of every hospital, that is to
4 treat the sick, and the wounded and that is what we did.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. You also
6 told us that at least on one occasion, perhaps two, you went to Keraterm.
7 Did you see, did you -- were you able to observe all detainees of the
8 Keraterm camp?
9 A. When I came, there were quite a few of them, a lot actually, and I
10 wasn't able to see all of them. So I focused on the wounded, the
11 seriously wounded. I walked around a little bit. I was accompanied by
12 someone from the paramedical staff and I pointed to the individuals that
13 were to be taken to hospital, and that is how it happened. But it was
14 impossible for me to see everyone.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The seriously wounded, had they
16 already been assembled by anyone or was it your duty, did you have a
17 particular role in terms of selecting those detainees?
18 A. That happened only on that particular day, as far as I'm
19 concerned, but other physicians were also involved in the job. Others
20 also went to Keraterm. I, myself, went only on one occasion, maybe one
21 more, but I don't remember.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Maybe I didn't express myself
23 correctly. I would like to know how, on the basis of what you actually
24 selected those 20 detainees, how did you proceed?
25 A. Well, I observed them, that is, my procedure was based on visual
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but did you see all of the
3 prisoners or only some of them who had already been assembled by someone?
4 A. No, I didn't see all of them as I told you. I passed through them
5 and I selected the most serious cases.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but amongst whom?
7 A. Well, I selected the cases of limb fractures, head injuries,
8 everything that I could observe with my eye.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Can I therefore conclude that
10 the wounded detainees had already been gathered there, had already been
12 A. They were there, but no, actually, we did it. We assembled them
13 on the spot and we took them to the hospital, the injured ones, that is.
14 Nobody had gathered them beforehand. They couldn't do it. They were
15 unable to do it, and that is why they called the doctor to help them.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Doctor, I would like to know the
17 following: You told me that you had not seen all detainees, and you
18 selected 20 of them. I would like to know how it was possible for you to
19 select 20 detainees out of all of those who were in the camp, out of all
20 of those who looked worst?
21 A. I selected those whom I thought were the most serious cases and I
22 took them to the hospital; however, I was unable to examine all of them.
23 I was unable to take their temperatures, to observe any skin disorders on
24 them, and things like that.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Doctor.
1 Let me ask another question. On the basis of the observation that you
2 made on those 20 detainees, and having looked at their injuries, was it
3 possible for you to draw conclusions as regards the means or rather the
4 manner in which they had been injured, that is, what was the cause of
5 their injuries?
6 A. The injuries were caused exclusively with blunt instruments or
7 blunt objects. A blunt force was applied on them, not fire weapons. At
8 least in the cases of those whom I had a chance to see, to examine.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] When you examined those
10 detainees, did they tell you how or perhaps why they had been beaten up?
11 A. No. We did not conduct any such conversations. My duty was only
12 to single out the wounded and to take them to the hospital to see the late
13 Dr. Hasim Resic, and that was completed on that day. I did not have any
14 further discussions with them. So they didn't tell me anything about how
15 they had been injured. It is only my conclusion on the basis of my
16 impression and my visual observation of them that their injuries had been
17 caused about blunt objects.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] When you went to Keraterm, were
19 you able to observe if there was any security there, any restrictions of
20 movement at the entrance to the camp?
21 A. Well, there were guards there who had rifles in front of the
22 gate. They had automatic rifles. Usually two guards would be there, one
23 on one side, the other on the other side, and of course there were also
24 guards inside the camp.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] If I tell you that the
1 individuals that you were able to observe had been mistreated by persons
2 who had overstepped -- who had passed by the guards, was it possible for
3 you to conclude that Mr. Zigic was also able to pass near the guards and
4 to leave the hospital?
5 A. Yes, that is possible, but it is a technical matter.
6 Theoretically speaking, yes, it is possible for him to talk to someone and
7 pass by the guards and leave.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Doctor.
9 Another question. I think -- I believe I have understood the meaning of
10 releasing the patient who had been treated in hospital home, but you
11 mentioned something about patients going back to the place where they had
12 been taken from. Did I understand you correctly?
13 A. Yes. They were taken back to where they had initially been taken
14 from. Whether they were under some kind of guard, I don't know, but they
15 would also go home, if possible. Actually, going home was the usual thing
16 in peacetime but during wartime, all kinds of things are possible.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Doctor, as a physician, when you
18 knew, when you learned that a sick person would be returned to Keraterm or
19 when you -- if you knew that it was not possible for him to be treated
20 elsewhere, would it not have been advisable to recommend the appropriate
21 treatment so that the individual in question wouldn't be taken back to
23 A. Everything is stated in the discharge letter. Whatever is
24 contained in the discharge letter should have been honoured and
25 respected. As to what happened later on with the individuals in question,
1 that fell out of my competences and out of my authority. The times were
2 very difficult. I could have been held accountable by the police or
3 someone else.
4 On one occasion, I once saved a person that I knew. It could have
5 been a serious incident, but I risked and saved a colleague of mine, a
6 colleague of other ethnicity.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand that, Doctor.
8 Thank you very much. You have answered a number of questions that have
9 been put to you by the parties and the Judges, but I would like to know
10 whether Mr. Zigic was able to ride a motor bike.
11 A. Yes, he could have done that with one hand. Theoretically
12 speaking, it is possible. It is possible to ride a bicycle or a motorbike
13 because he was -- if the person is using his right hand, but it was of
14 course irregular, in contravention of the traffic regulations, and he
15 would have been held accountable if he had caused an accident.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] My colleague Judge Wald has
17 asked you a number of questions regarding the ability of Mr. Zigic to use
18 his hands, but we still don't know, and you don't know, whether he was
19 left-handed or not. If he were left-handed, would it be possible for him
20 to do all those things that were described by my colleague if he were
22 A. No. It would have been very difficult, although the other --
23 although the other hand may have been healthy.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me finish with another
25 question. Is it possible, through the visual observation of the injuries
1 on the body of an individual, to know whether those injuries were caused
2 by a left-handed individual or a right-handed individual?
3 A. Only in cases of self-inflicted injuries, but only in that case.
4 Then it would have been the right-handed person. I do not exclude any
5 other possibility.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] If you, for example, look at the
7 20 detainees from Keraterm that you examined, would it be possible for
8 you, through a simple clinical observation or through a statistical
9 analysis, to draw any such conclusions?
10 A. It could not have been done with one hand. You would have had to
11 use both hands to inflict such injuries because they were very severe
12 injuries. It is almost -- it is impossible to cause a bone fracture with
13 only one hand, because it is solid matter. It is the most solid -- the
14 hardest part of the human body.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
16 Dr. Barudzija. You have answered a number of questions.
17 JUDGE WALD: Dr. Barudzija, I just have one final question, which
18 follows up Judge Rodrigues's question. You said it would be impossible
19 for a person to inflict the kind of contusions and injuries you saw on the
20 prisoners unless that person used both hands. However, if there were
21 several people that were beating or using instruments, blunt instruments,
22 on a particular person, that would be possible for one of those persons to
23 be only using one hand and other people to be joining in, in order to
24 bring about the result that you saw; is that not true?
25 A. It's a little bit strange that you should ask that. I mean, it's
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and English transcripts
1 a complex question but I should like to maintain what I already said, that
2 you would have had to use both hands, two fists or more fists in case of
3 such injuries.
4 JUDGE WALD: Let me just make sure I understand your answer. If
5 one person alone were to cause the injuries you saw, I understand your
6 answer to be that one person would have to be using both hands. If there
7 were several people simultaneously beating or attacking a person, then
8 every one of those people would not have to be using both hands, would
10 A. Not necessarily, but they usually do that. When you're attacking
11 someone you use both hands. When you have several attackers, you have
12 several hands, of course. I think it is self-evident.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. I just
14 realised that Mr. Jovanovic asked questions but I did not give him an
15 opportunity to state whether he has any additional questions or not, so I
16 will do so now.
17 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour. I
18 have no additional questions for the witness.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. That
20 facilitates my work. Thank you.
21 Dr. Barudzija, thank you very much for your answers to the
22 questions that were put to you by the parties and the judges. Thank you
23 for the assistance that you have provided to the Tribunal. We would
24 like -- despite the criticism that was advanced here, we would like to
25 thank you once again for the assistance that you have provided to the
1 Tribunal and to wish you a safe journey back to your place of residence.
2 A. Thank you very much, Your Honour.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, can we now
5 proceed with our next witness -- your next witness, for at least 25
6 minutes, perhaps? Oh, I'm sorry, yes, before we do that, I think that
7 there are documents to be tendered and dealt with.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We still
9 maintain our motion.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please be asked to repeat the
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 25, 26, 27/4.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, as you can see from the
14 transcript, the interpreters are asking you to repeat the numbers,
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I think it has already been
17 recorded, that our motion refers to documents 25, 26, 27/4, and we should
18 also like to tender 24/4. That is from 24/4 to 27/4, including that last
19 document as well.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Madam
21 Somers, do you have any objections as regards these documents?
22 MS. SOMERS: No.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The documents will therefore be
24 admitted into evidence. Ms. Somers, you also wish to tender some
25 documents, I believe.
1 MS. SOMERS: I do. I'll try to keep them in correct order.
2 Prosecution wishes to tender for admission 3/268, which the Registry and
3 our staff have acknowledged may also have an earlier number, just for the
4 record, of 3/139, but for purposes of this witness, it is 3/268, which is
5 the hospital release form. 3/269, hospital discharge form -- I'm sorry,
6 let me just let the Court know the first one was Edin Ganic's hospital
7 release form. 3/269 is the release form of Zoran Pavlovic signed by and
8 authenticated by Dr. Barudzija. 3/270 is the protocol including the data
9 on Emsud Bahonjic. 3/271 is the second protocol with Emsud Bahonjic's
10 data on it. 3/272, the temperature chart for Zoran Zigic during his stay
11 commencing -- alleged stay commencing on June 21st, 1992. 3/273 is the
12 protocol mentioning Mr. Zigic's patient numbers and describing generally
13 some of the types of treatment and other data. 3/ -- 2/274 is the other
14 protocol for Mr. Zigic giving another number, hospital number, each number
15 being for his different visits. This one has his hospital number 331 and
16 the earlier one was 61. Thank you, Your Honour. I hope I've given --
17 that one was 3/274. Thank you.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, let us hear
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence of
21 Mr. Zigic has no objections to any of these exhibits.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr.
23 Stojanovic. The exhibits that have been tendered by Ms. Somers, I'm not
24 going to repeat their numbers, but I think it is from 3/270 to 2/374 [as
25 interpreted] will therefore be admitted into evidence.
1 Mr. Stojanovic, I saw that you were on your feet. I don't know
2 whether you wanted to address the issue of documents or something else.
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, it was just
4 about the documents, so that's it.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but on the transcript, I
6 see that the exhibits from 3/268 to 3/274. I think now that the record
7 has been corrected.
8 Mr. Stojanovic, I think we can now call our next witness.
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] By all means, Your Honour. Our
10 next witness is also an expert witness, Mr. Zivojin Aleksic.
11 I would like to ask the usher to bring him in, please.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, can you hear me?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. Yes, I do.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [No interpretation]
16 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
17 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
18 WITNESS: ZIVOJIN ALEKSIC
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated. Please
21 approach the microphone. Try and sit as comfortably as possible. Thank
22 you very much for coming. You are going to start off by answering
23 questions put to you by Mr. Stojanovic, and afterwards, possibly by the
24 Prosecution, Defence and Judges.
25 Mr. Stojanovic, your witness. Please proceed.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your
2 Honour. I would like to give a brief explanation with respect to your
3 ruling. We are going to discuss each individual report separately. The
4 first topic is the graphoscopic analysis, D3/4, as he is a double expert
6 Examined by Mr. Stojanovic:
7 Q. Professor Aleksic, it says at the top of your finding and for
8 purposes of the record and those present here but could you nonetheless
9 tell us your full name and surname?
10 A. Do you wish me to rise? Does the Court wish me to stand or can I
11 answer sitting down? Is it necessary for me to get up, Your Honour, to
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No. Please remain seated.
14 A. Thank you. Because of my advanced age, that is very gratifying.
15 My name is Zivojin Aleksic. My full academic title is Professor
16 Dr. Zivojin Aleksic.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Where were you born?
19 A. I was born in Belgrade.
20 Q. Is that where you reside today?
21 A. Yes, I've been living in Belgrade throughout.
22 Q. When were you born?
23 A. Unfortunately, I was born in 1931.
24 Q. What is your main field of interest?
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Professor, you said
1 "unfortunately" because you would have been rather born more recently; is
2 that right? Is that what you meant?
3 A. Well, as a docent, perhaps.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Go ahead, please.
5 A. You asked me something.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Your main sphere of interest, your career?
8 A. My main interest is evidence and judicial proof.
9 Q. With respect to your scientific work and references, we would have
10 a great many questions to ask you, and we shall do so during testimony --
11 your testimony later on. We are now going to dwell on your qualifications
12 with respect to this graphoscopic analysis. We're going to consider that
13 first, Professor.
14 First of all, let me ask you, graphoscopy or graphology, is that
15 in the crime department, criminology department, or does it belong to
16 another science?
17 A. When we talk about graphology and graphoscopic analysis, I should
18 like to clarify one point, although I'm sure Their Honours are sure of
19 this, graphology deals with characters. I don't deal with that, otherwise
20 I would be very rich, I'm sure.
21 I deal in graphoscopy, that is to say, the study of letters and
22 looking for individual and general characteristics in identifying
23 handwriting and letters. There are different branches, other branches
24 which are called one of them graphometry which is the study and -- which
25 is the measurement of letters. And then we come to a logistical analysis,
1 grammatical analysis, of writing, but I have remained in the sphere of
2 graphoscopic analysis and graphoscopy, and I think that that is a
3 sufficiently difficult discipline.
4 It does fall within the realm of criminalistical [as interpreted]
5 science, but in different countries different people, that is to say,
6 people without a criminological training. I am a legal man myself, I am a
7 lawyer. I have dealt in criminal proceedings and criminology and, as I
8 said, judicial proof and evidence.
9 Q. Can you tell us --
10 A. And evidence law.
11 Q. Can you tell us something about graphoscopy, that is to say, your
12 experience of it? Where did you gain your training, give us the main
13 points, please?
14 A. I was very lucky to have been taught the subject by Professor Mark
15 Bischoff from the Institut Politique du Criminologie of Lausanne, the
16 Lausanne Institute of Criminology. After that, I studied in the United
17 States. I worked there, did practical work. I listened to lectures, and
18 attended Professor Kirk's and Professor Evans' lectures. Unfortunately,
19 when one reaches my age, then all his teachers are already deceased. So
20 that at this point in time, I feel this to be an homage to them, the
21 mentioning of their names, as a tribute to them before this august
23 Q. Professor Kirk has been recorded in the LiveNote. Could we have
24 the name of the second American professor? It hasn't been entered into
25 the transcript.
1 A. It is Evans, Professor Paul Evans.
2 Q. Are you an expert for documents and manuscripts?
3 A. Yes, the situation is like this. In 1961, I did postgraduate
4 training in Lausanne and completed that course at the institute I
5 mentioned a moment ago. I returned to Belgrade upon graduation where I
6 did my Ph.D, my doctorate at personal sources of evidence. That was my
7 subject. And from an assistant, I was promoted to a docent and carried on
8 my academic career to become a professor at the Belgrade University.
9 It was not compatible for me to be a forensic expert and sworn in
10 court expert and to lecture at the faculty of law, and the faculty of law
11 in Belgrade was my tuitional basis. However, when I was invited to
12 lecture, I lectured at practically all our universities, the universities
13 in Yugoslavia, and soon afterwards, at practically all European
14 universities as well.
15 I was invited to lecture in Europe, in Asia, up to the
16 Philippines, and as a visiting professor, I spent considerable time in
17 Africa. In that way, and on that basis, I gained a certain amount of
18 knowledge and published it.
19 I have written and published 29 books, two of them devoted to
20 expert testimony for handwriting manuscripts and documents. Of course,
21 when I retired, I gained the right and have for six years now been a court
22 expert for documents, manuscripts, and other types of -- and another
23 expert witness in criminal proceedings which are complicated. I have my
24 stamp and seal, as you have seen, and I am at the disposal in this case of
25 the Tribunal, and at the disposal of all courts in Yugoslavia.
1 However, from 1963, up until my retirement in 1996, I was invited
2 to provide expert testimony in this field only when this was in the
3 interests of states, state interest was concerned, and that is what I do
4 occasionally today as well.
5 For purposes of illustration, let me say quite recently I was an
6 expert witness for the manuscripts of our Nobel prize winner, the writer
7 Ivo Andric, because they were not able to ascertain what was his and what
8 was not his in a box that was left behind after his death. But I would
9 like to respect the time that the Court has at its disposal so I don't
10 want to go into that at length, and I always find it difficult to talk
11 about myself.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Professor.
13 I should now like the usher to present a document to you which is
14 entitled, "Graphoscopic Analysis." I think you have your own copy of
15 that, Professor, but we shall proceed in this way.
16 I have a B/C/S version, but I should also like to tender copies in
17 French and English, and all the attachments that go with the graphoscopic
18 analysis itself and which make up the whole matter, the whole exhibit.
19 I'd like to tender the exhibit, could we have an identification number
20 from the registrar, please.
21 THE REGISTRAR: The number is D29/4 and that refers to all three
22 languages, A, B, and C.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, I apologise. I
24 think yesterday we mentioned a number D28, but we did not attribute it
25 D28. Can you check that out, please? I don't think we used it actually.
1 THE REGISTRAR: D28/4 was a copy of the protocol in B/C/S
2 submitted by Mr. Stojanovic. It wasn't admitted, but we gave it a number
3 for ID purposes. Later, Ms. Somers submitted it as well and we admitted
4 it. I can scratch it if you'd like.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think -- I don't think that
6 this exhibit was tendered or admitted. That's the point. Because you
7 see, Mr. Stojanovic has not asked that it be admitted into evidence,
8 just -- he ended with number 27. He didn't ask for number 28 so where do
9 we stand?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Well, as I understood it yesterday, he wasn't
11 asking to admit the document. He just used it for identification purposes
12 yesterday. So we only had the B/C/S version. We didn't have the English,
13 and I did give it a number.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I apologise. Perhaps Mr.
15 Stojanovic could assist us and tell us what happened to the document
16 marked 28? I think we marked it for identification, but didn't actually
17 use it.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think I will be
19 able to assist. We did not tender the document for admission. My learned
20 colleague Ms. Somers presented the same document -- a similar document
21 later on, the same document, so we did not question it. But for our part,
22 we did not tender it for admission.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] That is to say that the mention
24 of Exhibit D28/4 was a mention made which was void?
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, to make matters
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] There you have it, Madam
3 Registrar. So it won't be Exhibit 28 -- 9, but 28 [as interpreted]. Go
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] May I continue, Your Honour?
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, please go ahead. I am
7 looking at the transcript. There is a slight problem but I think it will
8 be corrected. I said that it will be Exhibit D28/4.
9 Having said that, please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
10 Q. Mr. Aleksic, you have the document before you with your
11 memorandum, and the document is dated on the third page, it is the 10th of
12 March, 2001. Is that the expert report that you compiled, with all the
13 relevant attachments?
14 A. Yes, it is my expert report. It is written on three pages and it
15 has an addendum which looks like this. I don't know whether the Court has
16 it, but I will show it if the Court agrees. It is photo documentation.
17 Q. Do you stand by your expert report today?
18 A. Yes. I had the satisfaction that on the 23rd of this month, I was
19 received by the Prosecution of this Tribunal, and I was shown on that
20 occasion the original they had. They didn't have it all but what they had
21 they showed me. And those originals merely confirmed my findings, because
22 I was always taught that it's never good to work with a photocopy but that
23 you should always work with an original, and I received as many originals
24 as I needed, as was necessary, and that confirmed me in the opinion that I
25 felt free to present to the Tribunal and you yourselves, Your Honours.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, would this be a
2 good time to take our customary break?
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I think that that is a
4 very good proposal, Mr. Stojanovic. We have been working for a long time,
5 Professor Aleksic, and Professor Aleksic is with us now, but I think we
6 all deserve a break, all of us, and the professor too. The usher will
7 escort you, Professor, out of the courtroom first before we adjourn for
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The pause will last 50 minutes
11 as usual.
12 --- Recess taken at 1.03 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 1.55 p.m.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
15 Professor Aleksic, we are going to resume our proceedings. Has
16 somebody -- did somebody provide you with a good lunch?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For my weight, quite all right.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. It is the proportion
19 of things that we always seek, even in this courtroom.
20 Mr. Stojanovic, please proceed.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
22 Q. Professor Aleksic, what in this case was the subject of your
23 expert analysis?
24 A. I was given a document to study. It was in -- it was
25 handwritten. It was a record written down by hand, taken down in
1 handwriting, on which there were a number of signatures which were Husein
2 Ganic. That was the name that was signed. The object was first of all
3 for me to see whether the minutes, the record, which is written over a
4 number of pages, whether it was signed by the same person. That was the
5 first thing.
6 Thanks to the ornaments and embellishments of the letters, which I
7 shall be happy to explain later on, this portion of the text was not a
8 difficult one to analyse, because in that particular document, we found
9 signatures by the same person. However, I noticed -- I apologise for
10 interrupting, but I noticed that the record itself was written by at least
11 two, if not three, individuals, and I am ready, if the Court wants me to
12 do so, to show it to you. For me, to be able to see whether it was indeed
13 Ganic's signature, I was given by you six or seven uncontested signatures
14 by the man himself, Husein Ganic, and when I say uncontested, I say that
15 because the signatures were made in the presence of certain organs and
16 signed by the interpreter, the signature. I see that you wish to ask me
17 something at this stage.
18 Q. Yes. For purposes of the record, can we define what the documents
19 actually were? So the subject of your report, was it the document which
20 has been assigned a number by this Tribunal, Defence Exhibit in fact
21 D4/4? Is that the document you're referring to? And the numbers given by
22 the Prosecution and the Tribunal and the numbers that are 008866?
23 A. You need a zero, I said.
24 Q. 0088066. There is a zero between the 8 and 6.
25 A. The number is 00880654, up until 690.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and English transcripts
1 Q. I think that it has been recorded correctly now. So that was
2 the -- what you studied. You said that you had some samples in order to
3 determine the credibility?
4 A. Yes. I had actual original signatures which were not contested,
5 and that is customary.
6 Q. Was one of these samples a document which we would term the
7 statement of Husein Ganic in English? And it is a document -- a
8 Prosecution document -- just one moment, please, Professor. I don't think
9 it was recorded in the transcript properly. Was it a statement made by
10 Husein Ganic in the English language given to the Prosecution of the
11 Tribunal and -- on the 5th of June, 1966 to -- no, I apologise, 1996, I
12 mean, of course.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And it has a number, and that number is from 00399566 up to
15 00399561, 571. 571 is the last number, 00399571. Is that the sample that
16 is not contested?
17 A. Yes. That was the last number. The last numbers from 66 to 71.
18 That is there are a number of signatures there, and I have assessed them
19 as authentic, and the authorities of the Tribunal provided me with them
20 and said that that was indeed so.
21 Q. Now, when you say the official organs, authorities, do you have in
22 mind the staff of the Prosecution, the Prosecution staff of the Tribunal?
23 A. It says up here that it is the International Criminal Tribunal and
24 the Prosecution, yes.
25 Q. Now, with regard to the other sample, the other statement which
1 was allegedly given by Husein Ganic to the agency for the investigation
2 of -- and documentation of Sanski Most, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the
3 numbers of those -- that document are 00769318 and 00769319 where the
4 individual who took the statement is listed as Ibric, Ibric Zijad, Zijad
6 A. The statement was given by Husein Ganic.
7 Q. Allegedly?
8 A. On the 14th of July 1998.
9 Q. Yes. Would you tell us now?
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, I would like to
11 remind you that you have 15 minutes in which to complete your
12 examination. Please proceed.
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. We are
14 getting to the crucial point, I hope, within that time limit.
15 Q. Would you tell us the results of your analysis, please, an
16 assessment of the document on the basis of the two samples?
17 A. Yes, of course. And that is the intention of my expert report.
18 May I please use your apparatus and to present my graphical
19 analysis. I think that when doing an analysis of handwriting, that is the
20 best way to do this, when you can see it. You have in front of you a
21 picture on the left-hand side and it says Ganic Husein several times from
22 top to bottom. You can see it here.
23 Now, all these signatures, in my opinion, are identical. I would
24 like to draw your attention, although I don't see that it's necessary, the
25 ornament -- embellishment and ornamentation in which the letter G is
1 written it is highly individual and therefore characteristic.
2 Then the letter H for Husein. The H for Husein. If you look, you
3 see that it has a rudimentary stroke before the H is written and the two,
4 those two lines are cut across making an H with a horizontal line. So the
5 two vertical lines plus the horizontal line, and those are two
6 characteristic things.
7 Second, the S in the name Husein has been written, well how shall
8 I say this, for some it might resemble a treble clef, a musical treble
9 clef whereas other people more lyrically disposed call this type of S a
10 swan-like S.
11 The way in which the N has been written in Ganic, N, with
12 semi-block letters testifies to the fact that this is a man who has not
13 got a highly developed form of handwriting, not had much occasion to use
14 it whereas the embellishment and ornamentation that he has built up with
15 respect to the letters G and H testify and speak of the desire to draw
16 attention to himself. And by that, he helps us in our graphoscopic
17 analysis, this is a great help to us, these two embellishments.
18 What it says at the bottom, 00880690, those are the extended
19 signatures of this person, the initials of this person, that is to say,
20 and I cannot say with the same degree of certainty and probability that it
21 was signed by the same person because I do not have enough material to go
23 What this indicates, that is to say, that these initials from
24 Husein and the abridged form Huso, that it was written by the same
25 person. What leads me to believe that is the almost identical way in
1 which the letter H was written. Once again, a rudimentary vertical line,
2 a rudimentary horizontal line with the two vertical lines cut by this
3 horizontal line.
4 If I were to have more samples of an large -- expanded initial of
5 this kind, I could then tell the Court with greater certitude whether, in
6 fact, my -- whether this bears out my judgement more or not. However,
7 when speaking of expertise of the signature from 00769318 document and
8 document 19, on that -- based on that document, the agency for
9 investigation and documentation, the AID agency, the Sanski Most branch of
10 the AID dated the 14th of July 1998, we have two signatures allegedly by
11 Husein Ganic. On the first page at the bottom, as is customary, he signs
12 to say he has read it, and on the second page, under the column,
13 "Statement given by Ganic Husein," we once again have a signature which
14 is diametrically opposed to the ones that I mentioned a moment ago.
15 Let me draw your attention to the number of the document. In the
16 upper right-hand side, upper right-hand corner, you have a G there, a
17 letter G there, which is elongated, completely elongated, with an arch to
18 the G, which is quite -- written quite differently than the left-hand
20 Next, this was signed by an individual who has a better exercised
21 handwriting than Ganic. There are no block capitals, block letters, and
22 the end of the surname Ganic, the end of that name, is written quite
23 illegibly, where the letters are intertwined, trip each other up, so to
24 speak, which could indicate C diacritic in the Cyrillic script, but as we
25 are dealing with the Latin script here, that loop, that loop that we see,
1 and everything that I have said so far, leads me to believe - and I wanted
2 to inform Your Honours thereof, I don't know the meaning of the document,
3 and in fact I don't read the documents, all I do is look at what I'm
4 supposed to look at without respect to their contents, that that is a
5 forgery, leads me to conclude that this is a forgery. How this came about
6 that in an official document in two places a person signs a name, the name
7 Husein Ganic, who is not Husein Ganic, that is not my field of expertise.
8 I leave it to you. So I have no further -- nothing further to say. I
9 hope that I have been clear and convincing for the purposes of Your
10 Honours. Thank you.
11 Q. If we may summarise for purposes of clarity, may we summarise your
12 findings? With respect to the first signature on this document, which was
13 the subject of your study, the signature on page 1, is it -- does it
14 correspond to the signature on the document which is uncontested? Is it a
15 true copy?
16 A. If you're thinking of the page 1, I can test it fully because that
17 signature on one page and this other signature under the term "statement
18 given" is not authentic and was not done by the hand of Husein.
19 Q. We are not talking about the first page of the two-page document
20 but the first page of the other document which has almost 40 pages, the
21 one written by hand, in handwriting.
22 A. Let me repeat, let me recapitulate. In the 30 or 40 page document
23 written out in hand, long hand, all the signatures of Ganic Husein are his
24 own. As far as the Huso initials at the end are concerned, there is a
25 large probability that that is his too, on the basis of the letter H, how
1 he has written the letter H, but I can't say that with as much certainty
2 as I have stated the rest. I haven't got enough samples.
3 As regards the two-page document, both signatures stem -- are by
4 the same person but that person is not Husein Ganic.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I should like to thank our expert
6 witness. I have no further questions for him, and I hope that I have kept
7 within my time limit.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you. You really did
9 respect the time at your disposal. Thank you.
10 Mr. Waidyaratne, your witness.
11 Cross-examined by Mr. Waidyaratne:
12 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you Your Honour.
13 Q. Good afternoon, Professor.
14 A. Good afternoon.
15 Q. Professor, when were you first instructed in this case?
16 A. In March this year.
17 Q. Could you kindly tell us as to by whom?
18 A. Defence counsel, Mr. Stojanovic, whom I remember when he was a
19 student. He had more hair then, though.
20 Q. I'm sure you must be knowing his brother also, who is a professor
21 of law.
22 A. Of course I do. He was one of my students as well. And so were
23 all the other Defence counsel, as a matter of interest, were my students
24 at one point in time.
25 Q. Now, Professor, if we get into the area that you have discussed in
1 your direct examination, could you tell us as to what your instructions
2 were, specifically, which was given by your client?
3 A. I always write that down in my expert report, in the first three
4 or four lines, and that is what I did in this case too. I was asked --
5 requested that I perform a graphoscopic analysis of the signatures of
6 Husein Ganic to be found in the materials submitted to me. That is why I
7 followed the order I did. I looked at the very lengthy document
8 throughout. I saw that it was written in the handwriting of different
9 people but I saw that the signature was by the same man. Then I looked at
10 the documents that were not contested, because at the beginning, I thought
11 that the last document was also uncontested, and it was only then when I
12 studied it that I discovered a difference.
13 Q. Now, are you telling this Chamber that you were instructed to look
14 into and check the signatures in all three documents? Yes or no?
15 A. Yes, yes. That's what I wrote.
16 Q. How many samples did you have to conduct this examination?
17 A. We said that a moment ago, but I understand your question. I
18 thank you for asking me the question, because I have every respect for the
19 Court's time. I had two doubtful ones and then after that, from 66,
20 number 66, Prosecution Bosnia, up to number 70. On every page I had one
21 signature by Ganic Husein, which was authenticated by the translator, and
22 with a number from the Prosecution. But they are the six numbers, if
23 you're interested, it is 00399566 up to and ending with, inclusive,
24 00399571, inclusive. Plus the two other signatures I mentioned a moment
25 ago which are the doubtful ones, the ones being contested.
1 Q. Professor, were you at any time provided with specimen signatures
2 or writing of Mr. Husein Ganic himself?
3 A. No, I don't even know who the man is. But I took it to be
4 incontestable. You know when we do our findings, our expert opinions, we
5 take signatures from passports, ID cards, savings, post office savings
6 booklets, and that is not contested. And in this case, I thought that
7 what I was given by your Prosecutor, the Prosecution that you represent
8 here, sir, I was given the documents, six or seven documents, and I
9 considered that they were not contested. And it was seen that the
10 signatures were identical with the statement written out in hand.
11 Q. Professor, if we -- if I may use the term as the "questioned
12 document" to the document which you numbered as the 36 pages numbering
13 00880654 to 00880690, is it correct that you were provided or had two
14 other documents with the signatures of Mr. Husein Ganic?
15 A. Here they are before me. I can show you if you wish. This is
16 it. That's what I received.
17 Q. Thank you very much, Professor. I have the copies of the
18 documents which you have recently viewed.
19 I don't think you understood my question. If we term -- if the
20 term as the "questioned document" to the document which I gave the
21 numbers, 36-page document, will you agree with me that you had two other
22 documents, that is, the document in simple terms which you said -- which
23 was a statement by Husein Ganic given to the OTP and another statement
24 given by Husein Ganic to the AID; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, you were not asked or requested to examine or comment on the
2 two samples that were provided to you, were you?
3 A. No. No. I was given a group of documents that you quoted as
4 samples which allow me to compare, for comparison purposes, and I assume
5 that lawyer Stojanovic thought, as I did at the beginning, that they were
6 documents that were given before very official organs and that they can be
7 considered incontestable. But criminology is always skeptical, and this
8 time, that skepticism proved justified.
9 Q. So Mr. Stojanovic did not correctly advise you as to what you
10 should do; is that your position?
11 A. No. No. Of course not. If you want me to repeat, let me say it
12 again. I was told to take a look and see if in the thick document, if I
13 may call it that, there are the signatures of this man Husein Ganic. And
14 I told him, well, you have to give me some uncontestable signatures,
15 signatures that are not -- there's no doubt that they are the right ones.
16 And when I looked, all of them coincided except the two that I pointed out
17 to Their Honours and to you, yourself.
18 Q. So your position is that you only, from the beginning, accepted
19 the statement that was given to the OTP by Husein Ganic which he signed as
20 the only document as the sample and uncontested; is that correct?
21 A. No. To understand me better, what I got was a large, lengthy
22 statement written in handwriting, and I was told to see if the same man
23 had written it. I took a look and saw that it was the same man, and then
24 I said well give me some samples, and he gave me the samples and you know
25 what evolved from that.
1 Q. So what are the samples to make this confusion, settle this all,
2 what are the samples -- please refer to the documents.
3 A. Well, I am very happy, and don't be angry, I'm very happy that the
4 Prosecution before this Tribunal, as in our own case, asks a lot of
5 questions. I don't think there is any misunderstanding. Let me go
6 through it again.
7 The statement with the numbers from 00880654 up until 690, I have
8 called the thick statement colloquially speaking. The sample for
9 comparison is 0039566 up until 571 inclusive. Those are my samples.
10 Plus, I was given a separate document which is 00769318 and 69319. I hope
11 that there cannot be any misunderstanding now and I hope that I have been
12 very clear.
13 All these signatures, except the 18 and 19 one, were signed by
14 hand by Husein Ganic in his own hand. The other two, however, he did not
15 write, and I am categoric in stating that I'm just not categoric for the
16 extended initials at the end of the large document. If I were to have
17 more material, more samples, then I could tell you about the those
18 initials, the expanded initials. Otherwise, I am quite clear.
19 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... with the time. So from the
20 last answer, you said that you were provided with the OTP statement,
21 please don't -- I hope I won't confuse you, and also with the statement
22 made to the AID which is numbered 00769319.
23 A. 19, yes, and 19.
24 Q. It was also --
25 A. In addition to -- that's right. Yes.
1 Q. Now, after these two samples, you have straight away said that's
2 the document 00769319, if I may quote you from your report at page 1, "The
3 slant and the calibre of the letters and the lack of semi-block letters in
4 the signature demonstrate that it was made by another person."
5 Am I correct, you have said that in your report?
6 A. Yes. Good. What else does it say?
7 Q. I will come to it gradually. Professor, is it your position that
8 it was made by another person or written differently?
9 A. I believe I explained it and demonstrated it in a picture. If you
10 could perhaps show it once again, it will be easier for us to use the
11 document. It's like in case of witnesses, one pair of eyes is worth more
12 than ten pairs of ears.
13 Q. Could you answer my question, was it a different writing or -- a
14 different writing or is it made by a different person? That's a simple
15 question to you.
16 A. Yes, certainly. Thank you for your question. But have a look at
17 the screen yourself. On the left-hand side, you will see the original
18 signature of Husein Ganic and on the right-hand side, you have the
19 signature of this other individual who is unknown to me, and I think that
20 you can see with your bare eye that the writing of the individual who
21 signed the text on the right-hand side is better exercised than the
22 handwriting of Husein Ganic.
23 Second, letter G, which in the original signature of Husein Ganic
24 is quite embellished and ornamented is written here in a very classical
25 manner with an elongated middle, upper part and this end line at the very
1 end of the signature, the transfers line is completely different and
2 cannot be found anywhere else.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Mr. Waidyaratne, to
4 interrupt you.
5 I should like to ask the question in a different way,
6 Mr. Aleksic. If we have a look at the two signatures, if we compare the
7 two signatures, the document 570 -- no, no, let it stay there -- yes,
8 thank you -- and 319, these two signatures, is it possible that they were
9 made by one and the same person in view of your experience and expertise?
10 A. I'm very sorry if I am not clear enough. Let me try to clarify
11 the matter. The signature Husein Ganic on the right-hand side, unlike the
12 one on the left-hand side, the individual who wrote it must have at least
13 ten years more of school. It was written by a person with a
14 well-exercised handwriting, someone who has written a lot. However, on
15 the left-hand side, you can see that the signature was done in a
16 painstaking way which is characteristic of people who are not very
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me go on and conclude. Is
19 it that it is not possible for these two signatures to have been made by
20 one and the same person; is that what you're trying to tell us,
22 A. Yes. Yes. You're quite right.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but now I need to
24 understand what do you mean when you said, "Yes."
25 A. These two signatures, Your Honour, are so different that when this
1 right-hand side signature, when the individual who signed that wanted to
2 sign -- imitate the left-handed signature, he would definitely need a lot
3 of time to exercise, but the person on the left-hand side would never be
4 able to imitate the signature of the person on the right-hand side.
5 As regards the signature on the disputed document, we have also
6 the signature of the official of -- the member of the agency in question,
7 so this question of yours should perhaps be put to that official.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
9 Mr. Aleksic.
10 Mr. Waidyaratne, please continue.
11 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Professor, please explain to the Chamber, in this case that you
13 have compared the signatures, was it the form of separate letters as
14 presented on paper with the flowing handwriting, which is sometimes
15 referred to as script and cursive, the one that you examined in the
16 document 00769319?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if you look at the document, the questioned document that I
19 said -- sorry, the other document, 00399566, would you call it semi-block
20 letters? That's a signature in semi-block letters?
21 A. Yes, that is correct. It was written in semi-block letters, in
22 the signature, which I claim to be the signature of Husein Ganic, we can
23 see that it is the signature of a man whose handwriting is not well
24 exercised, who tries to draw attention to himself by embellishing the
25 first letters of his name and surname. He writes in semi-block letters
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and English transcripts
1 because very often you would find the -- this with people who do not have
2 a well-exercised handwriting, and when they have to write on the documents
3 which they deem -- which they think are very important, in order to attach
4 even more importance to that document, they usually write in semi-block
5 letters. That is quite typical. Furthermore, letters G and H are
6 embellished letters indeed. However they are embellished in such a
7 primitive way that I think that the other signature on the right-hand side
8 cannot be compared. That is, the man on the right-hand side cannot be
9 made to imitate the signature on the left-hand side. It simply cannot be
11 Q. Professor, will you agree that the two documents that you
12 compared --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- the writing in the documents were in different style?
15 A. Yes, completely, and also in terms of the slant. The slant is
16 towards the right side, as you can see on the screen.
17 Q. Professor, can one person, an individual, write in two or more
19 A. Of course, by all means. I have to tell you, though, this may not
20 be of any interest to the Court, you use one type of letters when writing
21 a letter, and different types of letters when signing a document, and yet
22 another type of letters when applying an expanded initials to the
23 document. So when you have a letter with a signature of an individual,
24 you cannot compare the contents of the letter with the actual signature,
25 no. The art of forgery is quite a developed one but this is not possible
1 in this case because when you magnify 30 times this signature, Husein
2 Ganic, you see that this type of letters, G and H, could only be written
3 by drawing. However, when you magnify it, when you multiply it the way I
4 did, and when you apply a special light on it, you see what the situation
5 is. Unfortunately, I was able to see the originals only when I came
6 here. If I had had the originals beforehand, I would have been able
7 perhaps to make some additional conclusions, but I know that the
8 signatures of Husein Ganic were not drawn. They were actually written.
9 Q. Professor --
10 A. And there are no -- nothing has been added to them.
11 Q. Because of the time limit, I have to ask the questions quite
12 fast. You from the beginning said that you were provided with originals
13 by your clients. Is it correct that -- if I say that you were not
14 provided with originals but you were provided with always photocopies? Is
15 it correct or not?
16 A. No, no, it is correct, but as I told you, I only received the
17 originals when I came here, and I am thankful to your office for that.
18 Q. Now, Professor, to correct you again, if I may say you met with
19 the -- an investigator on the 20 -- two days ago from the OTP; is that
21 A. Yes, on the 23rd.
22 Q. I'm sure he was not able to provide you with an original but he
23 provided another photocopy which I have in my hand now; is that correct?
24 Because the OTP --
25 A. I will tell you right away, he could -- he was able to show me
1 only these 36 pages on a copy, and I had the same kind of document, the
2 same kind of copy, so it wasn't of any interest to me. He also showed me
3 the document from Bosnia, a copy of it, so that was not usable either.
4 However, the documents 566 to 570 were shown to me in their original
5 form. And I know that because I knew that the signatures of the
6 interpreters were done in ink.
7 Q. So, but you were not -- you did not see originals. Even the OTP
8 had, to put the record correct, always copies; is that correct?
9 A. I just told you, 566 through 570 are the originals. You have the
10 originals and you have shown them to me. Have a look at the first page
11 and you will see the name Janja Pavetic which is written in ink.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic?
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that the
14 question is not clear. The expert is asked about the originals as regards
15 the samples and the originals of the samples which were given to him by
16 the members of the Tribunal, or the photocopied originals.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Waidyaratne?
18 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Please bear with me, Your Honour. I will -- I
19 think there is a confusion because the professor uses the word
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but I think -- yes, there
22 is a confusion definitely. You have to define "original." What do you
23 mean when you say "an original"? It can be a document, it can be a
24 signature, even on a copy. You keep mixing several notions. Can you help
25 us? Can you explain the term to us so that we can clarify the issue?
1 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Very well, Your Honour.
2 Q. Professor, I will ask you a direct question. When you met with
3 the investigator of the OTP --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- two days ago, is it correct if I say that the OTP or the
6 investigator from the OTP provided what was in his possession, the copy of
7 the document which had 36 pages and also copies of the other two
8 documents? Is that correct?
9 A. No. Two such green folders were brought to me, were shown to me.
10 I hope we will clarify the matter now. Two such green folders were
11 brought to me. One was containing the large report, a photocopy of the
12 large report. I told him I didn't need it because I had it. Then he gave
13 me the second folder which contained, in addition to the two contested
14 documents, six of your documents in its original form, as far as I could
15 see. Janja Pavetic signed the document as an interpreter. You have it.
16 You can have a look at it. I think I remember it correctly, that her
17 signature was written in ink. However, I should like to tell you and
18 Their Honours something. The copies which I used allow for the truth to
19 be established. They are not that bad, and one can perhaps deviate from
20 the principle of graphus conicalus [phoen], and perhaps we could work from
21 a copy. In my country, which has been through a war, has actually forced
22 us to work on the basis of copies. I don't see what a copy would change
23 in this case, compared with an original. Perhaps only if we should use a
24 quartz lamp on the document and then we can perhaps find out whether the
25 line was used and whether there was any indentation on the document, on
1 the back side of the document, where the signature is, but I don't know in
2 what way that would help us when it comes to this typical form of letters
3 G and H.
4 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Your Honour, I have the copy which has been
5 shown by the investigator to the learned professor. Can I make use of the
6 usher to show him this copy and also for the Chamber to have a look at the
7 document which has been shown? Thank you, Your Honour. Without taking
8 much time. Thank you.
9 JUDGE WALD: Well, let me ask you a question. You're telling us
10 now, after the witness has testified, as I understand it, that he was
11 shown two folders, one was a photocopy of a large report, the other folder
12 had six OTP documents, some of which were in an original form, and he's
13 suggested that he could tell some by the ink that was in there. So are
14 you just going to make an assertion as a witness now, that what you're
15 going to show us was what was shown to him? Or are you going to put in
16 some proof? Because otherwise we have to take your word for that's what
17 was shown to him, and then he says whatever he will say.
18 MR. WAIDYARATNE: At this moment, Your Honour I would show the
19 document to him. If he does not dispute, I would -- the matter would be
20 settled, but if he disputes I would call an investigator who showed him
21 the copies at the appropriate stage. Is that --
22 JUDGE WALD: I just wanted to clarify that.
23 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. Professor, please look at this document and tell us whether it is
25 the document?
1 A. No. This is not what we were talking about. This report -- this
2 is a report, a copy, and I have the same copy, so I didn't want to look at
3 it once again. I don't know what you -- what it is that you want to show
4 me. Do you have the second document? Can you show it to me?
5 MR. WAIDYARATNE: I will show the six-page document. The previous
6 document was numbered from 00880654 to 00880690. Document which I intend
7 to show the learned professor is now marked as 00399563 to 00399571.
8 Q. Professor, please see, to enlighten us as to whether this is the
9 document that you saw when you went to --
10 A. Let me just have a look. No. No. No. That is not what I saw.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm sorry to interrupt you,
13 Mr. Waidyaratne, were you present when the documents were shown to
15 MR. WAIDYARATNE: No, Your Honour, no. I was given this
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We have perhaps here a certain
18 confusion. We would like to know what documents were used. Would you
19 please lead us out of this confusion?
20 A. Mr. President, if you will allow me, the matter is quite clear.
21 The first two pages which the Prosecutor has just given me 6364, I didn't
22 see them. As regards the following pages from 66 and 71, those are indeed
23 the originals and they were signed by the interpreter in ink.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Professor.
25 I think, I hope that the Prosecutor will move on, otherwise we will just
1 continue going on in circles and wasting our time.
2 Mr. Waidyaratne, please continue.
3 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Professor, you said in your direct examination that the document
5 that you numbered from 00880654 to 00880690, in your opinion, had been
6 made by more than one person; is that correct?
7 A. Yes. Yes. It is correct. I will show you. Let me show you.
8 Why you don't want me to show you, because it is quite clear that it was
9 not signed by the same person.
10 Your Honours, please allow me to have a quick look at the report
11 and I think I will be able to explain to you what I'm trying to say. I
12 wish to convince you with my experience and my expertise that this report
13 was signed [as interpreted] by at least two persons.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Professor, you have
15 answered the questions. Maybe later on you will have to answer questions
16 of the Judges, but let us -- I think that Mr. Waidyaratne should continue
17 with his questions.
18 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic.
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that there
21 has been an error in the transcript, a vital error, and it says that the
22 documents were signed by at least two persons whereas the professor said
23 that they were written by at least two people, not signed, but written
24 by. That is line -- page 99, line 7. It says "signed," it should be
25 "written," written by at least two persons.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.
2 Mr. Waidyaratne.
3 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Professor, please, very briefly your report. At page 2, you have
5 said, if I may quote the last sentence, "A most certain conclusion in this
6 respect would be possible if several such abbreviated signatures were
8 And you testified to that effect. So is it correct that --
9 A. Expanded.
10 Q. It is not conclusive, it's inconclusive?
11 A. Quite right. I said in my expert findings that the signatures of
12 the name Huso which is abbreviated, an abbreviation for Husein, were --
13 would seem to be authentic. A more certain conclusion in this respect
14 would be possible if several such abbreviated signatures were available.
15 Now, what prompted me to make that assertion, because it is only
16 the H that is identical in this expanded initialling. Only the H is
18 Q. Now, Professor, you submitted another report with regard to -- I
19 do not know whether the Defence submitted that report or -- the report
20 from you on probative value of testimony in criminal proceedings?
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] That is another report. It's a
22 different report, and we are going to have the professor here as two
23 expert witnesses. We are now dealing with his first report which is the
24 graphoscopic analysis.
25 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you. Please bear
1 with me for a moment. Thank you.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 A. While they are having their consultation, may I place on the
4 screen the assertion for my observation that this long document was
5 written by at least two people. You have the page numbers. I think that
6 it is self-evident. If you look at them, you will come to the same
7 conclusions yourself. Why -- how this came about, I don't wish to enter
8 into that.
9 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Thank you Your Honour, that concludes my
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Stojanovic, any
12 additional questions?
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I just have a
14 moment to look at page 99, line 7, the reason for my intervention that I
15 thought that it was incorrectly translated. It refers to the long
16 document, the thick document.
17 Re-examined by Mr. Stojanovic:
18 Q. Professor Aleksic, did you answer to that question, was your
19 answer that on the handwritten document, did you say that the same
20 document was written by at least two different people or signed by two
21 different people? Which was it? What did you say?
22 A. Thank you for putting that question to me. I showed a moment ago
23 on the picture on the ELMO that this was written, written by at least two
24 different people, whereas all the signatures in that document by Husein
25 Ganic to say the thick document, handwritten, all the signatures belong to
1 Ganic Husein.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.
5 Judge Fouad Riad has the floor.
6 Questioned by the Court:
7 JUDGE RIAD: Professor, good afternoon.
8 A. Good afternoon.
9 JUDGE RIAD: Usually when you ask a professor a question, it is to
10 learn something from him.
11 I would just like to ask you a general question which, in fact,
12 puzzles me always. I never write two signatures in the same way. People
13 sometimes even call me from the bank to tell me if it's my signature.
14 Now, how far can you affirm with certitude that two different signatures
15 belong or don't belong to the same person?
16 A. Thank you for that question, Your Honour. This has provided me
17 with an opportunity to say something that -- and to point out something
18 that you stated so exactly. When we come across two -- the graphologist,
19 when they find two signatures that are the same, we automatically say that
20 one of the two is a forgery because, as you say, a man can never sign his
21 name in exactly the same way twice but there are general characteristics,
22 general traits. You might resemble the signature of your professor, for
23 example, so you imitate this signature. That is one thing. Or you might
24 imitate the characteristics, and this is what we have before us now.
25 If we look at these six signatures that you have on the screen on
1 the ELMO, they are not exactly the same, exactly identical, but the
2 individual characteristics of some of the letters that I talked about, not
3 to repeat what I said, are such that this is incontestable. But had we --
4 but if the two signatures coincided, were superimposed, then I would say
5 that one of the two was a forgery.
6 JUDGE RIAD: The interpretation stopped.
7 A. I didn't say anything more.
8 JUDGE RIAD: So in fact, there is some kind of infallible
9 indicator with which you can settle whether it is a forgery or not,
10 without going into details.
11 A. If I place on a window one signature for which I suspect -- which
12 I suspect might be a forgery and put another one, and if one is
13 superimposed exactly on another, I will say that it was a forgery. I
14 tried to explain this by using the example of a window, of course we have
15 more sophisticated technology now. But I mean if you superimposed two
16 exactly identical signatures, I would have to say that one of them was a
18 JUDGE RIAD: But I would say on the contrary that it was the same
19 person if they are exactly the same.
20 A. Yes. Yes. There is graphometry that measures the box although --
21 which is the same although it is different to the naked eye. But take a
22 look at the G and the H. If you take a look at the letters, take a look
23 at the G and the H.
24 MR. WAIDYARATNE: Mr. Lukic is talking to the witness. I'm sorry
25 I made this observation, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I be of
3 assistance? I don't think the question was understood correctly. Could
4 it be read out from the transcript again, please?
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [No interpretation]
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Judge Riad [In English] It was
7 the same person if they are exactly the same.
8 [Interpretation] Could we have that interpreted again, Judge
9 Riad's comment interpreted again, please.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Why are you saying that,
11 Mr. Stojanovic?
12 JUDGE RIAD: I'll ask it again.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I apologise, Judge Fouad Riad.
14 Mr. Lukic, for the transcript to be clear, were you about to make
15 an observation with respect to the transcript or did you have other
17 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, I just wanted to point out to the
18 witness that he didn't understand Judge Riad, and that's true that I
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you for giving us that
21 explanation, but it is not up to you to do the work. Please be seated.
22 MR. LUKIC: My apologies.
23 JUDGE RIAD: Perhaps it is the question of a layman. So if two
24 signatures are very much alike, is it a sign that it is the same person or
25 it is not the same person?
1 A. No. Only if they were completely superimposed one on top of the
2 other and they were the same, it means that they were -- one of them was
3 copied out.
4 JUDGE RIAD: Good, thank you very much.
5 A. [In English] Thank you. [Interpretation] I apologise to the
6 Court. It would appear that I'm not quite clear today. Luckily, my
7 students who are now famous lawyers don't have to pass their exams with
8 me, otherwise our roles would have been inverted.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Professor, things are very often
10 not clear because the weather in Holland is not the same as it is in your
11 country. Madam Judge Wald has the floor.
12 JUDGE WALD: Professor, I just want to clear up one of your
13 answers, and it may be the English translation. It appeared in the
14 translation to say that if you superimposed on your window two signatures
15 which were exactly the same, one would be a forgery, and I don't think you
16 meant that, so I just want to make sure now. I assumed you didn't, so let
17 me ask you?
18 A. [In English] You're absolutely right. [Interpretation] Your
19 Honour, Judge, it is overlapping, not -- if you have five fingers and then
20 you put another five fingers on top, that means that it has been traced,
21 because you cannot have exactly the same signature twice.
22 JUDGE WALD: All right. I think it's much clearer now. You're
23 saying if they really were exactly, that would be suspicious and it would
24 make you think it really was some kind of a forgery, if it didn't have a
25 normal range of deviation.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and English transcripts
1 A. If they overlap completely.
2 JUDGE WALD: I've got it now but I wanted to get it clear here.
3 The second thing I wanted is, we are all familiar with -- in the legal
4 profession, with the fact that sometimes people set out to purposely
5 disguise their handwriting, not to forge somebody else's signature but to
6 disguise their own handwriting, in certain situations. Do you think it
7 conceivable or possible, based on your expertise, that the same person
8 could have done these two signatures, the ones on the right hand and left
9 hand, if he purposely sought to disguise his handwriting? Or would your
10 expertise and your scientific equipment enable you to see through that and
11 to see that it was the same person disguising their handwriting?
12 A. Judge, thank you for the question because it gives me an
13 opportunity to be clearer now, perhaps. In this particular case, it is
14 impossible -- it is impossible that the right-hand side can resemble the
15 left-hand side, and even less possible for the left-hand side to be
16 written on the way the right-hand side is because the letters are written
17 differently, with the absence of every embellishment and ornaments. I put
18 this forward as a personal opinion without wishing to suggest it, but the
19 person that wrote the signature Ganic Husein didn't even try to make his
20 signature resemble Husein Ganic's actual signature. That is arrogance,
21 and I do have cases of that kind in my country.
22 JUDGE WALD: My last question. There is a time difference in when
23 two of the statements, I believe. The statements which you found
24 similarities in were done in 1995 and 1996, and the statement that you
25 thought was not Husein Ganic's testimony was done a few years later, 1998,
1 I think, like that. Does a person's handwriting tend to stay pretty
2 stable? I'm thinking of things like whether or not in 1995, when you're
3 still under the influence possibly of a trauma or that sort of thing, a
4 few years later, is it possible that your state of mind is reflected in a
5 change in your handwriting? Or does your handwriting -- your signature
6 stay pretty stable throughout your life?
7 A. Let me tell you, after the ages of 18 or 19, or as a student, if
8 your handwriting remains unchanged, then it will remain unchanged until
9 you come under the influence of stress or medicaments of any kind or
10 disease or age, if it is has stayed the same throughout the period of your
11 student days. Or you might have cancer. Then this would be drastically
12 reflected on the handwriting. But otherwise, there is a very slight
13 difference for the most part. But let me say that these two are
14 signatures from two completely different groups of people. The person
15 that signed Husein Ganic's signature will change, undergo quite different
16 changes, than will the actual signature of Husein Ganic, the handwriting
17 of Ganic Husein, who if he has a disease or if he is ill in any way, if he
18 has a carcinoma or has to take medicaments, then this will be an even
19 worse picture, not only with regard to his ability to write, but his
20 letters will have become completely illegible. And there are people who
21 are psychologists and graphological experts who are able to determine--
22 for example, the last book I read on that subject says that schizophrenia
23 can very certainly be detected and some other psychological diseases can
24 be detected on the basis of a person's handwriting. There is a man called
25 Lovrov in Russia, who with the help of handwriting -- who uses handwriting
1 to determine a brain tumour, for example, and what region the brain tumour
2 is located so that the surgeon can operate that particular region where
3 the tumour is actually located in the head. So all that is possible. In
4 this case, quite simply, the two are incompatible because it is such a
5 drastic difference, and I hope you understand me when I say that. Thank
7 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam
9 Judge. Professor Aleksic, I have two questions for you. The emotional
10 stability, generally speaking, of an individual, can it be reflected in
11 his handwriting?
12 A. By all means, Your Honour. It is also part of the study that I
13 just mentioned, I will give you an example, although I don't want to waste
14 your time here. But pursuant to the manner of -- in which a telephone
15 number was written, it was possible for us to establish that the woman in
16 question had not been raped, because her handwriting was very neat with
17 all the neat little details and so on and so forth. When she came to the
18 police to give her statement, she was very frightened because she knew she
19 had falsely accused the man of rape. She wrote down her name without such
20 embellishments such loops and things like that, so the case was closed.
21 And she actually married the man she had previously accused and she has
22 two children with him.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I have another question for you,
24 Professor Aleksic. An expert in graphology, based on the answer you have
25 just given to us, would it be possible for him to reach a different
1 conclusion from that of an expert in graphoscopy?
2 A. The procedures are very similar in every country. There is also
3 possibility to make an additional expertise and also to carry out an
4 expertise by a commission which is then deemed to be the authority,
5 because I must admit that despite all the recent developments and the
6 technology, because, you know that today one can use documents to open
7 bank safes and so on and so forth, the methodology is still considered to
8 be quite subjective methodology. So there are three groups of -- three
9 types of expertise in cases of doubt on the part of the Court.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] My second question for you,
11 Professor, is the following. As far as we understand, Mr. Husein Ganic
12 was never in front of you. He never signed his name in front of you?
13 A. No, he did not.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me ask you the following
15 question. His presence, was it indispensable or not for the conclusions
16 that we can consider as final and definitive?
17 A. Your Honour, my -- in my profession, it is quite customary to
18 analyse wills and very often the wills are subject of various disputes and
19 litigations and the handwriting cannot be authenticated because the person
20 in question is deceased. So what we do is what I just did in this case.
21 We take the signatures from his passport, his medical documentation,
22 letters, postcards, and so on and so forth. So the handwriting is
23 compared in that manner. And of course, if it was possible for the person
24 in question to appear before the Court, then we would never have his
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but my question was a
2 theoretical one. You are here as a witness expert. Would his presence
3 have been important, decisive, indispensable or not?
4 A. Of course, it would be useful to me, and it would have facilitated
5 my work. However, as things stand now, from what I can see here, in view
6 of my experience - and I have been dealing with the matter since 1961,
7 sometimes only for the purposes of state authorities, sometimes on a
8 private basis, I also sometimes work for foreign commissioners - and in
9 view of all that experience that I have, I can tell you that this was not
10 a particularly difficult type of expertise, except in the case of the
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Professor.
13 We have no further questions regarding this matter for the time being.
14 Tomorrow we will hear you once again for the purposes of another subject
15 matter and the procedure will be more or less the same.
16 Let me ask the usher to accompany you out of the courtroom and we
17 will see you tomorrow morning.
18 A. Thank you very much for your time and patience, Your Honours.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So we will see each other again
21 tomorrow morning at 9.20, to continue our work.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
23 3.18 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday the 26th day
24 of April, 2001, at 9.20 a.m.