1 Monday, 15 July 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is the case number IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus
10 Ratko Mladic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 The Chamber was informed that there are no preliminaries. But
13 before we start, Judge Fluegge is for urgent personal reasons unable to
14 sit today. We expect him back tomorrow. Judge Moloto and I have
15 considered whether it would be in the interest of justice to continue to
16 hear the case. We concluded that it is.
17 Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?
18 MS. MacGREGOR: Yes, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the witness be escorted into the
21 Estimates for today are one hour in chief, Ms. MacGregor, and two
22 hours for cross.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Wright, I presume.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Wright, before you give evidence, the Rules
2 require that you make a solemn declaration that you will speak the truth,
3 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text is now handed out
4 to you. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
5 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
6 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
8 Mr. Wright, when I am addressing you as "Mr. Wright" and not as
9 "Professor Wright, it has got nothing to do with not fully appreciating
10 your professional standards. It's a habit in this court that we call
11 people by their rather than by rank or title.
12 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 Ms. MacGregor will now examine you. Ms. MacGregor is counsel for
15 the Prosecution. You'll find her to your right.
16 Ms. MacGregor, you may proceed.
17 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 WITNESS: RICHARD WRIGHT
19 Examination by Ms. MacGregor:
20 Q. Good morning, Professor Wright. If you can please state your
21 full name for the record.
22 A. My full name is Richard Vernon Stafford Wright.
23 Q. And I remind you and also myself that we must pause between our
24 questions and answers since we are both speaking in the same language to
25 wait for the translation.
1 MS. MacGREGOR: If the court officer can please show
2 65 ter 29102. I believe this has been loaded into e-court. If not,
3 please let me know. This is --
4 THE REGISTRAR: The document is not in e-court, Your Honours.
5 MS. MacGREGOR: One moment, Your Honours.
6 Ms. Stewart informs me that it's being released just now. Would
7 you like the 65 ter number again? Okay.
8 Your Honours, this is an updated copy of Professor Wright's CV
9 which is the reason for the new 65 ter number. I've provided a copy to
10 the Defence. Unfortunately there is not yet a B/C/S translation,
11 although there are very few differences with the prior copy.
12 THE REGISTRAR: It takes a few minutes from the moment it's
13 released until --
14 MS. MacGREGOR: Perhaps instead, then, we should show the older
15 version and that is at 65 ter 05334. I can then question the witness
16 about the significant differences that would have come up.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed as you suggest.
18 MS. MacGREGOR:
19 Q. Professor Wright, if you see on the screen in front of you there
20 is a copy of the -- actually, I'm just checking. The one on the right is
21 in English. Is this a copy of your CV?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. And as you have heard, it is not the most recent version that you
24 have provided but does it summarise for the most part your educational
25 and professional background?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now it lists you as an emeritus professor of anthropology,
3 although the reports you have provided to the Tribunal are archeological
4 in nature. Can you explain the difference?
5 A. Yes, in the older universities the word "anthropology" covered
6 human evolution and physical anthropology, that's bones. It covered
7 archeology other than classical archeology, and it covered cultural
8 anthropology. So I was an archeologist within a department of
9 anthropology in the broad umbrella of the term.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. MacGregor, I am informed that the uploading into
11 e-court is complete by now. So perhaps we could work on the basis of the
12 newest version.
13 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you, Mr. President. And the 65 ter for
14 that is 29102.
15 Q. Professor Wright, when the new document comes on the screen,
16 which it is now there, is this a copy of the more current version of the
18 A. I'll have to see the end of the last page to see the date, I'm
20 Q. Are you able to see?
21 A. Yes, I haven't updated it since then.
22 Q. Okay.
23 MS. MacGREGOR: If the Registrar can turn back to the first page.
24 Q. There is an AM listed beside your name that was not included on
25 the prior copy of your CV. Can you explain what that means?
1 A. Yes, that means I was made a Member of the Order of Australia for
2 forensic work that I've done.
3 Q. When you say "the Order of Australia," what does that mean?
4 A. It's an honour granted by the Governor-General of Australia.
5 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders
6 Professor Wright's CV.
7 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Document 29102 receives number P1760,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
11 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. Professor Wright, you have testified at the Tribunal several
13 times as an expert about your work on exhumations for the Office of the
14 Prosecution. Which cases have you testified in?
15 A. I testified in the case of Krstic, Tolimir, Popovic et al., and
17 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review the statement that the
18 Prosecution is tendering of yours today which is part of your Krstic and
19 Karadzic testimony?
20 A. Yes, I did review that.
21 Q. And was that testimony true to the best of your knowledge when
22 you gave it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would you give the same answers in substance if asked the same
25 questions today?
1 A. Yes, I would.
2 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders the
3 92 ter statement for Professor Wright under 65 ter number -- I'm sorry,
4 Ms. Stewart is telling me that there is not yet a 65 ter number. If you
5 can give me one moment.
6 Your Honours, it was tendered by the Prosecution in its
7 Rule 92 ter motion submitted, which the Defence has responded to.
8 However, due to my oversight, I did not include it on the exhibit list so
9 it does not have a 65 ter number. The motion was filed by the
10 Prosecution on July 1st, 2013. I don't know if there is a mechanism for
11 directing the Chamber's attention to it now so that it can be seen. I
12 know that the Defence has seen it and has replied to it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I've read it, but if there is no 65 ter number and
14 if there is no exhibit number, then I'm afraid that we are unable to
15 consult it on our screens.
16 If Ms. Stewart would be in a position to show it in Sanction,
17 then we could at least have it on our screens. I have the hard copy in
18 front of me.
19 MS. MacGREGOR: I'll -- as is, I think, probably, evident, the
20 Prosecution will be tendering that statement. It is not a written
21 statement with a signature, so I don't need to show it to the witness in
22 order to have him recognise his signature.
23 JUDGE ORIE: But for admission we need to have it in the system,
24 otherwise we restart a paper trial, which this is not.
25 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honours, would it be possible to continue
1 with the examination while Ms. Stewart's colleague uploads it into
3 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the Defence.
4 Mr. Stojanovic, any problem? No problems.
5 We'll continue as you suggest.
6 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you. And thank you also to my colleagues
7 for their efforts.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Once it has been assigned a 65 ter number, then, of
9 course, you should ask leave to add it to your 65 ter list. And after
10 that, we can consider whether or not we'll -- once tendered, whether we
11 can admit it or not.
12 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you, Your Honours. Would it be wise to
13 delay the reading of the witness's 92 ter summary into evidence until
14 that point or should I go ahead and do that?
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think you can go ahead.
16 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you.
17 Professor Wright started work for the ICTY in 1997. In 1998 he
18 led the exhumations at the mass grave sites at the Red Dam,
19 Cancari Road 3, Cancari Road 12, Hodzici Road 3, 4, and 5, Liplje 2, and
20 Zeleni Jadar 5. In 1999 he exhumed a primary mass grave at Kozluk and at
21 Kevljani. In 2000 he led the exhumations at Glogova, Pasinac, and Redak.
22 Professor Wright began his examinations when he would be taken by ICTY
23 investigators to a suspected mass grave site. It was then his job to
24 find the actual location of the grave within that suspect area.
25 First the site was checked for mines and booby-traps and a
1 surveying team was set up to record the grave's contents. A backhoe
2 would then be used to scrape off the surface of the soil until
3 Professor Wright was satisfied that the complete outline of the grave had
4 been uncovered.
5 Each of the bodies within the grave was surveyed with a
6 three-dimensional recording system, and each body or body part was
7 photographed and assigned a unique number. When a virtually complete
8 body was removed, the experts also filled out a form called a "body
9 sheet" which described the properties of the body. Once the bodies and
10 body parts had been exhumed, they were sent to the morgue for
11 anthropological and pathological analysis.
12 Professor Wright would also examine and note any artefacts or
13 other items contained in the graves, in addition to noting any
14 significant factors related to the structure, composition, or nature of
15 the graves. Professor Wright summarised his findings in written reports
16 which he provided to the Office of the Prosecutor.
17 May I now continue with questions for the witness?
18 JUDGE ORIE: You may.
19 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you.
20 Q. Professor Wright, in the summary I just read, I referenced
21 several reports that you wrote on exhumations. And as you know, the
22 Prosecution is tendering those reports that you did on your exhumations
23 in Prijedor and Srebrenica. Did you have an opportunity to review those
24 reports before testifying today?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. And do you still stand by the analysis and conclusions of those
3 A. Yes.
4 MS. MacGREGOR: If the court officer can please show the
5 1998 report, which is 65 ter 04603, page 24 in e-court in the English
6 version and page 26 in the B/C/S version.
7 Q. And, Professor Wright, in a few moments, a section from your
8 report from 1998 will come on the screen. This is the section on
9 Hodzici 04. To the right of your screen is the English version, and if
10 you look at the section near the bottom H --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam MacGregor, is it 04 or 05?
12 MS. MacGREGOR: 04.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, on the screen we see 05.
14 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honour --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. Now we do see 04 too.
16 MS. MacGREGOR: Okay.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
18 MS. MacGREGOR:
19 Q. If you can please direct your attention to section HZ04, the
20 fourth paragraph in the section, it's actually the last sentence on the
21 page, this sentence says:
22 "Dr. Tony Brown visited the exhumation, and on the basis of
23 several properties concludes that the graves at Lazete are the origin of
25 Now should this sentence be referring to grave HZ05 or HZ04?
1 A. I made a typological error there. It should refer to HZ04.
2 Q. Okay.
3 MS. MacGREGOR: And if we can please look at the next paragraph.
4 And the court officer, this will require turning to the next page in the
5 English although staying on the same page in B/C/S. We'll give the
6 document a moment to catch up.
7 Q. If you see the first sentence on your page, and in B/C/S this is
8 the last sentence in the section on HZ04, and this is essentially the
9 same question. We see a reference to HZ05 and what should that actually
10 be referring to?
11 A. It should refer to HZ04. It's the same mistake.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you.
13 MS. MacGREGOR: And I will no longer need that document.
14 Q. I want to move on now to discuss in general your methodology in
15 conducting exhumations and in writing the reports for the Office of the
16 Prosecution. How were you initially contacted to lead exhumations for
17 the OTP?
18 A. I was contacted by the then deputy -- Deputy Prosecutor,
19 Mr. Graham Blewitt, and asked if I would head up the team for '97 that
20 was going to be working at Brcko.
21 Q. Did you have prior experience or training with mass grave
23 A. Yes, I did. In 1990 and 1991, I was employed by the Australian
24 Attorney-General's Department to exhume three mass graves in the Ukraine.
25 These dated from 1942 and were the subject of an investigation by the
1 Australian Attorney-General into three men who were then Australians in
2 1990 but who were charged with war crimes in the Ukraine. And the
3 Attorney-General's Department if there were these graves in the Ukraine
4 that eye-witnesses were alleging, and so I exhumed three of those graves.
5 Q. And approximately, and this doesn't need to be specific, but what
6 amount of people or victims were in the mass graves?
7 A. In the 1990 grave that we excavated at a place called Serniki,
8 that's S-e-r-n-i-k-i, there were about 553, mainly women and children and
9 old men. And in 1991, we didn't exhume the whole grave, we just exhumed
10 at Ustinovska children who had been killed after the adults had been
11 killed. But there were approximately 160 individuals there. And at a
12 site called Gnivan, G-n-i-v-a-n, there were about 120.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. MacGregor, we're listening with great attention
14 to what Mr. Wright tells us but we had read that already in the previous
15 testimony, so therefore could we avoid repetition.
16 MS. MacGREGOR: Yes --
17 JUDGE ORIE: This is not because we are not interested, Mr.
18 Wright, but because we've read it already, you testified about it before.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you.
21 Q. Were you familiar with the professional backgrounds of your team
22 members on the OTP exhumations?
23 A. I was towards the end but not at the beginning. At the beginning
24 I knew -- did not know enough people who could make up a team and
25 Jose Pablo Baraybar suggested names to me of -- that were members -- to
1 be members of the team. But by the year 2000, I knew the field, so to
2 speak, and made up my own team.
3 Q. Were you present at the excavations for the duration of them?
4 A. Yes, I was always present at the excavations unless I was sick or
5 went on leave, in which case a deputy was appointed. But I was present
6 in the grave, so to speak.
7 Q. And as the director or the lead of the excavations, what was your
8 role while the excavation was happening?
9 A. My main role was to see that the protocols that we'd established
10 were being followed by the excavators and the surveyors and the
11 photographers. In other words, I would be checking that things were
12 working properly according to our protocols.
13 Q. When it came time to write the reports that you'd been contracted
14 to write, what sources of your own did you review in order to write the
16 A. Well, sources of my own were notebooks which have already been
17 copied for ICTY, that is, personal notebooks, but the main information
18 was contained within survey data, photographic data, and the excavation
19 logs which contained sequentially each item that was discovered, whether
20 it was a body or a body part or an artefact.
21 Q. And did you consult any sources of others or reports of others to
22 write your own reports?
23 A. Yes, I was constantly in touch with Ian Hanson who was doing most
24 of the surveying, Tim Loveless who did the photography, and the scenes of
25 crime officers who compiled the logs.
1 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honours, at this point I would like to offer
2 into evidence -- there are four reports that relate to Srebrenica graves
3 and there are three reports that relate to Prijedor graves. I can go
4 through the seven 65 ter numbers when you're ready.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We are ready.
6 MS. MacGREGOR: Okay. The Kozluk report is 04602.
7 Eastern Bosnia report, 04603. Glogova 1, 04611. Kevljani, 11049.
8 Pasinac, 11051. Glogova Site 1, Grave L, 11052. And Redak 1, 11053.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I apologise,
11 though, could you please repeat the report for the Redak grave, the
12 65 ter. If I understood it correctly, it's 11053.
13 MS. MacGREGOR: That's correct.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It doesn't appear with that number on the
15 transcript --
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- but now it does. Madam Registrar, could you
18 assign numbers.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Document 04602 receives number P1761.
20 Document 04603 receives number P1762. Document 04611 receives
21 number P1763. Document 11049 receives number P1764. Document 11051
22 receives number P1765. Document 11052 receives number P1766. And
23 document 11053 receives number P1767, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: P1761 up to and including P1767 are admitted into
1 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Also, Ms. Stewart has just informed me that the 92 ter excerpts
3 that -- excuse me, the transcript excerpts that comprise
4 Professor Wright's statement are now uploaded. If I can provide those,
5 would this be a convenient time?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is.
7 MS. MacGREGOR: The 65 ter numbers are 21903 and 29104. I was
8 going to, again, tender those into evidence.
9 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it after you have sought leave to add
10 them to your 65 ter list.
11 MS. MacGREGOR: Yes. I apologise, yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
13 Mr. Stojanovic remains silent, therefore I take it that he has no
15 Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Document 29103 receives number P1768,
17 Your Honours. And document 29104 receives number P1769, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: P1768 and P1769 are admitted into evidence.
19 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 If I can ask the court officer to show Exhibit 1762.
21 Q. Professor Wright, while that's loading I've asked the court
22 officer to show your 1998 report on exhumations in Eastern Bosnia.
23 MS. MacGREGOR: If we can please look at page 172 in e-court in
24 the English version. This is a photograph and I've discovered that the
25 B/C/S version did not include the photos, which means the captions to
1 this photograph does not have a translation. So that is something we can
2 address at a later time.
3 Q. I've asked the court officer to show a photo that relates to the
4 Cancari Road 12 grave. Are you able to see that photo on the screen in
5 front of you Professor Wright?
6 A. I can see the top part of it, not the whole.
7 Q. Okay. If we need to, I'll ask the court officer to zoom out.
8 Now you have stated that you customarily removed bodies as you excavated,
9 sort of as you went. If we look at this photo, it appears that there is
10 a mass of remains in place. Can you explain why you left the bodies in
11 place for this particular excavation?
12 A. Yes. We wanted to get an idea of the distribution of bodies
13 within the grave, and since the weather conditions were reasonable and we
14 could cover the bodies at night, we decided to display the top layer of
15 bodies within the grave. There are many more underneath that are not
16 showing. But that was at a measure that we took at Cancari 12, but in
17 general, with the exception of one area of the Kozluk site, we removed
18 the bodies as we found them.
19 Q. On the left of that photograph we see a trench. Can you just
20 explain for the Chamber what that is?
21 A. That trench allows us to see the bodies from the side, the layers
22 of bodies from the side, and it also serves to drain the area. If it
23 should rain, we don't want water rising and disturbing the bodies and the
24 evidence, so we pump water out of that trench.
25 Q. So to be clear, that's a trench that was put there by the
1 excavation team?
2 A. By us, yes.
3 Q. And this will help with the captions which have not been
4 translated, can you just very briefly explain the significance that is
5 described in the caption in the second sentence about the spilling over
6 on the right side of where the bodies are?
7 A. Yes. In the far right, you can see the bodies are higher than
8 the local ground surface. So the excavated grave was overfilled and
9 there were bodies on the surface that were then covered by a bit of soil.
10 MS. MacGREGOR: Okay. If the court officer can please turn to
11 page 174 in e-court, still in the English version.
12 Q. This next picture is also from Cancari 12. It is labeled as a
13 body part from that grave. Now the condition of this seems very
14 different from the bodies that we just looked. Can you please explain
15 how these are from the same grave?
16 A. Yes, I can talk generally about this point. When you have a pile
17 of bodies in a clay grave, the bodies that are deep down are protected
18 from oxygen, so they tend to putrefy much more slowly than bodies that
19 are near the top of the grave. So much so that the -- that when we're
20 looking at a single event of the disposal of bodies in a grave, the top
21 layer of bodies may be skeletonised and the bodies underneath preserved
22 like this. So the condition of a body in terms of its soft tissues is no
23 guide to when it was -- was buried. You have to know the context within
24 the grave of the particular body for that to be evaluated.
25 Q. Just to be clear, when you say -- you've said, "When you're
1 looking at a single event of the disposal of bodies," just in even more
2 simplified terms, what do you mean by that?
3 A. Well, let us suppose that a grave is filled with bodies as a
4 single event and then it's filled in. The bodies near the top will
5 skeletonise rapidly. The bodies near the bottom will be -- have their
6 soft tissue preserved because of the lack of oxygen for the bacteria to
7 do their work.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MS. MacGREGOR: If we can turn to page 176 in e-court of the same
11 Q. And, Professor Wright, this is from a different grave-site,
12 Hodzici 4. Can you please explain what we are looking at here?
13 A. We are looking at the front view of a human skull and there is a
14 cloth that's tied around the area of the -- the nose. And you can just
15 see above the cloth the -- half of the eye socket.
16 Q. When your team and you came across pieces of cloth like this or
17 ligatures, would you remove them or would they remain on the bodies as
18 they taken to the morgue?
19 A. No, we didn't remove them. We tried to disturb them as little as
20 possible, clean up the body, clean up the cloth, but not remove the
21 cloth. And then put the bodies in a body-bag. And then they went in a
22 chiller van, they stayed in a chiller van until that was full, on the
23 site, and then that was sent to the morgue.
24 Q. Thank you. And we're going to turn now to a different report.
25 MS. MacGREGOR: If the court officer can bring up Exhibit 1761.
1 Q. Professor Wright, this is your report on Kozluk. The Chamber has
2 testimony that you've given about how you came to excavate Kozluk and
3 they've also heard from Dean Manning a little bit about that so we'll
4 just skip right to some of the results.
5 MS. MacGREGOR: I'd like to look at page 22 in e-court in the
6 English and page 23 in B/C/S. Actually, even -- there is a caption. It
7 may be easier to only look at one screen to have it big enough. I've --
8 oh, actually the B/C/S does not have the figure. If there is no
9 objection from the Defence, it may be easiest to just show the English
10 version since it will be bigger in that way.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you have no objections, I take it,
12 against the suggestion?
13 Please, it's there already.
14 MS. MacGREGOR:
15 Q. So, Professor Wright, this is a two-dimensional figure. And what
16 I'm hoping you can do is explain the third dimension, the depth of the --
17 the significance about what these red dots are in the depth of the grave
18 in addition to what we're seeing here in terms of the distribution of the
19 red dots and the bodies. If you can also, if you understand what I mean,
20 explain that distribution upon the layers of depth of the grave.
21 A. Yes. We're looking here at a map produced by -- from our survey
22 results, and you can see the individuals represented as stick figures.
23 We're looking in the middle of that mass of bodies at -- bodies that lay
24 on a slope, which was strewn with broken bottles, and the red dots
25 represent our survey of the shell cases from ammunition, rifle
1 ammunition, and they are mixed up with the bodies, but particularly
2 common on the right hand side, top right hand side, particularly common
3 on the edge of the slope on which the bodies lay.
4 Q. And just so that my question is clearly answered, when you say
5 that the shell cases are "mixed up with the bodies," it's clear from this
6 that they're at least on the top, but are they also mixed up throughout
7 the depth of the grave?
8 A. No, they are mixed up three-dimensionally with the bodies.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MS. MacGREGOR: If we can please turn to page 30 in the English
11 version in e-court and page 31 in B/C/S. Although, again, it may be best
12 to keep the English version on the screen if that is okay with the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question. We saw a two-dimensional
15 picture. Is there any computerised three-dimensional model made of what
16 you found there? Because in the middle of it, it's all rather difficult
17 to still identify what we see. It becomes a grey and black pudding more
18 or less. That's --
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President. I did submit with this report
20 a rotatable image which would have met the requirements you are asking
21 about so that you could look at the bodies and the shell cases from any
22 position by rotating the image.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So it does exist. Thank you.
24 Please proceed, Ms. MacGregor.
25 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you.
1 Q. Now, if you look at the top picture on the screen in front of
2 you, this is also from the same KK3 grave. Now, you said in your report
3 that you were unable to look for bullets in KK3 underneath bodies because
4 of the substrate of bodies and glass. So I wonder if you can, using that
5 picture as a guide, explain what you mean about your inability to look
6 for bullets in this grave as compared to where you did in another part of
8 A. Yes. The -- we were able, of course, to find the shell cases,
9 but the bullets were not embedded in the soil underneath these bodies.
10 What we're looking at here is a view towards the slope that I mentioned,
11 and in the background you can see the glass, the green glass from -- off
12 the top of which we have already removed many bodies. So we're looking
13 here at the few bodies that are at the base of the slope. And I don't
14 recall finding bullets embedded in the soil in the same way as what we
15 call -- as the area we called Kozluk 1.
16 Q. Do you remember if you used the metal detector over the area
17 underneath the bodies here in KK3?
18 A. I don't remember the event, but I'm pretty certain it would have
19 been done, yes. It would have been done by Roland Wessling who was
20 managing the metal detectors. But my mind doesn't -- I can't remember.
21 MS. MacGREGOR: If we can now look at page 29 in e-court, which
22 is page 30 in the B/C/S. Again, just keeping the English version up as
23 the picture. And actually if I can ask the court officer to zoom out to
24 be able to show both pictures.
25 Q. Now, this is a photograph you've explained of a man and he is
1 holding something in his hand which you have identified as shrubby
2 vegetation. Can you explain, is that vegetation rooted in that soil that
3 is underneath the body?
4 A. Yes, it's dead because it was covered up with bodies, but it's --
5 it's still in place but dead; in other words, yes, as you say, it is
6 rooted in the clays -- in the silts at the base of the mass of bodies.
7 And it's preserved, again, because of the lack of oxygen and the wetness
8 of the area.
9 Q. We will now turn to your report on Glogova, Exhibit 1763. Now,
10 as we're waiting for that to come up - and we'll be looking at page 38 in
11 e-court in English, page 36 in B/C/S - you have described items in this
12 report from the grave that led you to believe the grave was linked to
13 Kravica warehouse. When had you been to the Kravica warehouse, before or
14 after that excavation was completed?
15 A. I originally went -- well, I was taken to the warehouse probably
16 in 1998, but not with the intention of doing any work. The work was done
17 in late 2000, and while I was doing the excavations at Glogova, I also
18 visited the warehouse. In the year 2000.
19 Q. Again. And had the possible link between Kravica and Glogova
20 been suggested to you already?
21 A. I imagine it had been but I can't remember the occasion on which
22 it was.
23 Q. And would that -- who would have suggested that to you?
24 A. It would have been the -- the investigators, I'm sure. I
25 didn't -- I mean, I do recall knowing why I was asked to excavate the
1 Glogova site but I cannot recall the occasion on which I was told or
2 exactly what I was told. So the link with Kravica, yes, I was aware of
3 that hypothesis.
4 Q. And looking at the picture on the right in front of you, the top
5 picture and the picture in the centre right, what are those pictures --
6 sorry, what are those of?
7 A. They show excavations at the mass grave at Glogova and bits of
8 what are interpreted as coming from the Kravica warehouse mixed up with
9 the bodies, bits of the structure of the warehouse mixed up with the
11 Q. Now, did you remove these materials?
12 A. Well, they were excavated, yes, and they were logged.
13 Q. And do you know where they would have ended up?
14 A. Well, Mr. Mike Hedley did a report on the warehouse and the
15 relationship of the artefacts from the excavations to the warehouse, but
16 I have no idea where the pieces went after that.
17 Q. Did you discuss these items and what you found in the grave with
18 Mr. Hedley?
19 A. Yes, I went to the warehouse with Mr. Hedley to check the
20 similarity between the items which we were excavating and what was down
21 at the warehouse.
22 Q. And did you ever review his final report?
23 A. No, I didn't. I didn't see his final report until the other day.
24 Q. And when you say "the other day," do you mean in preparation for
25 your testimony here?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. And once you were able to review it, did you draw any conclusions
3 or form any opinions based on his report?
4 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down for interpretation.
5 THE WITNESS: I will -- was satisfied that my conclusions about
6 the artefacts of Glogova were supported by his report.
7 MS. MacGREGOR: Now if we can turn to page 37 in e-court, which
8 is page 35 in the B/C/S. For this picture, if I can again ask to just
9 show the English version so that we are able to see the details of the
10 paragraph. And if we can zoom in on the top photograph. Actually,
11 that's great. Okay.
12 Q. So this one is a little harder to understand from a lay
13 perspective. Can you explain the top photograph, what we're looking at,
14 especially what the arrow is pointing at?
15 A. Yes, we're looking at a shattered skull and that's made up of the
16 white pieces. And then there is a piece of metal that I was told by
17 the -- a piece of metal which is inside the skull, as it were, that I was
18 told by an exploded ordinance advisor was a pellet from a grenade.
19 MS. MacGREGOR: And if I can ask the court officer to scan down a
20 bit to look at the two -- yes, thank you, those two pictures.
21 Q. Now, the two pictures in the centre of the page, can you please
22 explain how these -- what these are pictures of?
23 A. Well, this is a picture of the mummified flesh of a shoulder
24 blade, of an area of the shoulder blade, and you can see on the left-hand
25 one a piece of metal sticking out of a slit in the flesh. And on the
1 right-hand side the archeologist has slid the piece of metal out of that
2 slot, and I've forgotten what the metal was interpreted as but it was
3 clearly embedded in the shoulder.
4 Q. And --
5 A. I mean, I don't know whether it was from a grenade or a shell,
6 but it was a piece of metal that was forcibly -- and penetrated the
8 Q. And this condition of the human remains that you saw in the grave
9 in Glogova, did you see that same type of damage to the bodies in other
10 graves that you excavated?
11 A. I don't recall seeing that type of, what I'd call blast injury,
13 MS. MacGREGOR: And thank you, I won't need this report any
15 Q. Including your experiences outside of Bosnia -- sorry. I'm going
16 to strike that question. In the past week the Chamber has heard a lot of
17 questioning about whether bodies in these graves could have been battle
18 casualties that were collected from the field and buried. Do you have
19 any experience in exhuming graves that contained battle casualties?
20 A. I was the senior advisor to a team from Oxford Archeology that
21 exhumed Australian soldiers from World War I. That was at a site called
22 Fromelles in north-east France, and there were mass graves there and I
23 saw the bodies in the grave. I didn't take part in their exhumation, but
24 I saw the map that was produced subsequently and the bodies were laid
25 across the graves in a -- in a respectable manner. I mean, respect had
1 been shown to the dead in the disposition of these bodies. They were in
2 rows and not just dumped in the graves.
3 Q. And did you see anything in Bosnia -- in any of the exhumations
4 that you did in Bosnia that was similar to that type of arrangement that
5 you saw in Fromelles?
6 A. No, in the case of all the graves that I exhumed, the bodies were
7 entangled, not laid out in rows, showed all the appearance of just having
8 been dumped into the graves.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honour --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask -- yes.
12 MS. MacGREGOR: -- I have no further questions.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I would have one follow-up question.
14 The last question was whether you have any experience with battle
15 casualties, and then you described how they were orderly buried in the
16 north of France, and disorderly buried or dumped in the graves you
17 inspected in Bosnia.
18 Now does that say anything about whether these are battle
19 casualties or does it say anything about the discipline of those who
20 disposed of those bodies?
21 THE WITNESS: No, I should have said, Your Honour, that the
22 Australians were buried by the Germans, they were killed by the Germans
23 when they made their way into the German trenches, and so the respectful
24 burial was done by the enemy, not by the Australians themselves.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether that's really an answer to my
1 question. My question was battle casualties and -- compared to something
2 you saw to be different here. Is the way in which people are buried a
3 sufficiently strong indication of persons having died in battle
4 circumstances, or does it say more about those enemies or -- from the
5 same side, whether they were disciplined when burying the corpses.
6 THE WITNESS: I understand now. I think I wouldn't care to
7 generalise an answer, then. I was asked to comment on whether I had seen
8 or taken part in the excavation of battle casualties and I described that
9 one site.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Not saying that this is -- would be an
11 indication would be -- of course, it's different from what you saw in
12 Bosnia, but you do not draw any conclusions as to whether the bodies
13 disorderly buried in Bosnia would or would not have been battle
15 THE WITNESS: No, I couldn't -- I couldn't draw a conclusion from
16 that alone, no.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 Mr. Stojanovic, we are close with the time -- at the time where
19 we usually take a break. Perhaps it would be wisest to take the break
20 first and that you would start your cross-examination after the break.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then we take the break first.
23 Mr. Wright, may I invite you to follow the usher, and we'd like
24 to see you back in 20 minutes.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at 10 minutes to 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Welcome back, Mr. Wright. You'll now be
7 cross-examined by Mr. Stojanovic. Mr. Stojanovic is counsel for
8 Mr. Mladic. You'll find him to your left.
9 You may proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Professor.
13 A. Good morning, Mr. Stojanovic.
14 Q. Professor Wright, could you please tell the Trial Chamber the
15 following: In 1997, when you started working for the International
16 Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, did you, and if so, how did
17 you get information about the context of events in and about Srebrenica?
18 A. Well, in 1997 I was not involved in the Srebrenica
19 investigations. I was at Brcko. But in 1998 I started working on the
20 Srebrenica investigations. I was told why I was being employed and I was
21 shown aerial images by the investigator which indicated where there might
22 be graves, and I then decided which ones we could excavate because of
23 logistical reasons of transport. And so I was given a general advice as
24 to what I had to do and why I had to do it, and then I took over the
25 actual excavations.
1 Q. Who was the one who set up the team and determined the required
2 expertise of persons who would work on excavations?
3 A. It was a joint discussion between myself and Mr. Jose Pablo
4 Baraybar about the makeup of the team in 1998. In 1999 I -- in 1999 and
5 2000, I effectively chose the team from the list of people who had
6 applied to an advertisement that ICTY published for experts, and I
7 selected from that list.
8 Q. Is it true, sir, that there was a suggestion that no experts from
9 former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia-Herzegovina, should be accepted to
10 the team?
11 A. That is my understanding, that that was the case, yes, and on the
12 excavations themselves our equipment drivers were not local people. I
13 didn't set that policy.
14 Q. During your work on these projects of primary and secondary grave
15 excavations, was local personnel involved in any way?
16 A. No, they weren't involved.
17 Q. I will kindly ask you to clarify some things to me.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Therefore, let us look at P1762.
19 I hope that that's the correct number. Otherwise, it's 04602 on the
20 65 ter list. Could we please get both the English and the B/C/S
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: 04602, Mr. Stojanovic, is P1761.
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. It's my mistake.
24 I need document P1761. Thank you, Your Honour. Could we please have
25 page 6.
1 Q. Professor Wright, the way I understood the summary of your
2 report, you say that at Kozluk you found three sites that you call mass
3 graves. And they are KK1, KK2, and KK3. What is the reason for your
4 considering these separate graves?
5 A. No, they were not separate graves. If I gave that impression on
6 the previous page, then I'm wrong. They were areas of -- that we
7 investigated. In the case of KK2, it was an area that contained some
8 individuals lying on a surface, and in KK3 was the main area of bodies.
9 But we were unable because of disturbance at the site to work out whether
10 there were individual mass graves there, because the site had
11 subsequently been excavated in October 1995. So KK1, KK2, and KK3 are
12 areas of the Kozluk site that contained bodies.
13 Q. What is the difference between an individual grave and a mass
14 grave according to the procedure you applied in your work?
15 A. In the forensic literature, there is a lot of discussion about
16 when -- how many individuals have to be present before a grave becomes a
17 mass grave. We worked on the assumption that mass graves contained,
18 obviously, more than one body, but in most cases we didn't have to worry
19 about a definition because they were -- there were dozens of bodies and
20 so no one would have argued with our use of the term "mass grave." I
21 don't think there is a sensible definition of what is a mass grave as
22 opposed to a grave with multiple burials, for instance.
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Now let us look at page 13 in
24 the English and page 14 in the B/C/S version.
25 Q. Could you please explain some things to us, sir. After listing
1 detailed information about body parts and entire bodies found at Kozluk,
2 you say that there were at least 451 --
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please get the
4 following page in both versions. It's continued over leaf. This is the
5 paragraph in question.
6 Q. You say that the total number of bodies is greater than 451 up to
7 660. What was the criterion based on which you determined the number of
8 persons buried there?
9 A. Yes. In translation your word "determined" in English means that
10 I have actually counted the number, but I have estimated the number of
11 individuals that may have been at Kozluk, and my estimation is based on
12 the -- can I see the previous page, because there are four propositions
13 that I make and I just want to go and see the first one. Yes. There
14 were 291 complete bodies that we actually excavated.
15 Can we move onto the next page, now?
16 We actually excavated them at Kozluk itself. And then we also
17 recovered some body parts that were left over from the excavations of the
18 grave that were done in October 1995 and we don't know how many
19 individuals those body parts make up. And then we decided that
20 Cancari 3, a secondary grave, and Cancari -- sorry, we decided that
21 Cancari 3, according to the morgue, had 160 individuals, and we related
22 Cancari 3 to Kozluk because of the green glass that was transferred
24 And then there was another grave, Cancari 1, which has now been
25 excavated but wasn't excavated by us. So I've assumed that that had the
1 same order of numbers as Cancari 3; that is, Cancari 1 had the same order
2 of numbers. And I've come up, then, with a very rough estimate that
3 there may have been -- that there were more than 451 persons originally
4 at the Kozluk site, and the maximum number might be in the order of 660.
5 But it's not a determination. It's a very rough estimate.
6 Q. I just wanted to ask you to explain the methodology you used in
7 estimating the number of bodies at 660.
8 A. Well, in the case of Kozluk, I took the estimates -- or I took
9 the estimates of the number of individuals at Kozluk itself from the
10 figures I was given by the morgue. I didn't calculate them myself. And
11 likewise with Cancari 3, I took count of the number of individuals
12 determined at the morgue. Not by myself. And then I make an assumption
13 that Cancari 1 has the same -- roughly the same number of individuals as
14 Cancari 3, but that Cancari 1 had not been excavated, and that leads me
15 to come up with a rough estimate of greater than 451 persons originally
16 at the Kozluk site.
17 So we know from the morgue how many individuals we exhumed from
18 the Kozluk site, but we know that they were -- they were transferred to
19 Cancari 1 and Cancari 3 on the basis of the artefacts that were found at
20 Cancari 1 and Cancari 3.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question. When you say a
22 complete body was exhumed, you mean a complete body, everything being
24 THE WITNESS: No, it may be that a hand will not be present, but
25 it is essentially a body where you would have to look carefully to see
1 what parts might be missing.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which means that if the hand was found
3 somewhere else in the same area or same grave, may have been counted in
4 your estimate that there were more people buried there?
5 THE WITNESS: Ah --
6 JUDGE ORIE: You said parts, body parts, if they were found. So
7 is there a risk of counting double by finding that hand, well, let's say,
8 somewhere else but it's still in the same grave?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I will -- I will remember I was
10 not doing the counting. The morgue was doing the counting. Now, the
11 morgue would not have counted a hand as an individual, I am confident,
12 but I don't know their actual procedures.
13 JUDGE ORIE: No, but you are also referring to -- you are
14 referring to complete bodies found and body parts found. Now, could it
15 be that the almost complete body, with a body part being a hand, that the
16 hand would have played a role in your further estimates that there were
17 more people buried there than the number of complete bodies found?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes. I -- the answer to that is the morgue
19 received what we thought were complete bodies and had filled out a body
20 sheet for that body. They also received the body parts. And so I was
21 not part of the process of the analysis of body parts, and that's why I
22 am -- in that paragraph I express an uncertainty about the very point
23 you're raising.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Microphone not activated]
2 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, Professor. I would like to show a
3 document now. That's why I asked these questions. It is from the P4181,
4 collection, page 7.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] And if you remember,
6 Your Honours, it's a map compiled by a witness we were able to hear last
7 week. It's an investigator who compiled it, this map.
8 Q. While we're waiting for the map to upload, let me ask you once
9 again, sir, whether that means that in this rough estimate of yours of up
10 to 660 bodies in the primary site at Kozluk --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could Defence counsel please repeat the latter
12 part of his question.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, could you please repeat the latter
14 part of the your question which was not caught by the interpreters.
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 Q. Did I understand you correctly? In your rough estimate of up to
17 660 bodies, in the primary site at Kozluk, whether that includes an
18 estimate of the possible number of bodies in the secondary site CR1,
19 which is Cancari 1?
20 A. Yes, it did explicitly in the sections we looked at previously
21 include that -- an estimate for what might be in Cancari 1. Since then,
22 Cancari 1 has been excavated, not by myself, and I don't offhand know how
23 many bodies they did find.
24 Q. What confuses me, sir, is this map. Can you please focus on its
25 central part, and let us enlarge it, especially the area from Kozluk to
1 the green marks near Cancari. According to this map made by
2 Dean Manning, the investigators think that the secondary sites of
3 Cancari 3, as you said, and Cancari 2, are related to the primary site at
4 Kozluk, whereas on this map there is no relation between Cancari 1 and
5 the primary site at Kozluk. Can you see that, sir?
6 A. Yes, I can see -- indeed, I can see what you're saying, and I
7 don't know what the explanation is, whether I have got the title of the
8 grave with green glass incorrect, but I'd have to look at my report to
9 see whether I relate Cancari 1 or Cancari 2 with the green glass. That
10 is in my 1999 report.
11 Q. All right. Perhaps you can help us with that during the next
12 break. Let me now ask you if you remember whether any other, apart from
13 these two secondary sites marked as Cancari Road, is related to the
14 primary site at Kozluk based on artefacts or anything else?
15 A. No, I don't recall seeing other secondary sites that I could
16 relate to Kozluk.
17 Q. Could you please tell the Trial Chamber if you took part in the
18 exhumation of any other secondary site at Cancari Road except for
19 Cancari 3?
20 A. Yes, I conducted the exhumations at Cancari 12.
21 Q. And you will agree with me, won't you, that it had to do with the
22 events around Branjevo and not Kozluk?
23 A. That, as I understand it, is how the soil analyses pointed, yes.
24 When we excavated Cancari 12, I noticed that soils mixed up with the
25 bodies did not look like local soils, and so Dr. Tony Brown was called in
1 to provide an expert analysis, and I know from his report that he relates
2 Cancari 12 to a grave at Branjevo farm.
3 Q. Thank you. In view of the fact that you were heading the
4 project, do you remember -- do you know whether it was established that
5 after the DNA analysis there is a part -- a body part in the primary
6 grave in Kozluk and that same part of the -- or another part of the same
7 body would be found in the secondary grave, Cancari 3?
8 A. No, I'm not aware of the DNA results. They were done long after
9 I finished the excavations and I was not part of the team that -- that
10 analysed those results.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, am I wrong if I see in the previous
12 testimony of the witness that he describes the particles of green glass
13 in the Cancari Road 3, which would be fully consistent, but it's
14 apparently they're not consistent with the -- with the red line on a map
15 which this witness has not created. So is -- this map is made, I think,
16 after the witness had done his job because he says Cancari 1 was not
17 exhumed by him. So therefore apparently there is new information at a
18 later stage, and there may be mistakes there, but is it for this witness
19 to answer those questions or is it for the person who drafted this map?
20 That's my -- I mean, to put a confusion to the witness where he may be
21 totally foreign to that confusion might be a bit problematic.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour. I
23 will not be using the map anymore. But I must admit that I accept that
24 the artefact of glass in Cancari 3 is directly linked to the primary
25 grave-site in Kozluk. I think that the previous witness also spoke about
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although the red lines suggest something
3 different on the map.
4 But let's not bother this witness with possible mistakes, and I
5 have to reread it all to see whether there really are any mistakes or
6 not. You may proceed.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Q. Professor, the next thing that I would like to ask you is this:
9 In the context of the events that have to do with the Kozluk primary
10 grave, were you informed whether the victims in Kozluk were brought to
11 the execution place, and if so, where they were brought from?
12 A. I don't remember being told that. I should, perhaps, expand a
13 moment on the discovery of the Kozluk primary site. It came about
14 because at Cancari 3, where we found all this green glass, we had to
15 explain why there were these thousands of pieces of broken glass in this
16 grave, and we found labels with the broken glass and with the bodies that
17 gave the name of the Vitinka bottling factory at Kozluk, and it was only
18 after that that the primary site of Kozluk was found on which I worked.
19 That was in 1998 we discovered it and in 1999 I exhumed it. I don't
20 remember being told anything about where the -- the -- the people killed
21 at Kozluk had come from.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And if I understand you well, even not whether they
23 were killed at Kozluk?
24 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I missed that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No, you said you did not receive any information
1 where the people came from who were killed at Kozluk.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: But I do even understand that do you not even know
4 whether they were killed at Kozluk. They were buried in the primary
5 grave in Kozluk, or?
6 THE WITNESS: I have my opinions that they were shot at Kozluk
7 because of the number of shell cases, hundreds of shell cases that were
8 found with the bodies.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Q. And now this question regarding your opinion as to the place of
13 execution of the victims. Sticking to the rules of your profession,
14 would you be able to say if all of those bodies in Kozluk were executed
15 and died there or were there dead bodies that were brought to that site
16 and then buried there?
17 A. My conclusion is that because of the way the bodies were lying on
18 the ground and because of the number of shell cases that were at the
19 site, that people were killed there. I don't pretend to say that all of
20 them were killed there, others might have been brought in already dead
21 and mixed up with the bodies. But because of the state of preservation
22 of these bodies, if dead bodies were brought in and buried it would have
23 been at the same time as the shootings of the others took place. So I
24 would not conclude that every body that we found was killed there, but
25 everybody was killed at the same time in my opinion.
1 Q. Thank you, Professor. I'm asking you this because according to
2 the indictment, and our theory of the case, those people were brought
3 from the school in Rocevic, as stated in the indictment, but also there
4 were some executions in front of the school as well. And so I wanted to
5 ask you whether in your work you ever had any information about the place
6 where the bodies of people were buried of victims who were executed or
7 killed in front of the school in Rocevic.
8 A. No, I don't recall that -- that name. And can I ask are we
9 talking about Kozluk only or about the graves in general?
10 Q. I was asking you about the grave-site in Kozluk, Professor. And
11 thank you for the answer. I would now want to ask you whether it's
12 correct that those pieces of glass found in the secondary site,
13 Cancari 3, which correspond to the glass fragments found at the primary
14 site in Kozluk, were not preserved?
15 A. I'm sorry, were not preserved by the -- by ICTY? Was that --
16 I -- I'm sure we collected some samples of glass from both sites, but I
17 was not responsible for the continuity of the evidence after that. Once
18 I had delivered the evidence, I was not responsible for preservation.
19 Q. Thank you. I don't doubt that, Professor, but I wanted to ask
20 you if you know whether these artefacts, the glass was preserved anywhere
21 now and whether they could be subjected to a fresh analysis?
22 A. I see. No, I don't know whether that can happen.
23 Q. Thank you, Professor.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, now I would like
25 to look at 65 ter 04603. I think that that would be the right number. I
1 think that would be P7162 [as interpreted]. I wouldn't want to make a
2 mistake with the numbers. So could we have that in e-court, please --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: P1762, not 7162.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 1762. Yes. Thank you,
5 Your Honour. Could we please look at page 34 together. That's the
6 English version. And then page 36 of the B/C/S version of this document.
7 Q. Professor, could you please explain to us a little bit this
8 estimate that you made which resulted in this number, 3.474 bodies?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Are you able to tell us the methodology that you used in order to
11 get to this figure and this estimate?
12 A. Yes --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I think the report describes how it
14 was done, so if you would have any focused question on where you
15 apparently do not understand it, it is about average numbers of graves of
16 a certain size and then extrapolated to the number. It seems to be
17 relatively clearly explained, so if you have any focused question that
18 would also show where your problems are.
19 Witness, unless I'm mistaken, if I misread your report, please
20 tell me at this moment.
21 THE WITNESS: Well, I agree, Your Honour, that the methodology is
22 set out.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 THE WITNESS: The -- there is additional information because
25 the -- the graves that I talk about as probed unexcavated graves have now
1 been excavated, and an ICTY document by -- I think it's Mr. Dusan gives
2 the numbers of bodies of 19 of those 21 graves and my estimate was a
3 slight underestimate based on those 19 graves.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the way you worked with the knowledge at
5 the time is --
6 THE WITNESS: It's --
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- relatively clearly explained in the report, I
8 would say.
9 So therefore, Mr. Stojanovic, why ask the witness -- please show
10 us where you do not understand it or where you have doubts and ask the
11 witness about that rather than to repeat again what he has already
12 written in his report.
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Well, why am
14 I asking this? It's for the following reason.
15 Q. Professor, when you completed your work and once you completed
16 this report, do you stand by this number of 857 as the definite number
17 that you established following your work? Everything that is above that
18 amounts to an estimate?
19 A. It was an estimate. Any number above 857, which I derived from
20 the staff at the morgue, was when I wrote the report an estimate. But
21 now the graves have been excavated, there are counts of the numbers of
22 bodies in 19 of those 21 unexcavated graves. And, as I said to the
23 President, those numbers show that I slightly underestimated the number
24 of bodies in the unexcavated graves by about 10 per cent.
25 Q. Thank you, Professor.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at 65 ter 04611,
2 please. I think this is P1763. Could we look at page 3 of the B/C/S and
3 the English versions.
4 Q. Professor, this is a report that you did on the excavation of the
5 Glogova 1 grave-site. I wanted to ask you this: Was Glogova 1 one
6 single grave or did it consist of several sites?
7 A. It consisted of several distinct graves, distinctly dug holes.
8 But in the main area of Glogova 1, because it had been disturbed in
9 October 1995, we were not able to work out whether it was all one single
10 grave or a series of individual graves. So I can't answer -- I can
11 answer your question for the fringes of the site that there were several
12 individual graves, but I can't tell you how many individual graves there
13 were in the main area of excavation.
14 Q. All of those graves, were they all disturbed in October 1995 as
15 you said?
16 A. No, they weren't all disturbed. Those on the -- I do have,
17 Your Honour, a map of the site, and it would be easier to answer it from
18 the map, to answer the question from the map.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You mean the map as part of your report?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 Mr. Stojanovic, if this is ...
23 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honours, I think he's referring to figure 4
24 in that report.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Which is found at page?
1 MS. MacGREGOR: I would have -- the page number is around 25.
2 I'd have to hunt a bit once we're there.
3 JUDGE ORIE: 24 gives a map and it's perhaps not as detailed.
4 MS. MacGREGOR: Page 28 I am told by Ms. Stewart. It's a
5 schematic rather than a street -- or road map like this.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is what I wanted to see.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And thank you to the
8 Prosecution for their help.
9 Q. Professor, could you please tell us, when you see this map, are
10 you able to tell us which graves were desecrated and attacked in
11 October 1995 as you said?
12 A. Yes. The -- if we start from the top, all of the graves - that's
13 grave F, grave C, grave H, and grave K - were disturbed in October 1995,
14 but grave E and L were not disturbed. So those two - those are at the
15 bottom of the image and to the right, grave E and grave L - were not
17 Q. During the examination-in-chief today, you said, among other
18 things, that this grave-site is something that you connect to the events
19 at the Kravica warehouse. In view of the artefacts that were found in
20 these grave-sites, Glogova 1, I wanted to ask you whether that would
21 indicate or could indicate that all the bodies found in these graves in
22 Glogova 1 came from the Kravica warehouse?
23 A. Again, as with my answer about Kozluk, I don't believe that it
24 shows that all the bodies came from the Kravica warehouse, but it
25 indicates that when -- that bodies from the Kravica warehouse were
1 brought to the site with parts of the broken door brought with the
2 bodies, but I -- I would accept a proposition that some of the bodies may
3 have come from somewhere else. I don't claim that all the bodies there
4 were brought from the Kravica warehouse.
5 Q. Thank you. And can you please tell us, Professor, your work or
6 the work of some other experts at the Visoko morgue, did it help to
7 establish the time of death, approximate time of death of all 190 victims
8 whose bodies were found at the Glogova 1 site?
9 A. May I ask, do you mean the year of death? Are we talking about
10 the time of day or the time of -- the year, which year? I don't -- I
11 don't know the answer to any of those questions anyway because I was not
12 concerned with the work that was done at the morgue. We formed at the
13 site our opinions about the simultaneous burials, but I don't know what
14 conclusions the morgue arrived at that were -- agreed with us or
15 disagreed with us about the time of death. And I doubt very much whether
16 the morgue would be able to determine in what year the individuals died
17 other than by the same information that we had which were -- look at
18 documents and at the aerial images of the disturbances in October 1995
19 and the original disturbance of the burials in July 1995.
20 Q. Thank you, Professor. I was just waiting for the interpretation
21 to finish. I want to ask you this also: Were you present when Glogova L
22 was being excavated as the primary grave? Were you personally present
23 during the excavation?
24 A. Yes, I was personally present and I was in charge of that
1 Q. Professor, could you please tell me if you received information,
2 and from whom you received information, about another grave that needed
3 to be checked in the village of Potocari?
4 A. Potocari is -- is a village near Srebrenica. It's -- it's where
5 the bus station was. Yes, I did go to -- I --
6 Q. Correct.
7 A. I did go to that site and we found a hole in the ground, but we
8 did not find bodies in the hole. I think that year was 1999.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could I take you back to one of your previous
10 answers. You told us about which graves were disturbed when looking at
11 this map, and you refer to E and L as the non-disturbed graves at the
12 bottom, and you included K in one of the disturbed graves.
13 Now if I look at your report -- let me see. I read, unless
14 I'm -- let me just check one second, please. For Glogova 1, I read on
15 page 6:
16 "Grave K, an intact primary grave, not robbed."
17 The same for L. Is there any chance that you may have mixed up E
18 and K because --
19 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I think I just had a lapse of memory
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 Mr. Stojanovic, if someone has written a report, then to ask him
23 to reproduce by heart what is clearly described in the report doesn't
24 make much sense during cross-examination, unless I'm looking at the wrong
25 report but we are still talking about Glogova 1? Please proceed.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Q. Professor, are you aware that close to Kravica and Glogova was
3 where the 28th Division was moving as it was breaking through from
4 Kravica towards Tuzla? And this was in July 1995.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, before you ask these details, we
6 should first ask whether the witness has any knowledge about military
7 movements and who moved where and when.
8 THE WITNESS: No, I don't have any coherent knowledge of that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very much.
11 Then I would not dwell on that topic anymore.
12 Q. I do want to ask you, though, whether during the time you spent
13 in this area in Kravica, Glogova, did you have any information as to
14 whether the terrain was sanitised in that area and whether all the bodies
15 that -- of people that were killed during combat were collected and taken
17 A. No, I was not told. I was not told that, no.
18 Q. Thank you, Professor. Now I'm going to move to topics that have
19 to do with the Krajina.
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] So I think that perhaps at this
21 time, Your Honours, would be a good time to go on a break.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I'd like to ask one additional question.
23 In your work, excavations, exhumations, did you find any
24 indication that the persons buried in the graves you examined, that they
25 would have been bodies of persons which may have collected -- been
1 collected somewhere on the terrain as battle casualties?
2 THE WITNESS: No, I got no such indications. As you asked me the
3 question, I'm thinking: What would I be looking for. All I saw were --
4 all the bodies I saw were dressed in civilian clothing, so without
5 knowing historical background, my initial reaction to that would be that
6 these were civilians. Whether they'd been collected from the landscape,
7 I would expect them to be in different stages of decomposition before
8 they were put into the grave, and I would expect to see the remains of
9 insects with the bodies, and we didn't find such evidence in the -- in
10 these graves.
11 JUDGE ORIE: To understand the last part of your answer, the
12 insects, are you referring to insects which would have already, if I
13 could say so, attacked or at least entered into the bodies and then be
14 taken together with the bodies, if in this hypothesis, then to be taken
15 to the grave where people were buried and then still be with those
17 THE WITNESS: Yes --
18 JUDGE ORIE: That is what you're referring to.
19 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I think that was the issue you
21 wanted to raise, not whether the witness has any knowledge but whether
22 the witness has found anything which would either support or would not
23 support or even contradict the hypothesis.
24 We'll take a break. You may follow the usher. We'd like to see
25 you back in approximately 20 minutes.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and will resume at quarter past
4 --- Recess taken at 11.52 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 12.19 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
7 Meanwhile, I would like to briefly raise a matter. The Defence
8 had asked for an enlargement of time, two weeks, until the 23rd of July,
9 to respond to the motion, which by the way I see is a confidential motion
10 but to add witnesses.
11 Is there any objection against an extension of time?
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Lukic, the time you have to respond to
14 that motion is extended with 14 days so that the response is now due the
15 23rd of July.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE ORIE: If you're ready, Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Could we please see 1D1139, pages 66 and 67 respectively. It's
21 the Karadzic transcript, and I'm interested in the last paragraph on
22 page 305.
23 Q. Please listen carefully to the question I'm about to ask, and
24 then we'll -- actually, that was asked -- that was put to you. And then
25 I would like to move on to page 306. While you're reading, in the
1 Karadzic case you were asked if you could rule out the possibility that
2 the bodies at Glogova were buried as part of the sanitizing process and
3 you answered that you couldn't rule that out completely.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Stojanovic, where are you reading? We would
5 like to keep up with you.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
7 believe that I'm interested in the first paragraph, the answer on
8 page 22306. It's what we have on our screens, I believe.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: We don't see the question that you say was put to
10 the witness.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your
12 permission I will go back to page 66 in e-court or 22305. Here's the
13 question as put to the witness.
14 Q. Please tell me, Professor, if you still stand by the answer you
15 provided in the Karadzic case.
16 A. [Overlapping speakers] ...
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] If we move onto the next page.
18 Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do stand by that answer.
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Thank you, Professor.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D1139 is hereby tendered.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That's 75 pages, Mr. Stojanovic. You've dealt with
24 one or two pages.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. It's just
1 pages 66 and 67 of this transcript as I've stated already.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then you have to upload it as a separate
3 exhibit. We'll reserve a number for those pages.
4 Madam Registrar, the number to be reserved for that would be?
5 THE REGISTRAR: The number reserved for the two pages of document
6 1D1139 will be D331, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 Q. Just one more clarification, Professor.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, was -- what has it added to the
11 previous question? I mean, I asked the witness about whether he found
12 indications. He said, "Well, you would expect to find insects, et
13 cetera," but he never said that he would have excluded anything
14 definitely. What now does this add? He did not exclude it in the
15 previous question, either, did he? He just said that it would be an
16 indication that it might not be bodies which had been left out on the
17 terrain and then collected later. Even the witness says he has no reason
18 to believe that they were. But what now does this add to the previous
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Overlapping speakers] --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Why do we need to have it in evidence, those pages?
22 He explains exactly the same thing as he did in the last question --
23 series of questions, whether people were wearing military uniforms or
24 not. He already said, "I don't know anything about the background,"
25 could mean nothing -- could be not -- he doesn't express himself on in
1 it. And the insects he said would be an indication to the contrary of
2 this. What now does this add?
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm about to tackle
4 the issue of insects, therefore I wanted this explicit answer provided by
5 Professor Wright to be in evidence and now I want to deal with the
6 witness's argument with relation to insects.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I do not mind if you want to go further in detail
8 with the insects, but I am concerned about you tendering a
9 not-yet-prepared 75 pages and then reduce it to two pages which brings us
10 nothing new. The only thing, the difference is that he was a little bit
11 more in detail talking about blowflies and the chitinous material of
12 their bodies and wings. That's the only detail which is added which is
13 hereby on the record.
14 So I don't think, Madam Registrar, that we need to have a number
15 reserved for the not-yet-uploaded portion of the previous testimony.
16 Please proceed, including if with your insects.
17 Madam Registrar, therefore, the reserved number it's not attached
18 yet to an uploaded document. This is hereby vacated.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Professor, preparing for today's examination I had the
21 opportunity to read a number of transcripts. When Professor Lawrence was
22 examined in the Karadzic case, he said - I'm paraphrasing now - that
23 after three years, a significant amount of evidence belonging to forensic
24 entomology would have been destroyed, would have disappeared beyond
25 reconstruction. He was referring to something that you mentioned as a
1 possible basis for drawing conclusions.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Before the Prosecutor objects, I
3 would add that this is page 22465 in Karadzic.
4 Q. And now I'll ask you whether you would agree with
5 Professor Lawrence's statement, if he made such a statement?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. MacGregor.
7 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honours, I would just ask that if we're
8 going to ask Professor Wright to comment on the testimony of someone
9 else, first of all that he be given a full name and perhaps the area that
10 that other person is an expert in just in case -- so we have the record
11 clear but also so that this witness clear, and then we can determine if
12 he's in fact in a position to comment on that statement by another
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's one. And second, by just giving a page
15 number to Mr. Wright who may have no idea what is to be found on that
16 page seems not to be the appropriate way of proceeding.
17 If you want to put this to Mr. Wright, then you have to give him
18 at least the full details. And perhaps he knows the author, I do not
19 know. Perhaps that's the first question you would ask him, whether he
20 knows Professor Lawrence.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. I do know Professor Lawrence, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So therefore, qualifications, Ms. MacGregor,
23 seems not to be -- I take it that you know him from your professional
24 background and you're --
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- aware of his qualifications.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes. He -- yes, I do. Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Now, Mr. Stojanovic, if you want to put any conclusions by
5 Professor Lawrence to this witness, then you have to do that in detail
6 and very precise because otherwise we can't expect this witness to
7 meaningfully comment on that.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The witness
9 will be heard until the end of the week.
10 Q. If I were to tell you, sir, that after three years - that is,
11 three years after the burial - it is difficult to establish using the
12 means of forensic entomology the --
13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand counsel.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The interpreters were unable to hear or understand
15 you, Mr. Stojanovic.
16 But let's leave Professor Lawrence for a moment alone. When you
17 said it would have been a -- you would have expected any insects' remains
18 with the bodies to be found, have you taken into account the time and
19 have you considered to what extent evidence of the presence of insects
20 would have faded away or would have disappeared over a number of years?
21 THE WITNESS: My answer is that I'm, of course, not an expert in
22 forensic entomology, but in my own experience and in Bosnia at the site
23 of Kevljani, we found insect remains on bodies that were believed to have
24 dated from 1992 and we were working, I think, in 1997. And so we found
25 in -- I have seen personally insect remains. But as to a general account
1 of where they survive, the soil conditions and so on, I am not an expert.
2 But I do know from forensic reading that I have done that insect remains
3 will last for many years.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Thank you, Professor.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see --
8 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. May I correct the date?
9 It was not 1997. It was 1998 or 1999.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
11 THE WITNESS: Correct.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- because earlier you corrected -- when a question
13 was put to you about 1997, you said it was 1998.
14 THE WITNESS: Work at Kevljani was done in 1998.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for the correction.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. Let us stick to the Kevljani report. 11409 is the number on the
19 65 ter list. I'm afraid --
20 THE REGISTRAR: Document P1764, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: It has been admitted meanwhile.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Let us look at
23 page 3 in both linguistic versions.
24 Q. The first thing I would like to ask you, Professor, is the
25 following: On page 2 you say that you found 72 complete bodies in
1 15 virtually intact graves. Then you estimate that in the remaining
2 disturbed and removed bodies -- or, rather, that the number of such
3 bodies is 72 again. I would like to know which methodology you used to
4 establish that.
5 A. May I first say that my memory is worse than I thought. It was
6 1999 that I worked at Kevljani.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Add another few years, Mr. Wright, and we come to
8 2013. Yes. No --
9 THE WITNESS: I thought that -- in -- in answer to your question,
10 can we look at the map that is included in my report.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, could you guide us to the map. And
12 I think in general asking questions about the summary seems not to be the
13 best thing to do where the witness has explained in his report quite a
14 number of things which do not appear in similar detail in the summary.
15 MS. MacGREGOR: [Microphone not activated]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. MacGregor.
17 MS. MacGREGOR: [Microphone not activated].
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you switch on your microphone?
19 MS. MacGREGOR: Is it on? There is a figure 2 that I think is
20 page 17 that may be -- it's a schematic map. I think it may be that one.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's the one I want.
22 Now, my answer depends on our knowledge that there were two major
23 rows of graves; one row which was largely undisturbed at the top, and
24 then a row of graves to the right of them which were largely disturbed
25 but covered the same sort of distance and area. And then there are
1 two -- in the bottom left-hand side, there are two disturbed graves and
2 two undisturbed graves. So we know how many bodies were found in the
3 undisturbed graves and that estimate - and I repeat it is an estimate -
4 of 72 makes the assumption that the same sort of area is covered in the
5 disturbed graves from which the bodies were taken away. So 72 is -- for
6 the undisturbed areas and the partly disturbed graves is a count, and the
7 other number 72 that I mention is an estimate based on the assumption
8 that we're looking at the same sort of area of disturbed graves.
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Professor, do you think that this is a primary burial site or a
11 secondary one?
12 A. We formed the opinion that it was a primary burial site. The
13 bodies were in an intact state. There were some body parts but we
14 interpreted them as left over from the disturbance at the site, but that
15 the undisturbed graves were places of primary burial.
16 Q. I asked you this because I wanted you to assist us. That being
17 the case, do you think that the bodies and persons buried there were
18 killed at that very site or were they brought there already dead?
19 A. I think they were brought there already dead on the grounds that
20 we didn't find numerous shell cases such as we did, say, at Kozluk. We
21 saw no evidence of signs of execution at that spot. So I think they were
22 brought there.
23 JUDGE ORIE: By the way, Mr. Stojanovic, again, the way in which
24 the witness has estimated or on what basis of what kind of calculation he
25 has based his estimates are found in the report in detail. Therefore,
1 why ask him again about methodology which is -- I mean, let's try to
2 focus on what really matters and not put the same question to the witness
3 and then accept the same answer.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Professor, the fact that in a number of graves iron ore was
7 found, could that be an indication of where the bodies in question had
8 been brought from?
9 A. Yes, indeed. And Dr. Brown was brought in to analyse these
10 foreign rocks, foreign rocky material that we found in these graves. It
11 consisted of some piece of slag which is left over from a furnace, and it
12 consisted of some pieces of raw iron ore. And so a report was written by
13 Dr. Brown who visited the site, and he concluded that that material was
14 consistent with the bodies having been brought from the site at Omarska.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at 1D123.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D123 is not in e-court, Your Honour.
18 Could it be 1123?
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I apologise. 1123. I
20 would like to see page 1.
21 Q. Professor, during the excavation of the Kevljani burial site, was
22 local personnel from Bosnia-Herzegovina also involved?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You asked this question earlier today,
24 Mr. Stojanovic, and the Professor said no.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. That related
1 to the exhumations relating to Srebrenica, and this one has to do with a
2 site in the Krajina area and that was the reason for my question because
3 now I'm about to mention the name of a local site.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: My apologies.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for your assistance.
6 Q. Professor, so my question was: Do you recall if the exhumations
7 in Krajina, specifically in Kevljani, included local personnel from
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina also?
9 A. No, there were no locals taking part in the exhumation. Just can
10 I -- I'm not sure what the purpose of your question is, but can I just
11 anticipate this by saying that people would have been able to observe our
12 exhumations but they certainly didn't take part in the exhumations. We
13 were in the -- there were roads passing close and so they could have
14 observed what we did.
15 Q. Thank you, Professor. Well, the question is now if you know
16 whether any of the local staff took part in the process of processing and
17 identifying of the bodies?
18 A. The identifications were certainly not my responsibility and no
19 one came to the site for the purpose of attempting to identify the
20 individuals. I mean, no local people came to the site to do any work
22 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you something about the document. Does
23 the name Jasmin Odobasic mean anything to you, who at the time was the
24 chief of the federal commission for searching for missing persons in
25 2005? Did you have the opportunity to meet this person at any point
1 during your work?
2 A. I don't remember meeting such a person, and I -- my work finished
3 in Bosnia in 2000. But I don't -- no, I don't remember meeting such a
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at paragraph 30 of
6 this statement which the then-chief of the federal commission for missing
7 persons gave to the international tribunal and to the investigators.
8 Q. I'm going to just put a couple of questions to you, Professor, so
9 perhaps you can help.
10 In paragraph 30 the witness says, among other things:
11 "Let me just mention one problem: In 1999, the ICTY exhumed a
12 mass grave - Kevljani, a secondary grave - with 143 bodies.
13 Eva Klonowski and Nermin Sarajlic processed these bodies. And they made
14 mistakes there as well. An example is the identification of
15 Mursija Zenkic. In 2004, I exhumed another secondary grave, Stari
16 Kevljani, just 200 metres away from the first grave. 456 bodies were
17 exhumed, all camp inmates from Omarska. Among those bodies, I found the
18 body of Mursija Zenkic with her identity papers. Physician Ana Boza was
19 in charge of the onsite examination of the bodies, but later during the
20 final autopsy and the identification process of the ICMP replaced her
21 with Eva Klonowski and Nermin Sarajlic and she was literally excluded
22 from the whole process."
23 My question is this: After you left this locality, up to 2000,
24 was the final number of persons linked with that grave-site ever
1 A. Well, I had nothing to do with the processing of the bodies and
2 the identifications. My understanding was that the -- the bodies from
3 Kevljani, which was a primary grave, in my opinion, not a secondary
4 grave, that the bodies were taken to the ICTY morgue for examination.
5 And I don't understand the remainder of that paragraph, maybe because I'm
6 just ignorant of what happened, but I couldn't answer it.
7 Q. And I'm going to finish with this question, Professor: Did you,
8 in your work in any way, respecting the rules of your profession,
9 establish that these were the bodies of persons who were detained in the
10 Omarska camp?
11 A. No, it was not my business to do that. And it was my business to
12 draw attention to items of material culture and of rocks which might bear
13 on the question of where these people had come from, but my brief did not
14 go beyond that.
15 Q. Professor, thank you very much. I have no further questions.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.
17 Ms. MacGregor, is there any need to re-examine the witness?
18 MS. MacGREGOR: I do have one question for the witness,
19 Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please put that question to the witness.
21 MS. MacGREGOR: I just want to clarify the Professor's testimony
22 before on the comments of Dr. Lawrence.
23 Re-examination by Ms. MacGregor:
24 Q. And to be clear, we're talking about Dr. Christopher Lawrence; is
25 that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And what was his role on these exhumations you worked with him
4 A. He didn't have a role in the exhumations. He was -- he was, in
5 1998, in charge of the operations at the morgue, though he did visit the
6 exhumations but he had no -- no role in the exhumations in any official
8 Q. Was he the chief pathologist of the project?
9 A. That was my understanding.
10 Q. Thank you. So I've located the quote from Dr. Lawrence's
11 Karadzic testimony, and I will just -- since we don't all have it in
12 front of us, I will slowly read the question and answer and just ask you,
13 based on your experience in the forensic work you've done, if you would
14 agree or not with his conclusion. The question:
15 "Q. Would the presence of insects give any kind of indication as
16 to the time that the body was there, from the time of death to the time
17 of burial?
18 "A. Sorry, yes. If they were present, it could be helpful. I
19 think my experience with forensic entomology suggests to me that
20 sometimes it's helpful and sometimes it's not. It doesn't always work.
21 I also suspect that after three years quite a lot of the forensic
22 entomology evidence would have gone and would not be recoverable."
23 And did you need me to repeat the question that I asked to you,
24 Professor Wright?
25 A. I can only talk about my own experience, and at Kevljani, it
1 lasted longer than three years. But I absolutely decline to be drawn
2 into discussions about forensic entomology in general.
3 MS. MacGREGOR: I have no further questions, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I have one further question.
5 On the same subject, is Professor Lawrence known to you - and I'm
6 not asking you to disqualify him - as a specialist in forensic
8 THE WITNESS: No, he's known to me as a medical pathologist.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 Any further questions, Mr. Stojanovic?
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Stojanovic, I haven't heard you about the
13 need for further time to prepare further cross-examination.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. In view of
15 your suggestion, we did prepare for Kevljani and these other two
16 locations so there is no need to recall Professor Wright on these
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information.
19 I asked this, Mr. Wright, because there had been a discussion
20 about whether there would be any need to recall you since some of the
21 reports were -- were presented rather late as to be dealt with during
22 your examination, but luckily enough, you don't have to travel again. At
23 least not for us.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Because we have concluded your evidence. I'd like
1 to thank you very much for coming a long way to The Hague and for having
2 answered all the questions that were put to you either by the parties or
3 by the Bench, and I wish you a safe return home again.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher and you are excused.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Would the Prosecution be ready to call its next
8 witness? I'm not yet asking you to do, but ...
9 MS. MacGREGOR: My understanding is that we are prepared,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because there are a few other matters on our
12 agenda as well, and since we are -- we may have some time to do that.
13 But let me just try to get organised again.
14 First I'd like to deal with one procedural matter, which is
15 92 ter motions for upcoming expert witnesses. For a number of upcoming
16 expert witnesses, the Prosecution has filed Rule 92 ter motions tendering
17 transcript portions as well as expert reports as associated exhibits. In
18 this respect, the Chamber recalls its decision on the Prosecution
19 92 ter motion concerning Witness Teufika Ibrahimefendic, dated the 1st of
20 July, 2013, and will consider those documents filed pursuant to Rule 92
21 ter of the Rules as Rule 94 bis documents.
22 Then there are a few decisions which I would like to render.
23 There are a few. There are four. I'd like to use the next minutes for
24 that. I'll start with the ones which can be delivered in open session.
25 But if you would just bear with me for one moment.
1 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: I just wanted to make sure that the booth had
3 received all of the decisions.
4 The first one is an oral decision on the amalgamated witness
5 statement and associated exhibits of Witness Rupert Smith.
6 By its confidential decision issued on the 28th of June, 2013,
7 the Chamber decided that there is no need to recall Witness Smith. It is
8 hereby put on the public record that the testimony of Witness Smith is
10 The Chamber will now turn to its outstanding decision on the
11 admission of his amalgamated witness statement of the 22nd of October,
12 2009, which is currently marked for identification as Exhibit P785 as
13 well as the remaining associated exhibits to it.
14 At first, following the conclusion of his testimony before the
15 Tribunal, the Chamber admits Witness Smith's amalgamated witness
16 statement of the 22nd October 2009, currently marked for identification
17 as Exhibit P785, and it's admitted into evidence.
18 With regard to the outstanding associated exhibits, the Chamber
19 notes at the outset that it was not properly guided as to which
20 associated exhibit is referred to in different parts of the witness
21 statement because the statement itself refers to document ID numbers,
22 whereas the Rule 92 ter exhibit list, as provided by the Prosecution,
23 refers to Rule 65 ter numbers of the respective exhibits.
24 In addition, many references to document ID numbers in the
25 statement proved to be incorrect and the Chamber was only able to find
1 the corresponding associated exhibit by carefully analysing the affected
2 sections together with the associated exhibits. Therefore, in order to
3 avoid this in the future, the Chamber requests the Prosecution to clearly
4 set out the corresponding paragraphs in the relevant witness statement
5 for each associated exhibit it seeks to be incorporated into its
6 Rule 92 ter exhibit list.
7 Following the Chamber's approach in the Tucker oral decision of
8 the 22nd of November, 2012, on the admission of associated exhibits, the
9 Chamber admits the following 12 documents into evidence as associated
10 exhibits through the witness -- to the statement of Witness Smith.
11 Rule 65 ter numbers 03500, 11469, 03503, 05727, 05728, 19262, 05832,
12 05589, 18635, 17475, 08946, and 03502.
13 With regard to Rule 65 ter number 09670, the Chamber notes that
14 it has not been able to find its corresponding paragraph or section in
15 the witness statement. In the event that the Prosecution still intends
16 to have this document admitted, it is hereby invited to inform the
17 Chamber of the correct reference in order to enable the Chamber to decide
18 on its admission.
19 With regard to the remaining 19 associated exhibits tendered by
20 the Prosecution through Witness Smith, the Chamber denies their admission
21 into evidence without prejudice.
22 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
23 I move to the next decision which relates to Exhibit P1003.
24 This is the Chamber's decision on the admission of Exhibit P1003
25 into evidence.
1 During the testimony of Witness Nermin Karagic on the
2 21st of February of this year, the Prosecution used a comments chart
3 which, when tendered for admission into evidence, was marked for
4 identification as Exhibit P1003.
5 At the direction of the Trial Chamber, the parties made further
6 submissions on the chart on the 1st of March, 2013. (redacted)
11 (redacted) The Prosecution
12 submitted that the Defence's objection was a question of the weight to be
13 attributed to the chart. And these submissions can be found at
14 transcript page 9509.
15 The Chamber has analysed the comments chart in light of
16 Rules 89(C) and (D) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence and
17 notes at the outset that the evidence relates to Scheduled Incidents
18 A 6.7, A 6.8, and C 15.5. The Chamber observed that Witness Karagic
19 prepared the comments chart prior to his testimony in court, recalling
20 what happened to the persons listed therein based on his knowledge. The
21 witness also made additional comments in court and affirmed the
22 document's authenticity. This can be found at transcript pages 9106 to
24 In the comments the witness clearly indicated those persons he
25 knew personally and any uncertainty he had about the identity and/or fate
1 of persons. Considering this, the Chamber finds the comments chart to be
2 prima facie relevant and to have probative value of Scheduled Incidents A
3 6.7, A 6.8, and C 15 of the indictment, and therefore admits P1003 into
5 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
6 The next decision is the decision on the Prosecution motion to
7 amend its 65 ter witness list to substitute Witness RM705 with Witness
9 On the 9th of May, 2013, the Prosecution filed a confidential
10 motion seeking leave to add Witness RM095 to its Rule 65 ter list as a
11 proposed Rule 92 bis witness in substitution of proposed 92 bis Witness
12 RM705 whom the Prosecution seeks to withdraw. The Prosecution submits
13 that the substitution of witnesses will not cause prejudice to the
14 Defence because the expected evidence covers the topic of alleged
15 detention and killing in Prijedor. The Prosecution submits that it has
16 good cause for the substitution considering what the Defence has recently
17 described as its "revenge" defence and Witness RM705's reluctance to have
18 their evidence used in any form due to personal security concerns.
19 The Defence filed its response on the 23rd of May objecting to
20 the substitution on the ground that the Prosecution failed to establish
21 good cause. The Chamber considers that the Prosecution has not shown
22 good cause for adding Witness RM095 to its Rule 65 ter witness list.
23 However, considering Witness RM705's reluctance to provide evidence
24 because of personal security concerns, and considering that the
25 anticipated evidence of both witnesses is substantially similar, thereby
1 causing limited additional burden for the Defence, the Chamber finds that
2 it is in the interest of justice to allow substitution, and for these
3 reasons the Chamber grants the motion.
4 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
5 Although I would have one more decision to be delivered, I
6 refrain from that because the next witness is scheduled for chief -- in
7 chief for half an hour. We'll see at the end of today's session whether
8 still time remains before cross-examination will start to read that last
10 Ms. MacGregor.
11 Page 14477 redacted.
8 (redacted) may I remind the
9 Prosecution that it's appropriately done in private session.
10 We take a break.
11 And, Ms. MacGregor, the Chamber expects that examination-in-chief
12 can be concluded today.
13 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honours, I believe it can. It's Mr. Jeremy
14 who will be handling the next witness so he can answer to that, but I
15 believe he can.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We have the same expectations as far as he's
18 We take the break and will resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 1.17 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 1.41 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness please put on the earphones, yes.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Madam.
1 Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you make a
2 solemn declaration. The text is now handed out to you by the usher. May
3 I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
4 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
5 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Maljaars, you'll first be examined by
9 Mr. Jeremy. Mr. Jeremy is counsel for the Prosecution and you'll find
10 him to your right.
11 You may proceed, Mr. Jeremy.
12 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours. Good afternoon.
13 WITNESS: SUZANNA MALJAARS
14 Examination by Mr. Jeremy:
15 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Maljaars.
16 A. Good afternoon.
17 Q. Could I start by stating your full name for the record, please?
18 A. Suzanna Elisabeth Maljaars.
19 Q. And I see you've brought some materials in with you to the
20 courtroom. Could you briefly tell the Court what those are, please.
21 A. It's a copy of a report that I wrote in February 2000.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you to make a short pause --
23 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- between question and answer because your second
25 name has already disappeared from the transcript. It was Suzanna
1 Elisabeth Maljaars. Could you please keep this in mind, both.
2 MR. JEREMY:
3 Q. Ms. Maljaars, what is your current profession?
4 A. My current profession is a chemistry teacher.
5 Q. And could you briefly tell us about your educational background,
6 the main points.
7 A. I finished laboratory school and later on I finished university,
8 both in chemistry. And after I finished chemistry in university, I
9 followed a post programme, post-doc programme to become a chemistry
11 MR. JEREMY: Okay. Your Honours, could I please see 65 ter 29089
12 on our screens.
13 Q. And while that's coming up, Ms. Maljaars, do you recall providing
14 a copy of your CV to the Office of the Prosecutor in the past?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. And I see in the -- the title below your names it says "drs."
17 which I understand is a Dutch term, "doctorandus," that indicates that
18 you have a master's degree rather than a PhD; is that correct?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. And is the information contained in this CV accurate as at 2003?
21 Does it outline the courses you attended, your professional employment,
22 and the publications you had written up until 2003?
23 A. Yes, it does.
24 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I'd tender that as the next
25 Prosecution exhibit.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Document 29089 receives number P1770,
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
5 MR. JEREMY:
6 Q. Ms. Maljaars, your CV states that, by the year 2000, you'd been
7 employed by the Netherlands Forensic Institute for approximately ten
8 years; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. And could you very briefly explain what the
11 Netherlands Forensic Institute is?
12 A. The Netherlands Forensic Institute is an institute that conducts
13 forensic investigations for the whole of the Netherlands, and it is
14 specialising in all types of forensic investigations.
15 Q. And is one of the areas that it specialises in textiles
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And has the Netherlands Forensic Institute, or NFI for short,
19 previously provided a report relating to your analysis of textiles
20 material, a report specifically prepared by you to the Office of the
21 Prosecutor of this Tribunal?
22 A. Yes, they have.
23 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, could we please see 65 ter 04612 on
24 our screens.
25 Q. Ms. Maljaars, do you recognise the document on the screen before
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. And I see the subject of the document is "Textile Investigation,"
4 it's dated 11 February, 2000. Can you very briefly explain to the Court
5 what this document is, please?
6 A. This document is a report that I wrote concerning textile
7 investigations on pieces of textiles that I have received, and I was
8 asked to look for similarities between the pieces of textile.
9 Q. And from -- from whom did you receive those pieces of textile?
10 A. We received them from Mr. Ruez, Mr. Kruszewski, and Mr. Manning.
11 MR. JEREMY: Could we please go to page 24 in the English and
12 page 23 in the B/C/S.
13 Q. Ms. Maljaars, in the English version on the right-hand side of
14 the screen we see a signature. Whose signature is that?
15 A. It is mine.
16 Q. And before your name below this signature I see "Ing," what does
17 that represent?
18 A. That's a short version of "engineer," and that's my bachelor
19 degree in chemistry.
20 Q. So does that reflect your level of education at the time that you
21 wrote this report?
22 A. Yes, it does.
23 Q. And what was your position within the
24 Netherlands Forensic Institute when you prepared and wrote this report?
25 A. I was a research co-ordination -- co-ordinator for the hair,
1 fibre, and textile investigations.
2 Q. And what did that mean in -- in practice in respect to reports
3 like this?
4 A. It meant that I conducted investigations on textiles in a
5 forensic way.
6 Q. And at the time of writing this report, had you completed any
7 relevant publications related to this field of expertise?
8 A. In 1991 I co-wrote a publication about fibres and their evidence
9 in court.
10 Q. And do you -- do you recall how long it took you to conduct the
11 investigations and prepare this particular report?
12 A. It took about 140 hours.
13 Q. And did you -- did you complete that work alone?
14 A. No, there was a whole team working on it. About five to six
15 people, including me.
16 Q. And what was your position within that team?
17 A. I set out the way to examine them, to examine the textiles. I
18 was in charge of the whole investigation.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MR. JEREMY: Could we please go to page 2 in e-court.
21 Q. And, Ms. Maljaars, at the top of the screen we see the title
22 "Materials Submitted," it indicates who it was received from. Via, we
23 have J.R. Ruez. And date of receipt: 3rd of July, 1997. We then have
24 some subheadings saying "originating from" and then a location. And
25 below that a list of codes and some descriptions. Could you -- and that
1 goes on for nine pages or so in the report. Could you tell us what those
2 are, please?
3 A. There are in total about 400 pieces of textile materials. They
4 were divided from different origins, and the list on the page says the
5 codes on the items and the origin that they came from.
6 Q. And so these comprised the materials that you analysed in
7 connection with this report?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. JEREMY: And can we go to page 4 in e-court, please.
10 Q. Ms. Maljaars, did you have a correction that you wished to make?
11 A. Yes, I do. I would like to point out a typo on this page.
12 Q. And could you tell us where that is, please?
13 A. It's on the lower half. It's about the eight or nine line from
14 below, and it says "LZ2-B-41 #2" and it should be "LZ2-B-41 #1."
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to page 10, please.
17 And if we focus on the bottom of the page it reads:
18 "Question 1.
19 "The ICTY requested to investigate the occurrence of similarities
20 between the pieces of textile material, blindfolds, and ligatures from
21 the different places of origin."
22 MR. JEREMY: Can we go to the next page, please.
23 Q. Now, Ms. Maljaars, here we see a series of subheadings,
24 "Procedure," "Methods used" and "Exceptions," and that's all under the
25 main heading of "Textile investigations - question 1." With respect to
1 the heading "Procedure" in the second paragraph we read:
2 "Within each group and from within each of the different origins
3 within this group those pieces of textile material were selected that
4 were the least deteriorated. Not all individual pieces of textile
5 material in the different groups were therefore investigated."
6 Could you please explain what this means?
7 A. It means that we described all pieces of textile materials from
8 all different origins, and we looked for similarities. When we found
9 similarities between different origins, we looked for the best type of
10 material that was the least deteriorated to investigate further.
11 Q. And you've mentioned material from different origins. What did
12 you know about the origins of these pieces of material?
13 A. I know they were different origins and with different codes and
14 that there have been excavations revealing textile materials and that
15 those materials were sent.
16 Q. All right. The next sentence reads:
17 "... when working with the computerised database, it may be
18 possible that there are more matches than those examined in the groups" I
19 to IV.
20 Could you explain what that means, please?
21 A. We made a description of all the textiles that we received, and
22 we did it on a special set of features. We put those features in
23 database and then use the auto-filter to filter out the similarities or
24 the similar description from different origins, and those five groups
25 came out of that selection and it may be because of the way that we
1 filtered the database that there are more matching pieces of textiles
2 other than the groups I to V.
3 Q. All right. And the next subheading reads: "Methods Used." Now,
4 we won't go through those because we don't have time, but were you
5 familiar with and trained in the use of each of those methods?
6 A. Yes, I was. When working for the NFI, I had two to three years
7 training to do those investigations, as well as in my studies in
8 laboratory school and in university I was trained to operate the FTIR
10 Q. And were these methods consistent with the prevailing
11 professional standards relevant to this sort of investigation at the time
12 the report was prepared?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to page 12, please.
15 Q. We see on this page "Results - question 1.
16 "Group I."
17 Very briefly, could you tell us what we're looking at here just
18 in a couple of sentences?
19 A. What we are seeing here is a table that I made stating all the
20 features that are investigated, macroscopically and microscopically in
21 FTIR, if applicable, and I used this table throughout the investigation
22 of all textile materials, and it says how the features are on that
23 specific type of textile material.
24 Q. And is this group I of matching material one of a number of
25 groups of matching material that you identified in your investigations?
1 A. I am not sure I understand the question.
2 Q. I see it says "Group I" here. Are there also additional groups
3 that you identified in your report that contained matching textiles?
4 A. Yes. Those were the groups II, III, IV, and V, as mentioned in
5 the report.
6 Q. And I see at the bottom of the page there is a reference to
7 FTIR-microscopy, and I see it says "not applied" and "not applied."
8 Could you tell us what FTIR-microscopy was first, please?
9 A. It's a method used based on spectroscopy to identify type of
10 fibres, fibre types like polyester, nylon, acrylic, and you only apply
11 them to synthetic fibres and not to natural fibres.
12 Q. And so why was it not applied to fibres that comprised as group
14 A. Because those contained cotton fibres.
15 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to page 27 in e-court, please.
16 Q. And, Ms. Maljaars, could you tell us what we're looking at here,
18 A. You're looking at a photocopy of two pieces of textiles from
19 group I.
20 Q. And are these photocopies of the textiles that you explained or
21 that you had matched in the table that we just looked at?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And above the first piece of cloth, photocopy of the piece of
24 cloth, is a code, and there appears to be another code below the second
25 piece of cloth. What are those codes?
1 A. The codes came with the pieces of textile.
2 Q. So they are -- are they itemised in the list that we -- we looked
3 at at the start of my questions?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. JEREMY: Could we please go to page 23 in the English,
6 page 22 in the B/C/S.
7 Q. Ms. Maljaars, we see at the top of the page it's "Conclusion -
8 question 1," and focusing on group I, which is the group that we just
9 looked at, can you briefly explain this conclusion?
10 A. When looking at the two pieces of textile, you immediately see
11 similarities, and I conducted an investigation to see if those
12 similarities are not there. So I took a number of investigations,
13 investigated features, looked at the -- at everything that I could look
14 at, and then I could see no differences between them; therefore, I stated
15 that they are indistinguishable from each other.
16 Q. And you mentioned earlier that you had a team of persons working
17 for you. Did you personally verify every match that you made in your
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. And in making that personal verification, did you in turn verify
21 that with anybody else?
22 A. Yes. All of my investigations were checked by another member of
23 the textile and fibre group of the NFI.
24 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to page 43 in e-court, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one additional question.
1 You said it was verified by another member of the group. Were --
2 was that a person who had not participated in this investigation or was
3 it someone who was within the team who was performing on this -- on this
5 THE WITNESS: It was someone who had already taken part in this
6 investigation to describe the features of all the textile materials.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So it was not an outsider to the group that
8 worked on the investigation.
9 THE WITNESS: No.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 MR. JEREMY: Can we go to page 43 in e-court, please.
12 Q. Ms. Maljaars, here we see the title: "Figure illustrating the
13 similarities between the pieces of textile with the different places of
14 origin." Who prepared this table?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. And does it contain the results of the textiles that you were
17 able to match as represented by your report?
18 A. It does as it -- as the arrows combine the different origins with
19 each other. It does not combine the origins that are, for example,
20 within the primary graves or within the secondary graves.
21 Q. And what did you know about primary graves and secondary graves
22 when you compiled this table?
23 A. We found similarities -- no, we found the groups I to V, then we
24 talked with Mr. Manning about what the results were, and I suggested we
25 could make a figure illustrating how the connections could be made
1 visible, and he made a separation in sites that were primary graves and
2 sites that were secondary graves. And until that point, that was not
3 known to me.
4 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to page 21 in the English and page 20 in
5 the B/C/S.
6 Q. Ms. Maljaars, could you explain briefly why you included this
7 miscellaneous section in this report?
8 A. The question originally was if we could see similar pieces of
9 textile between all the origins. When we conducted that investigation,
10 we came up with other features that may be important, so I put those
11 features in this section.
12 Q. And can you briefly describe those -- those features?
13 A. The pieces of textile that we investigated from groups III, IV,
14 and V, they were scalloped on one side, and in my report it says "eloped"
15 on one side. So they did not match in a textile way but they did match
16 in a way that they were found as in appearance, size, et cetera.
17 Q. And I see there is also a reference to groups IV and V.
18 A. Yes. The patterns that are woven in the textiles from groups IV
19 and V are similar, and the colour of the textile is different but the
20 weaving pattern is not different. It's the same. So we suggested they
21 might have the same origin, like the same manufacturer or the same
22 manufacturing process, and we thought that may be important to note
23 beside then just answer the question that we were asked.
24 Q. All right.
25 MR. JEREMY: Lastly, let's go to page 10 in e-court, please.
1 Q. And focusing on the bottom of the page, there is a request. It
3 "The ICTY also requested to investigate if it was possible to
4 form a mechanical fit with textiles materials that are labeled," and then
5 those labels are explained in that paragraph.
6 Now, what were the results of that particular investigation?
7 A. That a mechanical fit between those pieces was not possible.
8 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I'd like to tender Ms. Maljaars'
9 report, 65 ter 04612.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
11 Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Document 04612 receives number P1771,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: P1771 is admitted into evidence.
15 MR. JEREMY: That concludes my direct examination, Your Honours.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.
18 I suggest, Mr. Lukic, that we'll not start for two or three
19 minutes the cross-examination but rather start tomorrow.
20 Therefore, Ms. Maljaars, we'll adjourn for the day and we'd like
21 to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this same courtroom.
22 Meanwhile, I instruct you that you should not speak or
23 communicate in whatever way about your testimony with whomever, whether
24 that's testimony you've given today or whether that's testimony still to
25 be given tomorrow. Is that instruction clear to you?
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then you may follow the usher.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn for the day and will resume
6 tomorrow, Tuesday, the 16th of July, in this same courtroom III at 9.30
7 in the morning.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.13 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 16th day of July,
10 2013, at 9.30 a.m.