1 Thursday, 18 July 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is the case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 The Chamber was informed that the Prosecution would like to raise
11 a preliminary matter.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
13 As you know, we -- we finished yesterday without putting in the
14 associated exhibits, and for -- Mr. Obradovic and so I can do that now,
15 if you wish.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: The audiotape that we heard is 1711A, and I was
18 informed that the subtitled version was not the revised version. There's
19 a better version that is in e-court that will go along with this exhibit
20 and so you will have the audio and the revised transcript.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is that the same number or a different number?
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's 1711A.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That's the one you want to tender.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Yes, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then any objections?
1 [Defence counsel confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: If not, Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1711A receives number P1789,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: And just going down the -- the list, some of the
7 associated exhibits were put in evidence, others the Defence put in
8 evidence, so I'll just list the ones that remain.
9 The first one is 29084.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Next one.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: 29085.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Next one.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: 29086.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Next one.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: 29087.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Next one.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: 04170.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Next one.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: 05407.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Next one.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: 19003.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Next one.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: 24767.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Next one.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: 24880.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Next one.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: And, lastly, 25168.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
4 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I don't have the binder with the
5 documents with me. So ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest the following. That you consider
7 whether there are any objections; that, meanwhile, Madam Registrar
8 prepares a list of numbers to be assigned, ten numbers already to be
9 reserved, and we'll then hear from Mr. Lukic and decide on admission.
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the range of numbers reserved will
12 be P -- number P1790 up to and including P1799, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: These numbers are reserved.
14 Any other matter? We would have a question, if I look at the
15 time estimates, it would appear that the next witness would conclude her
16 testimony today.
17 Is the next witness already available?
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. As far as I know, I -- I
19 spoke to him yesterday and he was about finished.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then is the Prosecution ready to call, I
21 think, Ms. Ibrahimefendic?
22 MS. HASAN: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to the
23 Defence and everyone else. Yes, the Prosecution is ready.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, madam.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you
5 make a solemn declaration. The text is handed out to you by the usher.
6 Could I make -- could I invite to you make that solemn
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
9 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 WITNESS: TEUFIKA IBRAHIMEFENDIC
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Thank you. Please be seated.
13 Madam, you'll first be examined by Ms. Hasan. Ms. Hasan is
14 counsel for the Prosecution and you find her to your right.
15 Ms. Hasan, please proceed.
16 Examination by Ms. Hasan:
17 Q. Good morning, ma'am. Welcome back to the Tribunal.
18 Could you please state your name for the record.
19 A. Teufika Ibrahimefendic.
20 Q. Is it correct that you have testified before this Tribunal on
21 four previous occasions: Namely, in the Krstic case, on 27 July 2000; in
22 the Plavsic case, in December of 2002; in the Tolimir case, in
23 February of 2011; and, most recently, in the Karadzic case, on
24 22nd March 2012.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And can you confirm that you've recently had an opportunity to
2 listen to the testimony you gave in the Krstic trial.
3 A. Yes, I listened to it.
4 Q. And you recall discussing with me that you wished to make a
5 correction to that testimony; namely, to portion of it found at
6 transcript page 5830, where you are recorded as having stated at
7 lines 7 to 8, and I quote:
8 "But there isn't a single family in Zvornik, for, example, that
9 hasn't 20 male members of its family missing."
10 And you wish to make clear that you were given -- giving an
11 example of one family who had 20 male members missing and not that all
12 families in Zvornik had 20 male members missing. Is that a correction
13 you wish to make to your prior testimony?
14 A. Yes, that is the correction. But yesterday, while I was
15 listening to the material, there was another sentence, saying that in one
16 family, 20 persons went missing.
17 The context was the following. A Judge asked me whether there
18 were similar traumas in other parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, to which I
19 replied in the affirmative. That there were people missing in Zvornik,
20 and that, in one family, 20 had gone missing, but not as many as in the
21 families in, say, Srebrenica. That's what I would like to add.
22 Otherwise, I agree with the correction.
23 Q. Thank you. And taking into account the -- these corrections that
24 you've just made, and bearing in mind that the evidence that you gave in
25 the Krstic case related to your knowledge of the conditions of women and
1 children and survivors of the Srebrenica events, related to what was
2 known in 2000, can you confirm that the evidence you gave in -- to the
3 Krstic Chamber was true and accurate, to the best of your knowledge?
4 A. Yes. That was information about patients, clients in the year
5 2000. That's what I spoke about.
6 Q. And if you were asked today about those same matters, would you
7 provide the -- this Court with the same information, again bearing in
8 mind, that it was related to what was known in the year 2000?
9 A. Yes.
10 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, normally I would tender the -- her
11 prior testimony from the Krstic case, which is 65 ter 29099. However, I
12 am mindful of your decision of 1st July in which there was an instruction
13 to postpone the tendering of her testimony until the completion -- until
14 she completes her testimony.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It is clear and it's on the record that you have the
16 intention to tender the material.
17 Please proceed.
18 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, I'll proceed with a very brief summary
19 of her prior testimony.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Before we proceed, Ms. Ibrahimefendic, are you -- is
22 your chair comfortable or is it moving and not very comfortable?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try to move closer or ...
24 yeah, it's all right now.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is it --
1 THE WITNESS: Okay.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You're not having troubles in keeping the chair in
3 the same position?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not now.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then we proceed.
6 MS. HASAN: So, Mr. President, I'll proceed then with a brief
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please read it.
9 MS. HASAN: Ms. Teufika Ibrahimefendic is a psychotherapist who
10 has treated women and children traumatised by the war. Since 1994 she
11 has worked for the Vive Zene organisation which is a multi-disciplinary
12 organisation specialising in the treatment of victims of war, including
13 hundreds of women and children traumatised by the July 1995 events of
14 Srebrenica. The witness previously testified about the effects of the
15 trauma on the Srebrenica victims.
16 That concludes the summary.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. If you have any additional questions,
18 please proceed.
19 MS. HASAN:
20 Q. Ms. Ibrahimefendic, if we can just begin covering a bit more of
21 your background since 2000.
22 Since you testified in the Krstic case, is it correct that you
23 have continued to practice as a psychotherapist?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And while you were the psycho-social ^ co-ordinator of the
1 Vive Zene, can you tell us what position you currently hold in that same
3 A. Apart from my daily psychotherapeutic work, I'm also training
4 co-ordinator. That is, I'm in charge of the training programmes at
5 Vive Zene. We train both our own staff and professionals from other
6 organisations, such as social workers, psychologists, police officers,
7 and so on.
8 Q. Now the Vive Zene organisation, does it continue to receive
9 funding from the European Commission and the Netherlands Ministry of
10 Foreign Affairs?
11 A. Yes. We receive funding from the European community but now no
12 longer from the Dutch ministry. Instead, we receive funding from a Swiss
13 organisation, then from Norway, from UNDP, the UN for victims of torture.
14 I'm speaking mostly about donations from these organisations and
16 Q. Okay. And since the year 2000, has the Vive Zene organisation
17 become more active in dealing with -- in dealing with recovery from
18 trauma at a community level, as it pertains to the Srebrenica victims?
19 A. Yes. Initially, since 1994, when our organisation was founded,
20 we mostly worked with individual patients. But in the past ten years or
21 so, we have worked intensively in the community. We work with groups or
22 families but also with other groups. We do not only work with women who
23 were victims of violence but also with other victims of torture.
24 Now our multi-disciplinary team has 16 members, of whom six are
25 psychologists, three are pedagogists, then we also have doctors, nurses,
1 social workers, and a social pedagogue. We have widen our activities.
2 Q. Can I --
3 A. We also -- we're also active in the legal field. We're trying to
4 bring about changes of laws and regulations.
5 Q. Okay. Now, besides your co-ordinating and management
6 responsibilities, have you continued to carry your own case load of -- of
7 treating patients? Have you continued to do that?
8 JUDGE ORIE: The question already seems to have been answered.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's my ...
10 MS. HASAN:
11 Q. Sorry, I don't think we got the end of that.
12 Could you just repeat what you were going to say. All we got
14 "Yes, that's my ..."
15 Did you intend to continue your answer?
16 A. That's my basic task - treating patients. That's what I do at
17 Vive Zene.
18 Q. And are you still a member of the European Association for
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you also continue to -- have you also continued to be a member
22 of the European Association of Gestalt Psychotherapy?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And is it correct that you -- sorry. I'll -- I'll rephrase that.
25 Have you worked with -- do you continue to work with both Serb
1 and Bosnian victims of the war?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And since your -- and since -- well, in the last 13 years, can
4 you tell us whether you've treated women who suffer from the Srebrenica
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. And those women that you've treated that suffer from the
8 Srebrenica Syndrome, do they still live in the state of uncertainty, as
9 you've described it in your prior testimony?
10 A. Many things have changed since I gave testimony in 2013 [as
11 interpreted]. There have been changed in the field of individual trauma
12 and also collective trauma.
13 Since 1995, when I began to work with women who were put up in
14 Tuzla after being expelled from Srebrenica, there have been both
15 similarities and differences between individuals. But one can say that
16 from the initial traumatisation characterised by panic, fear and
17 uncertainty, gave way to the confusion and lack of understanding, due to
18 the fast changes.
19 Then there was grief due to loss. The traumatic event that
20 happened in 1995 in Srebrenica is an original, a basic event, but
21 everything that happened later made the victims go through their own
22 individual process which was also a group process and one characteristic
23 of the whole community. At first, I focussed on individual symptoms,
24 because, at that time, the victims mostly complained of their problems
25 and the symptoms they could not understand and had a very hard time
2 Q. Ms. Ibrahimefendic, if I could stop you right there. Can you
3 tell us more precisely, the women who suffer from the Srebrenica Syndrome
4 who still not found -- have not had their loved one's remains identified,
5 can you describe their condition to us? Those women who today still
6 don't have those identifications.
7 A. I was going to say that. Now, the main feature of that trauma is
8 grief and sorrow and deep suffering because their loved ones still have
9 not been identified. The search for the mortal remains is still ongoing.
10 Nearly 8.000 people in Bosnia-Herzegovina still haven't found their
11 nearest and dearest. The traumatic reactions have to do with grief and
12 sorrow and the problem of stopping these. Because the bodies still
13 haven't been found and then the real mourning cannot begin. And when I
14 say "mourning," I mean the beginning of a recovery. Although many women
15 have learned to live with these symptoms and accepted their life as it is
16 in their own way, but that doesn't mean that they aren't still suffering.
17 Q. Based on your observations in treating these women, can you just
18 briefly describe for us how they envision their future.
19 A. In the context of their overall physical and mental health, it is
20 very difficult to hear from them how they see their future. They still
21 don't have a vision because everything is connected with the dead, with
22 mourning, with current illnesses in the family, with loss, and it's very
23 difficult for them to imagine their future and distance themselves from
24 the dramatic event. As much as the therapist or anyone else may wish to
25 help them to establish distance from the past, they always go back to it.
1 So it's a very difficult task to build that distance and have
2 them focus on the future. They feel that they need more information,
3 that they need to learn the truth, and they need support from others,
4 from the community, and that others must understand and acknowledge their
5 suffering. That is necessary for relations with others to develop in the
6 direction of trust. Because that's a very -- that's a significant
7 difficulty. They don't trust anybody. And they have difficulties in
8 contacts with others. And some women still have problems with
9 themselves. So that it's hard on them. The traumatic process still has
10 not finished, and it's difficult for them to build a vision of the
12 Q. Now, when you testified in Krstic, you explained that when these
13 women receive certificates confirming the death of their relative, they
14 get re-traumatised at that point. There's a bit of a regression and then
15 they can begin a -- the process of, as you just said, mourning.
16 Can you explain whether once these women receive the confirmation
17 of the death of their relatives, whether they're grieving process after
18 that point is the same or different to the normal grieving process, for
19 example, if I were to lose a parent in -- in normal circumstances?
20 A. The phenomenon of missing persons is a separate issue not only in
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina but worldwide. When one says a person had gone
22 missing and there's no information of their whereabouts, the people are,
23 of course, under the pressure of finding that person. But once the
24 mortal remains are found and once they are faced with the results of DNA
25 analysis, still a good portion of them cannot believe that it is the
1 person. That is why it is very difficult to speak of it in terms of
2 regular grieving or mourning.
3 It is a fact that many women who even managed to locate their
4 nearest and dearest, especially in terms of mothers who found their
5 children, they exhibit signs of relief. They are relieved because the
6 mortal remains of their near and dear have finally been found. Although
7 there is this amount of relief, on the other hand they also feel
8 exceptionally sad. They are in disbelief. They still do not want to
9 believe that these are the bones of their child. The loss of a child is
10 one of the most difficult losses.
11 So to speak of it in terms of regular grieving, like when one has
12 lost a parent who was 85 years old, the death of that person is accepted
13 as part of loss, normal loss in life. But in the case of the missing,
14 one cannot speak of it that way, because there's always this doubt.
15 There's always a degree of unclarity. A number of issues, questions,
16 that cannot be answered by those left behind, in terms of how that person
17 died, whether they were tortured, whether they were alone, scared,
18 hungry, thirsty, et cetera. There's a number of different circumstances
19 surrounding such deaths which burden those who had lost their family
21 On the other hand, though, there is this degree of relief once
22 the mortal remains are found because there is a place they can go to.
23 They can go to the grave. And they have a feeling of some kind of
24 contact with someone who was very close to them, something that belongs
25 to them. It's a place of mourning, a place of relieving one's sadness.
1 Q. And you've mentioned the children, and you mentioned those
2 children that were lost. But as pertains to the children who are
3 survivors of the Srebrenica events, you've previously testified about the
4 symptoms they exhibited in the Krstic case.
5 Now, can you tell us today in the last 13 years, how -- how are
6 those -- how are the children doing? Do they still suffer from
8 A. Children develop, and in the course of that development, they
9 have an opportunity to receive support and to learn many new things in
10 life, to shape their personality so that one part of their identity can
11 remain normal, so to speak.
12 However, there's always a missing part in that identity. There's
13 a void which is never to be filled. Not because some children did not
14 receive a chance to develop or that some of them did not have these,
15 quote/unquote, normal conditions of development. It is because their
16 parents had been traumatised and because in the family circle there was
17 always talk of things past. That is why such children often live in the
18 past, together with their parents. If the children listen to the stories
19 of their parents who talk about their helplessness, about their feeling
20 of not being able to do anything, then the children, in the present, look
21 for some kind of strength to try and pull out their parent from this
23 In that part of their identity, there's confusion, which makes
24 their growth and development difficult. It is additionally made
25 difficult because there wasn't sufficient discussion of what happened.
1 The children cannot reconstruct the events themselves because they don't
2 know what happened in July 1995. But at least feelings should have been
3 discussed. They should have been able to talk about what they went
4 through, how they felt, how they were being taken care of, fed, and
5 clothed. But all such basic information was withheld, and the children
6 remained living in this empty space without a sufficient degree of
8 What is particularly pronounced is that the children were
9 overprotected by their parents on the one hand, whilst, on the other
10 hand, the children had a lot of fear for their mothers. That is why they
11 took care of their mothers. They exhibited adult properties in terms of
12 taking care of their mother, and the mother assumed the role of the
14 It is particularly important to stress that if there's a son
15 missing in the family and the other one is still alive, then the
16 children, if they were small, and the mother kept crying and talking
17 about the missing son, the remaining son felt unimportant or less
18 important, and such children often avoided their mothers because they
19 were depressed and sad and kept repeating sad stories and yet the
20 children needed support. They needed something else that they would have
21 received in normal families.
22 Q. Ms. Ibrahimefendic, if I can ask you more specifically, you've
23 had the chance now for some -- sometime since your Krstic testimony to
24 observe some of the children, their development and growth. Can you tell
25 us what, if any, impact the absence of the male population, the fathers,
1 the uncles, you've mentioned the brothers already, has on their
3 A. I had occasion to follow - and I can say now that I believe the
4 basic traumatic situation is the same - but they developed in different
5 directions. I'd say that the development, in lay terms, may have
6 appeared normal. However, such children have a completely different
7 self-image and a different view of the world, as well as of the others.
8 Privately they say that they are not as worthy, that their self-esteem is
9 low. There are differences, though. Some of them are introvert and very
10 much attached to the family; whereas others are often outside the home,
11 away from the family, seeking support with others.
12 There's a number of delinquent children in such families who had
13 their family members missing. Recently we conducted research and out of
14 33 delinquent children, nine of them had previously exhibited such
15 behaviour. But when I worked with them they said, "My father had gone
16 missing, my father had been killed." It was the first problem they
17 mentioned even without me asking. The consequence of it is that it is
18 difficult to foresee. There is a number of researchers working on it,
19 some associates of mine as well. But in order to provide a broad
20 estimate that is well nigh impossible at this point in time.
21 I can cite an example. I worked with a student of electrical
22 engineering who was very young when he arrived from Srebrenica with his
23 mother and three sisters. He asked for help. He has a healthy degree of
24 humour and even very serious situations become translated into something
25 humourous by him, but he sought assistance because he had problems with
1 exams. Occasionally he had problems when having to take an oral exam and
2 he wondered why. Sometimes he problems with written tests, but he
3 believed that most of his peers do not have such greet fear when written
4 tests are on hand. Yet he has sweaty palms, palpitations and all that
5 when he needs to take a written test, and he failed such tests several
6 times. We had a number of sessions and at the last session he said, "I
7 am in a state of chaos and I'm well familiar with the theory of chaos."
8 I was quite puzzled and he explained to me, saying, "It is when I was
9 there, it is when I was pushed into the bus and when my mother screamed
10 from the far end of the bus, looking for me."
11 This means that in the course of my work I am still only
12 investigating. It is part of psychotherapeutic work that each patient
13 should arrive at an idea of why things are happening to him. When he
14 managed to establish this link with his past, this image that he painted
15 for me which was so convincing, the picture of this bus, the people, him
16 being in panic, he called it chaos. And I often hear it from my women
17 patients who say, "There was chaos, there was chaos." So based on that
18 example I can say so.
19 I have a number of other examples but this is the one that came
20 to mind first.
21 Q. Now, what can you tell us about the -- the desire of the children
22 or young adults, the women, to re-establish life in Srebrenica?
23 A. Their psychological problems, from their point of view, well,
24 they want to go back. They want to resume their lives there on the one
25 hand. On the other, they refuse to go back. In traumatic states, often
1 things are contradictory and people are always in extremes. On the one
2 hand, there's this exceptionally strong wish, whereas on the other, there
3 is much fear and resistance to going back, as if there were two people.
4 One who -- well, psychologically, one could even say there are two
5 people. One who has this enormous wish to go back to the previous life,
6 including all the people they had shared their beautiful moments with.
7 And, on the other hand, they are well aware of the situation, and the
8 other part is suffering greatly. So there's always this dis-balance or
9 imbalance, the interruption of this continuum of life in Srebrenica.
10 It was traumatic event because a trauma means discontinuation of
11 one's life. It is difficult to pick it up from where you left it. It is
12 even impossible. They need to continue leaving in the future and yet
13 their perception of time is constant. It's as if things froze back then.
14 They are alive but not with deep awareness or enjoying their lives. They
15 are living here but instead of being here, they are back there. And they
16 keep going back. And yet it's 2013. How is one to view that situation
17 from this perspective? When one thinks of 1995 or 1992, how are such
18 experiences to be integrated so as to make them a part of your life, of
19 your life experience, so that you can start anew but at the place where
20 you were born.
21 It's very difficult. And many people from Srebrenica are
22 dispersed. They only come back in summertime for vacation, and often
23 are -- we are visited by our former clients. They talk about their lives
24 in the US, in New Zealand. They do talk, but I think, except for those
25 who had truly undergone this psychotherapeutic treatment, as a person
1 cannot deal with a trauma of that kind alone, it can only be dealt with
2 in contact with others, through communication. So those difficult
3 emotions, those terrifying sentiments need to take shape in -- in the
4 shape of words, in hearing another person accept it. Only in such cases
5 one can expect that they would go back to the place from which they had
6 been driven away.
7 Let me add this. It is not only the case of Srebrenica. It is
8 the case with all other people who survived and left their hearths during
9 the war.
10 Q. Ms. Ibrahimefendic, I just have a couple of final questions, one
11 of which is very short. If I could ask you to briefly answer it.
12 You said -- you just testified that the women who received
13 treatment -- but there are some women who receive treatment. Can you
14 confirm whether or not there are a number of women who have not -- or
15 whether your organisation is capable of handling all of the women that
16 require treatment as a result of the Srebrenica events.
17 A. Of course not. But more and more people are being trained in the
18 community to recognise the symptoms of Srebrenica so that such trauma is
19 not denied. People now know where to send them to, where to get help.
20 Because everyone thinks trauma should be dealt with by doctors. That
21 it's a medical condition, that the post-traumatic stress disorder is a
22 psychiatric diagnosis. It's not. They're not sick. They are not
23 psychiatric patients. They have issues that can be dealt with. So the
24 organisation alone cannot cover everyone. We are increasing our
25 capacity, the volume of our work, we also train and supervise others, and
1 we instruct people to go to appropriate institutions.
2 Of course, many of those people do not wish to be helped, in the
3 sense that they think no one can help them.
4 Q. Finally, if I can ask you just how these women and children and
5 survivors of the Srebrenica events, how -- how have they done in the last
6 13 years based on your observations, in terms of re-establishing
7 community relationships?
8 A. In my experience, and from my point of view based on my practice
9 thus far, I could put it this way: As of 2003, when the burial of mortal
10 remains started takes place in Srebrenica, through the years, their
11 psychological situation has peaks and troughs, both psychologically and
12 physically, actually. For example, there's a period where they receive
13 notification of identification, when they go to such centres where they
14 have to identify the mortal remains or accept them as the missing person.
15 Next follows the stage of preparing for burial and then the period of
16 calming down and performing rituals. When such women come, their main
17 topic that they begin their story with is what happened in their
18 immediate family and their extended family, and they always, or for the
19 most part, talk about death.
20 Of course, there is the other part which they do not easily lend
21 to inspection that they do live, that occasionally they smile, laugh, or
22 experience joy, but everything is intermixed with death. Say, a
23 grandchild is born. They mourn because of those who are no longer
24 present, saying they could have seen this, they could have been witness
25 to it. There's always something that they miss.
1 I keep offering life, and they keep coming back with death, if I
2 can put it that way.
3 MS. HASAN: I have nothing further, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Hasan.
5 I think the best to do would to take the break now and not start
6 cross-examination yet.
7 Ms. Ibrahimefendic, we take a break of 20 minutes. We'd like to
8 see you back after that, when the Defence will cross-examine you. You
9 may follow the usher.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at 10 minutes to 11.00 a.m.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Ibrahimefendic, you'll now be cross-examined by
18 Mr. Lukic. Mr. Lukic is counsel for Mr. Mladic. You'll find him to your
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Ibrahimefendic.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. First, I'd like to ask you the following: Did the Prosecution of
24 this Tribunal ask that you draft a written expert report for the needs of
25 this case, about the matters you are to testify to today?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Nor were you asked to produce a report for the Tolimir case and
3 your testimony there.
4 A. No.
5 Q. Would you be prepared to draft a written report?
6 A. To tell you the truth, I don't see what the purpose of it would
7 be. I think I've provided sufficient information through my testimony.
8 It would need a thorough explanation, in terms of why it is needed, to
9 what end, for whom, et cetera.
10 Q. Thank you. If it were explained to you, you would be prepared to
11 draft such a report; correct?
12 A. I would gladly accept to draft a report together with my
13 colleagues so that it would be a report produced by the Vive Zene
14 Therapeutic Centre. I would rather accept that than working on my own.
15 I'm a member of a multi-disciplinary team. Each team member, including
16 the physician, the psychologist, the pedagogue, they all have a role to
17 play, and that is why I would be more inclined to accept an assignment of
18 that nature, in that capacity.
19 Q. Thank you. The way I understand your words is that you think you
20 alone would not be able to explain the situation in totality.
21 A. It's not that. I could explain the total situation, and I would
22 provide my opinion based on my experience and work. But, in order for it
23 to be a report covering several dimensions, it would take team approach.
24 My role would be the greatest, I believe, but I would still prefer it to
25 be a multi-disciplinary approach.
1 Trauma which follows disasters caused by people is a complicated
2 process which requires including as many professionals as possible to
3 have a total picture of all events and processes taking place at an
4 individual, group, ethnic, and community level. I believe it would be of
5 great assistance to the Tribunal.
6 Q. Very well. Thank you. Your testimony in the Krstic case was
7 applicable in the circumstances 13 years ago, but one cannot say today
8 that the situation is the same as back then. Would you agree with me?
9 A. I would agree with you, in the sense of individual suffering, but
10 not in any other sense because the time that has elapsed created
11 different problems. We are talking about traumatised people here, and we
12 can't view it all as a single event which took place. What follows is
13 very important.
14 Q. That's precisely the thrust of my question.
15 A. So what follows, all the consequences that are --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could I stop you for a second.
17 Mr. Lukic, I would say 80 per cent of the examination-in-chief
18 was about what has changed since 2000. Now, what's the use of asking
19 whether anything has been changed? If you have any focussed question,
20 fine. But it's just more or less ignoring what the witness testified
21 about, that a lot of things have changed, and how they changed, and that
22 apparently was part of the focus of the additional questions.
23 So if you have any focussed question on the changes, fine. But
24 to ask whether something changed, that is, I would say, obvious from the
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: If I may, Your Honour, just to explain why I asked
3 this question is that because this testimony from Krstic case should be
4 expert analysis in this case if it -- and you are going to decide about
5 the -- that expertise at the end of this testimony. So that's why I'm
6 asking, is that testimony from Krstic case still valid today.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you asked whether anything had changed, and
8 things have changed. If you have any specific questions, no problems,
9 Mr. Lukic, but don't ask a question for which we have heard the answer in
10 approximately 35 to 40 minutes.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Q. [Interpretation] In the Krstic case, madam, you testified that at
14 Srebrenica, Potocari, boys were separated from women. The age of the
15 boys was, for example, 10 years. How many boys from 10 to 16 years were
16 separated from their mothers?
17 A. I have no relevant information. I only worked with some who said
18 that they had been separated but, otherwise, I can't answer the question.
19 Q. Do you have information about boys of that age who moved with the
20 armed column?
21 A. No, I don't have such information.
22 Q. At the Krstic trial, you mentioned the impossibility to return to
23 Srebrenica, and you mentioned that today as well. Is the situation
24 different nowadays?
25 A. Speaking about return, I used that term in the psychological
1 sense. All those who want to return are in a dilemma. They are at a
2 cross-roads. They both want to return and don't want to return. To me,
3 that psychological thing is more of a problem than reconstructing houses
4 and so on.
5 Q. However, return is a very exact notion; right? If a person has
6 returned and lives there, psychology doesn't have much to do with that.
7 Let me ask you: Who is in power at Srebrenica today?
8 A. To the extent I follow the media, the deputy head of municipality
9 is a Bosniak. But he doesn't provide psychological certainty or that
10 they can return. Maybe in reality things are safe, but inside these
11 people are -- are uncertain. They feel unsafe.
12 Q. Would you agree with me that the majority population at
13 Srebrenica nowadays is Bosniak?
14 A. I really don't know the population structure at Srebrenica. I
15 don't even know how many people there are.
16 I -- in my work, and in our work, such information is not
17 required. We don't need to know how many people live in a municipality.
18 We don't rely on statistical data.
19 Q. Is it normal and acceptable that life in Tuzla provides better
20 opportunities for work and education and could that be a reason why many
21 people aren't returning?
22 A. If I look at that from a different angle, I cannot agree with you
23 that opportunities are the reason, because there are schools and
24 university and roads. Because you must bear in mind that nobody will
25 gladly return to a place where they experienced fear.
1 Normal people who had an accident do not like to go near that
2 place where we were helpless and weak. I think that people have
3 permanent traumatic memories. I know a number of people who returned,
4 including Serbs, who used not to live at Srebrenica but now do. I know
5 what they went through to be able to accept the fact that they now live
6 at Srebrenica, and they are going through all the phases of adapting and
7 so on. And it's a big difference -- there's a big difference between
8 living in Sarajevo and living in Srebrenica.
9 Q. Is the fact that they started a life elsewhere, found a place to
10 live and a job, that their children are going to school, a reason for not
11 returning to Srebrenica?
12 A. That is a reason why some people don't return from exile or from
13 other countries. But working with these people - and I had the
14 opportunity to speak to some people who live in Sweden and have
15 everything there that's required for a normal life - but one part of
16 their identity constantly suffers. They cannot forget their previous
17 identity, and it's difficult for them to integrate in the new
19 Q. Now that we're talking about this, isn't that characteristic of
20 anybody who goes to another country to live there, nostalgia?
21 A. Yes. There is nostalgia but nobody is a refugee of their own
22 free will. Becoming a refugee is preceded by trauma. Somebody who
23 decides to go to another country has the feeling that they have control
24 over their own life, that it was their choice, and anybody else then has
25 the full right to tell such a person, "Yeah, you've got to cope with
1 that. It was your decision." But you cannot compare that with trauma
2 because there was no free choice.
3 Q. Did you conduct research into the differences between persons who
4 are refugees from Sarajevo and others who are refugees from Srebrenica
5 but live in the same country, such as Sweden?
6 A. No. No, but I'm sure that both suffer, in a way.
7 Q. Thank you. Is it also true that there are differences within
8 families as to the decision whether they should return or not? Somebody
9 is for and somebody is against.
10 A. Yes. There are discussions in many families, the older family
11 members and the younger family members. Mostly it's the older ones that
12 want to return, but sometimes the younger ones as well. And that can be
13 a source of conflict within the family.
14 Q. Thank you. Would you agree with me that sociological problems
15 affect the issue of return greatly, such as no job opportunities, the
16 impossibility to make a living?
17 A. Yes, I agree with you. But let me add that if we look at trauma
18 as a process, this sequence, which is a transitional sequence, to call it
19 that, is also characterised by unemployment and shortage of the things
20 you need for life. That is also part of the definition of trauma. In a
21 BH context, apart from expulsion camps, there are also such things as
22 unemployment and uncertainty that are part of trauma, that make up
24 Q. I believe you understand that I'm pausing to let the interpreters
25 do their job.
1 A. Yes, of course.
2 Q. War as a sociological and psychological concept has many negative
3 aspects; right?
4 A. I would like to add that war causes extreme traumatic
5 experiences, extreme fear. It is something out of the ordinary.
6 Q. Would you also agree that nobody, even if they don't take part in
7 combat directly, are -- is -- is spared from trauma?
8 A. Yes, I agree. Observers, lookers-on also have traumatic
10 Q. Prolonged psychological trauma is a condition in which the entire
11 population of Bosnia-Herzegovina was in the first half of the 1990s. Do
12 you agree with that?
13 A. Yes. Somebody more, somebody less. But if we speak about
14 Srebrenica, we can speak about cumulative traumatisation.
15 Q. Would you agree that the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, while it was
16 ongoing, gave rise to a lot of hatred among all three peoples?
17 A. Yes, I would.
18 Q. Speaking to your patients, did you find out that hatred was
19 fertile soil for thoughts of vengeance in the BH population?
20 A. I initially didn't call that hatred because that's an emotion
21 which involves a particular type of expression. I saw it more as
22 passion. People feeling passion for their own ethnicity. It was all
23 along the lines: We are one thing, and they are another.
24 There's a clear-cut line of division. Prejudice had existed from
25 before, and that's how huge fear was created. And when people are in
1 fear, they are bound to do things they would never do in a normal,
2 relaxed condition.
3 Q. Talking to your patients, did you hear them speaking about
4 vindictive behaviour on the part of the Serbs against the Muslim
5 population of Srebrenica?
6 A. No. It's very interesting that this concept of vengeance or
7 retaliation was mentioned very rarely. Perhaps because people really
8 don't felt [as interpreted] that way, or because they felt that it was
9 part of their silence and an individual thing.
10 Q. Speaking to people - probably mostly to women and children - did
11 you learn why the men decided to break through from Srebrenica instead of
12 surrendering, to try to break through a rather large territory controlled
13 by the VRS? Were they -- did they take that decision out of fear?
14 A. I believe that's a question burdening the women too, and -- all
15 those who survived. They described the situation as extremely chaotic,
16 that there was disarray and confusion. People were fleeing toward the
17 UNPROFOR base, expecting protection and help, but no help ever arrived.
18 And these are questions still burdening them.
19 I personally have been unable to get a clear picture of the
20 events. One woman said to me, "This one said this, and then we went
21 there, and then we went to another place," and so on. People were out of
22 their minds. They were beside themselves for fear, and then they make
23 choices that may or may not be right. But, at that given moment, they
24 were the most acceptable to their minds.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask for a clarification.
1 The question was about whether, in your conversations with the
2 women and children, you learned why the men, as Mr. Lukic put it, decided
3 to break through rather than to surrender.
4 In your answer, it's not quite clear to me whether you're
5 describing decisions taken by the women and the children or whether your
6 answer is specifically focussing on the decision taken by the men.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It happened in conversation with
8 them, and I can't say the decision was taken this or that way, but most
9 of the women were told, "You go towards Potocari, and we will take to the
10 forest. We'll meet up in Tuzla." I don't know how this all sounds to
11 others now; but, for me, it sounded like it was - how should I put it? -
12 it wasn't a decision-making process. It was made amidst the chaos. They
13 just said, "You go to Potocari, we take to the forest, and we'll meet up
14 in Tuzla."
15 That sentence was frequently used, and it remains etched in my
16 memory. Tuzla was supposed to the place where they would reunite, when
17 they were bidding farewell, where they separated, it was said so. Some
18 people -- some men decided to accompany their women to Potocari because
19 they so decided. And yet some women wanted to go to the forest and were
20 told, "You're a woman. Why would you want to come with us?"
21 That's all I want -- I can say.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So you don't have an answer to the why of that
23 decision. You even doubt whether these were real decisions.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you.
2 A. Perhaps I may add this. They said that their husbands were very
3 frightened and that they did not wish to remain in Srebrenica. They only
4 wanted to flee.
5 Q. With this addition, when you say that the men were frightened,
6 let me go back to my question.
7 Did they tell you that their husbands were fearful of acts of
8 revenge? Why were they fearful?
9 A. Well, that can come into play. They may have been afraid of
10 that. And there was another sentence that was used: They did not want
11 to fall to Serb hands. That's what they said.
12 Q. In such conversations with them, trying to understand this fear
13 by men of being in the Serb hands, did you touch upon the topic of the
14 28th Division and the massacres of Serb civilians which took place
15 outside Srebrenica? Did you come across that in your trying to
16 understand the process?
17 A. No, I did not touch upon that topic. The only thing that I
18 personally touched upon was when I worked with a group of women whose
19 husbands were in Srebrenica and they were in Tuzla. As early as 1993, it
20 was UNPROFOR or someone else who transported them to Tuzla, so they were
21 in Tuzla and the men were in Srebrenica. During that period, I had group
22 discussions with the women twice a week. I had never gone to Srebrenica
23 before. They told me of the news they received via ham radio operators
24 that some points that were Dutch-held fell into Serb hands, they
25 mentioned Zeleni Jadar, and then they said that DutchBat withdrew from
1 Jadar. They also said that there were only 5 kilometres left between
2 Jadar and Srebrenica. And then they were informed that another Dutch
3 point fell. And then they said Srebrenica fell.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I stop you for a second.
5 The question was whether, in your conversations, whether the
6 topic of the 28th Division and massacres of Serb civilians was touched
7 upon. Now you said: "No, I did not touch upon that topic."
8 First of all, are you aware of what the 28th Division is?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Believe me, I don't. I -- no. The
10 28th Division? I only learned of that name rather recently, although I
11 can't recall when exactly. I was unaware of the existence of the
12 28th Division.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic. And let's try to -- we'd
14 like to receive focussed answers on the questions that were put to you.
15 The question was not about what was Dutch-held or how the fall of
16 Srebrenica developed but it was about your knowledge on the basis of your
17 conversations about the 28th Division and massacres against Serbs.
18 Now, you have answered the question, in terms of the
19 28th Division, not being aware of that. Do you know anything about
20 massacres against Serbs which had taken place?
21 Mr. Lukic, I take it, close to Srebrenica. That's what you were
22 focussing on.
23 Were you aware of massacres of Serbs or Serbian population of
24 villages close to Srebrenica before Srebrenica fell?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I learned of it later. I was
1 unaware of it before Srebrenica fell.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Did it play any role in your conversations with the
3 women and the children?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, a bit. Because I put
5 questions concerning the massacres that took place so that I would gain a
6 better picture of everything that went on there and so that I could
7 intervene in trying to put a realistic picture before them so that they
8 could accept it too. But I only learned of this after Srebrenica had
9 fallen, after such discussions with the women.
10 JUDGE ORIE: What did they tell you about those massacres?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the most part, as far as I
12 remember, they -- when they mentioned the massacres, they said they had
13 gone there for food and that it was the main reason why they went to the
14 neighbouring places, especially Kravica.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Does that mean that they denied that massacres had
16 taken place? Or -- I mean, going somewhere for food, in the context of
17 massacres, needs further explanation.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The women did not deny that in
19 conversations. They did say it happened but that they were unaware of
20 particular numbers or of how many. I asked whether there were murders.
21 They said there were but they didn't know how many.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Q. I will leave this topic, madam.
25 I want to ask you something about your therapy.
1 First of all, I'd like to ask you this: Would you agree with me
2 that your therapeutic sessions helped those who turned to you for help a
4 A. Yes, they did. The therapy helped so that the people could
5 become more stable so that they could get in touch with themselves, to
6 accept the situation, adapt to the new conditions, and become more
8 Q. Is it correct that you had much success in treating children too?
9 A. Yes. We also have a colleague, a lady colleague, who worked a
10 lot with the children, as well as pedagogues, who worked with groups of
12 Q. Would you agree that those who turned for assistance to you are
13 in a much better situation today than they had been in ten or 13 years
15 A. I agree. Many women developed a range of abilities to be able to
16 cope with the problems that life put before them.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm -- your question was about comparing
18 them immediately after the events, compared to now; or was it about
19 before the events comparing with now?
20 MR. LUKIC: I was trying to compare with the time when this lady
21 testified in Krstic case.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, then it's clear. And I think I
23 understand the answer in that context.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Ibrahimefendic, you mentioned a moment ago
2 some problems. Would you agree that the community needs to provide work,
3 that the political situation needs to become stable? In other words, do
4 social issues deepen the basic problem with the Srebrenica population? A
5 moment ago, you touched upon that topic, but I don't think you have
7 A. I agree, because treating traumatised persons does not begin with
8 or end in the room with the therapist. If an individual is made more
9 resilient, and if they go through their community where they lack the
10 basic means for life, then the psychological help is not as important
11 because other needs need to be met: Social, material, financial, and
12 other needs of the victims. Treating trauma, unfortunately, is still not
13 seen in our parts as a health problem only. It's also a social, legal,
14 economical problem, and all that is required in order to achieve
16 Q. Thank you. Would you agree that the suffering of these women is
17 made greater by the patriarchal environment they hailed from and that
18 they would have fared much better in coping with it had they come from
19 urban environments where women live under different circumstances and
20 have their professions, occupations?
21 A. Trauma affects everyone equally. It's a psychological breakdown,
22 and recovery is individual. It depends on the resources owned by every
23 individual separately. It depends on their life before the war, depends
24 on their capacity or ability acquired prior to the trauma.
25 Recovery, even of educated people, can be very difficult at times
1 if their personal capacity was insufficient to adapt or to cope with such
2 difficult traumatic experiences. Of course, it's easier if one has a
3 profession and if the working part of their personality is re-established
4 and social links with others are established. Then recovery is quicker.
5 But there are educated people who still have problems establishing social
6 ties with others because they had been disrupted. They are full of
7 suspicion, constantly on standby as if standing guard. Irrespective of
8 their level of education, they still share some symptoms which prevent
9 them from being relaxed and feeling free.
10 Q. In your testimony, you also discussed the inability of these
11 women to remarry. Is it correct that the patriarchal environment that
12 they live in has a bearing on that? And is it also true that, in Bosnia,
13 after the war, there's a chronic lack of males who had either died in the
14 war or left Bosnia after the war?
15 A. That is correct. I said so in 2000. The issue of remarriage is
16 something that can exist even without the war. The war only further
17 complicates the situation, the situation of the shortage of men. With
18 women who have missing family members, they had the problem of finding
19 husbands because they ask, "What am I? I'm not -- I am a widow but I had
20 not been divorced. What am I?"
21 So until their missing are found and identified, the patriarchal
22 surroundings disapproved of such women entering another marriage or
23 establishing similar ties.
24 Q. I actually put two questions in one and the latter part remains
25 unanswered. I was supposed to separate the two.
1 Is it correct that in Bosnia there's a chronic shortage of males,
2 be it because they died in the war or moved out of Bosnia?
3 A. Statistics show that there are far more women than men, yes.
4 Q. Would you agree with me that grief because of a lost family
5 member is universal and applies to all of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
6 A. Yes. I agree fully.
7 Q. You spoke to us about traumatic loss, about it being different
8 from a loss that is expected or normal, such as the natural death of a
9 parent. Would you agree with me that the loss of a child in peacetime is
10 also traumatic loss?
11 A. Yes. The loss of a child in peacetime is also a traumatic loss.
12 Q. Do you agree with me that even such traumatic losses produce
13 post-traumatic effects and can continue throughout a person's life?
14 A. Yes. Certainly the consequences of the loss of a child, both at
15 war and in peace, can cause great differences, can bring about
16 significant differences in the life of a parent or both parents because
17 men and women cope with loss differently. This could be observed during
18 the war too. They both mourn but they display their mourning and their
19 grief differently. So that the loss of a child, both in war and in
20 peace, can cause problems in the relationship between spouses.
21 This, of course, applies to all children who were born and who
22 live in that family, and that can affect the rest of one's life.
23 Q. The cases of a breakup of a family after such loss are not rare,
24 are they?
25 A. No, they are not.
1 Q. Let me now go into the results of your research.
2 Is it true that the results of your research are mostly
3 qualitative rather than quantitative in nature?
4 A. Yes. But we also rely on the research made by our colleagues
5 because research is also very expensive and time-consuming, so we rely on
6 quantitative research of our psychiatrist colleagues, both from
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina and from other countries.
8 Q. Your research that is quantified is -- is mostly linked to
9 juvenile delinquency; right?
10 A. No, that is only one part of it. That research is drawing to an
11 end already. We are co-operating with three faculties from Tuzla and the
12 Basel university. It is research into the occurrence of juvenile
13 delinquency in connection with war-time events.
14 Q. You are familiar with the Keilson model of sequential trauma as
15 developed by Dr. Baker?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. For the record, it is sequential trauma.
18 A. Yes. He developed a model for Bosnia-Herzegovina, and he's our
19 tutor, supervisor.
20 Q. The first sequence is the pre-traumatic situation, that is, the
21 pre-refugee status at pre-war times while the person lives a normal life;
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. This is necessary for us to understand the differences as
25 compared to the following period.
1 A. Yes. Because if people had -- were exposed to traumatic events
2 before the war, we can assume that they will behave differently in war
3 than if -- than if they hadn't had these traumas, which either make them
4 stronger or weaker.
5 Q. Did you have professional contacts with the population of
6 Srebrenica before July 1995?
7 A. No. It is, however, important to know all stages of a patient's
8 life, from childhood until the traumatic event, or events, that left
9 their imprint or broke -- broke the patient. So that you get a complete
10 image of that person's life ... and for that person to be able to view
11 him or herself in continuity.
12 Q. Is it true that you didn't have any control groups to establish
13 the emotional, cognitive, mental, and interpersonal disturbances
14 traumatised people have when compared to those that were not traumatised?
15 A. No, our team didn't do that, but we relied on the research done
16 by other colleagues who compared persons who have a family member missing
17 and those that don't. There were also persons who found a dead family
18 member and were able to bury him and those that weren't able to. The
19 latter were much more anxious. They were susceptible to panic. They had
20 obsessive syndromes and so on. This research was done last year by a
21 psychiatrist colleague of ours, and we were involved in a way. We
22 processed her information, her input, but she conducted the research
24 Q. Now we've dug too deeply into your area of expertise. I will try
25 to get out because I'm not comfortable there. But it's time for a pause
1 anyway, so we will continue after it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Before we take the break, Mr. Lukic, your previous
3 question referred to persons, people traumatised compared to those who
4 were not traumatised.
5 Now we have been talking about trauma prior to the events in
6 July 1995, and we have spoken about the traumas which were inflicted or
7 occurred as a result of that. I understand the answer to the question
8 such that the question was understood as more or less trauma as a result
9 of the events; that is, with or without missing family members.
10 Did you intend to compare the various levels of traumatisation as
11 a result of the events in 1995; or were you asking about possible
12 existing trauma already at that moment due to prior events?
13 MR. LUKIC: We established already that there was nobody in
14 Bosnia at that time who was not traumatised, whether directly involved in
15 the conflict or not.
16 I think that Mrs. Ibrahimefendic understood me correctly. And I
17 was trying to compare, to ask about two groups, a group from Srebrenica
18 that was traumatised, and whether she compared those traumas with the
19 population that was general population in Tuzla.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just re-read.
21 At the same time, you say that everyone in Bosnia suffered
22 trauma. So then to ask about comparison between those traumatised and
23 those not traumatised, apparently you wanted to ask and that perhaps is
24 the way in which --
25 MR. LUKIC: Less traumatised.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- less -- more or less traumatised by the -- well,
2 let's say by the war events.
3 That is how you understood the question, Ms. Ibrahimefendic?
4 Yes. Then it's clear to me, both now the question and the answer
5 as well.
6 We take a break. Ms. Ibrahimefendic, you may follow the usher.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, can I ask you whether you are on track as
9 far as time is concerned.
10 MR. LUKIC: I'm moving faster. I need just ten more minutes
11 probably --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ten more minutes.
13 Then we take a break, and we will resume at quarter past 12.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 11.53 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 12.20 p.m.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey, the Chamber understands you would
17 like to raise a preliminary matter. Is that best done now or after we've
18 finished the testimony of Ms. Ibrahimefendic?
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: This is very brief, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then please.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: We had spoken with the Defence at the break and
22 it looks like we may be ending earlier than we thought on -- tomorrow and
23 our plan was perhaps we would -- we've agreed that it would be good for
24 us to get together to go over the MFI list and try to narrow that down
25 for our future MFI work.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And when do you suggest to do that?
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, if we end early, they're thinking they're
3 going to end before 2.15 so we would get together then. As we don't have
4 any other witnesses -- unless the Court had something else in mind.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. Are we talking about today or about
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry, tomorrow.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Tomorrow. Yes. If you go together over the MFI
9 list that's always highly appreciated and then we will have our list
10 ready as well and see what can be stricken as soon as possible.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: And one last thing. We had spoken -- I've just
12 spoken to Max Marcus and she would like to come in at the end of the
13 session to help resolve the issue of the witness that you and Mr. Groome
14 spoke of the other day where Victim Witness wanted to put a stop -- we've
15 talked with them. There's an -- I think an agreement with Victim
16 Witness. If she could just get three to four minutes at the end of
18 JUDGE ORIE: At the end of today. Would it then not be best to
19 do that immediately after Ms. Ibrahimefendic has finished her testimony.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's fine. That's fine with all of us, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then she's invited to come in ten minutes from
23 And then, Ms. Hasan, how much time would you still need?
24 MS. HASAN: At this stage, none.
25 JUDGE ORIE: So then if Ms. Marcus would be ready to appear in
1 approximately ten minutes from now.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think she's listening and I will let her know.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then could the witness be escorted into the
6 Meanwhile, I would like to inquire whether the Defence whether
7 they have made up their mind already in relation to possible objections
8 to P1790 up to P1799. You have not made up your mind yet.
9 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I didn't have time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then could we hear from you tomorrow?
11 MR. LUKIC: Yes, definitely.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll hear from you tomorrow.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. [Interpretation] When we last spoke about the control group, it
17 was not very clear. I'll read out what -- the transcript to you. On
18 page 39, lines 18 through 21, you say -- I'll read it out in English:
19 "[In English] This research was done last year by a psychiatrist
20 colleague of ours, and we were involved in a way. We processed her
21 information, her input, but she conducted the research basically."
22 [Interpretation] Before last year, you had no control group.
23 A. I and my organisation did not but other psychiatrists did, such
24 as children from Tuzla and outside of Tuzla, or children who lost someone
25 and others who don't, and so on. I'm informed of these differences
1 between the control groups and the groups of traumatised persons.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now, could I ask you one question.
4 A control group, it depends on what exactly you are researching.
5 Is it the effect of the treatment, where you need a control group of
6 persons in a similar situation before the treatment and then not being
7 treated; or treated in another way?
8 I mean, what exactly, Mr. Lukic, did you have in mind when you
9 are asking with control groups?
10 MR. LUKIC: Probably I -- I was too broad and maybe I should
11 narrow it down and ask about different groups.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say a comparative study of some
13 kind. Is that what you had in mind?
14 MR. LUKIC: For women, for children, yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Yes. Because a control group, of course, is
16 a very specific scientific concept. But apparently you didn't have that
17 on your mind but whether a comparison was made with people either in
18 different situations or with -- of different age or -- well, whatever.
19 But it was unclear to me what you exactly had on your mind.
20 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. I will -- I will try to clarify it now.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thanks.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Please tell us about these control groups. For
24 which area of work did you have them and for which population did your
25 colleague have a control group a year ago?
1 A. She conducted research, the purpose of which to establish the
2 level or the intensity of symptoms in a group who lost or -- a family
3 member. That is, where a family member is missing. She compared the
4 results to the members of a group who were -- there were no family
5 members missing. The result was that the former group -- in the former
6 group, there was much more depression, anxiety, and so on.
7 In other words, the group with missing family members is sicker.
8 Q. Thank you. Would you agree with me if I said that you
9 sympathised with your patients in your work?
10 A. Any therapist must have empathy and show understanding for the
11 problems of the patient. Not become a patient himself but at a rational
12 and emotion level understand the feelings of the patient. Without that,
13 you cannot work.
14 Q. Let me next ask -- ask you if it is true that you based your
15 findings and results exclusively on what you heard from your patients and
16 did not check material matters.
17 You said already that you didn't know how many boys aged 10 to 16
18 were singled out but you never checked whether that really happened.
19 A. I'm a therapist first and foremost and one of the basic ethical
20 principles is that we must trust our patients. We do not establish
21 facts. That is not my job. I deal with the mental and emotional state,
22 how they feel, what they think about, what they notice, what their
23 beliefs are, what went wrong with them, as they say, and that is the
24 purpose of my work, not establishing facts.
25 Q. Let me ask you this: Among the women or children you worked
1 with, were there any women from Zepa?
2 A. There were several Zepa women. They were taken towards Zenica,
3 for the most part, rather than Tuzla.
4 Q. Madam, thank you for answering our questions. This all we had
5 for you. Thank you.
6 Questioned by the Court:
7 JUDGE ORIE: Before I ask again whether Ms. Hasan has any
8 questions, I have one follow-up question related to a -- the question
9 about establishing facts or, rather, whether the results of your findings
10 were exclusively on the basis of what you heard from patients.
11 Now, I'm asking the question in general terms. As a therapist,
12 can it happen that what a patient tells you raises doubts as to the
13 veracity of the story he tells you?
14 A. Therapy is a process of long duration. It is a fact that a
15 patient can manipulate in the sense that they say what they believe to be
16 the truth. However, it needn't necessarily be realistic. It is their
17 subjective truth.
18 In order for us to arrive at a point where they can realistically
19 view what had happened, we require a lot of time. They need to accept
20 responsibility for their behaviour and for everything they did as
21 individuals during the period discussed and concerning the problems they
22 have. That means that they need to become aware to gain insight into
23 their behaviour so that their subjective truth could be become objective.
24 Only in that way can a person get in touch with one's own feelings,
25 beliefs, perception, and only then they can establish ties with others.
1 They can connect with others. For as long as they live in a traumatic
2 world of their own, fraught with fear and lack of certitude, they cannot
3 face those events.
4 Some things may remain with the patient, and they can go on
5 living in that kind of reality, but it is important to get that person
6 back into objective reality so that they can ponder their life in a
7 different way.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I then ask you the following: In the
9 experience with the Srebrenica -- the persons who you said were
10 traumatised by the Srebrenica events, what -- was it a rare occasion or
11 was it common that your patients had, in the course of the treatment, had
12 to admit that basic facts were perceived wrongly, such as saying family
13 members are missing but finally turns out that they are not missing, or
14 we were taken on a bus but, finally, in the course of the treatment, it
15 turned out that it was an unrealistic subjective perception.
16 Did this often happen, or was the basic events for the trauma,
17 was it usually kept, upheld during the treatment? And I'm just talking
18 about the basic events, as I just mentioned.
19 A. Traumatic experiences are very difficult to express. It is very
20 difficult to discuss one's pain and suffering, and people avoid it. In
21 first contact with the traumatised people, their story is fragmented,
22 interrupted, disjointed. One cannot reconstruct a story, a continuum,
23 which could picture the real events --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Paint the real
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we succeed to have the person
2 express verbally their pain and suffering, in order to create a
3 continuous line of events, then we believe that, as of that moment on,
4 that person is capable with coping with their current situation.
5 However, one cannot use fragments to create an entire traumatic
6 story. Once that story is set in place, then it -- it is no longer as
7 traumatic. They are no longer afraid of discussing those events.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you have not fully understood my question.
9 Because I'm not talking about create a continuous line but parts of a
10 story which later turned out to be untrue. And I will give an example,
11 which is totally foreign to this case, has got nothing to do with this
12 case. But if someone would come to you a trauma, saying that it was
13 caused by being raped, then I take it that it's possible that during the
14 treatment, it finally turns out that there must be serious doubt or even
15 the person himself says, "I was not raped."
16 Now I'm seeking whether these basic events, such as being taken
17 on a bus, or having lost three members of the family, whether, during the
18 treatment it happened, or happened rarely, or never happened, or often
19 happened, that, after some time, that person would say, "Well, my new
20 reality is I was never taken on a bus," or, "The reality is that my
21 family members are still alive and they're not missing."
22 That's my question. I'm talking not about a continuous story but
23 about very specific factual elements which we heard often about in this
24 case, whether it's your experience that it turned out to be -- that the
25 veracity of what they would have started telling you or what they have
1 told you during the treatment later on turned out to be invented by that
2 person but foreign to what really happened.
3 A. In my experience, it did not take place. It does not. There was
4 no need for them to do so. There was enough suffering and there was no
5 need to add any more. It never happened that someone said that something
6 happened and it turned out later that it had not. Many -- there were
7 many things that they didn't mention at first because they could not even
8 recall them. They had forgotten some. They were completely
9 disassociated from such memories. But it never happened that anyone in
10 such situation said something which turned out not to be true later on.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for your answer.
12 Ms. Hasan, any need to re-examine the witness?
13 MS. HASAN: No, I have no additional questions. But I would like
14 to offer into evidence the excerpts from the witness's --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do that, I have to ask Mr. Lukic whether
16 the questions by the Bench have triggered any need for further questions.
18 Then you wanted to tender the -- Ms. Hasan could you be --
19 MS. HASAN: Yes, I'd like to tender 65 ter 29099, which is the
20 prior testimony of Ms. Ibrahimefendic from the Krstic case.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: We would object to this admission.
23 JUDGE ORIE: On the basis ...
24 MR. LUKIC: On the basis -- is it ...
25 What should that statement again be 94 or 92 ter?
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's tendered as a 92 ter statement.
2 Because Ms. Hasan - at least that's how I understood it - was asking the
3 confirmation or the attestation to that prior testimony.
4 MS. HASAN: Yeah, it's a 92 ter statement of an expert witness.
5 [Prosecution counsel confer]
6 MR. LUKIC: We have the same objections we had before.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will decide in due course on the
9 objection and possibly the admission.
10 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, pending -- depending on what the
11 decision is, it may result in, you know, if it's not admitted, having to
12 recall Ms. Ibrahimefendic to lead her on the matters addressed in her
13 prior testimony.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I see that that is a possibility. When I say "in
15 due course," that could be very short and could be a bit longer. So,
16 therefore, I would give us at least the next break to see whether we can
17 already reach a decision or not. Whether or not reasons to follow.
18 MS. HASAN: Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Ms. Ibrahimefendic, you have followed the last
20 discussion between the parties, that is, whether or not the Chamber
21 should admit into evidence your previous testimony, to which often
22 reference is made during your testimony of today. If we would not admit
23 your testimony, that might cause the Prosecution to re-call you. We will
24 try to deal with it as quickly as possible, but I can't give you any
25 guarantees. It could be that within one hour from now the decision would
1 there and therefore that the Prosecution would also know whether they
2 would intend to re-call you.
3 Under those circumstances, I have to ask you not to speak with
4 anyone about your testimony given today, where there is a chance - I'm
5 not expressing myself whether it's a 1 per cent or a 99 per cent chance -
6 that you will be re-called. Is that instruction clear that you should
7 not talk with anyone, not to communicate with anyone about your testimony
8 up till the moment that you relieved from this limitation?
9 It's clear to you, I do understand.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber -- the Chamber is considering, as a
14 matter of fact, to take a short break now and to see whether we can reach
15 any decision in the next 20 minutes, which would then leave us another
16 65 minutes for the remainder of today's session.
17 May I take it, Ms. Ibrahimefendic, that your travelling back does
18 not start within the next hour or ... or do you intend to immediately
19 move out from The Hague?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I'll be staying.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I think it would also be wise to ask
22 Ms. Ibrahimefendic to be back in -- after the break so that she also
23 knows what the consequences of the Chamber's decision most likely will
25 We then, after Ms. Ibrahimefendic has left the courtroom ...
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: I'd forgotten entirely about you, Ms. Marcus, and
4 you said you needed only a few minutes. Perhaps it's very practical to
5 use those four minutes now. Can we deal with the matter in open session
6 or should we move into ...
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think this is a private session.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Private session.
9 We move into private session.
10 [Private session]
11 Page 14692 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 We'll take a break, and we'll resume at quarter past 1.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 12.52 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 1.17 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could Ms. Ibrahimefendic be escorted in the
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Ibrahimefendic, we have no further questions for
16 you, but the Chamber wants to deliver its decision in relation to
17 65 ter 29099.
18 The Chamber admits the previous testimony from the Krstic case
19 into evidence, under Rule 92 ter. Reasons to follow.
20 Madam Registrar, the number would be?
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 29099 receives number P1800,
22 Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It is therefore P1800, which is admitted into
25 Ms. Ibrahimefendic, this also means that - I take it at least,
1 Ms. Hasan, that there's no need to further consider any re-call of
2 Ms. Ibrahimefendic - that this concludes your testimony. We'd like to
3 thank you very much for having answered all the questions that were put
4 to you, whether by the parties or by the Bench, and we wish you a safe
5 return home again.
6 You may follow the usher.
7 And the usher may escort the next witness into the courtroom as
9 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, may I be excused?
10 JUDGE ORIE: You are excused.
11 MS. HASAN: Thank you.
12 [The witness withdrew]
13 MS. HASAN: And Mr. McCloskey would also like to be excused.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as long as at least one counsel remains.
15 Ms. Lee, you're in charge? And are you ready to call
16 Mr. Lawrence?
17 MS. LEE: Yes, Your Honours.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Lawrence, I presume.
20 THE WITNESS: Dr. Lawrence, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you
24 make a solemn declaration. May I invite to you make it. The text is
25 handed out to you by the usher.
1 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
2 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 WITNESS: CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated. Mr. Lawrence, when
5 you said "Dr. Lawrence," we have the habit of addressing everyone as
6 Mr. or -- not in any way in depreciation of ranks or titles. We are
7 fully aware of that.
8 THE WITNESS: I understand.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Lee, if are you ready you may proceed.
10 MS. LEE: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You will now be examined by Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee is
12 counsel for the Prosecution and you'll find her to your right.
13 Examination by Ms. Lee:
14 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Lawrence.
15 A. Good afternoon.
16 Q. Since you and I both speak the same language, I would ask that
17 you pause between each question and answer so -- and wait for
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Dr. Lawrence, could you please state your full name for the
22 A. Christopher Hamilton Lawrence. That's L-a-w-r-e-n-c-e.
23 Q. And, Dr. Lawrence, what is your current profession?
24 A. I'm a forensic pathologist.
25 Q. And do you recall testifying in the Krstic case before this
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. And as well as the Karadzic case?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And have you had the opportunity to review your testimony in
6 those cases?
7 A. Yes, I have.
8 Q. And the -- at that time when you were giving testimony, was it to
9 the best of your knowledge and truthful?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And if you were asked the same questions today, would you provide
12 the same answers in substance?
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. LEE: Your Honours, I would like to tender 92 ter transcripts
15 and associated exhibits.
16 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: May I have the 65 ter numbers, please.
19 MS. LEE: Yes. It's 65 ter number 29100, and this is the excerpt
20 from the -- from Dr. Lawrence's Krstic testimony.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document receives number P1801, Your Honours.
22 MS. LEE: There is also 65 ter number 29101, and this is the
23 excerpt from the Karadzic testimony.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Document receives number P1802, Your Honours.
25 MS. LEE: Your Honours, there are also two associated exhibits
1 that I would like that tender at this time.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Shall we first decide on admission of the ...
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: P1801 and P1802 are admitted into evidence.
5 Associated exhibits, Ms. Lee.
6 MS. LEE: It's 65 ter number 04574, which is the CV of
7 Dr. Lawrence.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No objections, I take it.
9 Then the next one.
10 MS. LEE: 04575, and this a chart showing the primary and
11 secondary grave-sites that Dr. Lawrence has examined.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. IVETIC: Also no objection.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, for 65 ter 04574.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P1803, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted. And for 04575, the chart.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P1804, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
19 You may proceed, Ms. Lee.
20 MS. LEE: Thank you, Your Honours. I would like to read a
21 summary of evidence of Dr. Lawrence, the purpose of which has been
22 explained to the witness.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
24 MS. LEE: Dr. Christopher Lawrence is a certified forensic
25 pathologist. From May through October 1998, he was the chief forensic
1 pathologist for the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY. Dr. Lawrence
2 led a team who conducted autopsies on the human remains exhumed from
3 several mass graves associated with the fall of the Srebrenica enclave,
4 including the dam site near Petkovci, and seven secondary graves along
5 Cancari road, Hodzici Road near Zeleni Jadar and Liplje. The autopsies
6 were performed at a morgue in Visoko, Bosnia.
7 The body bags delivered to Dr. Lawrence and his team at the
8 morgue contained bodies in some cases and body parts in others. After
9 photographing the contents of the body bags, the pathologists conducted a
10 fluoroscopic examination of the remains for bullets, fractures, and boney
11 abnormalities. They recovered personal items and removed clothing from
12 the remains which were given to crime scene officers. Dr. Lawrence and
13 his team then examined the bodies and bones and photographed any evidence
14 of injury.
15 Damaged bones were handed over to the anthropologists for
16 reconstruction and then examined by pathologists for injury. In the case
17 of an apparent gun-shot injury, attempts were made to trace the track of
18 the bullet. In most instances, the pathologist also examined the
19 clothing to determine whether the damage to the clothing was consistent
20 with the injuries identified.
21 Dr. Lawrence prepared a report for each grave-site containing his
22 findings and his opinion as to the cause of death. In total, his team
23 examined 2.239 body bags containing a minimum number of 883 individuals.
24 The causes of death for the majority of the bodies found intact were
25 gun-shot wounds. Some victims sustained gun-shot and shrapnel wounds.
1 Most of the shrapnel wounds were sustained by victims recovered from the
2 Zeleni Jadar secondary mass grave-site.
3 During autopsy, Dr. Lawrence and his team retrieved 83 ligatures
4 and 103 blindfolds. Most ligatures were tied around victims' wrists and
5 arms. In many cases, blindfolds were found in position, covering the
6 eyes of victims.
7 And this concludes my summary.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. If you have any further questions for
9 the witness you may proceed.
10 MS. LEE: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 Q. Dr. Lawrence, before I begin my questions, I see that you have
12 brought some documents with you today. Could you describe to us what
13 they are.
14 A. Yes. They are copies of the reports that I prepared for the ICTY
15 on the eight sites were examined and a summary document of the findings
16 that I prepared for the Krstic trial.
17 Q. And if you wish to refer to these documents, please do so, but if
18 you are referring to them, please let us know and let us know what you're
19 referring to.
20 A. Thank you.
21 Q. Dr. Lawrence, since your last testimony in the Karadzic in
22 December of 2011, are you at the same job?
23 A. Yes, I'm still the state forensic pathologist for Tasmania.
24 Q. And how long have you been there?
25 A. Since 2002.
1 Q. And if you could describe to us very generally what your
2 responsibilities are?
3 A. My responsibilities as a state forensic pathologist are to carry
4 out an autopsy service for the -- for the state coroner of Tasmania, to
5 attend the scene of suspicious deaths, to advise the police on
6 investigation of deaths, and to prepare reports on the deaths for the
7 coroner, to prepare reports on suspicious cases for the courts, to -- and
8 also to work on cases for the coroner in relation to deaths in hospitals.
9 Q. Now, we mentioned a few minutes ago that you testified before
10 this Tribunal in the Krstic and the Karadzic case.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Have you -- did you testify as an expert in any other case?
13 A. Yes. In -- in Popovic and Tolimir.
14 Q. And have you testified as an expert anywhere --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would ask that the speakers
16 please slow down.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And make a pause between question and answer and
18 between answer and question.
19 MS. LEE: Yes, Your Honours.
20 Q. Have you testified as an expert witness in any other
22 A. Yes. I have testified -- sorry.
23 Yes, I have testified as an expert witness in Australia and in
24 the United States.
25 Q. And in what area of expertise or discipline did you testify as an
1 expert witness?
2 A. As a forensic pathologist.
3 Q. And on how many occasions, approximately, did you testify as an
4 expert witness?
5 A. Probably somewhere between 50 and 100 times.
6 Q. Now, there is -- I'd like to ask you specific -- just a specific
7 question relating to one particular case and this is R. versus
8 Jeffrey Gilham.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What was your involvement in that case?
11 A. This -- sorry. This was a case that I examined in 1993. It was
12 a triple homicide in which three people had been stabbed to death and the
13 house had been burned.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Before you continue, Ms. Lee, the Chamber is
15 wondering why these details are relevant. Of course, the Chamber has no
16 knowledge about this case, et cetera. And ...
17 MS. LEE: The -- I will be asking this witness about -- he had
18 testified as an expert witness and we will get to that point very
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, of course, we are wondering why 50 to
21 100 testimonies are not sufficient information. Why we need go into the
22 details of one case. But if you have any good reason, immediately go to
23 that point, and -- I mean, the circumstances of that case seems not to be
24 very relevant for us at this moment, unless, by your questioning, it
25 becomes relevant.
1 MS. LEE: Yes. Thank you, Your Honours.
2 Q. Now, Dr. Lawrence, in this case, did any issue arise as concerns
3 to your evidence in that case?
4 A. Yes, it did. Sorry. Yes, it did. This was a complex case and
5 had gone to -- to inquests to two trials and an appeal. Now the appeal
6 was heard shortly before I gave evidence in the Karadzic trial. And the
7 significance for the Court is that in the appeal it became clear to me
8 that I had made an error in my assessment of the significance of some
9 evidence in relation to a low level of carbon monoxide.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If you wanted to point that the expert witness is
11 not a man without any failure in his life, then that has become clear.
12 MS. LEE: Great. Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Q. Moving into a different area, I would like to now ask you about
14 your involvement in Bosnia in 1998.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Your chief -- you were the chief pathologist for the OTP at the
17 ICTY; correct?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. And what is it that you were tasked to do?
20 A. I was tasked to run a mortuary to carry out autopsies on the
21 bodies that were exhumed by the exhumation team in 1998, to ascertain the
22 cause of death and, where possible, to collect evidence to identify the
24 Q. And what were your main responsibilities? Did you have any
25 supervisory role?
1 A. Yes. I supervised the team at the mortuary. I instructed the
2 pathologists. I reviewed the reports, and I prepared summary reports on
3 the cases that were found. In addition, I carried out quite a number of
4 the autopsies.
5 Q. And you just testified that you reviewed the reports. Whose
6 reports were they?
7 A. I reviewed a number of reports, the reports by the doctors and to
8 some degree the reports of the anthropologists.
9 Q. And by "doctors," you mean other pathologists?
10 A. The other pathologists, yes.
11 Q. So you just mentioned reports. Did you yourself write any
13 A. Yes. I prepared the eight reports that I have with me today.
14 Q. And these eight reports, they relate to each grave-sites?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. And they're namely the dam; the Cancari Road 3; Cancari Road 12;
17 Hodzici Road 3, 4, 5; Zeleni Jadar 5; and Liplje 2?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. Did you write any reports relating to these sites?
20 A. As a consequence of our work at Cancari Road 3, we became aware
21 that there may be a primary site at Kozluk. And at the end of
22 September or perhaps early October, I attended a scene at Kozluk where we
23 recovered a number of -- of two body bags of skeletal remains. And I
24 prepared a report, a one-page report in response to that. I also
25 prepared a report on some ligatures that had been recovered from the
1 graves and had been sent to The Hague which had not examined in the
3 Q. And did have you the opportunity review each of these reports
4 that you prepared in relation to the Srebrenica events before testifying
5 here today?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. And do you still stand by the analysis and conclusions that you
8 reached in those reports?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 MS. LEE: Your Honours, I would like to tender these 11 reports,
11 pursuant to Rule 94 bis.
12 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you please reserve 11 numbers
14 and make a memo describing the 65 ter numbers, the short name of the
15 report, and the numbers to be assigned. All 11 reports are admitted into
16 evidence under the numbers Madam Registrar will assign in this memo.
17 MS. LEE: And may I read out the 65 ter numbers for the record,
18 Your Honour.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you would please verify the list made by
21 Madam Registrar, because I think they are on our list already so they
22 don't have to be read out again. They're all in sequential order so if
23 you would say the first and the last.
24 MS. LEE: Yes. It goes from 04576 until 04584, and then there
25 are two additional --
1 JUDGE ORIE: As appearing on this list.
2 MS. LEE: On the list, yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And two additional ones are?
4 MS. LEE: 11038 and 11039.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They're the first two on the non-associated
6 exhibits list. Madam Registrar will prepare the memo.
7 Please proceed.
8 MS. LEE: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Q. Dr. Lawrence, in your reports, you determine a cause of death for
10 each reported body bags as opposed to individual bodies, and can you
11 briefly explain to us why they are assigned to body bags?
12 A. Yes. The bodies that we were dealing with were largely recovered
13 from secondary graves and in some of the graves, the bodies were not only
14 significantly decomposed but also quite significantly disrupted.
15 The consequence of this was that the -- it was not possible to examine
16 entire bodies in -- in many cases. Some of the sites, for example,
17 Hodzici 5, the bodies were quite well preserved, but in others, for
18 example, the dam site or Liplje, the bodies were extremely disrupted. We
19 therefore had to make an assessment about, did we provide only reports
20 for entire bodies or did we provide reports for the entire bodies and the
21 body bags.
22 I made a decision to examine the body bags and the whole bodies,
23 in order to record as much information as I could. This decision made
24 some problems, because, obviously, incomplete bodies that cannot be
25 linked to each other does raise the possibility that you might have
1 multiple causes of death for one body. But I felt in the circumstances
2 that it was important to document as many cases of gun-shot wounds as we
3 could, given that the evidence that we were receiving from the clothing
4 was that there were probably more gun-shot wounds than we were seeing.
5 In the end, we mostly concentrated our efforts on the whole
6 bodies because this was the most meaningful information, and the causes
7 of death in the 254 intact bodies were probably the most useful pieces of
8 information. But the problem was in many of the sites, and the dam site
9 and Liplje particularly, there was so much damage that we were dealing
10 with almost no intact bodies.
11 Q. Thank you. Moving to a different area, your reports mention
12 blindfolds and ligatures.
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. LEE: May I please have 65 ter number 0 -- it's 65 ter number
15 04581. And this is -- at page 18. And this is Dr. Lawrence's report on
16 the Hodzici Road 4 site.
17 I believe we're having some technical difficulties.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think we have.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The uploading of photographs takes some time.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Especially if they are in large series.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: And Madam Registrar adds that the computer is slow
23 anyhow today. Maybe due to the weather.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We're slowly getting to it.
1 MS. LEE:
2 Q. Dr. Lawrence, can you please describe to us what you see on this
3 picture on your screen.
4 A. Yes. What you can see underneath the hand is the top part of a
5 skull with a blindfold around the skull.
6 Now, I should point out that this skull has been reconstructed
7 and the blindfold has been positioned there after the skull has been
8 reconstructed. But you can see where the arrow is, there is a gun-shot
9 wound in the left temple region and there is a corresponding defect in
10 the blindfold, indicating that the blindfold was at that position when
11 the gun-shot wound [sic] was fired.
12 Q. And when you say the skull has been reconstructed, who
13 reconstructed the skull?
14 A. The skull was reconstructed by the anthropologists from the
15 fragments of bone.
16 JUDGE ORIE: This is the reconstruction and the glue, everything
17 is in the -- already admitted testimony, Ms. Lee.
18 MS. LEE: Yes, Your Honours.
19 Q. Dr. Lawrence, you previously testified about the difference
20 between probable, possible, and definite gun-shot wounds. And I'm
21 referring to -- I'm referring to P1802 at pages 6 to 9 in e-court.
22 Now, how would you define the injuries shown here?
23 A. Well, the injuries shown in this one, I would say this is a
24 definite gun-shot wound.
25 MS. LEE: May I please have 65 ter number 04582 at page 18.
1 Q. And while this picture is loading, I would like to ask you, you
2 also talk about ligatures that were found in the grave-sites?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And what types of ligatures --
5 A. There were --
6 Q. -- did you find?
7 A. There were a number of different types of ligatures found. There
8 tended to be particular types of ligatures found in particular graves but
9 the ligatures included ligatures made from twine, ligatures that were
10 made from a white fabric with an embroidered flower on them, white cloth,
11 and a fabric which had coloured lines on it.
12 MS. LEE: And if I could actually have page 16 of this document.
13 Q. Doctor, can you describe us what you see on the screen.
14 A. Yes. What you can see on the screen is a fairly intact body,
15 which is lying on its back. At the bottom, you can see the belt, which
16 is slightly pulled down. Above that, you can see the hands, and the
17 hands are secured with a cord ligature. And on the wrist, you can see a
18 watch, a Seiko self-winding watch.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Your description now is not the same as appears in
20 the text below the -- could you please read that and see which of the
21 two ...
22 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You said the body is lying on its back.
24 THE WITNESS: Sorry, sorry. The body is lying on its front. You
25 can see the back. I apologise.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
3 MS. LEE:
4 Q. And what would you say the -- would you be able to determine the
5 cause of death in this situation?
6 A. This one, there were gun-shot wounds in the right pelvis and
7 bullet fragments in the right and left knees -- right and left thighs and
8 knees. I'd need to refer -- for this specific case, I would need to
9 refer to my list to ascertain it, but I would assume it would probably be
10 given as cause of death.
11 MS. LEE: May I please have 65 ter number 4578, at page 30 in
13 Q. And in terms of ligatures found, you had listed a number of
14 ligatures --
15 MS. LEE: It's page 30. It's the following page.
16 Q. Dr. Lawrence, you've mentioned different ligatures, and you had
17 mentioned that you had written two reports on it.
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. Do you recognise this ligature?
20 A. Yes. These are the white ligatures with the embroidered flower
21 and leaf on them. And these were seen in CR12 and CR13.
22 Q. Is it CR13?
23 A. Sorry, CR12 and CR3, sorry.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MS. LEE: Your Honours, for your reference, this particular
1 ligature is also referenced in P1771 at e-court page 29, which was a
2 report that was tendered through the textile expert Suzanna Maljaars, who
3 previously testified earlier this week.
4 And may I please have page 35 of the same document.
5 Q. And while the document is being uploaded, Dr. Lawrence, did you
6 observe any bodies that had both blindfolds and ligatures?
7 A. Yes. There were two bodies in CR12 that had both blindfolds and
8 ligatures. They were body bag -- they were bodies 116 and body 121.
9 Q. And can you -- looking at the picture in front of you, can you
10 please describe to us what you see here.
11 A. This photograph shows the -- the skin from the right temple and
12 there is in fact a bullet-hole between the fingers there which was also
13 present in the blindfold.
14 Q. Now, you've previously testified about -- actually, in this case
15 like this, what would you determine this cause -- is this a case where
16 you would be able to determine the cause of injury?
17 A. Yes. A gun-shot wound in the head is going to kill you.
18 Q. And is this a definite gun-shot wound?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And, Dr. Lawrence, you have also testified about possible or
21 probable cause of death and definite cause of death, and this is in
22 relation to P1802 at pages 9 and 10.
23 In this case, is this a case where a definite cause of death
24 could be established?
25 A. Yes.
1 MS. LEE: I have no further questions, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Lee.
3 Mr. Lawrence, you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Ivetic.
4 Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic.
5 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
7 Q. Dr. Lawrence, before we begin with my questions, I would like to
8 again remind you and caution you that since we both speak the same
9 language, we have to try and observe a pause between my question and your
10 answer to allow the other persons in this courtroom to do their job.
11 Is that fair, sir?
12 A. I will try to.
13 Q. Am I correct that in addition to your medical training and degree
14 you also studied law after becoming a forensic pathologist?
15 A. I studied law while I was becoming a pathologist, but I did not
16 complete my training.
17 Q. And in relation to your testimony that you have provided for us
18 here and in the reports that you authored for purposes of reporting the
19 work you did in Bosnia, did you wear an attorney hat at all or was this
20 exclusively your medical forensic pathologist hat that you were reporting
22 A. I do not profess to a be lawyer. I am forensic pathologist.
23 Q. Thank you. And am I also correct that at some point in time you
24 did take, I think, two courses, one in the US, in forensic anthropology;
25 is that right?
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. I take it that this participation in two courses did not result
3 in any earned degree in forensic anthropology; is that correct?
4 A. No. I would regard myself as a forensic pathologist with an
5 interest in forensic anthropology, not a forensic anthropologist
6 [Realtime transcript read in error "pathologist"].
7 Q. Okay. Thank you. And now, Doctor, I don't want you to take this
8 the wrong way insofar as it's not intended to --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I interrupt for a moment. There's a wrong
10 entry in the transcript at line 11. "Not a forensic anthropologist," you
11 said, I think.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Now, again, Doctor, I don't want you to take this the wrong way.
15 It is not meant as a criticism of you, but in fact, being the state
16 forensic pathologist for Tasmania, are you also the only forensic
17 pathologist in Tasmania?
18 A. No. There is it a second forensic pathologist who also trained
19 at the office of the medical investigator in the United States.
20 Q. And would that be the individual that you recruited about -- a
21 couple years ago?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, am I correct that generally speaking in the field of work of
24 forensic review of mortal remains, anthropologists usually have more of a
25 role as to remains that are fully skeletonised, whereas a forensic
1 pathologist would have more of a role where the remains have soft tissue
3 A. As a general rule, that's correct. The amount of forensic
4 anthropology available varies from area to area. Forensic anthropology
5 is probably better developed in the United States than it is, say, in
6 England. I think it would be fair to say now if we were carrying out
7 this examination, then most of the work would be done by the forensic
8 anthropologists. In this -- in -- at this period, it was done by both in
9 consultation, and there are certain values in that in as far as because
10 these bodies were quite badly decomposed, it was sometimes necessary to
11 work out where the bullets would have travelled and that sometimes better
12 done by forensic pathologists.
13 Q. And for purposes of the work that was done in this case or I
14 should say in these cases since there were a number of reports about
15 different sites, am I correct that the pathologists, and that would be
16 you, had the final decision or say regarding the assessment of the
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And ... and in regard to the type of consultations that
20 you would have had with the anthropologists in terms of coming to a
21 conclusion, I would like to take a look at something with you.
22 MR. IVETIC: It's 1D1142 and it will be page 34 in e-court, which
23 will correlate to transcript page 7403 of the Tolimir case.
24 Q. And once that comes up on the monitors, sir, I would invite you
25 to follow along as I read lines 6 through 22 and then I'll have some
1 questions --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic --
3 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you please the 1D number again.
5 MR. IVETIC: 1D1142.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. That's fine.
7 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. And, sir, it's a little bit faint on my screen but I think that's
9 the page, and if we can follow along from line 6, the question was:
10 "Since you said that the pathologist's findings were final and
11 authoritative, can you tell what could then have been the cause of such
12 disagreement? Do you have an example? And was there one single uniform
13 model for making reports? Or was it possible that injuries were
14 described differently from report to report?
15 "A. That's a multi-part question. The pathologists varied in
16 their experience of dealing with boney injuries. And most of the
17 pathologists would listen to the anthropologists' opinions in these
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should slow down, Mr. Ivetic.
20 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
21 "I can recall some discussions between myself and Mr. Baraybar in
22 relation to some of the injuries that would be classified as possible or
23 probable gun-shot wounds. For example, where you might have a defect
24 that didn't have all of the normal characteristics of a gun-shot wound
25 but might have some fragments of metal. Those are the sorts of things
1 that might occur. There were also occasional questions about whether
2 there was a blunt force injury, a fracturing, which was -- and whether it
3 was, in fact, a blunt force or whatever [sic] it was -- occurred as a
4 consequence of a gun-shot wound."
5 Q. Now, sir, first I'm going to ask you does this appear to
6 accurately depict the testimony as you recall --
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Lee.
9 MS. LEE: I just wanted to point out the "blunt force or whatever
10 it was," I think that's page 25, it should read "whether it was" and not
11 "whatever it was."
12 MR. IVETIC: I apologise. That's correct.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. And when you say the pathologists varied in their experience as
16 to boney injuries, I assume there we're talking about the other medical
17 pathologists that would have been working on the team and would have been
18 performing some of the autopsies as to the remains that were recovered?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. And am I correct that certain parts of your report such as the
21 determination of a minimum number of individuals and other
22 anthropological data within them, for those parts you're in essence
23 entirely relying upon the information that was conveyed to by the
24 anthropologists? You're not making any personal opinions in those
25 aspects of your report?
1 A. Yes. The -- sorry. Yes, the only reason the information appears
2 at all is because it's -- it's necessary to make sense of some of the
4 Q. And is it also correct, sir, that you did not have a personal
5 role in the exhumation and removal of the bodies, that this was performed
6 by Dr. Richard Wright and his team?
7 A. Yes, Dr. Wright was in charge of the exhumation team. I did
8 attend the exhumations at CR12, CR3, Liplje, and Zeleni Jadar, but only
9 to have a -- only to look at what was there. Richard was responsible for
10 what was going on there.
11 Q. Now, in relation to the actual autopsy work that was performed in
12 these cases am I -- would I be correct in stating that you personally
13 carried out only about one fifth to one quarter of all the autopsies that
14 were performed during your tenure as chief pathologist to the ICTY
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And am I also correct that at most times there were three
18 and then later maybe four pathologists working simultaneously at any
19 given time?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. And you mentioned something about reviewing the work of the other
22 pathologists. Was it the case that you would review every single autopsy
23 report that was prepared by another pathologist or would there be a
24 selection process? How did that review by yourself -- how did that take
1 A. Initially I reviewed every single report. Towards the end as we
2 grew larger, I reviewed all of the whole body reports and all of the
3 large and significant body part reports. That's how I compiled the
4 information for the summary reports.
5 Q. And for purposes of your review of the report, would that entail
6 also an independent review of the remains that are the subject of the
7 report by yourself?
8 A. Not necessarily.
9 Q. Okay. And ... in each of the reports authored by you, the
10 summary reports, we always find something to the effect of saying that
11 each autopsy is entirely the responsibility of the pathologist performing
12 the autopsy and that at the end of the paragraph there's usually verbiage
13 stating that the opinions expressed in the report are entirely those of
14 the pathologist concerned.
15 In that sense, sir, the summary report, is it summarising the
16 findings of those pathologists who prepared the autopsies, including in
17 those cases where you prepared the autopsy, those findings, or is it
18 reporting on what your review of the reports found?
19 A. It was -- it was pretty much what the pathologists said. There
20 may have been occasional cases where having reviewed the documentation,
21 the thermal images of the x-rays, I might disagree. The report
22 remained -- the original report remained the same. My summary report
23 would reflect what I thought of the case.
24 Q. Okay. Would you agree with the general proposition that neither
25 a prosecutor nor investigator should ever have a role in instructing a
1 forensic pathologist how to draft their autopsy report or what to list as
2 a cause of death?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, in relation to the reports that you prepared, am I correct
5 that you have not done any further work on these matters since the time
6 of the trial in the Krstic proceedings?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you permit, sir, that developments that have occurred since
9 your work on the case may cast a new light on the facts that were known
10 to you at the time and thus might change the conclusions that were
12 A. Yes, that's possible.
13 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I see we're at the break. I'm about
14 to go on to another topic, so we could take a break at this time.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll even adjourn for the day.
16 Mr. Lawrence, before we do so, I would like to instruct you that
17 you should not speak or communicate in whatever way with whomever about
18 your testimony, whether that is testimony given today or testimony still
19 to be given. We'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this
20 same courtroom. You may now follow the usher.
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow,
24 Friday, the 19th of July, at 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom,
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Friday, the 19th day of July,
3 2013, at 9.30 a.m.