1 Tuesday, 23 July 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If Mr. Mladic takes out his earphone, then there is
6 no need to talk at the volume he is doing at this moment.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case
9 number IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 The Chamber was informed that the Prosecution wanted to raise a
13 Ms. Hasan.
14 MS. HASAN: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
15 Honours everyone in and around the courtroom.
16 Yes, there is one preliminary matter. It relates to a revised
17 translation for P00764, MFI. And that's 65 ter 08149. It has been
18 uploaded into e-court under doc ID ZA01-9702-BCST and this is in relation
19 to transcript pages 8272 to 8273 and transcript page 8278 on
20 2nd of February, 2013, as well as transcript page 9411 for the
21 28th of February, 2013. The Prosecution requests that the revised
22 translation replace the existing translation in e-court and that the
23 exhibit be admitted into evidence.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Any comments, Mr. Lukic?
25 MR. LUKIC: I'm lost, so ...
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not, as a matter of fact, because I was prepared
2 for this. It's just a matter of a better -- better translation.
3 MR. LUKIC: Should we check it or?
4 JUDGE ORIE: What we could do is to admit it and if you want to
5 revisit the matter within the next 48 hours, you have an opportunity to
6 do so. That seems to be the most efficient way of dealing with the
8 Then the Chamber hereby admits Exhibit P764 into evidence and
9 instructs the Registrar to replace the current translation in e-court
10 with the newly uploaded one. And the Defence has an opportunity if there
11 are any problems to revisit the matter within 48 hours.
12 Any other matter, Ms. Hasan?
13 MS. HASAN: No, Mr. President. We are ready to proceed with the
14 next witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And the next witness will be Mr. Haglund, if I am
16 well informed?
17 MS. HASAN: That is correct.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
19 Meanwhile, a matter similar to the previous one. The Chamber
20 notes that it was informed on the 11th of July through an informal
21 communication that the Defence, following the Chamber's instructions of
22 the 14th of December, 2012, has uploaded a more legible version of the
23 English translation of Exhibit D123 into e-court. The Chamber hereby
24 admits Exhibit D123 into evidence, under seal, and instructs the Registry
25 to replace the current English translation in e-court with the newly
1 uploaded one. If there would be any problem also for the Prosecution,
2 there is an opportunity within the next 48 hours to revisit this matter
3 if it has any concerns about the newly uploaded document.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Haglund.
6 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
7 JUDGE ORIE: At least I presume you are Mr. Haglund.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you
10 make a solemn declaration. The text of which is now handed out to you.
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
13 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
14 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 WITNESS: WILLIAM HAGLUND
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated. Mr. Haglund, I have
17 the habit of not addressing persons by title or rank but just by "mister"
18 so it's not in any way in depreciation of the importance and relevance of
19 titles and ranks.
20 Mr. Haglund, you'll first be examined by Ms. Hasan.
21 THE WITNESS: Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan is counsel for the Prosecution and you
23 find her to your right.
24 THE WITNESS: Okay.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, please proceed.
1 Examination by Ms. Hasan:
2 Q. Good morning, Witness.
3 A. Good morning.
4 Q. Will you please state your full name for the record?
5 A. William Dale Haglund.
6 Q. And I see here that you have some documents, you have brought
7 some documents with you. Can you please tell us what those are?
8 A. Yes. They are the -- the three of them are the introductions to
9 the reports, and then the third one was the Novo Kasaba and also that
10 that includes the -- the pathology stuff, but I don't deal with that. I
11 am not a pathologist.
12 Q. Okay. So we are clear, you have volume ones of all the sites
13 that you were involved in?
14 A. That's correct. Yes, I believe I have. Yes, I do.
15 Q. Okay. And now you have testified in this Tribunal in the Krstic
16 case as well as in Popovic and in the Tolimir trial and recently on the
17 30th of January, 2012, in the Karadzic proceedings.
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Have you recently had the opportunity to review your testimony
20 that you gave in the Krstic trial?
21 A. I read it last night, yes.
22 Q. Okay. Now on --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness kindly
24 pause before answering the question. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Haglund, you are invited to pause between
1 question and answer.
2 THE WITNESS: Okay.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And Ms. Hasan will do the same between answer and
5 MS. HASAN: Yes, thank you.
6 Q. On transcript page 3729 at lines 2 to 4 of your Krstic testimony,
7 you were asked the following question, and I quote:
8 "Q. Then in the summer of 1995, did you come over to be in
9 charge of the exhumations for Bosnia?
10 "A. That's correct."
11 Is that accurate?
12 A. Well, it's really 1996.
13 Q. Okay. Now subject to that correction, if you were asked the same
14 questions you were asked in the Krstic trial, would you provide this
15 Chamber with the same information in substance?
16 A. Yes, 1996 are when the exhumations were done.
17 Q. And - sorry - in relation to the entirety of your Krstic
18 testimony, if you were asked those questions that you -- that were put to
19 you, would you provide the same information to this Chamber?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And taking into account the correction as well, can you confirm
22 that the evidence you gave was true and accurate to the best of your
24 A. Yes.
25 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, I'd offer 65 ter 29115, which is --
1 which are excerpts of the transcript of testimony of Dr. Haglund from the
2 Krstic trial into evidence.
3 MR. LUKIC: We have no objection, only to inform Your Honours
4 that we received it late. We didn't know where to find it. I don't
5 know. Maybe it can be checked. So I will in my cross address the
6 original Krstic transcript. I didn't have time to switch to this
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, any comments on that?
9 MS. HASAN: Yeah. In fact, I'm a little bit confused. The
10 Krstic testimony I'm referring to is what was attached to the 92 ter
11 motion, and --
12 JUDGE ORIE: That dates of 24th of June?
13 MS. HASAN: That's correct.
14 MR. LUKIC: Well, I -- we received -- actually, in our list you
15 can see it's -- it says the excerpts, but we really couldn't find one.
16 But probably the pages are in order as it's in -- in the transcript, so I
17 think everybody -- only we will use our 1D number --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll try to --
19 MR. LUKIC: -- because I don't know which is the statement which
20 is not --
21 JUDGE ORIE: We will try to find a co-ordinated approach. We
22 will work with it but, of course, we also have to think about those who
23 at a later stage will want to read.
24 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The excerpts, apparently, are the excerpts as
1 attachment to the 92 ter motion. We can proceed.
2 And -- but first, Madam Registrar, the number of the excerpts
3 from the transcript --
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 29115 receives number P1828,
5 Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
7 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, because there are quite a number of
8 associated exhibits and other exhibits to be tendered, I propose to leave
9 those until the end of the direct examination and proceed with the
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Hasan. The Chamber is a bit concerned
12 about the number of the pages in the associated exhibits, but let's see.
13 And at this moment, certainly there is no opposition against waiting.
14 Please proceed.
15 MS. HASAN: Now I'd like to call up 65 ter 29105.
16 And, Your Honours, I will have to seek leave to add that to the
17 Prosecution's 65 ter list. This is an updated CV from Dr. Haglund that
18 was recently received.
19 MR. LUKIC: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Leave is granted. May I take it that you want to
21 tender it?
22 MS. HASAN: Yes, I -- yes, I will. I have just a few questions
23 in relation to that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MS. HASAN:
1 Q. Doctor, is this a copy of your most recently CV that's up on the
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And if we can turn to page 2 of the CV and page 4 of the B/C/S
5 version, under "Field Experience," --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- we see that you've recently worked on exhumation projects in
8 Granada, Cyprus, and Libya?
9 A. Libya was not a grave. I went there with Stefan Schmidt [phoen]
10 to -- he was looking into how they could set up something for recovering
11 remains, identifying remains, dealings with families, et cetera.
12 MS. HASAN: Now if we turn to page 4 in the English and 9 in the
14 Q. We see at the bottom of the page that you were the senior
15 forensic advisor to the Office of the Prosecutor in 1996 in relation to
16 Bosnia; is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, at this stage I'd offer 65 ter 29105
19 into evidence.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 29105 receives number P1829,
22 Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: P1829 is admitted into evidence.
24 MS. HASAN:
25 Q. Now, Witness, in addition to testifying at this Tribunal you've
1 also testified before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda as
2 an expert witness; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And that was in the Kayishema and Rutaganda trials in 1997 and
5 1998 respectively?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now your evidence was relied on by the Trial Chamber in Kayishema
8 but not in the case against Rutaganda due to some criticisms of your
9 scientific method. Can you briefly explain to the Chamber what you know
10 about those criticisms?
11 A. They were criticisms from a -- an American anthropologist. And
12 in the United States we do things certain ways because we're very
13 developed and have very good laboratories, et cetera, and some of the
14 things that we wouldn't be able to do in Rwanda we couldn't do like we
15 would in the United States. That was very much part of it.
16 MS. HASAN: And, Your Honours, I can direct you to paragraphs 256
17 and 257 of the Rutaganda trial judgement, that's ICTR case 96-3-T, and
18 it's dated 6 December 1999.
19 Q. Now moving onto Bosnia, Dr. Haglund, you're probably one of the
20 first persons who can tell us what it was really like working there in
21 1996. And specifically, if you could describe for us the security
22 situation on the ground and what it is that you had to face?
23 A. The -- well, it wasn't -- our -- our laboratory where the
24 autopsies were done and where the other anthropologists and other persons
25 were working on the -- looking at the skeletal material and doing what
1 they needed to do, that was held in Bosnia where people could walk around
2 and -- and go out to the -- a restaurant or whatever. We were in the
3 Serb side, basically, of Bosnia, and we stayed at a UN military base.
4 When we needed -- when we went to work in the morning, we had jeeps with
5 machine-guns and they had sent out small tanks early in the morning, and
6 basically all the people that worked for me, they had to be in those
7 convoys and I would -- was there most of the time with them, but -- so
8 that was really tight for people. Is that the kind of answer that you
9 needed with the -- okay, that's ...
10 Q. So were you able to move around freely?
11 A. I did because I had to go back and forth to -- to the -- the
12 other country up north, and -- but mostly I was with either the people in
13 the laboratory but not as much, but most of the time I was with the
15 Q. And on a day-to-day basis, did you have any assurance from one
16 day to the next whether you could go back to the sites and continue your
18 A. I think it was pretty well set up that we had the -- the people
19 that were guarding us that -- it worked pretty well. It worked well.
20 Q. I am going to move on to something else.
21 MS. HASAN: But I note, Your Honours, that I went a little bit
22 ahead of myself and I didn't read the summary for the public.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You still have an opportunity to do that.
24 MS. HASAN: Thank you.
25 In 1996, Dr. Haglund oversaw the exhumation and examination of
1 human remains from Srebrenica related mass graves at Cerska, Lazete 2,
2 Pilica, also known as Branjevo military farm, and Nova Kasaba, graves 1
3 to 4.
4 One hundred and fifty males were exhumed from the Cerska grave,
5 of whom 149 died of gun-shot wounds. Forty-eight ligatures were
6 recovered from that grave with about 24 of them still in place. The
7 second site, Lazete 2, was located in a field behind a raised railway
8 track underpass. Dr. Haglund located two deposits of bodies at the site
9 which were designated Lazete 2A and 2B. Due to heavy rain, Dr. Haglund
10 was unable to determine whether these two deposits were located in
11 separate pits or formed one large trench. Lazete 2 was an undisturbed
12 primary mass grave, and Lazete 2B a disturbed primary grave. A minimum
13 of 165 individuals were contained in Lazete 2 of whom 158 died of
14 gun-shot wounds. Again, blindfolds were also recovered with the remains.
15 The third site at Pilica was very large, measuring 28 metres by
16 5 metres and 3 metres deep. There were a minimum of 132 individuals
17 exhumed from that grave. Seventy-seven of these individuals had their
18 hounds bound behind their backs, including one individual who had an
19 artificial leg.
20 The fourth sight, the four Nova Kasaba graves, contained 7, 19,
21 6, and 1 individual respectively. Ligatures were also recovered from 27
22 of the victims. And the individuals recovered from Nova Kasaba grave 2
23 were lying prone and others were sitting or in a kneeling position with
24 13 of the 19 having their hands bound behind their backs.
25 Now, Dr. Haglund also explained the procedure once exhumed
1 remains were taken to the morgue, that they were photographed there,
2 passed through a fluoroscope, that the pathologist conducted their
3 autopsies, and the forensic pathologists would assist in reconstructing
4 the damaged bones and in determining the sex, age, and minimum number of
5 individuals. That conclusions the summary.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 MS. HASAN:
8 Q. Now, Dr. Haglund, I'd like to turn to the end of the summer of
9 1996. Were there some complaints from your professional colleagues
10 lodged against the chief pathologist, Dr. Kirschner, as well as yourself?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And did the UN take up a study and panel -- an expert panel to
13 review those allegations?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now the individuals on the panel, were those people of high
16 esteem and reputation?
17 A. Yes. They were from Canada and the United States, and I think
18 there were two from England also.
19 MS. HASAN: Now, Your Honours, you have seen this document. It's
20 D00329. If we can call that up. But -- in fact, actually, I'd ask that
21 65 ter 20008 be called up instead. That's the Prosecution version of the
22 same Defence exhibit, except we have the B/C/S uploaded, and I believe
23 the last time I checked the Defence also only had the English up there.
24 So I won't readmit this document, but I will use it since there -- I will
25 use the Prosecution version for the time being if that ...
1 JUDGE ORIE: If it's the same but with a translation, that seems
2 to be preferable.
3 MS. HASAN: So if we could then have 65 ter 20008 displayed.
4 Q. Dr. Haglund, without getting into any details, could you briefly
5 tell us what this document is?
6 A. These are individuals who are very well known in the
7 United States, UK, and in Canada for the works they do. And I think they
8 were -- oh, I'm getting the -- oh, I see. I should look at the English
9 part here. I want to make sure ...
10 Q. Just if you can tell us, is this -- is this the report that was
11 created which documented the findings of this expert panel we're talking
13 A. Yes. Yes.
14 Q. Let's start with Dr. Kirschner who is now deceased. Can you tell
15 us who he was and what his role was in Bosnia in 1996?
16 A. Well, he would be in charge of the autopsy area, and then -- and
17 overseeing the anthropologists that were in the laboratory also. But he
18 left the country many times. He had a full-time job in Chicago and he
19 was actually head of the -- that kind of work for the Physicians for
20 Human Rights.
21 Q. Was there -- perhaps we can just also clarify. Now,
22 Dr. Kirschner, was he member of the expert panel or --
23 A. No, he wasn't. He was a person that they were looking at.
24 Q. Okay. So there were some allegations against him. And was, in
25 fact, the allegation -- the main allegation against him was that he
1 changed some of the causes of death on some autopsy reports without
2 consulting the pathologist who created them?
3 A. Without consulting some of them. He was trying to make it more,
4 I think, easy to put those in columns and that -- otherwise you'd have
5 400 plus individuals doing it. So he wanted to make it more clean, I
6 think, and so that they could use a -- make better, you know, write a
8 Q. Can you just give us an example?
9 A. Well, they were of -- of papers made so that the pathologist
10 could put in all the kinds of things they wanted to. That -- what they
11 had to do, and then they put extra stuff on them. Bob wanted to make --
12 apparently, he wanted to make the cause of death more of a general cause
13 of death in many cases and not the ones that the pathologists wanted to
14 do. Some of them he asked and some of them apparently he did not.
15 Q. And just so the record is clear, when you refer to "Bob," are you
16 referring to Dr. Kirschner?
17 A. Robert Kirschner, yes.
18 Q. Okay. Now was it confirmed by the expert panel to have happened,
19 that these changed were made without consultation?
20 A. That's -- that's -- that's what they questioned, and actually
21 Mr. McCloskey took the -- all of the writings on how -- what the -- what
22 the pathologists had done, and he went all over the world and -- to see
23 if they needed to have their -- their writings changed or if they were --
24 if it was the same way it was. And then they would change it, and then
25 he would go on to another country and find another people, so he went
1 basically all to the -- I think there were 30, 30-some pathologists that
2 we had from Turkey, England, United States, and all over. And that's --
3 he carried things around, but Mr. McCloskey, of course, didn't change
4 anything. It was none of his business. He just took it to the
6 Q. And was this done before matters went to the oversight committee?
7 A. I believe they must have because it was -- it's in the -- it's in
8 their report.
9 Q. Okay. Now if we can turn to page 10 in the English and B/C/S of
10 this report. And if we take a look at the third paragraph under item B,
11 opinion and comments of Dr. Vincent J. M. DiMaio. And it reads -- sorry,
12 and -- and is Dr. Vincent DiMaio one of the experts sitting on the panel?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So he writes:
15 "While Dr. Kirschner's actions had the potential to invalidate or
16 at least taint the autopsy reports, the Tribunal prevented this by
17 submitting the reports back to the physicians for their certification of
18 cause and manner of death. Therefore, the panel feels no permanent
19 injury to the validity of the reports was affected by the actions of
20 Dr. Kirschner."
21 Dr. Haglund, is this what you were referring to?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. All -- all of the people on that particular committee of -- of --
25 belive the same.
1 Q. Now, the allegations that were directed towards you, were those
2 upheld by the expert panel?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. Let's go over those allegations.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. Now there are approximately 17 individuals who were interviewed
7 by the panel.
8 A. Right.
9 Q. And four of them were critical of you. One of the criticisms
10 come from Dr. Clyde -- sorry, from Clyde Snow. And if we could turn to
11 page 4, please, in the report. And his criticism is found in item 5 at
12 the bottom.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now he says -- if we just read the comment, he states -- states:
15 "'Obviously sloppy science' was done. He felt at times it was
16 Dr. Haglund versus UNTAES and mentioned the many bodies removed on one
17 day. Dr. Snow stated in his opinion no more than 20 bodies should have
18 been exhumed in a single day," and," he felt Dr. Haglund showed 'very
19 poor judgement,' and it was lucky nothing had 'blown up' as a result of
20 the procedures used."
21 Now, before we get into those comments, can you tell us who
22 Dr. Clyde Snow -- sorry, who Clyde Snow was and what his role was, if
23 any, in the exhumations of Bosnia?
24 A. He is a very well known anthropologist. I learned an awful lot
25 from him. We were very good friends. But he had a lot of people from
1 South America that he had -- had thought -- so they're children, and if
2 they didn't like something then he would sort of protect them. He had
3 nothing to do with the Bosnia diggings at all. He was in Croatia and he
4 came to the grave-site once. However, he spent most of the time in the
5 capital working with the people there so that he could -- they could give
6 him information. He put it up on a computer so that they could work on
7 that, so that -- that was for identifications.
8 Q. So these comments that he makes, would they be in relation to the
9 Ovcara site in Croatia?
10 A. No. He was a -- he was saying it for everything. And it makes a
11 difference how many -- how many remains you can take out in a day. It
12 depends upon the kind of -- of grave you have. It depends on how
13 intermixed and commingled the bodies are when they are in the grave. It
14 has to do whether they are skeletalised or adipose -- where a lot of the
15 cases in the deeper graves were. And so there were a lot of -- a lot of
16 things you had to look at. And when I'd looked at the numbers of days
17 we'd had, we never accepted the Ovcara grave. It's a different grave.
18 But we never took out more than 12 -- 12 individuals in a day and in
19 some -- at some places we only took four out in a day. It depended upon
20 the kind of soil in the area that we were working at and, et cetera, and
21 how deep the grave was and how the people had been put in. If the grave
22 had been -- after the graves had been buried, that the individual then
23 buried, then when the Serbs came back and dug those up with big backhoes
24 that they would just go in blindly and pull out bones, and people, parts
25 of them, dropping bones they left on top of the grave. Come and went
1 away. Come back again and did some more. And so especially with the
2 Lazete grave and somewhat with the Pilica grave we ran into that problem.
3 Q. Now you made an exception for the Ovcara grave. Why is that?
4 A. The Ovcara grave, we -- I think we had a lot of problems not
5 getting started early enough in the year. So we got in the rain and that
6 was very hard, especially when you're dealing with 2 and a half to 3
7 metres and that soil is very -- it's very dangerous. The Lazete 1, I had
8 to stop it because we knew there was an individual sticking out. We
9 could not take it out. I wouldn't want anybody else to go in there
10 because the sides were starting to crumble. It was very dangerous. And
11 so then subsequently then people came afterwards and got the other 13, I
12 think, individuals that we left there. But I made that clear in the
13 report so that people would know that we were there.
14 Q. Okay. And, Mr. Snow, when he makes this criticism, how much
15 actually -- how much time did he actually spend with you in Bosnia at the
16 sites, the Srebrenica-related sites?
17 A. About a half a day.
18 MS. HASAN: If we could turn now to page 5 of the report and look
19 at item 13. This is --
20 THE WITNESS: I -- this is -- okay, go ahead.
21 MS. HASAN:
22 Q. If you have something to say you can.
23 A. No, that's all right. I leave the Ovcara grave. It's not a
24 Srebrenica grave, so it doesn't matter.
25 MS. HASAN: Okay. Item 13 on that page are comments by
1 Dr. Dorothy Gallagher --
2 THE WITNESS: Um-hm.
3 MS. HASAN: -- and she's an anthropologist.
4 THE WITNESS: Um-hm.
5 MS. HASAN:
6 Q. She says she saw problems in the field and in the lab. And
7 stated that Dr. Haglund changed the autopsy reports and instructed her to
8 do so. Dr. Haglund dictated too much speed in exhumation. The result
9 was commingling, failure to associate body parts. Now Dorothy Gallagher,
10 did she work on the Bosnia exhumations?
11 A. Yes, on some of them. She had a master's degree, and they -- I
12 don't believe in the majority of the people I -- look at -- I had over 70
13 or 80 people. We have four people crumbling. So -- I mean, these are
14 the people in the graves and stuff, so --
15 Q. Okay. Let's just -- let's just address the comments she makes.
16 Did commingling result from the way you removed bodies from the graves?
17 A. It would -- commingling, and that's when you have skeletal
18 material and maybe the bodies would be -- had been maybe two, three times
19 right on top of each other or part of it gone. And -- -- and, yeah,
20 sometimes it could get commingled, but it was not as much on the way we
21 took things out. When we knew that we were having -- or we had a hand or
22 feet and they were skeletalised rather than, you know, try to leave --
23 move all those bones separately, we would put them all in a bag and tie
24 them to the ulna and the radius. In the same way we would do the same
25 thing with tying the feet, so that we would have all those feet and hand.
1 But when you're dealing with that nasty grave like the -- the first grave
2 that we did --
3 Q. Cerska?
4 A. Yeah. Cerska. That was in a -- water didn't run -- water ran
5 through it because there were rocks and pebbles, and it got very, very
6 hot. And within a year, a lot of those bodies were skeletalised already.
7 And so you have rocks, metal -- and then, if there is spaces in between
8 them, then you lose little bones that will fall through the cracks.
9 Q. Now --
10 A. And so those kinds of things made it a problem. You just have to
11 deal with those problems. So ...
12 Q. Would you say that any such commingling comprised the
13 determination of the cause of death or manner of death?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. If we can -- there was also a criticism from
16 David del Pino?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And he's a Chilean anthropologist?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. He says:
21 "Operations were halted when Dr. Haglund was away. Clothing was
22 discarded at Dr. Haglund's command, even though some contained
24 Could you please comment on that criticism?
25 A. Okay. Some closing was left behind. If it was clothing that had
1 any kind of thing that had any mail in there or anything that would lead
2 to identification, we definitely took those. Okay. We didn't leave them
3 in the grave. But we did lose some clothing that was separated from the
4 bodies, et cetera. We left some of that, not very much, but we left some
5 of it in the grave because we had just got rid of it when we got back at
6 the laboratory. Because all that clothing and all those notes and stuff
7 were gone through first to the Tribunal, and then everything was released
8 to the -- the Bosnians so that they could work on the identifications.
9 So the clothing would help, notes would help, photographs would help,
10 that people would have them with them. And there was another part of
11 your question, I think?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask some further explanation. You said:
13 "But we left some of it in the grave because we had just got rid
14 of it when we got back at the laboratory."
15 That is a bit unclear to me.
16 THE WITNESS: Well, that was -- this was basically a -- clothing
17 that was not attached or with anybody else. It was not unique clothing
18 at all. And anything -- some of that we left behind. We didn't take it
19 to the laboratory because we'd got rid of it there.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What do you mean by "it was not unique
21 clothing at all"? When is clothing unique?
22 THE WITNESS: Well, people that were in -- in Srebrenica, they
23 didn't have a lot of clothes. They didn't go to a store to buy any.
24 They were using a lot of old worn clothes that other people had worn and
25 many people had the same kind of clothing. That's -- that clothing, if
1 it wasn't unique, it wasn't going to help us identify someone.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But could you determine that on the spot how unique
3 or not unique it was? I take it that you find --
4 THE WITNESS: Well, because so many of the people had similar --
5 similar clothing, and it wasn't unique.
6 JUDGE ORIE: But was that -- how was it examined to what extent
7 it was unique or not?
8 THE WITNESS: Well, we took it out, we unfolded it, made sure
9 that it was nothing in the pockets or anything. And then you look around
10 and see a lot of the other clothing was just the same. It wasn't unique
11 enough to add. If it -- some of the -- in -- some of the clothing had
12 patches and things like that, and that's very important because the
13 families had to sew those on and that was very important to
14 identification. It was -- some very little clothing was left behind, and
15 I think it was just a little bit at Lazete. I don't think that we had
16 other clothing that was left anywhere.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And you said "we had to get rid of it."
18 THE WITNESS: No, we didn't have to get rid of it, but it was --
19 it was like were we going to take some stones or rocks with us also? No,
20 it wasn't unique to the identification of the individuals that we were
21 moving out of the grave.
22 MS. HASAN:
23 Q. Just to be clear, Dr. Haglund, was this clothing associated with
24 any skeletal remains, be it --
25 A. No, anything that was --
1 Q. -- bodies parts other otherwise?
2 A. Any -- any -- any piece of clothing that was wound around or
3 close to a remains, we would not -- we would not leave it behind. It
4 would always go with us. Some of it would be away from the bodies. I
5 don't know if that's when the people got killed and there were some other
6 stuff left up there on -- when the -- on the side of the road and they
7 just threw it in the grave. I don't know. But it wasn't attached or on
8 any individual, and it wasn't a unique sort of thing.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
10 MS. HASAN:
11 Q. Now -- yes, the other criticism I had referred to is that
12 operations were halted when you were away. Could you --
13 A. Well, they were --
14 Q. -- comment on that?
15 A. Yes. Well, it was not because then another individual took his
16 place. The name is slipping from me. It was a good friend.
17 Q. Is that Mr. --
18 A. Pablo, Pablo, Pablo.
19 Q. -- Baraybar?
20 A. Yes, Pablo Baraybar. So when I would leave a grave he was in
21 charge. Period. And he didn't sit around and do nothing.
22 Q. Yes. Now, the rest of the comments have to do with management.
23 So I'm just going to leave those. Did you -- did anyone complain about
24 your work in the morgue or your anthropological work?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Okay. Now let's look at the findings of the expert panel on
2 those allegations.
3 MS. HASAN: If we can turn to page 7 in the English and B/C/S.
4 Q. And I'll just read from the findings there:
5 "The responses of the witnesses did not indicate any actual
6 wrong-doing on the part of Dr. Haglund nor anything regarding the
7 exhumations that jeopardised their scientific validity. The pathologists
8 who were working in the morgue made no complaints about the exhumation of
9 the bodies or the conduct of the anthropologists who were working in the
10 morgue or at the grave-sites. Rather, it became apparent that the main
11 problems with the exhumations were administrative and logistic. Whether
12 real or imagined, there were concerns regarding international politics
13 imposing a great deal of pressure on the teams to complete the
14 exhumations quite rapidly. Even so, there was little real evidence the
15 pace of the exhumations adversely affected the overall scientific
16 quality. Along with the pathologists, the most experienced archeologists
17 stated that the recovery of the bodies had been done adequately under
18 difficult circumstances."
19 Dr. Haglund, did you disagree with any of those conclusions?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Now on page 8, if we turn to page 8 of the report, we see that
22 the panel has made some recommendations. And under item 1, the first
23 recommendation, they say, and I'll quote from there:
24 "A few problems of administration or temporary lapses from a
25 scientific ideal could not jeopardise the overall quality of the evidence
1 and its interpretation at autopsy. Any prosecution of war crimes in
2 Yugoslavia will be on firm scientific grounds. There are literally
3 hundreds of war crime remains that were removed and interpreted by very
4 scientifically sound methods."
5 Again, Dr. Haglund, do you agree with that recommendation?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now I'd like to move on to the graves themselves, beginning with
9 A. Okay.
10 Q. Now, were you the first one to arrive to do such a full
11 exhumation of a grave?
12 A. Well, there were graves that archeologists did. I can't think of
13 any contemporary mass graves that were dug up for -- in the
14 United States. And most of it's -- and most of it's archeology. It's
15 very, very old graves, hundreds of years old.
16 Q. Can you tell us in relation to the Cerska site, what were your
17 conclusions about what had happened happened there, and if you could just
18 explain that to us briefly?
19 A. Okay. This was a gravel road going uphill to Cerska, a small
20 village. The -- the individuals were brought up there, I don't know if
21 trucks or buses or whatever. They were lined up along the side of the
22 road that sloped down to a small little creek, and they were shot, sort
23 of a -- not just one in the head or something, that they just sort of
24 be --
25 Q. Are you referring to kind of a spray shooting method?
1 A. A spray shooting, a spray shooting. And the people would fall
2 over the edge or they would roll over the edge, and if they -- and many
3 of them were shot many times over many parts of their body, and then, I
4 think, if they were not -- not alive -- if they were still alive, they
5 would go there and shoot them in the head. And then they would get
6 another group and they would shoot them, and they would pile up all along
7 the road for quite a -- for several yards.
8 Q. Now in your report - and that's 65 ter 4548 at page 9 of the
9 English and B/C/S - --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, "several yards," what do I have
11 to --
12 THE WITNESS: I think it was -- was 30 -- I have the -- I have
13 the size of it in here. I have to look it up.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I don't need the precise details.
15 THE WITNESS: Okay.
16 JUDGE ORIE: But several yards could be anything between 2 yards
17 and 2.000 yards.
18 THE WITNESS: Well, it's more like probably 30 yards maybe.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
20 MS. HASAN:
21 Q. And in your report where you discuss the scene and the
22 circumstances of death and burial, you provide that the movement of the
23 soil to bury the bodies had been accomplished using earth-moving
24 equipment. Can you tell us how arrived at that conclusion?
25 A. Well, you can see across the -- the road went -- had been cut to
1 a sort of a hill-side, and then the bank continued. So they used a --
2 probably a bank -- a hole that would dig it out of across the way, so
3 that you would have a big bite out of the other side of the road, all
4 that gravel, and then they would dump it on -- on top of the remains. So
5 that was there. And then, of course, a -- the cartridges, most of the
6 cartridges were strung along -- were in -- were in actually little piles
7 where the people were standing where they -- uh -- with the -- um -- spit
8 out the top part of a cartridge. And they would be there. Some of them
9 also would be across the street, across the road. But then a lot of
10 carts had driven up there for the year from the time that they were
11 killed, and we didn't -- we didn't get them all, but we got -- we picked
12 those up when we were first there, actually -- when they first went,
13 Jean Paul, when they went.
14 Q. How could you tell that the fill that was used was not dug out
15 with a shovel?
16 A. Not a little shovel, no. It was a big shovel. It was a
17 mechanical one. There was just too much to spread along 30 yards if you
18 were just doing that with a shovel. I don't think that they did that. I
19 know that they didn't do that.
20 Q. Now --
21 JUDGE ORIE: You said: I think they didn't do that. I know they
22 didn't do that.
23 THE WITNESS: Well, you could see the -- where -- when these --
24 they dug in, you could see the spaces. They would take out a hunk and
25 you could see how broad that space was when they removed it so it wasn't
1 a little shovel.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you mean the pattern --
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- which was created by the shape of the mechanic --
5 THE WITNESS: Yes. You saw it --
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- bucket.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, bucket. That's correct. That's correct.
8 That's a bucket. I'm sorry. And you had the same thing at Lazete and it
9 was impressed in the soil so that you could see it. You knew exactly how
10 wide it was and you measured it, first of all, and I think they found --
11 they found the machine that did it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the regularity of the intervals in between
13 were --
14 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
16 Please proceed.
17 MS. HASAN:
18 Q. Now, Witness, you have spoken a little bit about the cartridges
19 that were found. And in your report you discussed how that goes to your
20 conclusion that the victims were shot. Was there anything in the graves
21 themselves that led you to conclude that these individuals were shot?
22 A. Well, when you get -- when you look at them you can tell that
23 they had been shot. Okay? But it's a hole in a tunnel following the
24 bullet. But a lot of -- a lot of cartridges also were spread along
25 with -- when the -- when the gravel was took up -- taken off from the
1 opposite side of the road, they also picked up then some of the
2 cartridges, and they fell -- they fell in the grave also, so we had those
3 spread out amongst the gravel that had been put on top of the bodies.
4 The cartridges were in there, too.
5 Q. How about in and around the -- in and around the body parts and
6 the remains in the graves, was there any other evidence that existed that
7 led you to believe they had been executed?
8 A. Well, the executions were mostly all the stuff was -- there --
9 some was in it, but it was brought in by a machine. The actual -- the
10 kicking out as a cartridge kicked out as they were shooting, that is
11 automatic rifles, that would be in a little area right around where the
12 individual who was shooting them. It would shoot out the side and it
13 would pretty much get in one little area, and another little area where
14 the other person was standing.
15 Q. Did you find ligatures, then, on some of the individuals in the
16 Cerska grave?
17 A. I believe so. Let's see if I have that. Yeah. I -- there are
18 some ligatures in there. Yes. For Cerska we had 24 ligatures that were
19 in place, individuals' hands were tied behind their back. Actually, it
20 was wired behind their back. They used wires as ligatures. And then 24
21 were in place. And then another 24 were associated with the bodies.
22 Maybe one ring of that was on there. At one time they would have a ring
23 around -- a wire around this -- this wrist and another on a wrist and
24 then they would tie it together with another piece. So maybe you would
25 just have one there, and then the other ones when -- when it would turn
1 into a skeleton and then it would roll off. So it wasn't right on it but
2 it was lying right by the limbs that usually on the -- on the wrists. It
3 was lying by them. But in all -- in all total, we had -- what did we
4 have? Forty-eight. Forty-eight wired [Realtime transcript read in
5 error "wider"] ligatures.
6 Q. Were those ligatures found in one place in the grave or were they
8 A. They were dispersed all over because as they dispersed the gravel
9 over the tops of the body, they picked up the -- the -- some of those
10 and -- some of the wire, when they had the bodies or -- they had wire,
11 other wire. Now, were you asking me -- could you ask me that question
12 again, please.
13 Q. Yeah. I just wanted to know whether the ligatures found on the
14 individuals, were those individuals dispersed throughout the grave --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- or were they clustered in one part of the grave?
17 A. No. There was not one group of people that had their hands wired
18 behind their back. There was people all along the side of the road that
19 they had lined up. So there -- yeah, there were these ligatures of --
20 wired ligatures were spread on individuals all over the -- the grave.
21 You'd find maybe two or three people that did not have their hands wired,
22 they didn't have a ligature, but you'd find another one or two that had
23 had ligatures.
24 Q. Mr. --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to ask for one clarification in the
1 transcript, line 14 of the previous page, 29. You are recorded as having
2 said "Forty-eight wider ligatures," but I think you said "Forty-eight
3 wired ligatures"; is that correct?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes. There were no -- there were no clothed
5 ligatures. These were all wired and this -- and again Cerska.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
7 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, Your Honours, I note the time.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MS. HASAN: Perhaps this time I have made a poor estimate of how
10 much time I need. I will certainly need about 20 minutes, 15 to
11 20 minutes more. I understand I've already used up 50 minutes, so ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. With 15 to 20 minutes. You asked for one
13 hour, I think if I'm --
14 MS. HASAN: I just wanted to notify you --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MS. HASAN: -- that I may go over my time estimate.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you seek leave to go over your time estimate.
18 MS. HASAN: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's understood.
20 We'll take the break after the witness has been escorted out of
21 the courtroom. We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, Mr. Haglund.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and will resume at five minutes to
25 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
1 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
3 Meanwhile, I use the time. In the Rule 92 ter motion for
4 Witness RM253, which was filed confidentiality on the 12th of April, the
5 Prosecution sought, inter alia, the admission of five associated exhibits
6 into evidence. Now, during the testimony of that witness, on the 11th
7 and 12th of June, the Prosecution did, however, not tender three of these
8 associated exhibits, namely the documents bearing 65 ter numbers 28898,
9 28900, and 28901. And the question of the Chamber is whether the
10 Prosecution can confirm the withdrawal of these three documents.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. We'll have an answer
12 back very soon.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, you may proceed.
16 MS. HASAN: Could we have Exhibit P1481 displayed and page 3 --
17 that's page 3 in the hard copy version of that book and page 9 in
18 e-court. I think if we can only have one of those images displayed, it
19 would be a bit clearer.
20 Q. Okay, Witness, can you tell us what it is we're looking at here?
21 A. Well, you're looking at the road of -- of the -- that the Cerska
22 grave was on. I'd not seen this before. But you have July 95th. There
23 is no digging in that area at that time and no -- once you look at
24 27th of July, 1995, and you can see that a lot of disruption of the soil
25 and the gravel and that had taken place sometime between those two -- two
2 Q. And what can you tell us about the disturbed area that we see on
3 the right-hand side, which is labeled 27 July, 1995?
4 A. Well, what you see is what -- what I explained earlier, that was
5 the gravel taken from one side of the road and spread over the other side
6 of the road to bury the remains.
7 Q. So --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt you a little bit, Madam Hasan.
9 Mr. Haglund, at page 32, line 6, you are recorded as having said,
10 "I'd not seen this before."
11 Is that what you said?
12 THE WITNESS: No, I had not.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: You had not seen it?
14 THE WITNESS: No, not this one, no. These two.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, when you say "I had not," do we understand
16 that you are seeing this for the first time or you saw it sometime back?
17 THE WITNESS: It's the first time I've seen this.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: First time you seen it.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
21 MS. HASAN:
22 Q. And, Dr. Haglund, just to follow-up on that question, you didn't
23 see this at the time you were working there, but is it correct that I had
24 shown you this image yesterday during proofing?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. And was that the first time then you saw it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So taking a look at the image on the right-hand side, you said
4 that this shows us what you were speaking about yesterday. Can you tell
5 us on which side we see the grave on -- and what we see on the other side
6 of the road? And --
7 A. Well --
8 Q. -- tell us which is which.
9 A. Well the -- on the -- the left-hand side you have a long white
10 streak across, one's the -- I think maybe the southern side. I am not
11 sure whether it's southern or north. But on that side of the -- of the
12 slope is -- is the grave, and then on the right-hand side is where the
13 gravel was taken from.
14 Q. Now this -- [Microphone not activated] This Chamber has recently
15 received the names of individuals who have been determined to have come
16 out of the Cerska grave.
17 MS. HASAN: And, Your Honours, these names were provided by
18 Witness RM254.
19 Q. These, in the ICMP list of DNA matching reports, which is
20 Exhibit P1727, are individuals bearing the case ID number CSK-30, CSK-32,
21 CSK-36, CSK-101, and CSK 116.
22 Dr. Haglund, are those case IDs familiar to you?
23 A. They are from the Cerska grave, but when did you get this
24 information because I would have thought that there was a lot more
25 identified since the time that the graves were dug?
1 Q. That's correct. There have been more identifications, but I'm
2 just specifically referring to these particular --
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. -- individuals. Now those designations, where did they come
6 A. Well, if you got out the map we could probably -- if you had the
7 number --
8 Q. Sorry --
9 A. -- we could tell where they were buried.
10 Q. -- I don't mean where they were in the grave, but I mean just the
11 designation itself. Was that something that your team had assigned to
12 the remains as they were exhumed or ...
13 A. You mean the --
14 Q. The numbering, the numberings, yes.
15 A. Yes, that's how we numbered. We'd have a C on that and we had a
16 number as -- as the time we took them out. We started with 1, 2, 3, 4,
17 and went up to 150, and those are the numbers from that grave. All the
18 graves have a -- a couple of -- two notes to -- you know, like Cerska,
19 PL, C -- CS or whatever we had, and that would be tallied to the
20 individuals that were in that particular grave.
21 Q. And for Cerska it was CSK --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- and then the number following?
24 A. That's correct.
25 MS. HASAN: There is a photograph, Your Honours, that I'd like to
1 show the witness. It has -- was not previously on the 65 ter list, and
2 it's photograph a photograph that's listed in the photo documentation log
3 which is one of the annexes to Dr. Haglund's Cerska report. So it's a
4 volume 2. And I've just pulled that photograph. It's -- has a
5 provisional 65 ter number 29131, and I'd seek leave to add that one
6 photograph to the 65 ter list.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Leave is granted.
8 MS. HASAN: Then could we have 65 ter 29131 displayed.
9 Q. And in the meantime, Dr. Haglund, were photographs of the remains
10 taken as a regular practice?
11 A. Yes. All of them would be photographed before they were moved.
12 Q. Looking at the photograph that you see before you, can you tell
13 us what it is that we see here?
14 A. Well, you see number 30. It's lying head down. You see the
15 cranium and -- it's a skull, actually, down at the right -- right end.
16 And then we see the -- the legs -- actually, right about -- right about
17 the knee level is the number 30 is and then you see the legs go out, and
18 you can see the feet and the -- the lower legs at the left end of the
20 Q. So that would be -- that's the remains of CSK-30?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And what about the marking 32?
23 A. Thirty-two. There is one right underneath here. You can see
24 some of the clothing. It looks like probably the shoulder where the 32
25 is, but it's not as well delineated at this time. Once we get the other
1 remains out then we can delineate the one below better.
2 Q. Okay. And we don't see it very well on the screen but there
3 seems to be another individual's remains behind 30, marked 31?
4 A. That's correct. That's further up the hill.
5 Q. So the markings 30 and 32 correspond to the individuals that the
6 Chamber has heard about. Now I'd like to --
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you please explain the origin of these
8 plastic bags we see here on the -- on the picture?
9 THE WITNESS: Where the -- what was the origin? We brought
10 these -- we brought these with them. As I was telling you, hands and
11 feet, and that would be put in those bags or tied to the -- the ulna and
12 radius to keep them with that individual. Does that answer your
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And they are now on this picture located where
15 you found the body parts --
16 THE WITNESS: You have the --
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- you have put into the plastic bags; is that
19 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, this is where the hands or feet would be
20 or something that was broken or ...
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
22 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, I would offer 65 ter 29131 into
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Document 29131 receives number P1830,
1 Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
3 MS. HASAN:
4 Q. Dr. Haglund, in Krstic - I'm moving now onto another grave, the
5 Lazete grave - you explained that because of the rainy weather conditions
6 you weren't able to determine whether 2A and 2B, the two graves, were
7 actually two separate pits or a single one. Can you tell us whether the
8 weather conditions at that time had any impact on your ability to remove
9 all the bodies from -- from the grave, and in particularly Lazete 2B
10 which was the disturbed one.
11 A. I believe that that was the whole area that had been -- the
12 whole -- whole thing had been made into a -- actually, a -- a -- a --
13 they dug all along the whole thing and then they put a pile of bodies in
14 it and then they would cover it up and then they would have another
15 one [indiscernible]. The Lazete 1 was a one -- one pile of bodies.
16 There was nothing connected to them going to the next one, okay? The
17 next one was the second one, that is Lazete 2, that is the one that had
18 been robbed of remains trying to remove the remains from the grave.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question to you, Dr. Haglund, was whether the
20 weather conditions --
21 THE WITNESS: Oh.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- at the time had an impact on your ability to
23 remove the bodies from the grave.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes. It was various -- we had a three-week
25 hold-out and it started to rain. The grave was 2 and a half to 3 metres
1 at some point. It was filling up. We started digging along side of --
2 of where we were digging so that the water would go in -- in that area
3 and then we'd pump it out, but that really didn't work. It was raining
4 too hard. We'd finished the Lazete 1. We were almost finishing the
5 Lazete 2, but that's what I explained earlier. It was -- there was so
6 much water and that -- it was dangerous for people to be down there and
7 we saw that one leg sticking out. We knew there was something there. We
8 left it in the report so that people could come back later on when they
9 did and got them, but it was too dangerous to put people down there.
10 MS. HASAN:
11 Q. Dr. Haglund, you refer to Lazete 1 and 2. Am I correct that
12 you're referring to the different -- the two collections of bodies that
13 you found that in your report are designated as Lazete 2A and
14 Lazete 2B --
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. -- is that correct?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. Now we've talked about Cerska and Lazete. Dr. Haglund, did you
19 also oversee, then, the exhumations and examinations of the remains from
20 the sites of -- at Pilica and Nova Kasaba?
21 A. Well, I wasn't always there at the laboratory, but the -- the
22 digging, yes. The removal of the exhumations, yeah, I was there.
23 Q. Did you prepare reports of your findings for each of those --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- sites?
1 A. Yes, you have them all.
2 Q. And you testified as an expert witness about those reports in the
3 prior trials before this Tribunal?
4 A. That's correct.
5 MS. HASAN: I'd offer those reports, those expert reports into
6 evidence at this stage pursuant to Your Honours' 19 July 2013 direction
7 that the Prosecution refrain from tendering the underlying supportive
8 materials. I accordingly offer into evidence only volume 1 for each of
9 the expert reports, those being the main reports. And they are
10 65 ter 4548, 65 ter 4553, 65 ter 4559, and 65 ter 4558.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: I have to admit that I am a bit surprised that those
13 reports were not listed as associated exhibits.
14 JUDGE ORIE: They were.
15 MR. LUKIC: And now we have --
16 JUDGE ORIE: They were listed as non-associated exhibits.
17 MR. LUKIC: That's right. And I don't think they are
18 sufficiently dealt with today during the examination, so they want to
19 have it in the evidence they should deal with them much more and much
21 MS. HASAN: Mr. President --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
23 MS. HASAN: -- the during lying reports were the basis of the
24 entirety of the Krstic testimony. Dr. Haglund goes through site by site
25 discussing his findings there. I didn't go over that same information
1 here again today because it exists there on the record. The reports were
2 provided -- were -- I mean, notice of the reports that we sought to admit
3 them were in the 94 bis notice, and subsequently in the 92 ter motion I
4 believe that motion also specified that the Prosecution would be
5 tendering the expert reports of Dr. Haglund.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Any response to this, Mr. Lukic?
7 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, to be -- I don't know by heart what is
8 in 92 ter. I had other stuff to read. But I would maintain my
9 objection. I think it's a -- and you can see in the Krstic trial, it's
10 not dealt with. Those reports in --
11 MS. HASAN: Your --
12 MR. LUKIC: In any length, and today it was just discussed with
13 the doctor about this report from San Antonio commission. They had time
14 to deal with the expert reports.
15 MS. HASAN: Your Honour, if I may. So notice was provided in the
16 94 bis notice that the Prosecution sought to admit those reports. That
17 was the whole point of calling Dr. Haglund to come here for
18 cross-examination on those very reports. In the 92 ter motion at
19 paragraph 12, we did specify that the Prosecution, in addition to the
20 associated exhibits, will tender Dr. Haglund's expert reports. All of
21 Dr. Haglund's expert report were admitted in the Krstic case. I didn't
22 list them as associated exhibits because they were going to go in in any
23 event pursuant to our 94 bis application.
24 MR. LUKIC: Excerpts of transcript of testimony of
25 Dr. William Haglund from Prosecution versus Krstic case is one of the
1 associated exhibits. You've -- the rest of the reports associated,
2 exhibits with this testimony, they should be notified as associated
4 JUDGE ORIE: Would you have no problem to have it admitted as
5 associated exhibit?
6 MR. LUKIC: We were not exploring all of them because they were
7 not list as associated exhibits.
8 JUDGE ORIE: They were listed as non-associated exhibits --
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- which would require you as much to explore it.
11 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, but I expected them to go through them and then
12 I would -- I would know where they are going. Which way. Then I would
13 be -- I am --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well.
15 MR. LUKIC: -- taking notes and be able to cross on those
16 topics --
17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber --
18 MR. LUKIC: -- not just to be dumped on us.
19 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider the matter.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has decided to MFI for the time being
22 the -- the documents.
23 And Ms. Hasan, we will further consider the matter after
25 Then, Madam Registrar, 65 ter 04548 receives number?
1 THE REGISTRAR: P1831, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Is MFI'd. The second one was 04558. Yes, but you
3 listed them in this way, I think, or did you not? Okay. Then 04553?
4 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P1832, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is MFI'd.
7 THE REGISTRAR: No.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Or 9 is -- no.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number --
10 JUDGE ORIE: 04559.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P1833, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And 04558?
13 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P1834, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And is also MFI'd as are all the others, also the
15 previous one.
16 Ms. Hasan.
17 MS. HASAN: Then there is the associated exhibits. Your Honour,
18 should I read them one by one or the entire list? And just for --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. HASAN: Just for your --
21 JUDGE ORIE: One of them may meet some of the concerns of
22 Mr. Lukic, because 04553 is also on the list of associated exhibits,
23 Mr. Lukic. So you said, Well, I would have expected them there.
24 MR. LUKIC: We would withdraw our objection to this one.
25 JUDGE ORIE: To this one. Then P1832 is admitted into evidence.
1 The other three remain, keeping the status of being MFI'd.
2 MS. HASAN: The --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Associated exhibits further.
4 MS. HASAN: The remaining associated exhibits, while they look
5 like they are numerous, in fact, they are all photographs.
6 JUDGE ORIE: They are all photographs.
7 MR. LUKIC: We do not have objections to any of those.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
9 Madam Registrar, could you already reserve a range of numbers
10 for -- for 13, if I am not mistaken, associated exhibits and prepare a
11 list then assigning the relevant P numbers.
12 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: My math is getting worse, Ms. Hasan. Fourteen
14 numbers should be -- a range of fourteen numbers should be reserved.
15 Madam Registrar, that would be?
16 THE REGISTRAR: Numbers P1835 up and including P1848,
17 Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And they are admitted into evidence and the specific
19 assignment of numbers to the individual exhibits we'll find that on the
20 list which Madam Registrar will then file.
21 Please proceed -- or you have no further questions --
22 MS. HASAN: No further questions.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- Ms. Hasan.
24 Then, Mr. Lukic, are you ready to start your cross-examination?
25 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, just one moment.
1 JUDGE ORIE: But you first need your lectern, isn't it?
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's through the --
4 Mr. Haglund, once Mr. Lukic has found his lectern, he'll
5 cross-examine you. Mr. Lukic is counsel for Mr. Mladic. And no
6 surprise, you'll find him to your left.
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Doctor. Can we start?
9 [In English] Can we start?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I don't know if you are getting the translation because I put
12 some questions before you and you did not answer. But at least you will
13 not have a problem with me because I will speak the front language.
14 A. Okay. All right.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, your field of work is injuries on bones.
16 You did not deal with injuries if they were conflicted on soft tissue; is
17 that correct?
18 A. Well, I would only comment on bones. But I worked for 15 years
19 in the medical examiner's office. I saw a lot of -- a lot of -- lot of
20 flesh, yes. But yes, I'd only comment on bones.
21 Q. Actually, it was pathologists, doctors, who did the post-mortems.
22 I am talking about Bosnia-Herzegovina and the graves that have to do with
23 Srebrenica; is that right?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. At the time, the leader of the pathologists was Dr. Kirschner; is
1 that right?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. You also worked under Dr. Kirschner; is that right?
4 A. That's correct, in regards to the autopsies.
5 Q. Thank you. I am going to ask you briefly now about Cerska. Is
6 it correct that in this grave the bodies were in different stages of
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. On the basis of scientific facts and findings, can you rule out
10 the possibility that the bodies in this grave were buried at different
11 points in time?
12 A. No, they weren't.
13 Q. Also, you told us that on some bodies ligatures were found in
14 this grave and on other bodies ligatures were not found; is that correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Doesn't this fact also indicate that the bodies buried in this
17 grave originate from various incidents?
18 A. Well, of the people -- the individuals that had the -- the
19 wirings behind their back was all over the grave. Some were down deep,
20 some were superficial, some were at one end, some were in the middle,
21 some were the other end. It was all mixed up.
22 Q. So according to you, the difference with regard to the degree of
23 decomposition of the bodies and the fact that some bodies had ligatures
24 and the others did not, does not allow for the possibility to conclude
25 that the incidents in which these people lost their lives were different
2 A. You mean differently dumped in or something, whatever?
3 Q. [In English] I meant killed at different times and then buried at
4 the same place.
5 A. They were buried the same time, same place. They would -- there
6 is -- differential decaying of the remains depended upon how superficial
7 they were in the grave, how -- how -- they had a lot of sun. The rocks
8 on the top were warmer than the ones on the bottom, and that helped
9 change the decomposition. Decomposition of the ones below were in better
10 shape than the ones on the top.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Haglund, you asked a response to the previous
12 question, "You mean differently dumped in or something, whatever?" And
13 then Mr. Lukic said, "I meant killed at different times and then buried
14 in this same place." And then you said, "They were buried the same time,
15 same place." You were exclusively talking about burials, whereas the
16 question was about when they were killed and perhaps where they were
17 killed and whether they were buried in the same grave. You have not
18 addressed it, that part of the question --
19 THE WITNESS: I've --
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- in your answer.
21 THE WITNESS: Okay. All the cartridges were strung along the
22 whole side of the road. Very, very many of them. That's where they were
23 shot. In fact, I believe there may have been someone else who knew about
24 them and knew about what happened, so I don't know.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Again, your answer refers to evidence that made you
1 conclude that many people were killed there.
2 THE WITNESS: Right.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now Mr. Lukic may want to know whether it also
4 allows for a definitive conclusion that all of those buried were killed
5 at that time there.
6 THE WITNESS: Well, it's possible some of them had been killed
7 somewhere else, but the majority of them certainly seemed like they
8 were ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: And what makes you conclude that it was the
11 THE WITNESS: Well, you would see -- well, the levels -- I mean,
12 when you have bodies tied up with each other, tied up with the ones all
13 this side and down below and that, nobody would put those in and -- and
14 put their arms out -- and under the next person and the leg under another
15 person when they were putting a new group of people there. That's --
16 that didn't make sense to me.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you concluded from the position of the
18 bodies that they were not superposed to bodies already there.
19 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
20 JUDGE ORIE: But the way in which they were found strongly
21 suggests that they fell together in that grave at that point --
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- in time.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
1 THE WITNESS: It was on like the other grave that were different
2 piles of people and it could have been at different times, but this was
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. [Interpretation] The next issue with regard to this location,
7 this is from your testimony in the Krstic case, P1828, page 12 in
8 e-court. And it should correspond to the transcript page 3734. There
9 you say in lines 9 and 10, and this is an adjudicated fact, you say that
10 the age range in this grave was 14 to 50, and then you say that the two
11 youngest were aged between 11 to 15. I would now ask you whether you
12 would agree with me that in your reports you estimated the age and could
13 not exactly determine this parameter?
14 A. That -- that's correct. We can't put on exact the -- exact age
15 on these people. It's between what we think is the lower and -- and a
17 Q. Thank you. For each group and for each individual, you allowed
18 an error of plus or minus one year of age; is that correct?
19 A. I believe that's what they did on the -- I'd have to look at all
20 them and review those again, but -- to look at the -- at the anatomy of
21 the -- you would look at the -- of -- cases that are in the -- at the
22 pathologist stuff that the -- at the archeo -- anthropologist gave to
23 the -- if it's in there, I would have to look at that more. I haven't
24 looked at that, so I could look at the other stuff and see where it's
25 coming. But it's coming from the laboratory, not ...
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you complete your last answer: But it's
2 coming from the laboratory but not. What's not?
3 THE WITNESS: Well, no, it's coming from there. I'm just looking
4 here and seeing -- yes. It's in the -- it's in the -- the anthropologist
5 gave it to the pathologist, and they included that in their report, which
6 is fine. And I think I have some other diagrams and that on age in the
7 reports, but ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Would you agree with the following sentence, which I'm going to
11 read out to you:
12 [In English] "The final range given is the anthropologist's
13 opinion of the individual's biological age and does not exclude the
14 possibility that the true calendar age is outside the range given."
15 A. Exactly. That's true.
16 Q. [Interpretation] In the specific case of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
17 these estimates are sometimes without the framework because you did not
18 have the standards for the population in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This was
19 not available to you; is that correct?
20 A. That's exactly right, too. We didn't have a lot of those. In
21 the United States, we were a little closer. But in other countries, they
22 don't do this kind of thing, and so, yeah, we didn't -- we'd -- these are
23 not specific. There is always a plus or a minus on these.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Just for my --
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Do I then understand that the range you give in a
3 country where you have more specific information about averages, that the
4 range is smaller than the range --
5 THE WITNESS: It might --
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- you applied here?
7 THE WITNESS: It might be tighter, yeah. It may or not -- it may
8 or may not be.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And did you make it broader here then where you said
10 you had not detailed information.
11 THE WITNESS: I don't think we went that far out but I think we
12 did go a little far out than we would normally do like in the
13 United States or something.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, "or something" is a rather broad --
15 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- reference.
17 THE WITNESS: I know. Yeah.
18 JUDGE ORIE: But do you have an answer to?
19 THE WITNESS: Well, no, I think these were the best that we could
20 get at that time, and I think it was mostly based on what people knew
21 when they were working with cases. It wasn't that far out or whatever it
22 would be in United States or whatever, I don't think.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now you say on the one hand that if you have better
24 information which allows you, if I understand you well, to a smaller
25 range because there is less uncertainty about what you average --
1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: On average would expect.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And then you said, We didn't have that information
5 in Bosnia.
6 THE WITNESS: No.
7 JUDGE ORIE: At least if you would not mind, I would rather
8 conclude my question. You had less information about Bosnia. My
9 question is whether you then also adapted the range which expresses some
10 uncertainty in this situation compared to what you do -- would did in
11 another situation such as in the United States?
12 THE WITNESS: No, we used pretty much what we did at home, I
13 think, I guess when you really think about it. And as you get old -- as
14 person gets older, then it gets wider.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I can imagine that a one-year range doesn't
16 apply when we are talking about people of 55 years of age, and then, of
17 course, for youth it's quite different.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But that goes beyond my question, that in a
20 different age group you would deal with that differently, because my
21 question was focusing on, of course, this group of youth.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay. What -- what we -- we'd look at when the
23 bones, the ends of the bones, the epiphysis is getting solid with the
24 rest of the bone, and there we have -- it works better on younger people
25 because we're looking at the epiphyses connecting solidly with the --
1 with the bone, for instance, at the end of the humerus. We have a couple
2 of places where the bone is adhering to the rest of the bone and it takes
3 a while to do it. When you have that, you can see the little -- the
4 little crack if it's not fully attached. You -- it's easier to get a
5 smaller -- to get an easier age when they're younger and get older
6 it's -- I don't know if I'm done answering your question.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand you well that you say that the
8 development of the bone becoming far more soft, as in early youth --
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- to at a later stage --
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- becoming harder, that that doesn't depend on, for
13 example, the average length of people in a certain community or a certain
15 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: And that for that reason you had this relatively
17 independent measurement. Could I urge you to be very precise in your
18 answers --
19 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- so that we fully understand --
21 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- what the basis for your opinions was.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Mr. Lukic, if there was one thing still
2 puzzling me from one of the previous answers. If you would give me just
3 a second to find it again.
4 You were asked at the time -- and I'm referring to page 45, line
5 3 or -- and 4. You were asked:
6 "You also worked under Dr. Kirschner; is that right?"
7 Your answer was:
8 "That's correct, in regard to the autopsies."
9 Now, a few lines before that you said it was pathologists,
10 doctors, who did the post-mortems. Now, I'm a bit confused about the
11 difference between autopsies and post-mortems, whether it's the same or
12 whether it's different.
13 THE WITNESS: It's the same.
14 JUDGE ORIE: It's the same. Well, then you said it was the
15 doctors who did the post-mortems. At the same time, you said, when asked
16 whether you worked under Dr. Kirschner, that you worked under him. You
17 said that's correct in regard to the autopsies, but you did not perform
18 the autopsies. So how did you then work under him in regard to the
20 THE WITNESS: Well, it was -- it was getting other pathologists
21 in for him when he was gone and those kinds of things and nothing to do
22 with the actual autopsies, but I'd do things for him.
23 JUDGE ORIE: So when you -- you understood the question whether
24 you worked under Dr. Kirschner is whether you performed your job which
25 would then enable the pathologists to do the post-mortems or the
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's what you understand by working under. The
4 question was a bit unclear, perhaps.
5 THE WITNESS: Yeah, okay.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Q. Doctor, with regard to Cerska --
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If we could please see 1D1159. And
10 that's the transcript from the Tolimir trial, your testimony. We need
11 page 74, which corresponds to page 9173 of the transcript, and we need
12 lines 16 to 21.
13 Q. So I'm going to read this out to you:
14 [In English] "Q. Can you tell us in the orders and the documents
15 you found were preserved as part of the general collection,
17 "A. That, I think, probably would have been preserved, I'm not
18 sure. Many of the documents on bodies of the -- the identification
19 documents and that -- that were turned over to the group that was trying
20 to identify these people ..."
21 [Interpretation] So we are talking about documents. Is it
22 correct that in Cerska with practically every body you also found the
23 personal papers or documents of those persons?
24 A. No, not at -- not that many. I think I probably have it in here
25 somewhere in my report.
1 Q. Well, I just reviewed some of your reports cursorily, and I think
2 that there are really many identification documents connected to this
3 one. However, do you know now what happened with the identification
4 documents from this location that you collected? Where did they end up?
5 A. The identification material was given over with the remains to
6 the Bosnian so they could do the identifications. However, prior to
7 any -- any things we found, paper then that -- the Tribunal would look at
8 them first to see if it was important for them to have, and if they
9 thought it was they took them and they have them.
10 Q. When you say "the Tribunal," you mean the OTP; right?
11 A. Yeah. Yes.
12 Q. I will now ask you something brief about Nova Kasaba, though that
13 is not even in our indictment, but just in order to understand the -- the
14 methodology of your work. You described some bodies that were found in
15 sitting or kneeling positions and that they were in those positions in
16 the graves. Do you remember that?
17 A. Yes. The second grave was the one that most -- that stood out
18 the most.
19 Q. Did you want to say that they were buried in such positions,
20 upright position, or that their legs were bent or were they turned on one
22 A. There is -- there are photographs in the report that shows what
23 was happening. People were bent over like this and they were shot in the
24 back of the head. Some of them had sprawled out when they had fallen
25 over after they had been shot, but you can see those in the photos.
1 Q. And let me ask you now about the grave-site number 4 in
2 Nova Kasaba. Would you accept today the possibility or the likelihood
3 that this one person in the fourth grave -- it's one person; correct?
4 A. That's correct. Yes.
5 Q. Would you accept the possibility that this person was killed at
6 some different point in time?
7 A. I don't think the person was killed. It looked like it was an
8 elderly gentleman. He was lying on his back. Lying out just on -- like
9 we would bury somebody. There were no -- he had not been shot. We found
10 no other exterior wounds or anything, so I don't believe that he was
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could I also urge you to be very precise
13 in your questions because if you said at some different point in time,
14 it's totally unclear to what you refer. Certainly different from when he
15 was found, but do you refer to --
16 MR. LUKIC: There are other three graves --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then --
18 MR. LUKIC: -- and then Nova Kasaba location.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's exactly what I would like to know.
20 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry for not being precise enough. Okay.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. And I think it's break time.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It is time for a break.
24 After the witness has left the courtroom, we'll take a break of
25 20 minutes.
1 Mr. Haglund, we'll take that pause.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at quarter past 12.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 11.56 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 12.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- in response to your request regarding
10 Witness 253, we are withdrawing those exhibits. But thank you for
11 reminding us. Those exhibits are not needed.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
13 Yes. That was the documents related to Witness RM253.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, the Prosecution informed me that your
18 health is somewhat precarious, and if you believe that you would need a
19 break or some rest, please do tell us.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Before the break, we were discussing Nova Kasaba and the fourth
22 grave-site there. Would you agree with me that you could not determine
23 that the other three grave-sites that we talked about came into the
24 existence at the same time?
25 A. No, I couldn't tell the same time of these graves.
1 Q. Now we shall look briefly at Lazete, Lazete 2A and 2B.
2 Inter alia, blindfolds are discussed with regard to this.
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Have these blindfolds been preserved and do you know where they
5 are kept today?
6 A. I believe some of them -- I think maybe all of them at one point
7 had been taken to the Tribunal. I don't know what happened to them.
8 Q. In the Krstic case it was mentioned on page 44 in e-court,
9 corresponding to page 3766, that you found one skeleton outside the grave
10 and that you buried it. Do you remember that?
11 A. Yes. In the assessment time we were looking at the graves, there
12 was one on top of the -- a bit away from the grave. But in order to
13 preserve that and keep it there and the dogs not getting it, we -- we did
14 bury it. Yes.
15 Q. And now something brief about Pilica and Branjevo farm. You
16 mention 170 body parts. Do you know and can you tell us how many of the
17 170 body parts are individual bones or fragments of bones?
18 A. It's both. Sometimes it could be a leg, sometimes it could be an
20 Q. Were there parts or fragments of bones?
21 A. Yes, some.
22 Q. Do you know how many, how many bone fragments?
23 A. I don't -- I don't think we counted all of the fragments. It may
24 be very small. But all the other bones we did save, and when we gave up
25 the bones as well as the bodies, we were hoping that -- and they have
1 matched some of them with DNA through the years.
2 Q. In the Popovic case you were asked something, and I will present
3 it to you now to ask you whether you would agree with the conclusion.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So to that effect we need 1D1158. We
5 need page 10.
6 Q. That is your testimony in the Popovic case. And this has to do
7 with the big grave-site which was only partly filled; correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. We'll need lines 19 to 21, please. You were asked the following
11 [In English] "Q. Okay. And were you able to determine whether
12 this grave had -- had been disturbed in some way?
13 "A. Not definitively, in my opinion."
14 A. Which one -- which one are we here at now? What grave are we
15 talking about?
16 Q. [Interpretation] Now we are talking about Pilica, the Branjevo
17 farm. Would you agree with this, that you could not provide a final
18 conclusion as to whether the grave had been disturbed in some way or not?
19 A. That's true at that time. Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could we ask, then, the witness whether it's not
21 true anymore now?
22 THE WITNESS: Well, there were photographs that were -- fly-over
23 photographs that showed the grave was being dug at after the fly-overs
24 were shown to the UN. There are three -- three photographs that were
25 taken when the bodies were out on the -- on the field and the grave of --
1 being bodies put in. The second time there were oversights that the
2 bodies were being dug up.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This was unknown at the time when you gave
4 your testimony?
5 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And how did you learn about this --
7 THE WITNESS: I --
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- after you gave your testimony?
9 THE WITNESS: I saw here a year or two later, I think.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the photographs were provided to you by?
11 THE WITNESS: I think I may have seen them here. I am not sure.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And do you know exactly which photographs were shown
13 to you?
14 THE WITNESS: Well, there were three of them.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So do I understand your answer well that on the
16 basis of what you've seen since you grave your testimony --
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- that is there a likelihood that on the basis of
19 new material that one could come to a different --
20 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- conclusion. That the conclusion could be more
22 certain in either one way or another.
23 THE WITNESS: Exactly. I --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Do you remember when you saw those photographs? What year was
4 A. Probably 19 -- late, maybe late 19 -- maybe 1997 or something
5 like that. I hadn't seen them around the times that the exhumations and
6 the -- and, actually, when the reports were written. So it's probably
7 past 1998.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now I am confused a bit, because you said during
9 the testimony in the Popovic trial you didn't know about these
10 photographs. Now you say it was probably 1997 or 1998. But your
11 testimony in Popovic was given in March 2007.
12 THE WITNESS: Okay. It was later than that, then, because I
13 didn't know about it at that time. I don't know when they came out.
14 I -- I can't remember exactly when I saw them, but certainly it wasn't at
15 that time at -- that testimony.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it you don't know when you saw them first.
17 THE WITNESS: No.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. As for these photographs that you are telling us about now, they
21 are not part of your report; right?
22 A. Absolutely not. I happened to see them. I don't know quite
23 where I saw them. It might have been on the -- on the web somewhere or
24 something. I am not sure.
25 Q. Very well. These photographs, can one see whether the bodies are
1 being buried or whether they are being exhumed in these later
2 photographs? On the basis of what do you conclude that the bodies were
3 not being exhumed rather than interred?
4 A. Well, there were different times. But -- we could see the bodies
5 that were killed out on the field. You could see those from the first --
6 the first piece. The second one looked like the grave was being --
7 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]
8 THE WITNESS: This was -- this was later, you know.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, if we invite the witness to comment on
10 photographs, then, at least we would have to know what photographs
11 exactly we are talking about and whether there were any bodies visible on
12 the ground. Because if it's just the grave, I would say you can't exhume
13 anyone if it's not buried before. But --
14 MR. LUKIC: You can add somebody in --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. LUKIC: -- if somebody was not there before.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but then, of course, we would have to know what
18 we are talking about if you're asking the witness to comment on matters
19 he has apparently not thoroughly examined. At the same time, I have no
20 problem in you testing the credibility and reliability of the witness in
21 this respect.
22 MR. LUKIC: To be honest with you, I don't know which photographs
23 the witness is talking about either.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Neither do I.
25 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Did you deal with calibres?
2 A. Calibres?
3 Q. Calibres of weapons --
4 A. No.
5 Q. -- that were used to kill people.
6 A. No, the cartridges were given to the -- to the Tribunal, and they
7 had experts that looked at those things. Not me.
8 Q. Did you know that the Serb forces at the time used 20- and
9 30-millimetre machine-guns to stop the break-through of the column from
11 A. I don't know anything about that.
12 Q. As an anthropologist, would you confirm that these calibres - 20
13 and 30 millimetres, that is - can dismember bodies?
14 A. I don't think I'd want to -- to make that kind of -- of -- of --
15 of -- I think that other experts would have to do that, not me.
16 Q. [In English] Fair enough. Thank you. [Interpretation] Today, my
17 colleague, Ms. Hasan, asked you about the report of the oversight
18 commission. Now I am going to dwell on that report.
19 You said to us today that about 70 people worked with you and
20 that four persons complained.
21 A. That's -- that's what the -- it says, yeah.
22 Q. Not all 70 were interviewed; is that right? Seventeen persons
23 were interviewed. Do you remember?
24 A. Yeah. It was a selected group for some reason, I don't know.
25 Q. At the time when you testified in the Krstic case, were you aware
1 of the judgement passed by the International Criminal Tribunal for
3 A. I am not sure of the question.
4 Q. At the time when you testified in the Krstic case, because the
5 judgement was passed before you testified in the Krstic case, so my
6 question is: When you testified in the Krstic case, did you know that a
7 judgement had been passed --
8 A. In Rwanda.
9 Q. -- in Rwanda?
10 A. I think I might have been aware of that, I am not sure.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, your question may just be a little
12 confusing. You say:
13 "At the time when you testified in the Krstic case, because the
14 judgement was passed before you testified in the Krstic case ..."
15 MR. LUKIC: The judgement in Rwanda.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
17 MR. LUKIC: In front of the Rwanda.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which judgement are you referring to?
21 MR. LUKIC: Rutaganda.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That is not clear from your question.
23 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Because Ms. Hasan dealt with two different
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please help me out. The evidence given by
2 this witness in the Krstic case was when exactly?
3 MR. LUKIC: The Krstic case was 2000, I think, but I'll find it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I see that the --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Hasan is going to help.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, prior testimony is 29th of May, 2000. I see
7 that. Yes. Thank you.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. I'll go back to that later. I would just like to ask you the
12 following: When you testified in the Krstic case, you were aware of the
13 investigation that was taking place in San Antonio - is that right? -
14 because you testified there before testifying in the Krstic case?
15 A. Okay. If that's true, yeah.
16 Q. At the Krstic trial - and that is part of our case today - the
17 Prosecutor suggested that only one or two colleagues objected to your
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] P1828 is the reference, on page 3760
20 of the transcript. In e-court it's page 38.
21 Q. You confirmed that.
22 A. Okay. That's what it said.
23 Q. However -- actually, more than one or two young colleagues
24 complained about you; isn't that correct?
25 A. I think there might have been up to seven. It wasn't over that,
1 but it could have been.
2 Q. Actually, the colleagues who complained are not exactly young
3 colleagues. They are men and women of your age, approximately; isn't
4 that correct?
5 A. I think a lot of them -- or most of them were younger than me.
6 One of them I know was my age, but ...
7 JUDGE ORIE: In order to fully understand that, we would have to
8 know your age.
9 THE WITNESS: I'm 70 years old.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You're 70 years old. Because the CV doesn't give
11 your date of birth.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Was criticism of your work based only on the work in the mortuary
16 or was it also based on your anthropological work?
17 A. Well, there was anthropological work in the laboratory and in
18 the -- in the exhumations, both places. The place -- people had worked
19 in both places.
20 Q. So was their criticism in view of your anthropological work as
21 well as archeological work?
22 A. Of my -- you're saying two -- two things of -- could you repeat
23 that again?
24 Q. Did the criticism pertain both to your anthropological work and
25 your archeological work in the cases that you worked on in Bosnia?
1 A. Anthropology, I'm not a -- I'm a -- I'm an anthropologist. They
2 didn't do -- I didn't do any archeology.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think, Mr. Lukic, that I understand what you're --
4 if I read from your testimony, which you said you reviewed recently, I
5 see the following question - and I'm referring to page 37, 60:
6 "Also at the end of this very long summer, did one or two of your
7 young colleagues have some criticism regarding your supervision of the
8 archeology work?"
9 And your answer was:
10 "Absolutely, yes.
11 "Q. What was that about?"
12 Well, then, you said something about the quality and the pace of
13 work. But there, at least, your answer suggests that you supervised
14 archeological work.
15 THE WITNESS: Some of the people were archeologists and some of
16 them were anthropologists.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Were you supervising archeological work?
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah, they were doing digging but not -- we were
19 not doing digging like the archeologists did. We did digging like we
20 would do to recover remains, to identify, to find out -- they're dead
21 and ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So when you said a minute ago, "I'm an
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: "I didn't do any archeology," which was a bit of a
1 sloppy expression perhaps for: In my position as an anthropologist, I
2 only supervised the work of archeologists but I didn't do that work
3 myself. That is what you --
4 THE WITNESS: Yeah I --
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- intend to --
6 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'd never gone -- done --
7 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I'm just asking you whether that would be a
8 more precise phrasing of what you intended to answer to the question --
9 THE WITNESS: Here's the --
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- to Mr. Lukic.
11 THE WITNESS: You're absolutely correct.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Is it correct that the criticism presented before this oversight
15 commission had to do with the work of the pathologist, the supervisor,
16 Dr. Kirschner?
17 A. Yes. Much of that was dealt with about Dr. Kirschner, yes.
18 Q. The criticism also pertained to the autopsy reports; right?
19 A. That's what it was mainly about.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I'd like to ask for something in
21 e-court. Although this is D329, a Defence exhibit, and the Prosecution
22 uploaded the B/C/S version, that is 2008. That's the ERN number. And we
23 would like to have the following displayed in e-court: RM2008. At least
24 for the B/C/S version if it's possible to separate the two, if not -- [In
25 English] 65 ter 20008.
1 Q. [Interpretation] it is clear to us what we are discussing; isn't
2 that right, Doctor?
3 A. The -- yes. And all the people there basically were
4 anthropologists, but they may have had classes in archeology -- no. I
5 don't know about that.
6 Q. You told us that there were experts there from Canada, America,
7 and the United Kingdom.
8 A. Yes. And from South America and from Honduras, from -- yeah.
9 Q. In this commission, I mean -- on this committee, rather, there
10 were people from Canada, the US, and the UK. However, you will allow me
11 to say - and you will agree with me - that representatives from the UK
12 were not present. At least here they have been registered as absent.
13 A. I have no idea of how they put that together. I have no idea of
14 who was there. Only the -- only the individuals that were there at the
15 time. I don't know who was there or not there, whatever. I had no -- I
16 didn't do that.
17 Q. [In English] Okay.
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. [Interpretation] In the report itself, it was noted that the
20 interviews were not recorded either in video or audio or using video or
21 audio technology. We see that on page 2, III.
22 A. I saw that too.
23 Q. Roman numeral III, please. That is not being challenged. We can
24 see that from the report itself. What I am interested in is whether a
25 written record was kept of these interviews. Do you know about that?
1 A. You have to ask the people that -- that did this.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But the question to you was: Do you know about
4 THE WITNESS: No.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You -- I couldn't hear your answer.
6 THE WITNESS: Well, I know the individuals had known of the
7 people who were doing this, but I --
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That was not the question. The question was:
9 "What I am interested in is whether a written record was kept of
10 these interviews. Do you know about that?"
11 THE WITNESS: I think if you read it, you'll find out they didn't
12 keep anything. And if that's the last time I recall reading it --
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This was again not the question --
14 THE WITNESS: Oh.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- what is written in the report. But do you
16 know if any records were taken of these interviews?
17 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, then. No, I don't know anything about
18 that at all. Sorry.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. On page 3 of this report --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could I nevertheless return to the same issue. You
23 say you don't know anything about it. One of your answers was:
24 "I think if you read it, you'll find out that they didn't keep
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, I said that earlier.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you formed an impression or whether they
3 did or not on the basis of the report?
4 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now it's clear to me.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. We need page 3 of this
8 document, both versions. We need Roman numeral IV. That is "Background
10 THE WITNESS: I see that, yeah. Kind of hard to read it here.
11 That helps.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. It was stated that there was a potential conflict, if not a real
14 one, between the UN personnel and the Doctors Without Borders personnel
15 in terms of cause and manner of death. Now, the conflict on the ground,
16 was it overcome?
17 MS. HASAN: If counsel could just clarify the involvement of
18 Doctors Without Borders.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, there is a suggestion.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Maybe I misspoke. Doctors for Human
21 Rights, Physicians for Human Rights.
22 JUDGE ORIE: That, Ms. Hasan, is --
23 MR. LUKIC: That's the bottom part of this paragraph that starts:
24 "There was also a potential, if not real ..."
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, it was mainly about Mr. Lukic misspoke
1 that you were responding to or is there anything else you would like to
2 be explored prior to --
3 MS. HASAN: No, it's just that Doctors Without Borders wasn't
4 involved at all.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic. Perhaps it's wisest to phrase your
7 question again.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
9 Q. [Interpretation] So we see here at the bottom of this paragraph
10 it was stated that there was also a potential, if not real, conflict
11 between the UN and PHR personnel as well as variations on legal opinion
12 for cause and manner of death. First of all, let me ask you whether this
13 commission properly understood the problem?
14 A. I am not really aware of what -- what went on with that. I
15 really -- I wasn't aware of that. I see it here, but ...
16 Q. You were on the ground. In your view, was there this conflict
17 between you as the representatives of UN -- you were a representative of
18 the UN, weren't you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So was there a conflict between you as the representative of the
21 UN and the personnel of Physicians for Human Rights?
22 A. Not to my knowledge.
23 Q. Can we conclude, then, that this part of the report is wrong?
24 A. Well, it may be right. Other people might be involved. I have
25 no idea what their problems were.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
2 MS. HASAN: In fact, the report says that there is a potential,
3 and it says "if not real, conflict," but there certainly is no conclusion
4 that there is a conflict. It's an observation made based on the
5 preceding sentences which discuss the professionals coming from different
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And therefore, I think, Mr. Lukic is entitled
8 to ask whether the witness has any knowledge about the existence of a
9 conflict. Even if the report says there is a potential conflict, then
10 Mr. Lukic is fully entitled to ask such a question.
11 MS. HASAN: I was simply objecting to the representation that the
12 panel found there was a conflict.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see.
14 MR. LUKIC: The panel is working on this background information
15 and [Overlapping speakers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]
17 MR. LUKIC: Of their findings.
18 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it's clear from the question that
20 Mr. Lukic used exactly the words from the document we see on the screen.
21 Page 71, line 2, that "there was also a potential, if not real,
23 MS. HASAN: May if I, Your Honour, and then at line 10, the
24 question is, "Can we conclude, then, that this part of the report is
25 wrong." And he's talking about a conflict existing, an existing
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's not fully consistent, it seems.
3 In that respect, Ms. Hasan, I think you're right. At the same
4 time, from what Mr. Lukic said earlier, there seems to be no intention to
5 not reflect the content of the report.
6 But the follow-up question was inconsistent with your previous
7 question, Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Thank you. In your view, why was your work criticised by people
10 who worked with you or for you?
11 A. I -- there are some things I don't want to say. They were very
12 good friends. A couple are very good friends with Clyde Snow. Look, you
13 work with people, these things that are -- it's all right. That doesn't
14 bother me. It doesn't --
15 JUDGE ORIE: The question was -- the question was not whether it
16 bothered you but whether in your view -- whether you know the reason, not
17 phrased perfectly, Mr. Lukic --
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- but whether you know of the reason why people who
20 worked with you or for you criticised you --
21 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- whether you're aware of the reason.
23 THE WITNESS: I had one for one young man that did it. And
24 actually, it was probably my fault. He was working in Rwanda with us and
25 he came to Croatia -- and he came to Bosnia. His wife was pregnant. He
1 needed money. I told him he should probably go home. He said, No, no,
2 please can I stay. I said, Okay, you can stay, but you should really go
3 home and he didn't so ...
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what was your fault?
5 THE WITNESS: It wasn't their fault. He just -- I think he just
6 got tired.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, I'm just asking you what you just said. What
8 was your fault. You said "it was probably my fault."
9 THE WITNESS: That I didn't send him home earlier.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: So his criticism of you would have been valid if
11 it was your fault?
12 THE WITNESS: I was -- I was -- I was the person in charge so,
13 that wasn't --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, so his criticism of you would have been
16 THE WITNESS: Other people didn't agree with him.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm asking the question, sir, if you just answer
18 mine. Would his criticism of you have been valid if it was your fault?
19 THE WITNESS: No, I think it was just his perception.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is -- would you say it was your fault. I'm not
21 asking about his perception. I am asking you about what you say. You
22 say it was your fault. I saying if criticised you because it was your
23 fault, therefore his criticism would have been valid, wouldn't it?
24 THE WITNESS: It was because he was tired. It's not that --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, sir. I guess there is a difficulty
1 here. Is it difficult to answer my question? I thought it was a very
2 simple and straight-forward question. You're saying it was your fault
3 and therefore he criticised you. Was he therefore justifiably
4 criticising you? Just a yes or no answer.
5 THE WITNESS: Well, I should have sent him home earlier but I
6 thought that may have been the problem, but I don't think that --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm afraid that still doesn't answer my question.
8 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm trying to at this time.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, as I said the answer is going to be either a
10 yes or a no.
11 THE WITNESS: I would have to see his -- I'd have to see what he
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, listen to what I'm saying.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to take a more analytical approach as
15 Presiding Judge of this Chamber. What exactly was his criticism against
17 THE WITNESS: I think he thought we worked too fast. I think
18 that was one of them. It's in here somewhere. And he -- he was angry
19 about leaving some clothing behind.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So it was about the work.
21 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now you say yourself, I'm probably to be blamed for
23 not sending him home which is --
24 THE WITNESS: It was not about his work.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It was unrelated to his work.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now your answer about why they would have criticised
3 you, do we then have to understand your answer - although it was not very
4 clear in that respect - that because he was overstressed perhaps due to
5 the pregnancy of his wife and where you even thought that he should not
6 continue to work, that he was in a mental state where he was criticising
7 due to those circumstances rather than to have valid concerns about the
8 way in which you operated? Is this how we have to understand your answer
9 to the question why would they have criticised you?
10 THE WITNESS: Well, I think in part probably he was very tired.
11 I don't --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: It may be one thing. But I knew he was doing --
14 doing the work fairly well and he needed the money, so I let him do it.
15 I wasn't -- I -- he'd never brought this up to me and so this is the
16 first time I'd seen it or heard of it.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And why do you think you should have sent him home?
18 THE WITNESS: I think that he'd worked a long time in Rwanda and
19 that, you know, he should have taken a rest. He could have come back or
20 something but didn't want to do that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Despite the fact that he never brought this up to
22 you, that it was too much for him --
23 THE WITNESS: No.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- but it was your --
25 THE WITNESS: No. I just saw this in this.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Q. Is it correct that your colleagues who expressed their criticism
4 criticised the procedure which you applied, among other things, as you
5 just told us about this younger colleague of yours, that you worked too
6 fast, that you destroyed some pieces of evidence or left them there? As,
7 for example, items of clothing.
8 A. I think all this went by the people here that had to write this
9 and they didn't think that was a problem, so -- and I didn't think it was
10 a problem either. So ...
11 Q. Well, seeing the following questions, to what degree you agree
12 with the report. But I will now ask you whether it is true that at the
13 time when you worked in Bosnia-Herzegovina, you were under constant
14 pressure to finish the work?
15 A. No, I wasn't under constant pressure to finish the work.
16 However, the -- we -- we were coming to the climate where it was going to
17 be very rainy and we needed to finish the graves that we were going to
18 do. We only did as many as we could and there were more that they wanted
19 us to do, but we couldn't do it.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at 1D1158.
21 Q. It's your testimony in the Popovic case. We would need page 14
22 in e-court, which corresponds to page 8912 of the transcript. We would
23 need lines 22 to 25, please:
24 [In English] "Q. Were you under any pressure to get the work
25 done and bring back evidence?
1 "A. That was our goal for being there."
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. "So we had to maximise our time while we were there."
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Was this just a civilised way to formulate it?
6 But isn't this precisely the explanation to the effect that everyone who
7 was working on this project was under tremendous pressure?
8 A. I don't believe that. I think one of the problems is that they
9 had never seen graves like this before. They'd never seen this many
10 bodies, dead people and -- there. So they were used to doing maybe one
11 case a month or -- and -- and this was hard on them, yes, in that
12 respect. And in an -- in that respect probably -- I'm at a time I
13 haven't talked about it anymore. I am just talking too much.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, apparently there were complaints about
15 going too fast. There was a huge job to be done in not unlimited time.
16 That's clear if --
17 MR. LUKIC: I'll move on.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- we would move on, that would be preferable.
19 MR. LUKIC: Um-hm.
20 Q. [Interpretation] You told us yourself today that most of the
21 objections were directed at Dr. Kirschner for the reason that he changed
22 the cause of death without consulting the pathologists who were
23 conducting their own examinations. I would ask you whether that is the
24 usual practice in the United States?
25 A. It is not the usual practice in the United States, no.
1 Q. Would you qualify the work as unprofessional? I mean,
2 Dr. Kirschner's work, was he allowed to do this sort of thing?
3 A. Well, if was back in -- in the United States, and they had
4 younger people working, the person that was -- that was their boss would
5 go through things and they might want to change things and they talk it
6 over with the student pathologist and they would agree to it, and -- um,
7 what Dr. Kirschner was doing. I think he probably talked to a lot of the
8 individuals when they were there, but the -- the people that had left and
9 he was putting this together, I don't know if -- what he did about other
10 people. And a lot of people were possibly left out and had nothing to do
11 or don't know anything about it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's a long answer but not to the question. The
13 question simply was: Was he allowed to do this sort of things; that is,
14 to change reports without consultation. Now, apart from what
15 consequences there are, whether circumstances would make it
16 understandable why he would do it, do you consider that he was allowed to
17 do it yes or no? That's --
18 THE WITNESS: I think some of the pathologists allowed him to do
19 that. He talked to them.
20 JUDGE ORIE: You are changing --
21 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: You are changing the question.
23 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I am talking about without the consent --
25 THE WITNESS: Okay, yeah.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- of the pathologist to change their reports or
3 THE WITNESS: No. No, he shouldn't be doing that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Is it correct that the commission from
8 San Antonio, that is to say the body which examined this case, found that
9 the head pathologist had acted in a manner that was inappropriate?
10 A. I don't know where this is. I'm not sure. Could you show me it?
11 Q. I will show you your answer.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We would need 1D1157, actually,
13 page 40. Perhaps this is included in P1828.
14 Q. That is your testimony in the Krstic case.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 40 in e-court. Just the
16 one that we have on the screen right now. Transcript page 3762.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, perhaps I'm a bit lost, but this witness
18 said that Dr. Kirschner was not allowed to do what he did. Now you put
19 to him that the commission from San Antonio was of the same opinion.
20 What -- what questions would you have in mind to further ask from that?
21 The witness said that he was not allowed to do it. So therefore,
22 let's -- apparently then, apart from that, of course, it's an opinion,
23 but apart from that apparently the opinion is in line with the
24 San Antonio commission.
25 MR. LUKIC: Only I asked on -- on page 80, line 17 --
1 JUDGE ORIE: "Is it correct that the commission from San Antonio
3 MR. LUKIC: "Is it correct that the commission from San Antonio,
4 that is to say the body which examined this case, found that the head
5 pathologist had acted in a manner that was inappropriate?"
6 JUDGE ORIE: And you're --
7 MR. LUKIC: And the answer was:
8 "I don't know where this is. I am not sure."
9 And in the previous trial, the gentleman testified on this same
10 issue differently.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he himself has testified that he considered
12 that Dr. Kirschner was not allowed to do it, if you are talking about the
14 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If you are not talking about the same, you have
16 introduced it. Now it's -- it's -- whether the witness knows or doesn't
17 know about the San Antonio commission, if he -- if you say, I'm testing
18 the consistency of the witness in his answers in relation to what the
19 committee reported, then please put it to him.
20 MR. LUKIC: I'm just --
21 JUDGE ORIE: You were about to do that, perhaps.
22 MR. LUKIC: -- testing his testimony in this and the previous
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I step back to some extent --
2 MR. LUKIC: That's -- [Overlapping speakers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- as you may have noticed.
4 MR. LUKIC: Maybe you will let me do this. If I'm wrong, you
5 will warn me.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. LUKIC: But I think that we will understand each other at the
8 end of this question.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I hope so. Please proceed.
10 MR. LUKIC:
11 Q. But in line 12 there was a question in Krstic case:
12 "Q. But were you aware that the expert panel did conclude that
13 it was inappropriate for the chief pathologist to change the reports of
14 others without consulting them?
15 "A. That's correct."
16 A. That's correct. After I saw this, yeah.
17 Q. [Interpretation] What created confusion with me was that you said
18 today that you didn't know where it was in the report. However, you do
19 now remember that this mentioned in the report; correct? As I need that
20 for my following question that I'm about to ask you.
21 A. Yes, yeah. Okay. Okay.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you repeat your answer, please. Sometimes
23 you start talking very early and the microphone is not working at that
25 THE WITNESS: The answer to what question now?
1 MR. LUKIC:
2 Q. The microphone didn't pick up your question -- your answer,
3 actually. And I think you said yes when I asked you whether you were
4 aware of the conclusion of this commission in regard of that --
5 Dr. Kirschner?
6 A. Yes. I saw it, yes.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. Was Dr. Kirschner interviewed by
8 this panel?
9 A. I believe so. Of course.
10 Q. As one cannot see from the report whether he was interviewed or
11 not. He's not listed among the persons whose comments are provided.
12 That's why I ask you whether you saw Dr. Kirschner being --
13 A. No, I would assume -- okay.
14 Q. -- invited and interviewed?
15 A. Well, I -- I just assume maybe he did, but that was maybe not
16 good for me to say. No. I would have to read this and find out if he
17 was there or not.
18 MR. LUKIC: I'm afraid it's break time.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
20 MS. HASAN: If I may, on page 2 of the oversight committee
21 report, under Roman numeral II, second paragraph:
22 "Members of the multidisciplinary professional teams interviewed
23 in San Antonio were as follows ..."
24 And towards the bottom of the list we see Dr. Haglund's name
25 followed by Dr. Robert Kirschner.
1 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry for misrepresenting because I didn't find
2 any comments by Mr. Kirschner in this document.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No, but your question was not about --
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- comment but about being interviewed.
6 MR. LUKIC: I was wrong. I was wrong.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That then clear.
8 Mr. Haglund, what may have caused part of the confusion by
9 Mr. Lukic was that in the previous case you said "yes" without asking it
10 be shown to you that the report of the committee had concluded that
11 Dr. Kirschner had inappropriately acted by changing. And when Mr. Lukic
12 asked you today your answer was:
13 "I don't know where this is. I am not sure. Could you show it
14 to me?"
15 Whereas in the other case --
16 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- apparently you had no difficulties without
18 further consulting any reports to remember that that was one of the
19 conclusions of the committee.
20 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That may have caused some of the confusion.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We will take a break but you'll be first escorted
24 out of the courtroom.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.
2 But, Mr. Lukic, could you tell us where we approximately are as
3 far as time is concerned?
4 MR. LUKIC: I think that my colleague bargained yesterday for me
5 to get two more hours from his time.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he asked for a bonus. He asked for a bonus.
7 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And bargaining, that's -- I said we do not provide
9 bonuses. But I am not asking you at this moment. It was clear to us
10 that you needed more time. I just wanted to know whether you are on
12 MR. LUKIC: But I am progressing pretty well, I think.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any idea on how much more time you would
15 MR. LUKIC: Maybe at the end of this day I would be able to give
16 you a more precise answer for tomorrow.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we will wait for that.
18 We will resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 1.18 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 1.43 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I use the time to take the opportunity to
24 note that in the decisions admitting Exhibits P988, P1531, and P1628,
25 that perhaps it's not clearly stated --
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- that these exhibits should be under seal. The
3 Chamber hereby clarifies the records in this regard and orders that these
4 exhibits be placed under seal.
5 Mr. Lukic, if you're ready, you may proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, can we continue?
8 A. Absolutely.
9 Q. You told us in the Krstic case that you believed that it was
10 wonderful that you worked with an internationally composed team. I will
11 show you a paragraph from your testimony in the Krstic case.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So if we could please have 1D1157 in
13 e-court. This is a segment that is definitely outside of P1828. We need
14 page 56 in e-court, which corresponds to the transcript page 3778. From
15 lines 7 onwards to line 16.
16 Q. I shall read this paragraph out to you:
17 [In English] I quote:
18 "And the way the work is organised, the work is usually -- at
19 least in 1996, and I think it's probably improved since then, the
20 administration of the work, policies, and protocols are established. The
21 individuals are briefed on what those protocols are. They are made to
22 adhere to international standards and sometimes above those international
23 standards. The people come and they work as a team, and they work very
24 hard and they do the best job they can, and I think the results are very
1 [Interpretation] I will use another quotation of yours for my
2 question; namely, whether you would agree that even though people had
3 come from various countries, their results were based on the same
4 science, they did the same work, and they had read the same scholarly
5 books; correct?
6 A. They may have.
7 Q. [In English] Okay.
8 A. But they had different experiences.
9 Q. [Interpretation] All right. Do you accept this proposition that
10 the policies and protocols and the method of work had already been
11 established when they arrived to perform the work itself?
12 A. Well, some of it -- some of it had been established, yes,
13 certainly, and all it's changes.
14 Q. Now I would just ask us to have a look at page 56 briefly, also
15 from Krstic. So it's the bottom of the page that we are on now, and we
16 shall move on to the following page.
17 [In English] So from the line 23, and I will quote:
18 "A. Well, I don't think that the science is heterogenous. The
19 science, as I tried to say, is relatively uniform. These people all
20 believe in the same science. They do the same work. They are trained in
21 the same way. They read the same text books."
22 A. For the most part that's right, yeah. They don't probably read
23 the same text books, but they read text books about the same things.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Would you agree with me that even those whose
25 findings were unilaterally changed also -- were unilaterally changed by
1 Dr. Kirschner had also adhered to the same rules?
2 A. I don't know if I can answer that.
3 Q. The findings of people who worked with you on the same project
4 were changed; right?
5 A. Were -- were -- were changed? The people were changed?
6 Q. [In English] No, the conclusions that Dr. Kirschner -- Kirschner
7 changed the conclusions, right, the cause of death?
8 A. Well, that's apparent they did that but I'm not involved in all
9 of that. So --
10 Q. I'm -- I'm not blaming you.
11 A. Okay. Thank you.
12 Q. [No interpretation]
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In that case we should make one correction to the
14 transcript. The last answer of the witness was recorded as "that's
15 apparent they did that," but I think he said "he did that."
16 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. [Interpretation] So what is the only thing I am trying to
18 establish, that these people whose findings were changed by Dr. Kirschner
19 were also working in accordance with well-established rules for this line
20 of work. They did not have their own rules.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're referring to rules.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: There are rules of hundreds of kinds in this context
24 and you really have to be more specific. One of the rules may be that
25 you don't draw conclusions if there is no proper factual basis for such
1 conclusions. Another one may be that you wash your hands before you
2 start. Another rule -- so just referring to rules in this context
3 doesn't assist the Chamber.
4 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I'm sorry if I maybe drifted away from
5 the previous quotations where I said that the policies and protocols were
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So --
8 MR. LUKIC: Whether -- [Overlapping speakers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then the protocols. Let's talk about the protocols,
10 no problem. But the it's too abstract for us -- to assist us.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. All right. I will then try to be more precise. Doctor, would
13 you agree with me that all who worked with you in Bosnia adhered to the
14 protocols and rules which are established for that kind of work?
15 A. Well, I think coming -- people coming from different countries
16 may have different protocols. I think we all agreed on what we were
17 doing and how we were doing it. I don't -- there were no written
18 protocols for them. They had experience. Except for Dr. Kirschner, he's
19 had -- had a -- one of the pathologists write out what they wanted to
20 have in their report.
21 Q. I'm a bit perplexed now. Is what you said in the Krstic case
22 correct, that the rules and protocols had already been established, that
23 everyone had been informed about these protocols, and that everybody
24 abided by international standards in their work? Or was that not the
1 A. I'm a little --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I help you a bit, Mr. Lukic. The quotation
4 "The administration of the work policies and protocols are
5 established ..."
6 That doesn't say anything if that was done in writing or orally
7 or however we can understand what --
8 THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- the witness said in the Krstic trial.
10 THE WITNESS: Okay. The protocols for the doctors doing the
11 autopsies, they had some written protocols. We did not have any. But
12 the people knew how we wanted to do things. We sat down and talked about
13 how we were going to do things. And ...
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I would like us to go back to
15 65 ter 2008 [as interpreted]. That is a more complete version of D239;
16 that is to say, it includes both versions, English and B/C/S. So it's
17 the report of the oversight committee from San Antonio. We need page 4
18 in e-court in both versions.
19 Q. You already discussed that with the Prosecution, the comments of
20 your colleagues that is. We see that the first three colleagues support
21 you and they are not in the group that -- they were not in the group that
22 criticised you but these three persons support both you and
23 Dr. Kirschner.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. In your view, were they right when they supported Dr. Kirschner?
1 A. Well, it sound like they did. And they maybe felt that the
2 change that Dr. Kirschner made didn't make a great deal of -- they
3 understood it when they were going to write the -- when they were going
4 to write the report, so I don't know what's in their minds.
5 Q. Would you agree that their support contradicts the findings of
6 the committee?
7 A. Well, I think they understood what -- what Dr. Kirschner was
8 doing, but the -- the people that -- well -- were doing this, they didn't
9 agree with it. So that's -- that's their --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the support is not in any way
11 substantiated in what respect or whether it was on balance a support or
12 not and that it contradicts the findings of the committee. It could be
13 the other way around, that the committee did not share their support and
14 had some critical notes and at the same time, of course, also had some
15 comments on the effect of any flaws and shortcomings. So, therefore, to
16 put the questions in this way really doesn't help. And to ask this
17 witness whether he's in support, the witness told us already that he
18 thought that Dr. Kirschner had done things inappropriately, not all of
19 it, but at least specifically where he changed reports without consulting
20 the authors of those reports.
21 So, therefore, try to be focused so that we know better what you
22 want to point at.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] May I explain just briefly why I'm
24 asking this. It is a fact that the Prosecution presented this to us in
25 the following way: That a small number of colleagues criticised the work
1 and that a large number did. I'm trying to say that some colleagues took
2 the path of least resistance, they simply did not want to participate
3 either because of their personal interests or out of conformism they
4 didn't want to fully contribute to this investigation.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what we have is the investigation and the
6 outcome of that, and to speculate on why people did or did not, it is for
7 a fact that if someone doesn't contribute then we don't have his input.
8 It's as simple as that. And if you would have wished that everyone would
9 have co-operated, I can imagine that one wishes that, but the fact for
10 this moment is that this is what the committee achieved and this is what
11 the commission reported.
12 And, finally, in view of the gist of the report, I would -- I
13 don't think that the Chamber would be assisted by just considering this
14 and not the work that was done and which was reviewed by the committee
15 including all the criticism.
16 Please proceed.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry for stepping in again. We have now a
18 problem in the transcript, again.
19 Mr. Lukic, page 92, line 4 and 5. There is some of your -- the
20 sentence missing. You said that there was a small number criticising the
21 work and a large number who did not. Now we read, "That a and that a
22 large number did." I think that that sentence as recorded makes no
23 sense. If you agree with my formulation that these were your words, then
24 we can agree on that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I give you time.
1 MR. LUKIC: I --
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]
3 MR. LUKIC: I wanted to say that the Prosecution wanted to say
4 that a small number of colleagues criticised but the larger part did not.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's clear now.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear now. I suggested a totally
7 different way of proceeding; that is, that the Chamber still has to
8 deliver a decision, that we do that, and that we adjourn for the day and
9 resume tomorrow morning at 9.30.
10 Mr. Haglund, I would like to instruct you that you should not
11 speak to anyone or communicate in whatever other way with whomever about
12 your testimony, whether that is testimony you've given today or whether
13 that is testimony still to be given tomorrow. Then we would like to see
14 you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this same courtroom. You may follow
15 the usher.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then I use the opportunity to deliver the Chamber's
19 decision on two outstanding matters in relation to Witness
20 Ekrem Suljevic. The first concerns the admission of the remaining two
21 associated exhibits to his witness statement, and the second is a bar
22 table request by the Prosecution relating to a range of documents.
23 During the testimony of Witness Suljevic on the 11th of February
24 of this year, the Prosecution tendered the witness's consolidated
25 statement dated the 9th of February, 2010, which was admitted into
1 evidence as Exhibit P889. Following the cross-examination of the witness
2 and subsequent discussions among the parties the Prosecution, on the
3 13th of February, re-tendered a revised version of Exhibit P889 together
4 with 19 associated exhibits. As the Defence had no objections to the
5 admission into evidence of the revised version of this statement, on the
6 1st of March, 2013, the Chamber admitted it into evidence keeping the
7 previously assigned exhibit number P889, and requested the Registry to
8 replace the old version with a new one in e-court.
9 On the 5th of March, 2013, the Registry filed an internal
10 memorandum assigning provisional exhibit numbers ranging from P1097 up to
11 and including P1115 to the 19 documents.
12 On the 28th of June of this year, the Defence filed its
13 submission with regard to the associated exhibits of Witness Suljevic,
14 objecting to the relevance and authenticity of eight documents on the
15 basis that the witness was not their author and therefore lacked any
16 personal knowledge of them.
17 With regard to the Defence's objection, the Chamber reiterates
18 its reasoning in its oral decision of the 29th of October, 2012, that
19 while it prefers that the witness through whom a document is tendered has
20 personal knowledge of that document, this is not per se a requirement for
21 admission as long as the document is sufficiently linked to the witness's
22 overall testimony. Having reviewed the eight documents in question, the
23 Chamber notes that there are investigation reports of various shelling
24 incidents, analysing the impact of mortars or projectiles, an area
25 relating to the exact same type of investigation the witness was
1 primarily involved in while being a member of the anti-terrorist unit of
2 the Sarajevo MUP. Moreover, all reports were generated by the same
3 section in which the witness was working. In light of the foregoing, the
4 Chamber is of the view that the eight documents are sufficiently linked
5 to the witness's testimony.
6 Before the Chamber proceeds to decide on the admission of the
7 associated exhibits of Witness Suljevic, it notes one outstanding matter
8 with regard to the document bearing 65 ter 10250, a MUP report on an
9 explosion on Mustafa Behman Street on the 18th of July, 1995, which is
10 also one of the 19 associated exhibits and currently MFI'd as P1110.
11 This document was discussed with the witness in court on the
12 13th of February, 2013, and the Prosecution requested it to be marked for
13 identification pending the completion of its translation, as currently
14 only two pages out of a four-page report are translated in e-court. This
15 discussion can be found at transcript page 8580.
16 In line with the approach taken in the Tucker oral decision of
17 the 22nd of November, 2012, the Chamber considers nine documents to be an
18 inseparable and indispensable part of the witness has testimony and
19 therefore admits exhibit numbers P1098 through P1101, P1109, P1110,
20 P1112, P1114, and P1115 into evidence as associated exhibits to
21 Witness Suljevic's statement. With regard to 65 ter number 10250, which
22 was provisionally assigned exhibit number P1110, the Chamber however
23 instructs the Registry to keep the document MFI'd pending a complete
25 With regard to the remaining 10 associated exhibits tendered by
1 the Prosecution through the witness, the Chamber denies admission into
2 evidence without prejudice.
3 The Chamber will now turn to the second outstanding matter with
4 regard to Witness Suljevic; namely, the admission of his comments chart,
5 currently marked for identification as P890 and 39 related documents all
6 tendered by the Prosecution from the bar table on the
7 11th of February, 2013. Following an order from the Chamber on the
8 11th of February, the Registry reserved 39 exhibit numbers for the
9 documents related to the comments chart ranging from Exhibits P891 up to
10 and including exhibit number P929.
11 In court on the 11th of February, 2013, the Defence objected to
12 the admission of the comments chart on the basis that it is of limited
13 probative value and to the admission of the underlying documents on the
14 basis that the witness does not have any personal knowledge of them. The
15 objection relating to the underlying documents was repeated in the
16 Defence's written submissions, dated the 28th of June, 2013. Therein,
17 the Defence further added that the witness's lack of knowledge of the
18 document means that he is unable to authentic them.
19 The Chamber has analysed the comments chart in light of
20 Rules 89(C) and (D) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence and
21 notes at the outset that all documents referred to in it are alleged VRS
22 military documents in relation to which the witness identified the type
23 of ammunition discussed. In various instances, the witness also made
24 reference to paragraphs of Exhibit P889, his consolidated statement of
25 the 9th of February, 2010, in which he discussed his investigations into
1 the types of projectiles and other ammunition. Moreover, during his
2 testimony on the 11th of February, the witness affirmed the document's
3 authenticity and his comments therein. Having analysed the documents,
4 the Chamber considers that they meet the standard of reliability
5 necessary for admission.
6 Considering the above, the Chamber finds the comments chart and
7 underlying documents to be relevant to and probative of the alleged use
8 of weaponry by the VRS. The Chamber therefore admits Exhibit P890 and
9 its underlying documents ranging from exhibit number P891 up to and
10 including exhibit number 929 into evidence.
11 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
12 We adjourn for the day and after we've heard from Mr. Lukic how
13 much time he still would need tomorrow, we'll after that resume tomorrow
14 morning, 24th of July, 2013, in this same courtroom III.
15 Mr. Lukic, the last word is yours today.
16 MR. LUKIC: I'd hoped you forgot. At least two and a half hours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Two and a half hours more? Could you please --
18 MR. LUKIC: I'll try to cut it down, but I really have a lot.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You have -- we'll see how it develops.
20 We'll adjourn and we'll resume tomorrow.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the
23 24th day of July, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.