1 Friday, 19 July 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case
7 number IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 Good morning to everyone. The Chamber was informed that there
10 were a few preliminaries to be raised. Prosecution -- oh, there is a ...
11 the transcriber is ready.
12 Yes. I started saying that some preliminary issues were
13 announced to be raised.
14 Ms. Lee.
15 MS. LEE: Good morning, Your Honours. Yes, there are two
16 preliminary matters and if we could briefly go into private session.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 14721-14723 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours. Thank
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
8 MR. LUKIC: I just want to inform Your Honours that I did my
9 homework, and I checked the documents introduced as associated exhibits
10 through the Witness RM321 and we do not have any objections.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That is for all ten of them, I think.
12 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: There was ten, yes.
14 I don't have the numbers here, but I'll revisit the matter.
15 MR. LUKIC: Maybe --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- yes, here I have got it. P1790 up to
17 and including P1799 are admitted into evidence all as public exhibits.
18 Then before we give -- before we continue the examination of the
19 witness, there are a few matters the Chamber would like to raise as well.
20 The first one is about the end of the Prosecution's case. On the
21 9th of July of this year, the Prosecution, upon inquiry by the Chamber,
22 provided information on the scope and schedule of presenting the
23 remainder of its evidence. The Chamber was surprised to learn of the
24 large amount of documents the Prosecution intends to still tender,
25 especially given the many guidances the Chamber has provided on tendering
1 documents through witnesses and not through bar table motions.
2 As a result, the Chamber fixes the following schedule: All
3 92 bis, 92 quater, and bar table motions shall be filed by the
4 30th of August, 2013.
5 The Prosecution did indicate that this was possible with the
6 exception of one filing. That last filing can be submitted by the
7 16th of September, 2013.
8 As regards the Prosecution's submission that associated exhibits
9 tendered with pending or future 92 bis motions may be denied and would
10 then need to be bar tabled, the Chamber reminds the Prosecution of its
11 guidance that neither bar tabling nor tendering as associated exhibits is
12 the preferred way of tendering. One option for such documents would be
13 to use and tender them through witnesses coming to court. In relation to
14 military documents as well as UN documents, the Chamber considers that
15 the parties could agree on certain matters in a more succinct form.
16 Further, the Chamber urges the Prosecution to carefully consider
17 whether all documents are necessary to satisfy the Prosecution's burden
18 of proof. In this context, the Chamber urges the Prosecution to avoid
19 repetition, reduce the number and length of documents, and take away
20 details not vital to the case. In addition, the Prosecution should
21 explain how the documents fit into its case and provide an explanation
22 why the documents could not be tendered through witnesses.
23 Lastly, the Chamber instructs the Prosecution to batch the bar
24 table documents in its motions into clearly defined and focused groups.
25 The documents should be batched by topic or subject matter; for example,
1 by crime base incident. This concludes the observations by the Chamber
2 on the end of the Prosecution's case.
3 There is one other matter I would like to raise because it is of
4 some urgency. Next week the Prosecution will call expert Witness
5 Haglund, who is a forensic anthropologist. The Prosecution tenders
6 15 reports through him, all in all almost 3.000 pages. The bulk of this
7 material are, in fact, the underlying autopsy reports the witness bases
8 his conclusions on.
9 The Chamber reminds the Prosecution of its guidance and direction
10 of the 29th of October, 2012, in relation to the tendering of underlying
11 documents for expert reports. The Chamber, therefore, asks the
12 Prosecution to reduce the material tendered for Witness Haglund and
13 specifically to refrain from tendering Rule 65 ter numbers 4550 to 4552,
14 4555 to 4557, 4561 to 4562, as well as parts of 65 ter 4558.
15 Should any of the information contained in these underlying
16 documents not be reflected in the actual expert reports, the Prosecution
17 is free to elicit such evidence viva voce. And this concludes the
18 observations by the Chamber in relation to expert witness Haglund.
19 Is the Defence ready to continue the cross-examination of
20 Mr. Lawrence? Then could Mr. Lawrence be escorted into the courtroom.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Lawrence. Please be seated.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lawrence, I would like to remind you that you
25 are still bound by the solemn declaration you have given yesterday at the
1 beginning of your testimony.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Then Mr. Ivetic will now continue his cross-examination.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
6 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 WITNESS: CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE [Resumed]
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]
9 Q. Good morning, sir.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. Doctor, I would like to begin by asking you a few questions about
12 autopsy work in general to see if we can find a common ground, and first
13 I'd ask you if you -- if you agree with me as follows, that in a normal
14 situation, a decision on whether an injury was sustained while the person
15 was alive or if it's a post-mortem one is, to a large degree, based on
16 the observation of surrounding tissue and things that can be connected
17 with that such as bruises, swelling, and bleeding? Can we first agree
18 with that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Further, Doctor, can we agree that in a decomposed body in which
21 tissue changes the colour very quickly and starts to break off, this
22 becomes very difficult, and if the post-mortem remains are already
23 skeletonised, then it is impossible. Before healing begins, it will look
24 just the same as a fracture weeks before or after death. The existence
25 of bruises is the only thing that can differentiate between such
2 A. I think I agree with the general proposition. There are some
3 differences in boney injuries in bone that is moist and fresh and bone
4 that is bare and dry. But in general I agree with your proposition.
5 Q. Okay.
6 MR. IVETIC: And if I can call up 1D1141 in e-court. And if we
7 can have page 14 of that document which should correlate to transcript
8 page 7527 of the Popovic proceedings. I apologise, page 20, page 20,
9 which should be 7533 of the underlying transcript.
10 Q. And Doctor, you may follow along with me. I would like to
11 revisit a question and answer that were made beginning at line 5 onward.
12 "Q. I would now like to put to you a hypothetical question; and
13 since you are an expert, I believe that you will be able to answer it.
14 If an arm belonging to a person was found in a secondary grave and in a
15 completely different secondary grave the other arm was found belonging to
16 the same person, in your reports, this would appear to be two persons or
17 two bodies that were found. Is that correct?
18 "A. Not exactly. I have given you figures on causes of death
19 for the complete bodies and then for the incomplete bodies. I think the
20 information on the complete bodies is fairly reliable, but it's obviously
21 extremely difficult in an incomplete body to conclude whether or not
22 there were one person killed or two people killed. It just wasn't
23 possible ... if we had been able to match every one of the bodies, it may
24 have been possible.
25 "The reason I have included both information on the whole bodies
1 and the body parts is, I think, in particularly some of the more
2 disrupted graves such as Liplje, it -- it would be hard to get any useful
3 information. I also needed to indicate, I think, how many gun-shot
4 wounds we had. But I agree, it -- it is very difficult unless you can
5 completely reunite all of the body parts to interpret exactly what the
6 results on the body parts means in terms of an actual cause of death."
7 And, first of all, sir, does this appear to accurately reflect
8 the testimony that you recall giving?
9 A. Yes, it does.
10 Q. And do you still stand by the same?
11 A. I -- in rereading it, I -- I think that I observed something --
12 some more information. The -- and this is slightly -- this is more in
13 the province of the anthropologist than myself, but in the current case
14 where you had an -- a hypothetical case, an arm from one individual in
15 one grave and the arm from another individual in another grave. The
16 assessment of the minimum number of individuals would probably deal with
17 that to indicate that it was one person that -- the total numbers of
19 But I agree that the -- it is -- the concept of a cause of death
20 for a body part is difficult unless you can collect together all of those
21 body parts, match them by DNA, and reconstruct them.
22 Q. Thank you, sir. Now dealing specifically with the work that was
23 done on these -- on the bodies recovered from the graves that are the
24 subject of your report, can you tell us how many autopsies would be
25 performed per pathologist per day on average?
1 A. My -- I -- in my own case, I would do about four or five a day
2 depending on the completeness of the body. An incomplete body would take
3 less time than a complete one, but I wouldn't imagine that many of the
4 pathologists would be doing more than six and some would be doing as
5 little as four.
6 Q. And would you describe that number as being in line with the
7 normally accepted procedure in that line of work?
8 A. I am not sure there is an accepted procedure in this line of
9 work. I thought it was important for the pathologist to perform the work
10 thoroughly. Certainly, it could have been done faster, but I was more
11 concerned to make the work done good than quick.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt.
13 Mr. Lawrence, you are talking at page 10 in response to
14 Mr. Ivetic's question, you said:
15 "But in the current case we had a hypothetical case, an arm from
16 one individual in one grave and an arm from another individual in another
17 grave ..."
18 But the hypothetical question put to you didn't sound to me to be
19 talking of two individuals. The question reads:
20 "I would now like to put to you a hypothetical question ..." And
21 I jump onto the right place.
22 "If an arm belonging to a person was found in a secondly grave
23 and in a completely different secondary grave the other arm was found
24 belonging to the same person ..."
25 That's the hypothetical question put to you. Now, does that
1 change your answer?
2 THE WITNESS: Sorry -- no, I'll pause. Sorry. Yes, that's what
3 I was trying to allude to when I qualified my answer. That's one of the
4 reasons why we did the calculations of minimum number of individuals. In
5 that particular case, you would, say, have a right humerus in another
6 grave and a left humerus in another grave. Now, that would be sorted out
7 by the minimum number of individuals. That's why we used that technique
8 to assess. But it does not solve the issue that, for example, if both of
9 them had a gun-shot wound going through the right or left humerus close
10 to the shoulder, looking at the body parts you might attribute a cause of
11 death to both.
12 I think that is why in the end I focused most of my report on the
13 intact individuals, because there is potential for some of the data on
14 the incomplete bodies to be slightly misleading.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
16 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one follow-up question. That would not
18 be necessarily the case for all incomplete bodies. If, for example, you
19 would have the upper part of a body or just a skull, then, of course,
20 another skull would mean another person?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes --
22 JUDGE ORIE: So for the arms the example is fine, but for a skull
23 or for the complete pelvis, or there it would be different and you could
24 count them within the number -- minimum number of bodies even if you had
25 only found the skull.
1 THE WITNESS: That is correct and that is why, when we were
2 considering the body parts, the heads, for example, were examined by --
3 always examined by a pathologist because essentially if you found a
4 gun-shot wound in the head, you could reliably assume that the individual
5 to whom that skull belonged was dead.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you find bodily remains, I think, in
7 general, even without gun-shot wounds, you can assume that that person is
8 dead. If you would agree with me. But what you may have intended to say
9 is that that person -- that there is a fair chance that they would have
10 been killed by a bullet which impacted on his head.
11 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although you can't exclude other causes of
13 death but you'd know that such an impact most likely would cause death,
14 and then the only remaining issue is whether it was a post-mortem impact
15 which is still an opportunity -- a possibility.
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we -- I think we agree on many parts of
18 this part of your work.
19 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 Q. Doctor, in relation to the method or criteria that was utilised
21 in doing the autopsy work in Bosnia to research, analyse, and identify
22 victims, am I correct that that was a continuation of the criteria that
23 had been developed by your predecessor Dr. -- I believe it was Bill or
24 William Hunt?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. If we can take a look at something I think relating to
3 MR. IVETIC: 1D1141 [Realtime transcript read in error "1D4141"],
4 page 26 in e-court, which should be transcript page 7539.
5 Q. And if you could follow along with me, sir, I would like to
6 revisit the questions and answers from lines 5 through 21. And I begin:
7 "Question" --
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you begin, I think it is 1D1141. It is
9 not properly recorded.
10 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
11 Q. Beginning now, sir.
12 "Q. Thank you. Given that you answered a question of
13 Mr. Lazarevic saying that before you went to the location, before you
14 started working on this, you received certain instructions from the
15 Prosecution, or rather from the investigators, could you tell us whether
16 anybody informed you that there is such a custom in Bosnia and
17 Herzegovina that a victim of an armed conflict is buried with a weapon?
18 "A. No.
19 "Q. Perhaps I was a bit imprecise. I said a victim of an armed
20 conflict, and I wanted to say a participant of an armed conflict. I'm
21 referring to a soldier who was killed.
22 "A. The answer is still no.
23 "Q. Can you then tell me why did you consider this to be a
24 potential indicator as to whether this was a participant in an armed
25 conflict or a victim whose cause of death could have been somewhat
2 "A. Because I thought it would -- it was one criteria that might
3 specify between them. I didn't say it was necessarily a good criteria,
4 but it is a criteria."
5 First of all, sir, can you confirm if this testimony from the
6 Popovic case is accurate?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And would you so testify today if asked the same questions?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And in talking about a criteria in your answer, is this a
11 criteria that you developed or would it be one that you inherited from
12 Dr. Bill Hunt's methodology?
13 A. To be honest, I can't recall. I know that in Bill Hunt's work,
14 they did at least find one soldier who was carrying a hand-grenade and
15 that may have been why he reported it. I think it was largely carrying
16 on something that Bill did, but to be honest, it's so long ago now I
17 can't recall.
18 Q. That's fair enough, sir. I'd now like to look together with you
19 at another document.
20 MR. IVETIC: If we can have 1D1138 in e-court.
21 Q. And while we wait for it, sir, I can tell you I believe it to be
22 a publication of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia entitled
23 "Pathway." Are you familiar with such a publication or such an
24 organisation, sir?
25 A. Yes, I am.
1 Q. And we see now the cover page of this document which has your
2 picture. Do you recall, sir, having given an interview to this
3 organisation and when that would have been published?
4 A. Yes, I recall doing it. I can't remember when it was.
5 Q. Fair enough. Would it have been before or after your work for
6 the Office of the Prosecutor in this case?
7 A. In 1998?
8 Q. Yeah.
9 A. Yes. It would have been after.
10 Q. Okay. Now if we can go to page 2 of the document in e-court, and
11 that is the text of the actual article, I'd like to discuss a few things
12 with you. If we focus on the bottom of the first column and then the top
13 of the middle column, I'd like to ask you about that, where it begins as
15 "'Where hostilities have descended into the barbarity of a
16 massacre, the way to approach the evidence is one body at a time,' he
18 "'You have to prove every single one. If they are in a mass
19 grave, it's easy, but in places like Kosovo, where they are all buried in
20 single graves, you have to look at each one and determine whether there
21 is enough evidence.
22 "'If you don't get a good nexus between your investigation and
23 your exhumation and autopsy process, then the exhumation is useless. So
24 it's got to be done very thoroughly and it's an incredibly expensive
1 Now first of all, Doctor, can you confirm if this accurately
2 recollects the statements that you would have made, do you?
3 A. This was not given in a court of law, and I think it's fairly
4 accurate, yes.
5 Q. Okay. Now when you say that if bodies are in a mass grave it is
6 easy, does this mean that, as a working presumption, you as a pathologist
7 consider that all bodies found in a same mass grave come from the same
8 event and met their fate in the same event?
9 A. Not necessarily. As I've pointed out later in the article, the
10 autopsy process is just one step of the investigation. You have an
11 investigation, you have an exhumation, you have an examination. All of
12 those parts are important in assessing the significance of the findings.
13 However, as a general principle, the finding of a body that's been in one
14 mass grave and then moved to another mass grave I think is germane to
15 your consideration of what the cause and manner of death might have been.
16 Q. Now, in such a process and such a consideration, does one not
17 take into account that mass graves might arise by operation of law in a
18 particular jurisdiction? For instance, for bodies collected in a
19 sanitisation procedure after a battle?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask first. I -- a quote has been given to
23 you, but I would like to first understand fully what you're quoted to
24 have said.
25 The first:
1 "Where hostilities have descended into a barbarity of a
2 massacre," that means there that you have a kind of a presumption that
3 there is a massacre.
4 THE WITNESS: I am not sure those words were mine.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
6 THE WITNESS: That was -- as I say, this was not prepared as a
7 court statement. It was taken by a journalist who I think used some
8 journalistic license in those words. I think it's --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 THE WITNESS: -- unlikely I used those specific words.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So -- but then I'll continue.
12 "'You have to prove every single one.'"
13 What do you think you have to prove?
14 THE WITNESS: Sorry --
15 JUDGE ORIE: What are you referring to?
16 THE WITNESS: No, sorry. This was in reference to -- hold on ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: But what makes it easy if there are in a mass
18 grave -- to establish the cause of death? Or I would think that if you
19 take them one by one, at least I would start thinking that it doesn't
20 make any difference.
21 THE WITNESS: Sorry, this -- this was really a comparison between
22 my experience in Bosnia and in Kosovo, and I think it relates to this
23 issue of the step-wise process of investigation, the same investigation,
24 the examine -- the autopsy, the exhumation and the autopsy examination.
25 Where there was no linkage between -- where they were in separate graves
1 and there was no apparent linkages between them --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 THE WITNESS: -- it was much more difficult to interpret the
4 significance of the findings.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But for you or for the Judges later or for
6 the --
7 THE WITNESS: No, no, for --
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- prosecutors --
9 THE WITNESS: For me.
10 JUDGE ORIE: For you.
11 THE WITNESS: For me, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you explain that.
13 THE WITNESS: When you've got a large number of bodies in one
14 place that has -- where the body has been buried and then dug up and then
15 reburied, that would, to me, indicate that there was some intention to
16 perhaps conceal the nature of the -- the death.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now is that part of your specific expertise,
18 whether there were -- what kind of intentions there were behind, or is it
19 for you to describe what you see and then to leave the conclusions to
20 those who have a total overview over the facts, perhaps over the case?
21 THE WITNESS: I -- I accept your -- your point, there,
22 Mr. President. I was trained in both the English and American systems.
23 In the English system, I would give purely the cause of death. In the
24 American system, I would be expected to give both the cause of death and
25 the manner of death. Even in the English system, you often do consider
1 issues like manner in relation to your cause of death. For example, the
2 difference between a gun-shot wound that may have caused a suicide or
3 gun-shot wound that may have caused -- may have been a homicide.
4 So there are times in pathology when you do have to consider both
5 cause and manner.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: But I accept that ultimately that is an issue that
8 does not need to be resolved by me but does, as I say, need to be
9 resolved by the court.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now you said it's easy, apparently referring
11 to the Kosovo experience -- no, no, to the Bosnian experience. What
12 makes it easy?
13 THE WITNESS: Sorry. I should have probably qualified that to
15 JUDGE ORIE: Easier.
16 THE WITNESS: I don't think -- I don't regard it as being "easy."
17 JUDGE ORIE: No. And then what would be easy -- easier to prove?
18 THE WITNESS: Well, I think the fact that -- that you've got all
19 of those bodies together indicates that -- that it relates to one event
20 rather than several events.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At least there may be indications of -- of
22 that having happened.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then you say -- yes, so I now understand that
25 where you are quoted to have said, "You have to look at each one and
1 determine whether there is enough evidence," that is in the same
2 comparison situation that to further develop thoughts on not only the
3 cause of death but also the manner of death or any link between the
4 several, that it's easier to develop such thoughts if the bodies are
5 found together?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes. That's correct.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I understand what the quote was about.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
9 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Before I get back to the document, sir, the type of coronial
11 system that was employed in Bosnia, correct me if I'm wrong, was the
12 English system?
13 A. I was never quite sure.
14 Q. Thank you. If we can now look at the end of the middle column,
15 the third paragraph from the bottom of this article, and it is recorded
16 here as follows:
17 "He might have no autopsies or up to four a day. 'Four is quite
18 a lot. The straight-forward autopsies take about an hour. The more
19 complicated ones can take up to four hours, so things can vary from being
20 pretty quiet to being full-on for most of the day.'"
21 Sir, does -- does that accurately reflect your words?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And was this in relation to your normal work in Tasmania or would
24 the same observation apply to the work that was done by yourself and
25 other pathologists in Bosnia?
1 A. That was applied to my work in Tasmania. I still, even in
2 Bosnia, did not often do more than four or maybe five cases in a day.
3 But because the bodies were more decomposed, some of the dissections that
4 I would have ordinarily undertaken in an ordinary autopsy weren't
5 relevant. So while some of the -- some of the -- my experience in
6 Tasmania and my experience in Bosnia are not directly comparable.
7 Q. Thank you, sir. Now if we can move to the second-to-last
8 paragraph on this page, that would be on the far right column, and it
9 begins as follows:
10 "Team-work is vital. 'You are only as good as the detectives,
11 the crime scene investigators, the corner's officers, and the doctors
12 involved. The autopsy is really good for checking facts, but in terms of
13 trying to work out exactly what happened ... if you don't have enough
14 information, you can't make an assessment.'"
15 And can you confirm if your words are accurately reflected in
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And as far as the work of the investigative team, the crime scene
19 investigators, the detectives, those that worked on these graves in
20 Bosnia in 1998, am I correct that you were not involved in overseeing
21 their work or establishing protocols for their work?
22 A. No.
23 Q. And if we can turn to page --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- Ivetic, could I ask similar questions as I did
3 You are quoted to have said:
4 "'You are only as good as the detectives, the crime scene
5 investigators, the coroner's officers ...'"
6 Do I have to understand this that you say, "The result of my work
7 alone doesn't do the job. It is -- you need all the pieces to make my
8 contribution a useful one"?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. It is my view on forensic pathology that it
10 is part of a process and that the more information that I get in regard
11 to the circumstances, the better I can interpret what I have found. Now
12 the trade off in that is that there is potential for bias. And one of
13 the difficulties of being a forensic pathologist is to try and look at
14 the material you've been given analytically and not necessarily be swayed
15 by it but to test it.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you are saying at the end if you don't have
17 enough information you can't make an assessment. That's not very clear.
18 An assessment about what? I take it that for the cause of death it --
19 you might not need all the information. And my second question would be:
20 Were you fed with all this information -- I mean, would you have the full
21 report of the crime scene investigators, or were you primarily doing your
22 job by doing your autopsies?
23 THE WITNESS: I think it's important to recognise that this
24 paragraph relates to my work in general and not specifically to my work
25 in Bosnia.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then the question still remains: If you
2 do an autopsy, are you asking actively for what did you find on the crime
3 scene, or would you first do that and then make that available so that
4 those who are overlooking the totality would be able to make a better
5 assessment or judgement on what happened?
6 THE WITNESS: I would -- I would usually try and get as much
7 information before I started, and then look at what I found and then
8 maybe ask for further information. So it wouldn't always be the case
9 that I'd get all the information I wanted to start with, but it is -- it
10 is important -- the more information I had, the more easy it was to
11 interpret what I was saying.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Such as whether a knife or a pistol was found at the
13 crime scene, is that the kind of things you would ...
14 THE WITNESS: Those are things I would expect to know, yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now you say this applies mainly for your work
16 in Tasmania. In what way was this different than in Bosnia?
17 THE WITNESS: I -- well -- it's -- the nexus between the
18 investigation and the autopsy were closer. I would normally, in a
19 suspicious case, have attended the scene, examined the scene. I would
20 have had all the information that -- provided by the police.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Do you mean the scene of -- or the suspected scene
22 of the crime --
23 THE WITNESS: The scene of --
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- or the scene of where the bodies were found?
25 THE WITNESS: The scene of the -- the scene where the bodies were
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which is usually -- certainly if it's a
3 secondary grave would not be the scene of the crime.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes. Sorry, I was referring there in terms -- to
5 my work in Tasmania, not the work in --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I now better understand.
7 Mr. Ivetic, before we ask further questions about what the
8 witness said, I would first like to fully understand what he is quoted to
9 have said before asking further questions.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. If we could turn to page 3 of this
12 article now, I would like to go over one more part.
13 Q. And then have you explain it for us. And it is the far right
14 column at the top, the first full paragraph of the same.
15 "'In forensic, weird things tend to happen, slightly more
16 commonly than you'd expect ... coronial cases tend to be strange and
17 unusual. The older I get, the more careful I am never to say 'never' and
18 never to say 'always.' I have been surprised in the past ... someone who
19 has accidently fallen on a spike that has gone through their brain, a man
20 driving a car where the gear stick has gone through his heart, very, very
21 strange occurrences that you wouldn't anticipate happening but
22 occasionally do occur.
23 "'On a regular basis, from the history I'm given, I try to guess
24 what the cause of death is and then do the autopsy. The only problem is
25 it is only possible to get 60 to 70 per cent accuracy. I am nearly
1 always surprised by what I find at autopsy. You can't even anticipate
2 which cases you are likely to get wrong.'"
3 Does this accurately depict your words to the journalist?
4 A. Well, it's in quotations. I think it -- I think it probably is,
6 Q. Okay. And could you tell us then, sir, in relation -- could you
7 explain to us what you are talking about when you say it's only possible
8 to get 60 to 70 per cent accuracy? In relation to what, sir?
9 A. Sorry, this is in relation to work I'm doing in -- in relation to
10 my regular work, not in relation to what we are talking about today.
11 But, no, what I -- what I often do is, in my cases in Tasmania, read the
12 story, examine the outside of the body, and try and ascertain what the
13 cause of death is before I do the autopsy, and the problem is that we
14 know from -- from research work and so forth that the accuracy of that is
15 about 60 to 70 per cent. You've -- you probably can't get more accurate
16 than that. This is not really -- I -- well, I can't see the direct --
17 it's not meant to relate to the work we did in Bosnia.
18 JUDGE ORIE: But could I still ask you, "It's not likely..." Do
19 you mean that only in 60 to 70 per cent of the cases, your initial
20 guess --
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- on the basis of the information provided to you
23 and just at looking at the body from the outside that in -- in -- well,
24 let's say 30 to 40 per cent it turns out that you were wrong in your
25 initial guess, whereas in 60 to 70 per cent your guess was right. Is
1 that --
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sorry. I should -- this is -- I think this
3 highlights the importance -- it was meant to highlight the importance of
4 doing autopsies. You -- it is not meant to relate to my accuracy in
5 terms of assessing the cause of death at the finish of the autopsy.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Because there you think that you can accurately
7 establish either the cause of death or the probable cause of death or
8 the -- well, definite cause, there you have no doubts as the accuracy of
9 such conclusions?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right. We've actually done research to
11 demonstrate this figure of 60 to 70 per cent being right. It really
12 relates to an issue in Australian -- in Australian coronial practice
13 where there has been a tendency to do less autopsies.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And this is, therefore: Is it what I thought
15 it to be initially?
16 THE WITNESS: I think so.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. IVETIC: If we can look at one more item for this document.
20 If we could please scroll up to the top of this page, I think we'll see a
21 headline, the second heading.
22 Q. "'The high-profile cases can be quite dangerous because there is
23 a huge amount of speculation. If you are not careful with those cases,
24 they can go badly wrong on you.'"
25 Do you stand by those words as being accurately published?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And do you still hold that view?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And would you consider the work that you did in 1998 for the
5 Tribunal in Bosnia as being a high-profile case of the type that this
6 comment was directed towards?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would tender this document as the
9 next exhibit number at this time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter document 1D1138 --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Receives number?
13 THE REGISTRAR: -- shall be assigned Exhibit number D338. Thank
15 JUDGE ORIE: D338 is admitted into evidence.
16 Mr. Ivetic, it may be time for the break.
17 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lawrence, we would like to see you back after
19 the break, which will be in approximately 20 minutes. You may follow the
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at 10 minutes to 11.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
1 Mr. Ivetic, could you give us an indication as where we are in
2 terms of time?
3 MR. IVETIC: I believe I'm still on track to complete the witness
4 within the estimated time that we had.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And the estimated time was?
6 MR. IVETIC: Was two and a half hours, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Two and a half hours. Yes. Which would effectively
8 mean what, more or less?
9 MR. IVETIC: I believe just under two hours left today.
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One hour and 50 minutes left. 50, I should
12 pronounce better, especially if it comes to 15 or 50.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated.
15 Mr. Ivetic, please --
16 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- proceed.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. Doctor, yesterday you briefly told us about the Gilham case.
20 MR. IVETIC: And I'd like to revisit that with the assistance of
21 1D1140 in e-court, which I believe is an article of the Sydney Morning
22 Herald from 2011 about that case.
23 Q. While we wait for that, sir, am I correct that you were an expert
24 witness for the Prosecution in that case?
25 A. I regard myself an expert witness for the court.
1 Q. Fair enough. You were not called as a defence witness, is what I
2 was --
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. In this article, if we can look at the fourth --
5 THE INTERPRETER: The speakers are kindly asked to slow down and
6 to pause between question and answer so that the interpretation into
7 B/C/S could be complete. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That was a firm message --
9 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- we should take to heart.
11 MR. IVETIC: If we can look at the fourth paragraph from the
12 bottom, sir.
13 Q. And I can read it so that we can be on the same page. It begins:
14 "But yesterday in the NSW Criminal Court of Appeal, Dr. Lawrence
15 conceded that he was not fully qualified to give evidence when it came to
16 levels of carbon monoxide below 10 per cent, and that doing so had made
17 him 'uncomfortable.'
18 "Dr. Lawrence said he had warned at the time that a toxicologist
19 would be more appropriate to give evidence. He also said that he had not
20 been given important information about Chris Gilham such as whether he
21 was a smoker.
22 "Dr. Lawrence said he had changed his view and believed it was
23 possible the elder Gilham sibling was alive for at least a short time
24 after the fire was lit."
25 Does this accurately summarise the Gilham case that we talked
1 about yesterday?
2 A. Well, it's a newspaper article which expresses some of the
3 opinions of the reporter, but substantially it's correct, yes.
4 Q. Okay. I only want to focus on the recitation that you had not
5 been given important information, and I want to ask you: Was this
6 information that was in the possession of a party in the proceedings? I
7 mean, what does that part relate to?
8 A. Let me just backtrack a little. In forensics pathology, a smoker
9 can have a carbon monoxide level of 10 or even 12, so the -- the
10 observation of whether or not they were a smoker is relevant to the
11 consideration, and I had not been ever informed whether or not
12 Christopher Gilham was or was not a smoker.
13 Q. Was that information that had been in the possession of the
14 police, the prosecution? Who had that information?
15 A. I still don't know.
16 Q. Can you please tell us, if you know, what was the ultimate
17 outcome of the Gilham appeal? Was the murder conviction -- or the murder
18 convictions reversed?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. If we can move on to another topic, I'd like to focus on -- upon
21 your arrival at the Tribunal in 1998.
22 MR. IVETIC: And I'd like to recount something that's contained
23 in 1D1141, the Popovic transcript, page 6 in e-court; transcript
24 page 7519.
25 Q. And if you could follow along, sir, I'd like to read from line 4
1 through line 18, the questions and answers.
2 "Q. Can you tell us who provided that initial briefing to you as
3 to what had happened in Srebrenica in 1995 in the opinion of the OTP?
4 "A. That's difficult to remember. I got information from many
5 people, and I honestly cannot remember who told me what, but I had spoken
6 to Graham Blewitt, John Ralston, members of the investigative team,
7 Professor Richard Wright. So I -- I received information from a large
8 number of people.
9 "Q. Thank you very much. Naturally, you cannot be expected to
10 remember every word that was uttered to you, and by whom. But could you
11 summarise the information that was provided to you in OTP -- by OTP as to
12 what was their impression about what had happened in Srebrenica in July
13 of 1995? What did they tell you?
14 "A. I -- I was told that a number of people had been killed,
15 that they had been buried, that the graves had been then re -- dug up,
16 and that the bodies had been reburied again."
17 Does this accurately convey the testimony as you recall it from
18 this case?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And do you stand by the same?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. If we can turn to the next page of this transcript in e-court,
23 I'd like to continue to see if I'm understanding this right. From line 2
24 I'll continue reading, sir.
25 "Q. Thank you. When preparing to go out to work in the field,
1 were you perhaps told that in the territory of Srebrenica municipality,
2 as well as in neighboring municipalities of Bratunac and Zvornik, in 1992
3 very intense combat took place between the Serbian and Muslim forces,
4 which is to say that this happened some three years before the 1995
5 event -- sorry, 1995 events.
6 "A. Yes. I -- I was aware there had been previous combat.
7 "Q. Was your attention drawn to the fact that in doing your
8 work, you should bear in mind that some of the graves that you might come
9 across were created in 1992 or 1993? Were you told to pay particular
10 attention to that fact?
11 "A. No.
12 "Q. So you were never told by the Prosecution before going to
13 Bosnia that there existed certain mass graves in the territory of Zvornik
14 and Bratunac dating back to 1992. Did they have such information?
15 "A. No. I don't recall being given -- told that specifically.
16 I was aware that there were graves there, though."
17 Does this accurately reflect the testimony that you gave in that
18 case, sir?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And has anything changed or would you adopt the same testimony
21 today if asked these questions?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And how about the combat that had occurred in July of 1995
24 between a mixed column of several thousand armed and unarmed Bosnian
25 Muslim men trying to break through the Serb lines and get out of
1 Srebrenica enclave, did your briefing from the Prosecutor's Office relay
2 that information to you?
3 A. Sorry, are we -- sorry, that's a question, not transcript.
4 Sorry. Yes, I was told that information.
5 Q. Okay.
6 MR. IVETIC: I would now like to take a look at Exhibit D329 in
8 Q. While we wait for that, sir, I can advise that this is a report
9 of an oversight committee dated 1998. And once we look at the first page
10 of that document when it comes up, we'll see the several persons that
11 were members of the committee and at the bottom of the page the two
12 Prosecution personnel, Peter McCloskey and Jan Kruszewski, who took part
13 in the same.
14 First of all, did either of the OTP personnel identified in this
15 report have any role in briefing you at the time that you were working as
16 a pathologist for the Office of the Prosecutor?
17 A. I -- I knew both of the individuals. I would have talked to
18 Peter about the case on a number of occasions, and I would assume -- I
19 can't have any specific recall of talking to -- to Jan about that, but he
20 was around at the time I was being briefed and I may well have spoken to
21 him about it.
22 Q. Okay. Does this document appear to be something that remember
23 having been advised of or having seen before?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Okay.
1 If we can turn to page 3 of the document, I'd like to --
2 A. Sorry, sorry. When I read the document a bit further -- yes, I
3 was aware of a document which was in -- related to something about
4 San Antonio, and I believe that to be the document.
5 Q. Thank you, sir. If we can turn to page 3 of the document, I'd
6 like to ask you about something in Roman numeral IV, and it's the last
7 half of that paragraph, and it begins:
8 "Even within their own country, there were differences in
9 investigation and autopsy techniques, interpretation of findings, and
10 differences between professional disciplines (pathology, anthropology,
11 criminal investigatory procedure, and evidence collection). There was
12 also a potential, if not real, conflict between the UN and PHR personnel,
13 as well as variations on legal opinion for cause and manner of death.
14 There was attempt to use the Minnesota Protocol, a standardised form for
15 the autopsy recording which was developed in the early 1980s."
16 And I'd like to ask you, sir --
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please slow down.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. First of all with respect to the concerns that were voiced, is
20 this background information that would have been available to you at the
21 time that you were briefed by the Prosecution in commencing your work?
22 A. Yes. I -- this relates to work done in 1996. I -- I was briefed
23 by -- about this by the South African investigator Frank, I am not sure I
24 remember his second name. But, yes, this was discussed and I was asked
25 to consider this in -- in my work.
1 Q. Now the Minnesota Protocol that was mentioned, am I correct that
2 that is a standardised method of collecting and preserving evidence and
3 entry of forensic findings on a written record developed by the
4 Physicians for Human Rights group in the United States?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. Did you and your team use the Minnesota Protocol in the work that
7 you did in 1998?
8 A. No, the document -- sorry, I'll slow down. The document deals
9 with a lot of issues in relation to torture and quite a lot of the
10 document - which is a somewhat dated document I have to say as well -
11 would not have been directly relevant to the -- I am familiar with the
12 Minnesota Protocol. And when I prepared my reports, the -- the -- the
13 pro forma documents, I considered some of the issues that were raised in
14 the Minnesota Protocol, but I did not use that as the standard form. It
15 just isn't relevant enough.
16 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now are you familiar, then, with the Istanbul
17 Protocol that would have been developed, I believe, in the 1990s, that
18 specifically related to torture and cruel treatment and the types of
19 steps that needed to be taken if opinions were to be rendered in relation
20 to that area?
21 A. Not specifically, I would have to say, no.
22 Q. Okay. Can I take it then that your team did not employ the
23 Istanbul Protocol in your work in Bosnia?
24 A. No.
25 Q. And if we look at the next page of the document, and
1 Roman numeral number VI, we will see a list of comments by some of the
2 members of that mission, the 1996 mission. I'd like to highlight
3 something that's contained in number 4 here to get your take on it, and
4 it says, under Andrew Thomson, in the middle of his comment, it says.
5 "Sixty-four (64) bodies removed in one day at Ovcara to spite
6 UNTAES photographer. Not all bodies were fluoroscoped. 'Tension'
7 between Drs. Haglund and Kirschner."'
8 Now, as to this complaint that not all bodies were being
9 fluoroscoped, would you agree that, if true, this would run afoul of one
10 of the most basic first steps in the examination of human remains?
11 A. Can I ask where we're going with this?
12 Q. I'm asking your opinion about what's written in this document,
13 sir. That's -- is fluoroscoping one of the most basic first steps in the
14 process of --
15 A. Well, all of our major -- all of our whole bodies and major body
16 parts were fluoroscoped in any of the cases that we thought were
17 significant, were fluoroscoped because it is an important part of the
19 Q. If we can turn to the next page of the document, and it continues
20 with the comments. First of all, sir, if I can focus on number 12, and
21 Dr. Milewski, the -- a medical examiner from, I believe, the Bronx, she
22 was a member of the team that assisted you, I believe, on three of the
23 graves that you reported on.
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. And here she is talking about the predecessor mission, and she
1 complained that she was instructed how to list the cause of death by
2 Dr. Kirschner. Was that one of the problems that you had been told about
3 in relation to the predecessor investigations that had been performed?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And if we can look at number 13, we also have there Ms. Gallagher
6 stating that Dr. Kirschner changed autopsy reports and instructed her to
7 do so while processing the reports, "her" being Ms. Gallagher, the
8 anthropologist. As a practitioner in the field of forensic pathology,
9 would you agree that these charges, again if accurate, and if relating to
10 reports of autopsies performed by other pathologists, would be a
11 deviation from the standard of practice that is customary?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And now I want to step away from this report.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Lee.
15 MS. LEE: Yes. I would object to this question. We don't know
16 what we mean by the word "change" here and -- but --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the question has been answered but, of course,
18 the relevance of the answer, and, Mr. Ivetic, I think you would agree
19 with me, very much depends on whether the substance of the report was
20 changed or just the format or -- we do not know, at least it's not clear
21 from here. And if you have any information about that, I think it would
22 be worthwhile for the Chamber to see that.
23 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. Perhaps not with this witness --
25 MR. IVETIC: Right.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- who might not have no personal knowledge about
3 MR. IVETIC: Exactly.
4 JUDGE ORIE: But you put these questions to him. And do you know
5 exactly what changes are referred to? Apart from that you shouldn't
6 change anything, but we easily agree on that, but do you know what kind
7 of changes are hinted at in this?
8 THE WITNESS: It was my understanding, from information I was
9 told, that the cause of death had been changed on some of the reports.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And would that be detrimental for anyone who would
11 have been suspected for having caused the death of that person? I mean,
12 "undetermined" is relatively favourable, whereas a gun-shot wound would,
13 perhaps for someone who would have to stand in a -- in a trial for
14 manslaughter --
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. And my understanding is yes, it would --
16 it would probably have been.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Unfavourable for anyone for having to stand
18 trial for having played a role in the death of this person.
19 THE WITNESS: Please understand, this is what would probably be
20 regarded as hearsay --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 THE WITNESS: -- in an Australian jurisdiction.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You were quite clear on that you have no
24 personal observation.
25 THE WITNESS: But yes, I understand that in a number of the cases
1 the cause of death was changed.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have any idea about the quantity of --
3 of the number of reports and on what total?
4 THE WITNESS: No. No, I don't.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
7 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
8 Q. Now -- again, stepping away from the report and focusing on your
9 work that came in 1998, in terms of the autopsies and the collection of
10 all documentation from the autopsies, and provision of all information or
11 documentation which would have been requested to be reviewed by
12 pathologists performing the autopsies, am I correct that this role was
13 undertaken by a Mr. Dean Manning and other Prosecution investigators or
14 staff? Or if you don't recall, that's fine too. I mean ...
15 A. I'm still trying to -- I'm not sure I quite understand what
16 you're asking there.
17 Q. In terms of collecting the reports or collecting artefacts that
18 would have been recovered from the autopsy, would that work have been
19 done by members of the Prosecution staff including a Mr. Dean Manning?
20 A. Yes. It would have been done. I would also have viewed the
21 reports to collect, but, yes, Dean Manning would have -- would have taken
22 the material.
23 Q. Now, if a pathologist such as yourself needed some information
24 and wanted to get some additional information relating to either the
25 grave or anything else, would the source of that information likewise be
1 Prosecution staff including Mr. Dean Manning?
2 A. I would have imagined that the primary source would be the source
3 where you'd get that information from, the actual reports.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just get clarification. And this I ask from
5 you, Mr. Ivetic.
6 Your first question at line 11 of page 39, you said:
7 "In terms of the autopsies and the collection of all
8 documentation from the autopsies and provision of all information or
9 documentation which would have been requested to be reviewed by
10 pathologists ..."
11 That was your question there.
12 Now at line 20, you said:
13 "In terms of collecting the report or collecting artefacts ..."
14 Now, I would imagine that artefacts are -- is -- would be things
15 that are collected around the grave, around -- and they are not
16 necessarily documentation that would be -- that would come from
17 autopsies. These artefacts would be items that would form the report in
18 the autopsy if they are provided to the pathologist.
19 MR. IVETIC: And it's my understanding that pathologists, when
20 examining a body, photograph artefacts that would be found within the
21 body that might not have been located at the gravesite. That was how I
22 intended my question and I hope that's how it was received.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, I understood that.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, now I'm clearer. Thank you so much.
25 MR. IVETIC: And if we can turn to 1D1142, page 13 in e-court,
1 which should correlate to 7382 of that underlying case. And if we could
2 focus on the -- if we could focus on the bottom four lines and then we'll
3 be going on the next page on the top of the page.
4 Q. Sir, I'd like to revisit the questions and answers you had at
5 line 22 onwards.
6 "Q. And based on your experience, is it possible to determine
7 the manner of death --"
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Line 22? The line 22 on my screen says:
9 "And could you please define that for us ..."
10 MR. IVETIC: I see that. If we could zoom back out so that I can
11 see which page we're on, I can direct ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: Page 22 as we have it. Let me see, no.
13 MR. IVETIC: If we zoom out so I could see the top of the page I
14 can see what transcript page we're on and direct to go ... 1382, that's
15 what we're --
16 MS. LEE: If I could assist, I believe it's the next page --
17 MR. IVETIC: Next page.
18 MS. LEE: -- at page 7383 of the transcript, the Tolimir
20 MR. IVETIC: Thank you to my colleague.
21 Q. And now, sir, if you can follow along from line 22 onward:
22 "Q. And based on your experience, is it possible to determine
23 the manner of death when the cause of death is unknown?
24 "A. In some cases, yes, but often no. If I can give an example,
25 one might have a, as I had in the United States, case where a person had
1 been," if we can go to the next page, "buried in a clandestine grave and
2 was quite badly decomposed. It was not clear exactly what had caused
3 death, but I concluded because of the nature -- of the way the body had
4 been concealed that the manner of death was homicide. So it is possible
5 to have an undetermined cause of death and a determined manner of death,
6 but it's not particularly common."
7 Does this accurately reflect your testimony?
8 A. Yes. It relates to my general practice of forensic pathology
9 more so than Srebrenica case, but, yes, that's true.
10 Q. In relation to the Srebrenica case, were your findings strictly
11 related to clinically observed physical condition of remains, or did you
12 also take into account circumstantial facts including the nature of the
13 graves and what had been relayed to you by investigators?
14 A. I considered what I saw at autopsy. I considered factors like
15 artefacts such as the ligatures and blindfolds. I think those are the --
16 those are the factors that I did consider in.
17 Q. Okay. Now, sir, at this trial, protected Witness RM306
18 testified, and this would be at transcript pages 11472 through 11473,
19 that per the requirements of the Yugoslavian sanitisation procedures,
20 bodies of deceased combatants would have been buried in mass or communal
21 graves, and that, in fact, some bodies found by the roadside were so
22 buried in a mass or communal grave in Bratunac municipality at the
23 Glogova site. Was such information known or conveyed to you when you
24 were doing your work?
25 A. I -- I don't think I was specifically told that information, no.
1 Q. If I can ask just one more thing, RM306 also testified at
2 transcript page 11485 through 11486 of a mass or communal grave dating
3 from 1992 and containing 150 or 100 bodies that had been robbed in 1995
4 at the same time that bodies from Glogova had been removed from that site
5 and taken away. Was such information known or conveyed to you, sir?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Okay. If in relation to the diggings and the exhumations --
8 strike that. Am I correct that in relation to the difference between
9 primary and secondary graves and as to which grave was a primary and
10 secondary, you were entirely reliant upon Professor --
11 Dr. Richard Wright?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And did you at any time get information conveyed to you that the
14 graves located along, for instance, Hodzici Road and Cancari Road were
15 located in all instances within 5 kilometres of sites where there had
16 been combat activity in July 1995 between the column of Bosnian Muslim
17 males and Bosnian Serb forces?
18 A. No.
19 MR. IVETIC: And if we can turn --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if I could ask another question.
21 During the whole of your work, did you find indications either in
22 support or contradicting the option that one or more or even many of the
23 bodies you have examined were combat casualties?
24 THE WITNESS: I didn't see any case -- I -- obviously in relation
25 to Zeleni Jadar, because of the presence of large numbers of shrapnel
1 injuries, I considered the possibility that the -- some of these could be
2 combat fatalities. In relation to the other sites, the presence of the
3 blindfolds and ligatures and age -- the old age and young age of the
4 clients, I thought that most of them -- sorry, I thought that they were
5 probably not combatants, but I had limited information regarding that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was just asking about whether you find
7 anything very specifically, but this is, as far as you can tell us,
8 partly --
9 THE WITNESS: My examination in -- the examinations that I made
10 and observations I made seem to be consistent with the information that I
11 was told and did not seem to contradict the information that I was told.
12 But that's all I can really say.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is it -- could I ask you the following: If you
14 find -- if you would find a grave with a large number of people being
15 shot in their head, entry wound at the back of the head, would you
16 consider this to be an indication pro or contra combat?
17 THE WITNESS: I think if it was clear-cut that you had a single
18 gun-shot wound in the back of the head, as some of the war crime graves
19 in the Second World War may have shown, yes, that would be strong
20 indication that that's the case.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And in your experience during your --
22 THE WITNESS: In -- in this, these bodies, they were -- it was
23 very hard to ascertain in many case the directionality of the bullets and
24 it was not nearly as clear-cut as that.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just follow-up on that one, again the
1 question was:
2 "Would that be an indication pro or contra to combat?"
3 And then your answer was:
4 "It would be an indication of that --"
5 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry, it would indicate to me, I think, that
6 the person had been executed.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
8 MR. IVETIC: If I may, I would like to skip ahead to another
9 top -- to this same topic since Your Honours have raised it.
10 Q. And I would like to revisit with you something from the Popovic
12 MR. IVETIC: 1D1141 in e-court, page 29 of the same, which should
13 correlate to transcript page 7542 of that transcript.
14 Q. And beginning at line 7 and onward, I believe, is a summary of
15 the analysis that you performed to determine whether combatants were
16 contained in the graves, and I would like to go through that with you to
17 see if -- if it's complete. From line 7:
18 "Q. Doctor, earlier this afternoon, when you were asked by my
19 learned friend Mr. Lazarevic, on page 78 and 79, he asked you, just so we
20 can put it in context, 'Do you believe that finding weapons in mass grave
21 and finding bodies dressed in uniforms is important in order to establish
22 whether the deceased was a civilian or a military serviceman?' And your
23 answer, which appears on line 4 of page 79, is, 'It's one of the points
24 of evidence which might answer that question.'
25 "Do you remember that generally?"
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. We're reading the transcript.
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The transcript says also "yes."
5 MR. IVETIC: I realise that.
6 Q. And then the question was posed:
7 "What other points my help us answer that question?"
8 And now I would like to read your answer in it's entirety and
9 then ask you some follow-up questions.
10 "A. I -- I think the circumstances -- I find it difficult to
11 believe that people who are blindfolded and have their hands tied behind
12 their backs are probably combatants at the time that they are in fact
13 killed. I guess the other things are the general patterns of injuries
14 that you expect to see. In modern combat, one would normally expect to
15 see a lot of the casualties come from shrapnel, explosive devices.
16 "It verifies from conflict to conflict, but you would expect the
17 majority of people to have shrapnel injuries in a conflict, not gun-shot
18 wounds, so the high -- the high number of gun-shot wounds would be odd in
19 those circumstances.
20 "The other thing that, frankly, I found odd was that, and this
21 applies in forensic pathology generally, when you found that somebody has
22 gone to some effort to conceal the body, particularly to bury them and
23 rebury them, it's usually an indication that they're trying conceal a
24 death. And I don't understand why someone would go to so much trouble if
25 these were just armed conflict deaths."
1 First of all, sir, does this --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could I --
3 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- where it reads "verifies," may I take it, that's
5 at the previous page, that you may have said "varies."
6 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then that's hereby clarified.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
9 MR. IVETIC:
10 Q. And with that clarification, does this significantly convey the
11 testimony that you would convey as to this question if you were asked it
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And so in this instance, the circumstantial factors or
15 information relating to the locations of the graves and the information
16 that you receive from the Office of the Prosecutor as to their reburial
17 did play a role in the conclusions and the determinations that you
18 reached in your forensic role?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see, Mr. Ivetic, before the witness answers
20 the question.
21 Conclusions. The whole questions are focused on making a
22 distinction between combatants and noncombatants.
23 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore the question would be whether on this
25 basis the witness has concluded that some of the bodies he performed an
1 autopsy upon, that he defined them as combatants or noncombatants. Is
2 that what you want to ask?
3 MR. IVETIC: Uh --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Because the witness is asked to develop all kind of
5 thoughts --
6 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- on matters --
8 MR. IVETIC: Yeah.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- in which he seems not to be an expert. And then
10 you say: Therefore this has influenced your conclusions. Now, since the
11 questioning is about the distinction between combatants and
12 noncombatants, my first question is whether the conclusions are
13 distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants, because then I can
14 see the link. Otherwise, it's just, if I could say, informed thoughts
15 or -- well, whatever you would qualify it as. Could you please phrase
16 your question in such a way that it's clear --
17 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- also in view in matters I raised.
19 MR. IVETIC:
20 Q. Sir, in the course of your work, did you come to a conclusion
21 that these bodies could be -- that you examined, excluded as combatants
22 and combatant fatalities?
23 A. I -- I think that there were some cases where I thought it was
24 extremely unlikely that they were combatants.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may --
1 MR. IVETIC: Yeah.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may ask, Doctor, was that part of your brief?
3 THE WITNESS: Um.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you have to make those conclusions?
5 THE WITNESS: I thought it was relevant in considering the
6 circumstances, yes. I can't specifically recall if I was asked to do
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: But would it be relevant to your -- the expertise
9 that you were asked to provide to make that conclusion?
10 THE WITNESS: I provided the information that I thought might be
11 useful in resolving the issue. Obviously, the ultimate issue goes to the
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. As I understand, the expert -- your
14 expertise, and as I understand what I thought you were asked to do by
15 those who gave you a brief, was to determine the cause of death.
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now was determining the status of the deceased
18 part of your brief? That's my question. Whether it's a civilian or
19 combatant, was that part of your brief and did you make that conclusion?
20 THE WITNESS: I think the answer is that in some of the cases
21 I -- where I observed evidence that to me suggested that they weren't
22 combatants, I included that information --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand you perfectly, Doctor. That's your
24 observation. My question is: Were you asked to make that determination
25 by those who instructed you?
1 THE WITNESS: No.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's my question. Thank you so much.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And my next question would be: Did you do that?
4 Because I looked at your first answer. You said:
5 "I think that there were some cases where I thought it was
6 extremely unlikely that they were combatants."
7 Did you put -- did you write it down in your report? Did you
8 share your thoughts with anyone, and if so, in what way? And of course
9 in this respect only. Did you draw the attention to the fact that they
10 were blindfolded or did you say that they were blindfolded and therefore
11 they were not combatants?
12 Ms. Lee, you are on your feet.
13 MS. LEE: Yes. Yes, Your Honours. The witness has answered on
14 page 49 at line 21:
15 "I observed the evidence to me suggested that they weren't
16 combatants. And I included that information ..."
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now let me -- one second. One second. "I
18 included that information" makes unclear, and that's what I was asking,
19 what -- whether it was written down in the report, and if so, what was
20 written down, because "I included the information" is a rather vague
21 notice, and therefore I asked the witness whether what he included in the
22 report, what he observed he thought to be indicative for, perhaps, the
23 status of the deceased person, and -- or whether he also included any
24 conclusions on basis of that in his report in writing.
25 That is what I -- and that's not answered by what I read in
1 line 21 and following.
2 Could you please answer my question.
3 THE WITNESS: I think I expressed an -- I wouldn't -- I expressed
4 an opinion on some of the cases that I thought it was unlikely that these
5 were combatants. Now --
6 JUDGE ORIE: And did you then refer to any evidence you observed?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes. The -- the things like the ligatures, the --
8 or, for example, the -- the injured person who then had a ligature
9 applied to him and was then shot.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: I expressed -- I -- it was my -- it was an
12 observation that I made that led me to include that the person was
13 probably not. Now, I guess it comes down to my level of certainty on
14 that. And --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, perhaps not. Perhaps it comes down to what
16 you were asked to do and what you did --
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- rather than the level of certainty. But you are
19 entering a new -- into this matter, and we leave it to Mr. Ivetic whether
20 he wants you to do that, yes or no.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
22 MR. IVETIC:
23 Q. Now I believe you indicated that with some of the bodies the
24 determination or your determination that they would not have been
25 combatants was based upon their advanced age or physiological conditions
1 or infirmaries [sic]. Am I correct that this conclusion would be based
2 on your understanding of conventional armies such as the Australian or
3 United States models?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you have in mind or any information about the conscript
6 armies and the Law of Total People's Defence in the former Yugoslavia
7 that envisioned all persons between the ages of 15 and 65 to be part of
8 the Territorial Defence forces?
9 A. No.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You answered one of the previous questions with
11 "yes," but I am afraid I do not fully understand what you answered "yes"
13 THE WITNESS: Sorry, I understood the question to be do I think
14 that the body -- that the person who I saw the body of would have been a
15 member of the -- a conventional army in Australia or the United States.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see what the question was. The question is
17 about your determination that they would not have been combatants, was
18 that based upon the advanced age, I think you answered that question
19 earlier, physiological conditions or in ... Mr. Ivetic, could you help
20 us, the transcript is not complete there.
21 MR. IVETIC: Infirmaries, infirmaries, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Infirmaries. And then the question is: Am I
23 correct that this understanding would have been based of your
24 understanding of the conventional armies such as the Australian and
25 United States models. Now, do I understand that you wanted to ask, at
1 least that's -- whether, if you say, older people or infirm people, that
2 you would think of normal armies?
3 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's a simple question. It's -- it took me five
5 times to read it. Yes.
6 And, Mr. Ivetic, just for my understanding, the witness mentioned
7 other factors as well.
8 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: They are not included in this question, such as
10 ligatures or blindfolds.
11 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honour. I'm going through each one. I
12 don't want to do a compound question.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then try to put the questions such that I
14 even understand it.
15 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
16 Q. We've had evidence at this trial of the Bosnian Muslim column
17 being comprised of both persons armed and those unarmed, arranged by
18 Territorial Defence brigades for purposes of their trek towards
19 Muslim-held territory. Was that kind of information available to you at
20 the time that you were reaching your conclusions as to whether or not
21 these bodies could be excluded as having been combatant fatalities?
22 A. Not specifically, no.
23 Q. Now, I believe in your reports you talk about the lack of
24 uniforms present on the remains except for an odd occasion or two where
25 there was a military jacket, I believe, as another reason that you ruled
1 out the likelihood of combatant casualties; is that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And would this also be rooted in your understanding of a
4 traditional and professional army like in Australia or the United States?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. We've had evidence that the Bosnian Muslim column did not
7 have proper uniforms and that, in fact, civilians were mixed with
8 soldiers. Did you have such information or did you consider such
10 A. I did not have such information. I did consider the possibility.
11 Q. Okay. If I can revisit some information that you did have,
12 1D1144. Page --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we go to that one, I just wanted to find
14 out as an addition to the list of questions we've just been putting to
15 the witnesses, did you by any chance receive information that some of
16 this -- these battle areas were also heavily mined?
17 THE WITNESS: From my experiences in Bosnia, I would have assumed
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
20 You may proceed, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic.
23 MR. IVETIC: Ivetic. It's okay, Your Honour.
24 If we can turn to 1D1144, and page 49 in e-court.
25 Q. And, sir, if you can follow along with me. I'm interested at
1 lines -- lines 11 through 16. And the questions and answers recorded
2 there as follows:
3 "Q. Yes, there it is. Were you told -- was there a suggestion
4 made to you that all these individuals were prisoners or people captured
5 who were executed in the month of July of 1995, or were you also given a
6 possibility that these were grave-sites dating back to various periods
7 and various seasons?
8 "A. No, I was told that there were prisoners who were executed."
9 First of all, sir, is this answer accurate as to your knowledge
10 of what you were told?
11 A. The phrasing of it may not have been how I was told it.
12 Q. And --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I again here try to --
14 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I see that Mr. Karadzic has put a question to you
16 which is a question which gives two options, whereas there may have been
17 five or ten options possible. It's more or less hidden in this question.
18 The question was were you told:
19 "Were you told -- was there a suggestion made to you that all
20 these individuals were prisoners or people captured who were executed in
21 the month of July 1995, or were you also given a possibility that these
22 were grave-sites dating back to various periods and various seasons?"
23 That is, were they all prisoners or were these grave-sites dating
24 back to various periods and various seasons. Now, when you said, "I was
25 told there were prisoners who were executed," did you -- is that to be
1 understood as that you were told that all these individuals were
2 prisoners or people captured who were executed? Or was it that there
3 were such among them? The question is problematic and therefore I'm
4 analysing the question before I ask you to confirm or comment on the
5 answer you gave.
6 THE WITNESS: Look, I'm trying to recall something that I did
7 15 years ago. I can't specifically recall whether it -- which of those I
8 was -- I mean I -- I was given information to suggest that these were --
9 that these were prisoners who had been executed. Whether I was given
10 information about -- that they could have been an admixture of other
11 cases, I don't recall.
12 JUDGE ORIE: But you just told us that in your findings it came
13 to your mind that those who had injuries caused by shrapnel, that you
14 would consider them perhaps likely not to be prisoners but combat
16 THE WITNESS: I think, and again I'm trying, you know, it's --
17 I'm trying to recall what my processes are, having been through court
18 three or four times now. I think if you were to ask me, I would be -- I
19 regarded Zeleni Jadar as being a different sort of grave and in that I
20 would have had to consider the possibility that some of the shrapnel
21 injury fatalities could actually be combatants. But I -- I can't, from
22 looking at the injuries, say that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Now, Mr. Ivetic, just for my understanding. I take it that you
25 put these questions in an effort to establish whether the witness worked
1 on assumption that these were all prisoners. Now, that's a very direct
2 question. I think it's about the same.
3 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Did you perform your duties and did you -- and were
5 you led, in whatever way, in your work by the assumption that all or most
6 of these persons were persons captured and then executed?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think that's -- that's true.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That seems to be the issue, Mr. Ivetic, you
9 would like to establish.
10 Let's proceed.
11 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I believe we are past the time for the
13 JUDGE ORIE: You are right, Mr. Ivetic. We will take a break,
14 but not until after the witness has been escorted out of the courtroom.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at quarter past 12.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 11.57 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.21 p.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
20 Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon
22 Your Honours, everyone.
23 Just briefly, Mr. President, at the conclusion of the testimony
24 of this witness, we would ask to be able to address an evidentiary issue
25 that arose in relation to another witness, RM506. We've been in contact
1 with the Defence regarding this matter, and we believe we will be able to
2 have sufficient time at the conclusion of this witness's testimony to
3 address the matter.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated.
8 MR. IVETIC: If we can briefly look at 65 ter number 4579, which
9 I believe is relating to the Cancari Road 3 site. And if we could have
10 page 19 of this document in e-court.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Just for the record, this is Exhibit P1808.
12 Thank you.
13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
14 Q. And if we look at the top paragraph on this page, sir, the
15 description of the remains indicates as follows:
16 "Many of the bodies were wearing 2 or 3 layers of clothing,
17 e.g. trousers, long underwear, and shorts."
18 First of all, the reference to shorts, am I correct in
19 understanding that to be undergarments, underwear?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you have any information as to what the temperatures were
22 like in July of 1995 in Srebrenica?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you consider as part of your analysis or review whether this
25 area of clothing would have been unusual relative to the summertime in
1 that region?
2 A. I -- it -- sorry. I did not consider that the -- the clothing to
3 be an indication of the time of year.
4 Q. Okay. Did you consider or revise your working assumption as to
5 the source of the bodies to take into account the possibility that some
6 of the bodies so attired may date from another incident or another time,
7 perhaps fall or winter in the years prior to 1995?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, Mr. Ivetic. I'm not understanding your
10 "Did you consider or revise your working assumption as to the
11 source of the bodies ...?"
12 What did you mean by "source of the bodies"?
13 MR. IVETIC: I believe, Your Honour, that the last --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Did you intend to refer to people being imprisoned
15 being executed?
16 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then, yes, that's the simple way of dealing with it.
18 So the question now is whether you considered or you revised your
19 working assumption - and I have a question about that - as to whether
20 these were people detained and executed, taking into account the
21 possibility that some of the bodies so attired may date from another
22 incident or other time, fall, winter?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry. I still don't understand the question.
24 It's too long and compound. I'm not sure what it seeks.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I rephrase it then in --
1 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour, please do.
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- my own words and see whether -- you, when
3 working, you assumed, on the basis of what you had heard, that the
4 persons were captured and executed. Now, did the fact that they were
5 dressed as they are reported to have dressed bring to your mind as an
6 option that they may have died in a different season, a season where it
7 is colder than July?
8 Mr. Ivetic, that's --
9 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
11 THE WITNESS: No, it didn't.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now, in the original question I said I would have
13 another question on that working assumption.
14 I heard you say that when working, you assumed that that
15 information was accurate. Now, in what way did that -- or at least that
16 you -- you said you assumed that it was rather prisoners executed than
17 the other group referred to by Mr. Karadzic. Now, in what way did this
18 acceptance of such an assumption, did that in any way influence your work
19 and your findings? And if so, to what extent? How?
20 THE WITNESS: One of the dangers of getting any information is
21 that it may bias your interpretation of what you do, and I am fully aware
22 of the risks of that and try and avoid it. I think I said earlier in --
23 in my -- in my testimonies at some point it is partly my job to test the
24 information I've been given to see if it matches what I've observed. A
25 lot of the bodies that I observed were wearing multiple layers of
1 clothing, and I assumed that that was probably because they had been
2 displaced from somewhere and were carrying most of their clothing on
3 them. It did not occur to me at the time that it indicated that the --
4 the deaths had occurred at a different time of the year.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now it's not a full answer to my question. My
6 question was also in what way the assumptions based on information you
7 had received influenced the way in which you worked; that is, in which
8 you performed your autopsies and drew conclusions from your findings?
9 THE WITNESS: The autopsies were carried out as we would normally
10 carry them out. I don't think they were influenced by the information
11 I'd been provided. The information that I provided in my reports
12 included material that I thought needed to be highlighted as it may be
13 significant in subsequent court considerations.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But separate from the strict findings of you
15 as someone who performed the autopsy.
16 THE WITNESS: Sorry. The observations were the observations.
17 They are -- they were not biased by -- I believe, not biassed by what I'd
18 been told. My decision to -- in -- include information that I thought
19 might be relevant was done so for somebody to subsequently look at and
20 reach a conclusion.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have one additional question. You told us
22 that receiving information carries a risk of bias. Does not receiving
23 information also carry a risk of missing relevant points? It came to my
24 mind that you said in this case where you had to review your findings
25 that you did not receive the information that the person was a smoker.
1 I'm thinking about whether --
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- comparing receiving information and not receiving
4 information as an element which may influence the accuracy of the
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, absolutely. There are risks associated with
7 not having any information, there are risks associated with having the
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just follow-up. Is -- does that risk
11 relate to the 60 to 70 per cent determination that you make by visual
12 observation and information received, or does it also impact on the
13 clinical autopsy that you carry out? Or is it the other way around, that
14 the clinical autopsy may either confirm or disprove the information
16 THE WITNESS: I think the second. It -- look, this is a complex
17 issue, and I think the 60 per cent figure may have, I think, created a
18 wrong impression. What I'm saying is that you -- on information in
19 external looking at the body, you can reach some conclusions but it's not
20 particularly accurate.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's definitive, yeah.
22 THE WITNESS: It's better to have all the information and do
23 the -- the exact information, but the information can still bias your
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: In what way if -- I would have thought that the
1 autopsy would be a scientific exercise that would come out irrespective
2 of what information one had received? Put it this way: If I make a
3 determination after an autopsy that person died because of a stab wound,
4 and I can see the scar there, how does that -- how can that be influenced
5 by any information I've received about the behaviour of this person
7 THE WITNESS: I think what it -- in a straight-forward case it
8 doesn't, but the interpretation of a more complex injury could
9 potentially be biased by -- by knowledge. I'm not saying a
10 straight-forward -- gun-shot wound, there would be no question. But, for
11 example, in a case where you had a possible gun-shot wound, the
12 information could potentially bias your interpretation.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. If I can just follow-up on what Judge Moloto asked: Would a
16 situation where most of the soft tissue is gone and the remains are
17 mostly skeletonised also be a situation where there might be more cause
18 for interpretation of physical condition or physical injuries that were
20 A. I think it would be fair to say that the interpretation of a
21 skeletonised body may be more subjective than the examination of a full
23 Q. Okay. Now the report we are looking at on the screen is for
24 Cancari 3. Would you agree with me that the either grave-sites exhibited
25 the same phenomena of persons wearing several layers of clothing and, if
1 so, would that be noted in all of the reports?
2 A. Yeah. I think -- I think that was -- I think that phrase was
3 standard in all the reports.
4 Q. Now I would like to move on to another criteria that you listed
5 that we haven't gotten to, the blindfolds and the ligatures as a criteria
6 used to exclude someone as being a combatant and to confirm the working
7 hypothesis that they were prisoners that were executed. Now --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic --
9 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Where is it that the witness says "on that basis I
12 MR. IVETIC: I believe we started off with a quotation from the
13 Popovic case, transcript page 2542, page 29 of 1D1141, where there was
14 the discussion of that, I believe. But I'm just trying to find it right
15 now. Maybe it's better just to ask the witness.
16 Q. Sir, was the presence --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: No --
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. -- of ligatures and blindfolds something else that you considered
20 to exclude whether the remains was a combatant and to reinforce the
21 assumption that they were a prisoner that had been executed as you had
22 been told by the Prosecution?
23 A. I -- I think it -- my -- my personal opinion was that it was
24 unlikely that a person who was -- who died with a ligature on was a
25 combatant at the time they died.
1 Q. And so that would only apply to persons who actually had -- to
2 remains, pardon me, that had a ligature attached to them --
3 A. I think that's -- sorry, that's the only -- that would be the
4 only cases that I was specifically referring to.
5 Q. And would you agree with me that where such a body or such
6 remains, if it's not a complete body, were located in a mass grave with
7 others that did not have evidence of ligatures or blindfolds, that the
8 same conclusions could not be imputed to those remaining bodies or
9 remains that did not have ligatures or blindfolds?
10 A. I couldn't -- I could not make any comment about that.
11 Q. Okay.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I go back to my earlier question: You did not
13 make any reports about the status of the people, did you?
14 THE WITNESS: No.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. And am I correct, sir, that out of the 883 total bodies that are
18 the subject of your report, there are only 83 suspected ligatures found
19 in these same graves and that not all were affixed or attached to a body
20 somewhere, just unknotted cloth found in the grave?
21 A. Yes. I think I -- I did say that there were only 53 definitive
22 ligatures where they were ligatures that were in the right place.
23 Q. Thank you. Now --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: 53 or 83?
25 THE WITNESS: There were 83 pieces of cloth that I considered to
1 be potential ligatures, but only 53 were found in a position that I
2 thought indicated that they definitely were ligatures.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
4 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
5 Q. And the same question now in relation to blindfolds. Am I
6 correct that there were 103 suspected blindfolds recovered but only a
7 portion of those were actually situated or affixed to a body in a place
8 for you to conclude they were blindfolds?
9 A. Yes. Similarly, there -- 44 were in positions that led me to
10 conclude that they were blindfolds, but there were 103 that were of a
11 similar configuration.
12 Q. Okay. In the course of doing your work, can I take it that you
13 did not access to any military records of casualties that would have
14 predated July of 1995 from the armija BiH side in the conflict?
15 A. No.
16 Q. And am I also correct that at the time that you were doing your
17 work, while you took DNA samples from the remains, the results of the DNA
18 testing were not yet known to you?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. Okay.
21 MR. IVETIC: At this time I would like to call up 1D1148 but not
22 broadcast the same because it does have some identifications from ICMP
23 that I believe are not to be the subject of disclosure. Whoops. 11 --
24 pardon me. 1153. 1D1153. But not broadcast the same.
25 Q. Sir, this is a document used and admitted into evidence in the
1 Popovic trial. It is a -- produced by a demographic expert,
2 Ms. Svetlana Radovanovic and this list, part in English, part in B/C/S,
3 is based on material received from the BiH Ministry of Defence by the
4 Prosecution as to records of its soldier casualties from Srebrenica. And
5 just so we can all follow, I would like to read so that the English
6 translation of the headings on the left are clear. On the left side we
7 have first a main heading that in B/C/S says: "Spisak tuzilastva,"
8 "spisak tuzilastva."
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now it has been pronounced by you as part of
10 the English transcript, although in a different language. Do you have
11 any suggestion of what it could mean Mr. --
12 MR. IVETIC: Yes, I could do that. "Spisak tuzilastva," I
13 believe means --
14 THE INTERPRETER: List of the Prosecution.
15 MR. IVETIC: Yeah.
16 Q. And then the five sub-columns are "prezime" which would be last
17 name, "ime" which would be name, "ime oca" which would be father's name,
18 "datum rodjenja" which would be date of birth, "datum smrti Brunborg"
19 which would be date of death according to Brunborg. And then in the
20 middle we have two columns with the heading "Spisak Armije BiH," "list of
21 the Army of BiH," and two sub-columns "datum rodjenja," date of birth,
22 and "datum smrti," date of death. And then I think the rest of the --
23 yes, the rest is in English on the columns so that we can understand what
24 this is.
25 Now, I have highlighted on the first page the one set of remains
1 that were identified from Zeleni Jadar by DNA testing to be the
2 individual who is named and who, according to the records of the BiH, was
3 a casualty in either October 1994 or January 1994 depending on --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Lee is on her feet.
5 Ms. Lee.
6 MS. LEE: Yes, Your Honour. Just in relation to this document
7 itself, I just wanted to point out that this was a Prosecution document
8 and the information contained on the left side, the Prosecution list from
9 ABiH, that formed part of the annex of a Defence expert report in the
10 Popovic case. However, the information contained on the right, ICMP
11 information, was not included in that expert report, and I just wanted to
12 have a clarification on the document itself before the -- before the
13 witness testifies on it, just so that the witness has the relevant
15 JUDGE ORIE: It very much depends on whether the questions are
16 about that. We do not know yet. I think it would have been wiser to
17 wait for a second and see whether that portion of the document came into
18 play, yes or no.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. IVETIC:
21 Q. As I was saying, the date for this one individual whom I have
22 highlighted is listed as 10-01-1994, which probably means January 10th
23 but could also mean October the 1st, so I'm not going to make a
24 conclusion one way or another. But would -- would this information cause
25 you to feel uncomfortable with the working assumption or presumption that
1 the bodies in, at least Zeleni Jadar, were prisoners who were executed in
2 July of 1995 or that all the bodies were?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Lee.
4 MS. LEE: And before the witness can answer, the information
5 contained on the left side -- the information coming from the ABiH,
6 those -- the facts contained in that chart had been contested and they
7 were contested to have been inaccurate. And so it's just having -- it
8 may be misinterpreted or misrepresenting the facts if we put the -- if we
9 put it to the witness that these are the actual facts of the case.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's -- let's keep matters simple. For you
11 as well, Mr. Ivetic, but also for you, Ms. Lee.
12 What you apparently want to ask the witness, whether if he would
13 have known that a list existed in which the various sources give
14 different date of death, one source considerably before July 1995 in most
15 cases, and if that list would consist of - let me make an estimate -
16 120 people, I see there are four pages, whether that inconsistency would
17 have made the witness uncomfortable in the assumption he had in his mind
18 when he performed his autopsies.
19 That's apparently, what you --
20 MR. IVETIC: More or less.
21 JUDGE ORIE: If not, please be --
22 MR. IVETIC: That's a good question as well, so we should --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
24 Could you please answer that question, that with knowledge of the
25 existence of lists of discrepancies in the dates on which [overlapping
1 speakers] --
2 THE WITNESS: First let -- sorry.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it was clear enough. Though I have
4 not ...
5 THE WITNESS: First, let me say I haven't seen this document and
6 I have no idea about its accuracy or anything. But if I had been
7 provided a list that was reliable that indicated that they were -- that
8 this person may have died at a different time, yes, I would have
9 considered it.
10 MR. IVETIC:
11 Q. And if this information contained on this list is verified as to
12 the one individual from Zeleni Jadar, and I can tell you there's three
13 other individuals listed from Zeleni Jadar 5, if it is verified as to
14 those individuals, would that give you cause to rethink whether all of
15 the bodies in that grave-site could be linked to executions in July of
17 A. I think I've already indicated to you that Zeleni Jadar was a
18 different grave to the others and that there were a lot of shrapnel --
19 there were a lot more shrapnel injuries and that I would consider the
20 possibility in Zeleni Jadar that some of the fatalities were combat
21 fatalities based on the presence of the shrapnel injuries.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And could I ask you one question: You are talking
23 about three which were verified. Has an attempt been made for the others
24 to be verified and what's the result of that?
25 MR. IVETIC: If that's how it came into the transcript, I
1 apologise. I was asking if these come to be verified. Not that they
2 have been verified, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes.
4 MR. IVETIC: And with respect --
5 JUDGE ORIE: So it's a hypothetical --
6 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. IVETIC: Correct. And if we could turn to page 2 of the
10 Q. And, sir, here I have also highlighted others that again,
11 according to this information which has not been verified, were
12 identified by DNA as being remains located in the Cancari Road 3,
13 Hodzici Road 4, Hodzici Road 5, and Liplje 2 sites that you worked on.
14 For each of these, again, if you are able to subsequently verify that
15 this information as reflected in this chart is accurate as to their dates
16 of death being in the years prior to 1995, would that give you cause to
17 reconsider and step away from the assumption that all the bodies in those
18 graves would have come from the same -- from the same event in July of
20 A. Look, I'm sorry. I'm being asked to examine a document I've
21 never seen before and asked a whole series of questions on it. I think
22 it's a little bit unfair. I don't -- I don't know what this document
23 really represents and I haven't seen it. If it's -- oh, sorry.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's keep matters simple, again.
25 What Mr. Ivetic is asking you, that if information not yet
1 verified would be verified, that these people died at a different date,
2 or at least at a different period in time, whether you would change for
3 those persons your assumption that they died in Srebrenica as prisoners
4 and being executed?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yeah -- in the hypothetical situation that
6 that proved to be case, yes, I would.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, exactly where these people died and how they
8 died, to what extent we find details of that in your report, I mean,
9 would it have had an impact on the outcome? You find a --
10 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, yeah --
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- skeletonised body, would you -- are your
12 conclusions this was 15th July, 1995, or would you say -- yes, Ms. Lee.
13 MS. LEE: Yes. I would like to point out that Dr. Lawrence does
14 not deal with time of death.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No. That's exactly --
16 MS. LEE: And --
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- of course why I'm asking.
18 MS. LEE: -- so it is --
19 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to answer the question for the
20 witness, Ms. Lee.
21 MS. LEE: I understand.
22 JUDGE ORIE: There is no need to that. There is, of course, a
23 strong suggestion in the questions that if you would have known that
24 people did not die in July, would you have taken a different assumption?
25 Now, I would say it seems to me that if the assumption is people
1 die in July and if it's proven that they did not die in July, you have to
2 review that they died in July. If it's not "yes," then it's -- it isn't
3 as you thought it was. That --
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's --
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- seems to be the simple matter.
6 THE WITNESS: That is correct. Remember this report was prepared
7 at the end of -- in 1999. If I was given further information that was
8 verified, yes, I would change my report.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You -- but to what extent in your report -- or at
10 least in the individual cases, because we are not talking about all, we
11 are talking about a list of -- Mr. Ivetic, you may have counted them, but
12 I came to approximately 100 or 120, approximately 30 a page.
13 MR. IVETIC: Correct. And 15 of which were from the sites --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
15 MR. IVETIC: -- that this witness dealt with.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Would that have changed your findings as to the
17 cause of death for the bodies?
18 THE WITNESS: No.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No. Thank you.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
21 MR. IVETIC:
22 Q. Would the -- again in the hypothetical, if these dates of death
23 are confirmed for these identified remains, would the presence of those
24 bodies in those graves also affect the working assumptions or conclusions
25 that would have been in place when doing the autopsies and performing the
1 reviews for all the other bodies that had as of yet been unidentified?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I have to establish that you are doing
3 again what I -- where I earlier intervened; that is, to make a kind of an
4 implicit assumption, that what you call the working assumption was
5 directly related to the outcome of the autopsy findings where the witness
6 told us -- where the witness told us that the working assumption may have
7 led to incidental observations which he thought to be relevant and not
8 directly related to the establishment of the cause of death, if I
9 understood your testimony well.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that is not the way you put it to the
12 witness. And you may again ask a question about this subject but then in
13 an appropriate way.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. When looking at the physical damage apparent on the remains as
16 part of your forensic review, if you're work -- if your working
17 assumption doesn't have all the information, might it cause a bias in
18 terms of how you interpret the physical condition of the remains --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please phrase a question which is
20 understandable for normal persons as this Court. It's a lot of words, a
21 lot of no coherence. Please put clear questions to the witness. Even if
22 the witness understands the question, the Chamber does not as you phrased
23 it a second ago.
24 MR. IVETIC: I will try to make it clearer.
25 Q. If -- if the information that you received that was the basis of
1 your working assumption could, as you testified, create a bias, is it
2 possible for that bias to affect your physical review of the remains such
3 that qualification of the injuries or damage to the remains would be
4 qualified as "gun-shot wound" or "probable gun-shot wound" as opposed to
5 some other form of injury?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: That question has been asked and answered,
7 Mr. Ivetic. I put the question to the witness and he said no. Of
8 course, not in the -- in the words that you are using, in a much simpler
9 way I asked him if those assumptions, the information he receives, does
10 it impact his clinical autopsy that he undertakes, and he said no.
11 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
12 JUDGE ORIE: If you would not mind, let's try to do it.
13 The witness also said that information carries a risk of bias
14 such as a lack of information may carry a risk of bias as well.
15 On the basis of the information you received, would you consider
16 the risk of bias to include the possibility that a gun-shot wound rather
17 than a probable gun-shot wound would be the conclusion? I'm exploring
18 the range of the impact of this risk of bias.
19 THE WITNESS: I -- I've -- to be honest, I think that
20 irrespective of the information I was provided, the definite gun-shot
21 wounds would be the same. It is possible that in things like possible
22 gun-shot wounds, the information could bias it, but I don't think it
23 would significantly bias the definite gun-shot wounds.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And if you say "could bias," then to become probable
25 gun-shot wounds? Possible to probable? Is that in the range of where
1 the --
2 THE WITNESS: The answer is I don't know the answer to that
4 JUDGE ORIE: But you do not exclude for the possibility that that
5 risk of bias would result in moving from one category to another,
6 although you almost for certain exclude that you would move into the
7 category of definite gun-shot wound?
8 THE WITNESS: We --
9 JUDGE ORIE: If you say, I can't say --
10 THE WITNESS: I can't say. I really can't say.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, next question, please.
12 MR. IVETIC: Okay. I think for the moment we've gone as far as
13 we can with this document. Again, we'll have to check to see whether the
14 date that is recorded as coming from the Army of BiH is accurate and I
15 accept that we will do that.
16 Q. Sir, I would like to move on, then, to another topic,
17 disarticulation of bodies. There has been suggestions that the
18 disarticulation of bodies, and by that I mean in layman's terms the
19 dismemberment of bones from the main body, was the result of the reburial
20 process. Am I also correct that disarticulation also occurs as part of
21 the decomposition process as the flesh degrades and melts away from
22 the -- from the -- from the body as well as the sinews and the muscles
24 A. Yes, that's correct. The two processes, the separation of limbs
25 and the loss of the soft tissue, the ligaments in the joints tend to hold
1 together slightly longer than the tissue. So one would normally get
2 decomposition and then disarticulation.
3 Q. Now in the cases of bodies that have been left out in the open
4 for some time, let's say in a battle-field, that only come to be
5 collected at some later point in time, weeks, months, or years later when
6 decomposition has already begun, would there be a possibility for those
7 parts to disarticulate at the time when those bodies are lifted or
8 cleared to be --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And we've had some evidence that the column of Bosnian Muslim men
11 was subjected to minefields, as Judge Moloto has pointed out, and also
12 that there was the use of heavy calibre machine-guns, including
13 anti-aircraft guns, shooting at the column. Would such heavy weapons be
14 another potential cause for disarticulation of bodies?
15 A. They could be, yes.
16 Q. And in those circumstances, unless the rounds were buried with
17 the bodies and recovered during the autopsy, you would not have the
18 information available to either exclude or include that as the potential
19 injury; is that accurate?
20 A. We were making -- we were examining carefully for shrapnel as
21 opposed to -- sorry, or pieces of larger weapons rather than small arms,
22 rifles. And I would -- we did find a number of cases and I would assume
23 we would find it if -- if there was parts of, say, for example, shells as
24 opposed to bullets.
25 Q. But what about heavy calibre shells? Pardon me, heavy calibre
1 bullets of machine-guns? Would they not pass through the body in all
3 A. Look, again we're getting into areas that I'm not an expert on in
4 terms of military ordinance and so forth.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The question may be very relevant. Is there --
6 where would the Chamber have to look in order to find information about
7 the ammunition found near or close to bodies? Because we know about
8 bullets but my recollection doesn't serve me well to know whether there
9 was any heavy machine ammunition found?
10 I'm addressing both parties at this moment, Witness. Unless you
11 would know something about it then -- Ms. Lee.
12 MS. LEE: Yes, those issues are -- are found in the testimony of
13 other experts. There is --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Still to come?
15 MS. LEE: Well, it was contained in Mr. Manning's reports,
16 Jean-Rene Ruez, and anthropologists's reports.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then I may have -- my recollection doesn't serve me
18 sufficiently. But if the witness would know anything about it, of
19 course, he can tell us.
21 MS. LEE: The witness's report mentioned --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's ask the witness.
24 THE WITNESS: They are -- as I say, I am not an expert --
25 JUDGE ORIE: No, no.
1 THE WITNESS: -- on ballistics, but I have attempted to describe
2 what we found. I did not identify anything. Sorry, most of the -- most
3 of the bullets that we found appeared to be standard small arms fire. I
4 did not find any evidence of larger ordinance except in the cases that
5 had shrapnel injuries.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. IVETIC:
9 Q. And is it also correct, sir, that you did not recover all the
10 projectiles from the bodies that would account for all of the holes that
11 were in the clothing related to those bodies?
12 A. Yes. Yes. In some cases the -- the projectiles had passed
13 through the body and we did not recover them.
14 Q. And in that instance, the calibre of those projectiles that were
15 unrecovered would be unknown?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Be unknown also even by looking at the hole? At
19 least as a distinction between small arms and heavy arms.
20 THE WITNESS: In a general concept in forensic pathology, it is
21 not a very good idea to try and estimate the size of the bullet from the
22 size of the hole.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. Sir, switching gears, am I correct that you have a working
1 knowledge of forensic entomology? Entomology being the study of insect
2 evidence in forensics.
3 A. Look, I'm again a forensic pathologist. I've used forensic
4 entomology on occasions. I would not claim to be an expert.
5 Q. Did you see any evidence of things like pupal cases or other
6 entomological evidence in the remains that you looked at that would be of
7 assistance in assessing the time of death?
8 A. The short answer to that is no. In Cancari Road 12 we did find
9 some small maggots, but I suspect that they are a consequence of
10 re-infestation of the body once they'd been exhumed and that they would
11 not be of any use in assessing time since death.
12 Q. And if bodies were in the ground for several years, would you
13 expect such entomological evidence to even still be there?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Fair enough. I would next like to return briefly to the topic of
16 blindfolds and ligatures.
17 MR. IVETIC: And if we can call up 1D1145 in e-court. And in
18 e-court we have a surrogate sheet for the video that was given in full to
19 the Prosecution, and then we have some photo stills from that video. I
20 am only concerned with the photo stills, but I did want to provide the
21 source of the photos. So if we can turn to the --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's 1D?
23 MR. IVETIC: 1145. So if we can turn to the part in e-court that
24 is the stills, and if we can have page 2 of the document.
25 Q. And, sir, these are stills from a video of some combatants from
1 the time-period, and you'll see that the soldier on the right appears to
2 have a pink ribbon affixed to his left arm.
3 MR. IVETIC: And if we can go to the third page in this document.
4 Q. We have here a soldier with a bandana, and then next to the --
5 what is an Army of BiH emblem, we also appear to have a pink cloth
6 affixed to his uniform. Did you have information provided to you at the
7 time that you were doing your review that soldiers in the region would
8 affix coloured cloth to themselves as means of identifying friendly
10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic, how do we identify this man as a BiH
14 MR. IVETIC: The patch on the uniform, Your Honours, is --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, I see -- I see the patch, but I don't see
16 anything that says what army he belongs to. And of course, I don't know
17 the BiH patch.
18 MR. IVETIC: No, I apologise. It appears to be a blue shield
19 with a white line going through it and there would be lilies. It's
20 the -- it's the -- I believe that's the emblem of the BiH Army.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, that's what you are testifying to. But I'm
22 saying from looking at this, I want you to tell me how I must identify
23 this as a BiH uniform.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Or in the alternative, perhaps whether the parties
25 agree on it? The parties do not agree on it.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Mladic. Switch off your microphone, that's
3 one. Second -- Ms. Lee.
4 MS. LEE: The -- the agreement on the emblem itself, I mean,
5 there is no issue with that. The only --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So apparently this emblem, whether worn by
7 whomever, but the emblem indicates that -- is the BH Army emblem?
8 MS. LEE: We have -- we have not specifically looked at the
9 emblem itself, so that's something that we could discuss later on. At
10 this moment, there is no agreement on its own.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No agreement.
12 MS. LEE: But the question itself is irrelevant --
13 JUDGE ORIE: But we asked you whether there was agreement --
14 MS. LEE: Oh.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- that's what I -- I tried to shorten matters, but
16 I failed to achieve that.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
18 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
19 Q. Sir, in relation to the manner in which this individual in the
20 uniform is wearing the bandana on his head, and we see he has hair, he
21 has a certain amount of body fat, skin, if an individual wearing a
22 bandana in this manner becomes deceased, would you agree with me once
23 decomposition begins, the hair, skin, body fat begins to dissolve, would
24 not this bandana slide potentially downward and cover the eyes on the
1 A. It could.
2 Q. Thank you, sir. Now I'd like --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
4 JUDGE ORIE: But aren't we talking about facts of common
5 knowledge? I -- I've seen many people outside any army situation, if you
6 fall, it can slip without even being dead. I mean, let's keep matters
8 Ms. Lee -- or would you say that it's impossible that either
9 before death or after death this bandana would slip into a slightly
10 different position?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand --
12 JUDGE ORIE: It's -- I mean, I would consider it almost a matter
13 of common knowledge which, as we all know, doesn't need any proof.
14 Yes, but I first had a question to Ms. Lee whether she would
15 dispute that --
16 MS. LEE: The question -- the possibility, no, but I would --
17 that is a question that should be put to the witness and not me. The
18 possibility itself we're not disputing that. But --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then there is no dispute about the
20 possibility that this may have happened. Whether it happened, the
21 witness said he couldn't tell us. And, of course, this person, very
22 specific, at least I do not know of him having died so that whatever
23 may --
24 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- have happened, we -- it's just guessing and it is
1 speculation and let's stay away from that.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. The hypothetical question put to you,
3 Mr. Lawrence, by Mr. Ivetic was that it would fall down to his face. The
4 question is: So there is something that blocks it from going down to the
5 chin, down to the neck? It would just stop at the face? That was the
6 underlying assumption of that question.
7 THE WITNESS: Well, yes. The ears. But isn't that just general
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it general knowledge that it will stop at the
10 eyes? Or that it could slip down?
11 JUDGE ORIE: No. I think you missed the answer. The answer was
12 that the ears may have blocked it falling down too much further.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is that?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Have I understood your answer to be that?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. That clarifies.
19 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I believe we are at the time for the
20 break. I might have just two minutes or three minutes of questions
21 after. If I reconstruct my questions during break, I am sure I could
22 finish within five minutes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll give you an opportunity to do that.
24 Ms. Lee, any estimate yet about the time you would need?
25 MS. LEE: Five to ten minutes. It's going to be very short.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
2 Could the witness follow the usher. We'd like to see you back in
3 20 minutes.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 25 minutes to 12.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 1.15 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 1.35 p.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
9 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, while we wait for the witness, I have,
10 during the break, disassociated the video stills from the video, as I was
11 told that that would be a complication in e-court. So the now the video
12 stills we're looking at are 65 ter number 1D1154 and that change is put
13 on the record.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And may I take it that there is no objection against
15 admission, Ms. Lee?
16 MS. LEE: No, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the number would be?
18 MS. LEE: Excuse me, Your Honours, I have -- I -- Your Honours?
19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
20 [Prosecution counsel confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: In order to shorten matters, we -- we assumed that
22 you wanted to tender it, because otherwise it would not have made much
23 sense to separate them from the video.
24 MR. IVETIC: You are correct. I do want to tender it. I have
25 not yet tendered it, but I do give notice of wanting to tender it now --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and I took that Ms. Lee would have no
3 MS. LEE: No Your Honours.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Shall be assigned Exhibit number D339. Thank
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
8 Please be seated, Mr. Lawrence.
9 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
10 One more item from this stills exhibit. If I could have page 7
11 in e-court.
12 Q. And, sir, in page 7 you will note that there is a strip of,
13 again, it looks like pink cloth hanging from the medic's shoulder, and if
14 we go to the next page, I think we'll see is a similar pink strip again
15 on the shoulder of the wounded soldier. With respect to those suspected
16 blindfolds or suspected ligatures that were found loose in the graves,
17 can you exclude the possibility beyond medical or scientific certainty
18 that they are not simply cloths used for identification in the manner
19 that we have seen in these photographs from this exhibit?
20 A. No.
21 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to 1D1148. This is another set of
22 still photographs from a video. The video in question is the so-called
23 Srebrenica trial video which is already in evidence. If it --
24 JUDGE ORIE: The last one we looked at was not included yet in
25 the still that was admitted into evidence?
1 MR. IVETIC: The ones we looked at are all in the still that has
2 been admitted into evidence. It's the --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Also the ones we have not seen yet?
4 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then we were perhaps a bit premature.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to page 2 of this document.
8 Q. Sir, the Srebrenica trial video has footage of the survivors of
9 the column of Bosnian Muslim men when they reached Tuzla and this image
10 is taken from that 37 minutes and 37 seconds of that film. And we see
11 that this individual who is -- who does not appear to be wearing a
12 uniform but does have a rifle, has a loop of cloth around his neck and
13 one around his head. And if we turn to the next page, I think we will
14 see the other side of his body. And that shows the other view of his --
15 of the -- of the cloth around his head. Looking at these -- this
16 photograph, can you exclude that -- can you exclude to a degree of
17 scientific certainty that some of the ligatures and/or suspected
18 blindfolds found in the graves might not in fact be this type of cloth
19 used in the manner that this soldier -- pardon me, that the individual is
20 using? And if you like, we can go back to the first picture.
21 A. Yes. Can you show me again?
22 MR. IVETIC: If we could go back to page 2.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. It's possible that some of the unassociated
24 ligatures and blindfolds we see could be similar to this.
25 MR. IVETIC:
1 Q. And, sir, perhaps you might not be able to know this without
2 looking at your records, but do you recall if there were any instances
3 where suspected blindfolds were found around the neck of a body?
4 A. No, I don't think we -- we found any of the -- that --
5 Q. [Overlapping speakers] --
6 A. -- low down, no.
7 Q. Thank you, sir. Now in respect to the suspected ligatures, am I
8 correct that for, I believe, four of the sites that you reviewed bodies
9 from - that is to say, Petkovici Dam, Hodzici Road 3, Hodzici Road 4,
10 Hodzici Road 5, and Zeleni Jadar, I guess that's five - there were either
11 no ligatures or only one ligature located from those mass graves?
12 A. Sorry, I've -- I just have to just check in my mind.
13 Q. If you want, we can go through them one by one.
14 A. Yeah. I just --
15 Q. Let's do it this way, sir. Petkovici Dam, am I correct that
16 there was only one ligature recovered from that location?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. Hodzici Road 3, am I correct that there were no ligatures
19 recovered from that location?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. Hodzici Road 4, am I correct only one ligature suspected was
22 recovered from that location?
23 A. Yes. I think on Hodzici 4 I listed it only as a possible.
24 Q. Exactly. And Hodzici Road --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, are we at this moment just repeating
1 what is found in the report about this?
2 MR. IVETIC: Yes, I believe so. I --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any specific reason to do that? Or would
4 we just see what is in the report and then know how many were retrieved
5 from the various graves?
6 MR. IVETIC: That's a fair comment, sir. Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 MR. IVETIC:
9 Q. Sir, I thank you for answering my questions today.
10 MR. IVETIC: I have no further questions for this witness.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then I would have one matter to be addressed. Is
12 there agreement among the parties that the person being shown on this
13 picture is carrying a hunting rifle and that he is without shoes?
14 MR. IVETIC: I could even -- I think in the video it's -- I'd say
15 it's a shot-gun, hunting rifle. Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MS. LEE: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I don't have the --
19 MR. IVETIC: No.
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- details of the video available immediately. Then
21 that seems to be no problem.
22 MR. IVETIC: Should we tender -- this is the next Defence
23 exhibit, Your Honour. I haven't tendered it yet.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It's this one.
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: It was unclear to me what was by the first series
2 but this is now the second series.
3 MS. LEE: No objection.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Shall be assigned Exhibit number D340.
6 JUDGE ORIE: D340 is admitted into evidence.
7 Ms. Lee, any further questions for the witness?
8 MS. LEE: Yes, thank you, Your Honours. I only have two
10 May I please have P1532, and if we could go to page 7. If we
11 could go to page 7? Yes.
12 Re-examination by Ms. Lee:
13 Q. And, Dr. Lawrence, if you could take a look at the clothing worn
14 by the people appearing in this picture.
15 MS. LEE: And if we could please go to page 8. And now if we
16 could go to page 9.
17 Q. Dr. Lawrence, you were asked questions about layers of clothes
18 worn by the bodies that you examined. Is this -- are these the type of
19 clothing consistent with the type of clothing that you've observed on the
20 bodies that you examined?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And, Dr. Lawrence, you testified today about the bodies found in
23 the Zeleni Jadar 5 grave-site. And if you were to learn or if you had
24 known that the bodies found at Zeleni Jadar 5 were linked to the Kravica
25 warehouse massacre and that hand grenades and other explosives were used
1 in killing individuals -- those individuals, would the circumstances
2 surrounding their death, would that be consistent with your findings,
3 particularly concerning the high numbers of shrapnel injuries that were
4 found on the bodies in that grave-site?
5 A. Yes, it would be.
6 MS. LEE: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Lee.
8 Mr. Lawrence, since the Chamber has no further questions for you
9 either, this concludes your testimony in this court. I'd like to thank
10 you very much for coming a long way to The Hague and for having answered
11 all the questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench,
12 and I wish you a safe return home again.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, Mr. President. And as this is
14 the last time I think I will attend, I would like to thank the ICTY staff
15 for their courtesy and their help.
16 JUDGE ORIE: They'll certainly appreciate this word of thanks.
17 Whether it's the last time or not is not in the hands of this Chamber.
18 You may follow the usher.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: I think the suggestion was by the Prosecution that
22 we would not call any further witnesses. There is only one thing I would
23 like to briefly raise.
24 The Chamber has expressed its intention to have a housekeeping
25 session. The Chamber would prefer to do that on Thursday but wants to
1 consult the parties, whether there is any objection to doing that. We do
2 not think it will take the whole of the day but perhaps one and a half
3 session looking at the list of --
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- MFIs. Is that --
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. It seems to suit our schedule rather well,
7 in fact. But if there is any issue, I will discuss it with the Defence,
8 but --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- for the moment I would say that we are fine.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And as matters stand now, Mr. Lukic, no problem to
12 have it on Thursday? Then the Chamber schedules this housekeeping
13 session on Thursday and we will consider, most likely on Wednesday,
14 whether it will be in the beginning of the session or the second part of
15 the morning session of Thursday, the 25th of July.
16 We stand adjourned --
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Sorry to interrupt you. We had one issue that
20 we would like to address related to the evidentiary matter concerning
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: And we would have to go into private session for
24 that, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move into private session.
1 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours. Thank
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
16 We adjourn for the day and will resume on Monday, the 22nd of
17 July, at 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom III? Yes. Same
18 courtroom III. We stand adjourned.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.55 p.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Monday, the 22nd day of July,
21 2013, at 9.30 a.m.