1 Wednesday, 24 July 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is the case IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 The Chamber was informed that there are no preliminaries.
11 Therefore, could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
12 Meanwhile, I use the time for the following issues: First,
13 housekeeping session. The Chamber would like to reserve the first
14 session of tomorrow for the housekeeping session. Furthermore, should
15 the accused wish to waive his right to be present during this first
16 session, the Defence should inform the Registry so as to co-ordinate
17 transport from the UNDU.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Haglund.
20 THE WITNESS: Back to you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind that you that you're still bound
22 by the solemn declaration that you have given at the beginning of your
23 testimony that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
24 the truth.
25 WITNESS: WILLIAM HAGLUND [Resumed]
1 Mr. Lukic will now continue his cross-examination.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
3 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Doctor.
4 A. Good morning.
5 Q. Yesterday we discussed the report from San Antonio.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So could we please have that on our
7 screens again, 65 ter 2008 [as interpreted]. We need page 4 in e-court
8 in both versions.
9 Q. We were discussing the comments that your colleagues had in view
10 of the proceedings that took place in Bosnia.
11 In number 8 -- actually, could we have the next page, please,
12 page 5 in e-court. Mr. Peerwani was mentioned.
13 Did Mr. Peerwani work in Bosnia as well? We know that he was
14 with you in Rwanda. Was he in Bosnia as well?
15 A. I believe he was in Bosnia also. I'd have to look that up. I
16 believe he did though.
17 Q. Let us please go back to page 4 now. Number 5, you've already
18 explained that to us that the gentleman is a good friend of yours,
19 Dr. Clyde Snow. And you said that he was critical of your work.
20 Mr. Snow, or, rather, Dr. Snow said that you worked against time
21 and against -- or, rather, verse the UNTAES. Did you have an opportunity
22 of discussing that with him; namely, what he meant by that?
23 A. I'm not really sure he meant by that. He wasn't involved in the
24 exhumations or anything like that. I never talked to him. This came up
25 a long time after -- after the work in 1996.
1 Q. Tom Grow, number 6. He was not critical either towards you or
2 Dr. Kirschner.
3 You are under number 7. You complained about time, resources,
4 and security. You said that they were too limited.
5 A. Well these things sort of happened. We are not in the
6 United States, and we don't have that -- we do what we have to do, you
7 know. So those things happen.
8 Q. At the time, did you have all the information -- or, rather, did
9 you know about the problem that was created by Dr. Kirschner, that is to
10 say, at the time when you were heard, before this commission?
11 A. Pretty much came up during this situation here.
12 Q. In your testimony, you did not mention that problem, or did you
13 mention it and it was not recorded nevertheless? Do you remember which
14 one of the two would be correct?
15 A. The question is --
16 Q. Here, we cannot see that you criticised Dr. Kirschner. So now
17 I'm asking you whether you did indeed criticise him?
18 A. If it's not here, I didn't criticise him.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm a bit surprised by the use of the
20 word "testimony." Do you mean during the interview or -- because
21 testimony is a formal statement given in court which is, at least here,
22 always recorded in full.
23 MR. LUKIC: That's the term I find in previous transcripts. They
24 called this procedure testimony.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then that's clear to me now what you were
1 referring to. Thank you.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. That's why I asked you whether you had information before you
4 were heard by this commission about Dr. Kirschner's actions?
5 A. I may have, but I don't -- I don't remember.
6 Q. Did you consider establishing the causes of death something of
7 importance for your investigation?
8 A. Yes. And that was up to the pathologist.
9 Q. Precisely those who were directly under Dr. Kirschner's control;
11 A. Well, they worked with him. I don't know how much control that
12 was involved in that, but they all worked together, yes.
13 Q. We'll be jumping back now, if you will. Could we please see
14 page 4 again. Dr. Andrew Thomson, we see what he says. In the last
15 sentence, it is stated -- or, rather, he says -- he speaks of
16 Dr. Kirschner as losing control of himself.
17 A. Well, he certainly -- I think he was ill, and I think that he was
18 having problems. That's basically, you know ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, Witness, you said, "Well, he
20 certainly," and then you stopped. You referred to him being ill and
21 having problems. And then you said, "That's basically, you know ...,"
22 but we don't know.
23 Could you please complete the two sentences I just read to you.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, he had to go back to the
25 United States quite a lot. Subsequently he died, and he had been ill for
1 a long time, so I think that may have been part of, but I'm not certain.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But could I ask you, the criticism that you -- this
3 does not -- it describes the mental state of the person, but it's not a
4 response to --
5 THE WITNESS: Well, when a person is very ill, oftentimes they
6 lose a little of the dimensions of what they are doing or what they have
7 do, and ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, you say you establish, in your opinion, a
9 link between Dr. Kirschner losing control of himself with his illness.
10 The first question, of course, is whether you agree that he lost control
11 of himself. And then the second question would be the explanation of
13 THE WITNESS: Well, I didn't see that he'd really lost control of
14 himself, but I know he was gone a lot, which made it difficult for some
15 of the other pathologists and -- and partially for himself.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you can't confirm that he lost control of
17 himself and, under those circumstances, of course, to speculate on the
18 reasons why, but you could consider that if he did, that it would have
19 been -- perhaps be related to his condition at that time.
20 THE WITNESS: That's correct. But we had pathologists back there
21 that held things together and continued with the work.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Under 9 and 10, two colleagues who are
1 archaeologists are referred to. They also do not mention at all
2 Dr. Kirschner. Did they have any contact with him? Do you know whether
3 archaeologists had any kind of contact with Dr. Kirschner?
4 A. Well, yes, when in the laboratory, each autopsy, the
5 anthropologist determined the average age of the individuals, measured
6 bones that -- made note of the height, just various dimensions sometimes
7 that would help or at least would put those kinds of -- those
8 individuals, and those heights and things like that that will help and
9 further on help in the identification of the individuals so it would --
11 Q. I agree about the anthropologists. However, it says here that
12 these persons are archaeologists. What about archaeologists? Did they
13 work on this identification? Did they have encounters, if you will, with
14 Dr. Kirschner?
15 A. To my knowledge, no. I got no information that there were any
16 problems like that.
17 Q. Number 11, Mr. Patrick Meyers. He criticised you, your absence,
18 and he claims that you compromised the locations there. Did you talk to
19 Mr. Meyers afterwards? Did you try to clarify matters in terms of this
20 criticism that he had voiced?
21 Please take a look at number 11.
22 A. If you could make this a little larger, it would make it easier
23 to read it. Okay. Thank you.
24 Q. [In English] Just number 11.
25 A. I don't really understand the -- the -- the -- what he was
1 saying. There was flooding in a grave. And I'm not another sure what
2 grave he is talking about so it would be difficult for me to answer this
3 question from him. I didn't get very many people that said things like
4 this. But everyone has their own way of observation and thinking.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. Number 12, Yvonne Milewski, was
6 interviewed. She supported you but she's one of the persons who said
7 that she was instructed by Dr. Kirschner as to how to list the cause of
9 On the ground, were you informed by people who complained about
10 this? Actually, at the time when all of this was happening, did anyone
11 on the ground tell you that this was happening?
12 A. This is between the pathologists and Dr. Kirschner, not between
13 me. I didn't know about this until I -- until I saw this.
14 Q. Number 13, Dorothy Gallagher, who is an anthropologist -- who is
15 an anthropologist like you. She says that she saw problems in the field
16 and in the lab.
17 A. I think we went over this before.
18 Q. I just have a few additional questions.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness repeat what he said before,
20 because the translation continued when he was speaking.
21 Mr. Lukic asked you, he said that she saw problems in the field
22 and in the lab. What you did then say?
23 THE WITNESS: Well, we answered this, I think, yesterday.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I'm just asking you to repeat what you
25 said a second ago. Is that you referred to yesterday's testimony?
1 THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if that's the case, then please proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. So Ms. Gallagher claimed that Dr. Kirschner changed reports
5 himself and also that he instructed her to do so while processing the
6 reports. My question for you is: How much time did she spend in you --
7 in Bosnia working with you?
8 A. I'm not sure how long she was there. I didn't keep track of when
9 people came in and out. Just so there was enough people. I don't know
10 how long she was there. I know that they -- people were there and that's
11 what made most for me -- you know.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any recollection she had been there for
13 a couple of weeks or a couple of months or --
14 THE WITNESS: Oh yeah, a couple -- a couple -- a couple of -- she
15 may have been there a month or maybe over. She wasn't there a long time
16 but she was there at least a month, I think.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Lukic kindly speak into the
19 microphone, please. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you are --
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Next person, number 14.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You're invited to speak into the microphone by the
25 MR. LUKIC: Okay. I'm a bit stretched.
1 Q. [Interpretation] David del Pino, also an anthropologist is
2 number 14. He is from Chile. Again, he criticised you. He said that
3 clothing was discarded, clothing on the basis of which identification
4 could have been performed.
5 You explained that, that clothing was discarded. Now I'd just
6 like to ask you whether you would agree with me on the following:
7 Namely, that South American anthropologists [Realtime transcript read in
8 error "pathologists"], and Mr. del Pino is from South America, are far
9 more qualified in this field than the same experts from the US.
10 A. He was just one person who was not an American. There was an
11 awful lot of other ones that didn't say anything and didn't have any
12 problem with that so ...
13 JUDGE ORIE: The question, however, was whether South American
14 pathologists -- whether they are far more qualified in this field than
15 the same experts from the United States. Whether they were there or not
16 is another question but ...
17 THE WITNESS: They were anthropologists and not pathologists.
18 And just like everybody else, they have different -- they have done
19 different grave, et cetera, and that ... he could complain about that,
20 that was -- other people didn't, and ...
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. I do apologise. [In English] Can you just listen to the question
23 posed by Presiding Judge Orie, please. The question was whether
24 South American anthropologists are more qualified than the US
1 A. They were more qualified with mass graves. In the United States
2 maybe archeologists did some ancient graves, but -- you'd be very,
3 very -- you wouldn't see -- I hadn't seen any mass graves in the United
4 States for a long time.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. [Interpretation] There are also some other objections. Would you
8 agree that uniform forms were not used regularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina in
9 the procedures that you participated in?
10 A. The -- there's not a much that can you do in the field. You want
11 to make sure that you get the right bodies and the right number,
12 et cetera, and then you dig more, and you get the remains to the point
13 where you can take them out and you dig some more. This was gathered --
14 and I kept -- when I was there, and other people -- the idea was how many
15 people we got, what -- what any -- what -- any special things that we
16 needed to put down on, and it's all in my report.
17 JUDGE ORIE: But were uniform forms used or not, or was it...
18 THE WITNESS: There -- if there were I would have left those in
19 the reports, and they're not, no. No.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
21 THE WITNESS: Kept notes, but I ...
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we go to page 7 in the same
23 version of the document, please, where we have the findings of the
25 Q. In the course of the work that was done, you were in charge of
1 administration and logistics; is that correct?
2 A. Much of the administration was also done by the other doctor that
3 you just mentioned a bit ago, Andrew. And -- so he was dealing with
4 the -- with the Tribunal, and -- and doing much of that too. So he
5 was -- he might help you, I don't know.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You said it was "also done by the other doctor." Is
7 that to be understood as that you did much of it as well?
8 THE WITNESS: That's correct. But he -- when he was not around,
9 then I dealt with the -- with the Tribunal also. But he was supposed to
10 be in the -- most of the time he was dealing with the -- with the
11 Tribunal and getting those things done. It made it easier. But I did
12 deal with the Tribunal also.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You had Mr. Andrew Thomson in mind?
15 A. Yes, yes. And he is the one that actually got me involved with
16 the -- with the Tribunal.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic so as to avoid any confusion, your
18 question was about administration and logistics. Did you intend to ask
19 about Tribunal business because the answer is mainly about who dealt with
20 Tribunal business? If that is what you intended to ask, then, if not,
21 please then make your question more precise.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Was there any other administrative and logistical work, save your
24 relationship with the Tribunal? In other words, what was your
25 understanding of administration and logistics in the course of the work
1 that was performed?
2 A. Well, I was in charge of doing the exhumations and that's
3 basically what I did, but I oftentimes they would -- they would ask me to
4 deal with the media down in Bosnia and -- when we were there. And
5 sometimes they would -- once or twice, maybe, they came by just to see
6 what kind of work we did from the Tribunal, a couple of people.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Haglund, I understand logistics to be to provide
8 the necessary means you need to do your job such as materials you would
9 need, transportation of the bodies, et cetera. That's what I understand
10 to be logistics.
11 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
12 JUDGE ORIE: But the question was whether you were involved in
13 the logistics, or whether you left that to others. That's the question I
14 take it, Mr. Lukic.
15 THE WITNESS: Well, I work with Andrew also. But to get things
16 to us, he was back in -- in The Hague and we were dealing with an
17 American group that would help, that was helping. [Indiscernible] not at
18 the point, no. But getting things for us, he could do that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So he did -- he did it, not you.
20 THE WITNESS: We both worked on those things.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, matters such as transportation of the
22 bodies to the morgue, were those logistical matters also dealt with by
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So that part of the logistics you organised?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Q. In the report, on page 7, we see that according to the
7 commission -- please bear with me. In line 5 we find the following in
8 the English version, as well as in the B/C/S, on page 7, just under
10 "Rather, it became apparent that the main problems with the
11 exhumations were administrative and logistic."
12 A. If there were any problem, yeah, it would fall on that, yeah.
13 I'm not sure what exactly this was about, yeah. But if were there
14 problems, yeah, we were dealing with them or ...
15 Q. To the extent you were in charge of administration and logistics
16 who did the commission learn of these problems from? You say there could
17 have been issues. But who could have presented the issues to them so
18 that they were able to arrive at this conclusion that the basic problems
19 were in the field of administration and logistics?
20 A. Well, I think you'd have to talk to the people in -- at the --
21 here, actually. They're the ones that went and had this done, and ...
22 Q. So you did not bring out the administrative and logistics
23 problems before the commission in the sense of the problems you
24 encountered in the field.
25 A. Every day things come up. Most -- all the time is pretty minor.
1 You don't take this to something like this. I answered questions that
2 these individuals were asking and -- and I was able to go through what I
3 do, and how I did, and they were sort of amazed that we got through it.
4 Q. Did you brief people upon their arrival on location in terms of
5 what was needed to be done?
6 A. For the most part, people did get -- we sat down and -- and --
7 not -- they only work with other individuals. I partnered them up with
8 other people so that they'd catch on what we were doing.
9 Q. Was there a work-plan, an operation plan, that the people were
10 acquainted with?
11 A. Probably not, I don't think of in a real rigid sort of situation.
12 You learn things, that is, as you go along, and a lot of the people I
13 knew that came in, they knew what to do. They just needed to know how we
14 were actually doing it and how we would get along in doing it and getting
15 things done.
16 Q. Since, under item 1 in the chapter findings, it is stated that
17 there were no systematic briefings at the sites upon arrival, and it
18 seems that no one has been given any standard plan of operation.
19 Would you agree with this part of the commission findings?
20 A. Yes. We -- we didn't have a sit-down, we should have done, and
21 we find out later years that other things are happening. You do that.
22 You sit down and go through things. I don't know how they did with the
23 continuation of other graves and that. But, yes, that is something that
24 you do, and I learned that from a -- and subsequently did that.
25 Q. Were people aware of what kind of chain of responsibility there
1 was? Was that concept involved at all?
2 A. Well, I pretty much the people knew what -- what to do, and they
3 knew how to do it. I don't think there was a problem in that, in my mind
4 anyway. Most of the people just got to work. They had much experience.
5 We didn't have to really teach them.
6 Q. Very well. So you would not agree with the -- this finding of
7 the commission. Towards the end of paragraph 1, it seems that the
8 commission finds that there was no clear concept of the chain of
10 A. Of -- well, that -- that was their -- their -- they felt -- they
11 felt that it should be -- they came from -- you know, they were in --
12 most of the United States or Canada. They had very solid things of what
13 they do and everybody could do. I mean, I wrote all the -- the -- how
14 actually everything would happen when I worked in -- in the medical
15 examiner's office, but there was nothing written for something like that.
16 It's a great idea.
17 Q. Pardon me.
18 A. But I don't think it was as rugged as it seems like because most
19 of the persons did their work. You didn't see a majority of these people
20 that were working. You didn't see them on this investigation.
21 Q. Thank you. So, in your view, did the people know who was the
22 person in charge, who was supposed to issue tasks, and who held
23 responsibility? Was that described to them?
24 A. These are people that knew what they were doing. They didn't
25 have to be told every day what to do, how to do it.
1 Q. Briefly only, I'd like to look at 1D1158, which is your testimony
2 in the Popovic case.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 51. Actually, let's
4 start with page 49 because that is where we find the question, and the
5 answer is a rather long one. Line 5. It has to do with this particular
6 item. I'll quote:
7 [In English] "Q. Do you agree with the findings --
8 "A. Of ...
9 "Q. -- contained in paragraph 1, and not just because they found
10 it, I'm asking you personally, sir, do you agree with this?
11 "A. Not in total."
12 And now if we can jump to page 51 in the e-court, it should be
13 transcript page 8949, line 15 to 18. I quote:
14 "A. Well, the people didn't understand who was in charge, I
15 guess it might be my fault.
16 "Q. Might be?
17 "A. Yes."
18 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, do you accept this part of your
19 testimony given in the Popovic case as accurate?
20 A. If that's what it -- if that's what it said, that's what I said.
21 I almost want to say something, but I don't think I can. I don't know if
22 I should say something, but I'm having a lot of memory loss and it's
23 really difficult for me to remember things and bringing them up. So ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think it's appropriate to tell us that. Is
25 there any specific reason why you are suffering from a memory loss at
1 this moment? Is there any illness involved?
2 THE WITNESS: Well, this is -- this is -- yeah. I could have --
3 JUDGE ORIE: One second. If you'd prefer to discuss that, which
4 is a private matter, not in public, then we would move into private
6 THE WITNESS: Okay.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Is that what you prefer?
8 THE WITNESS: I think we could do it. I think we could do it. I
9 don't think I'm doing very well here and I'm just grabbing for things,
10 and I ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we move into private session.
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 15023-15025 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
20 Dr. Haglund, when you testified before this Tribunal at previous
21 occasions, did you always answer the questions to the best of your
22 recollection and as accurately as possible?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest that we take a break now. And you'll
25 be escorted out of the courtroom. Would 20 minutes be enough? Or would
1 you like to have --
2 THE WITNESS: No, that's fine. I'm ready to do whatever I need
3 to do.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But also what you're capable of doing. We
5 don't want you to --
6 THE WITNESS: I'm fine.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- do more than you can.
8 THE WITNESS: So, thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE ORIE: We will take a break and will resume at ten minutes
12 to 11.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
16 Meanwhile, I use the opportunity to give the following decision:
17 The Chamber formally admits the following documents into evidence
18 which are already marked in e-court as having been admitted but we still
19 have to formally admit them. That's P1528, P1633, P1641, and P1652,
20 among them, P1641 is under seal.
21 Have the parties reached any conclusions as how to -- they would
22 preferably proceed?
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I ... Mr. McCloskey is on his feet.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: We spoke about the possibility of offering a more
1 detailed testimony, and -- and spoke of the -- the Popovic case as being
2 the most complete with a very extensive cross-examination, and so -- but
3 that's -- that's where we left it. And we're open to -- to getting
4 together and -- and deciding on what portions of that testimony to -- to
5 provide you with.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Lukic, that is the common position of the
7 parties. Because the Chamber would be reluctant to allow for any further
8 examination of the witness where he would have to rely on his memory in
9 answering the questions.
10 MR. LUKIC: Then further cross is not possible, of course, if he
11 cannot rely on his memory.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I -- I don't -- and I'm not a
14 doctor, but I -- I think it's -- if Mr. Haglund, if we could consult him
15 on that I -- you know, none of our memories are perfect. He could try,
16 and if it is obviously impossible, then, of course, there would be -- we
17 would not be left with any option.
18 I am concerned that if cross-examination is stopped prematurely,
19 then that throws in the ability to provide these documents in some
20 question. His crucial reports in that work that was done that we get
21 into the issues does that make him unavailable, 92 quater, complicated
22 legal issues, whereas we're almost done, and he has done his best, and I
23 think he has just alerted you that, you know, he is not a young man and
24 got some issues.
25 But I think he is trying. And there's a massive record for
1 Mr. Lukic to deal with, and a wonderful cross-examination record for many
2 case, so I don't think we're at a stage -- I would ask that we continue
3 to try and get through this. And if Dr. Haglund can't answer questions,
4 he'll tell us. Or, of course, of course, if you don't feel you're
5 getting the kind of courtroom -- and testimony that you need, that's
6 absolutely -- and I understand absolutely in your discretion and
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the Chamber allows you to continue, but,
11 at the same time, urges you to keep in mind what you would ask the
12 witness and where -- what kind of questions you would put to him. You
13 have to consider that.
14 And for you, Mr. Haglund, whenever you feel that your
15 recollection is -- is not sufficient to answer the question, don't
16 hesitate to tell us immediately.
17 Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: I want to inform you either I will have full cross, I
19 cannot have semi-cross. I will ask the questions to test the memory.
20 That's my right. And if you expect me to do something in between, I
21 cannot do that.
22 So my questions will be directed to test previous statements and
23 documents and previous statements of this witness.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the Chamber does not deny the right of
1 the Defence to put questions to the witness as the Defence deems fit.
2 The instruction to Mr. Haglund remains the same, that if he feels that
3 his recollection is not allowing him to answer the question, that he
4 should tell us.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Again, we need
7 65 ter 20008. That's the report of the San Antonio Committee.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, you misspoke or it is a translation
9 issue. It is 2008.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MR. LUKIC: I think it's recorded properly, 20008.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently there is some disagreement. Let's see
13 what appears on our screen and see whether that's the document we'd like
14 to have, and then we'll see in e-court ...
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: And we'll check in e-court and we'll find out if
17 it's 20008. At least that what Madam Registrar tells me.
18 MR. LUKIC: I'm always thankful to Judge Fluegge for reminding us
19 of our mistakes of numbers.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And if I made a mistake, I would like to refer to
21 page 2, line 4. I took the number 2008. That was wrong at the outset of
22 today's hearing. But we now agree that we have the right document on the
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's what it's all about.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thanks.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
3 Q. [Interpretation] We need page 10 in this document. Opinions and
4 comments is the heading. In brackets: (Dr. DiMaio). And it says here
5 that the actions of Dr. Kirschner in regard to the changing of the cause
6 and manner of death in select cases without prior approval notification
7 or consultation with the individuals who actually performed the autopsies
8 is not acceptable conduct.
9 However, now we know that that is beyond dispute. Let us look at
10 the last sentence in this paragraph where it says:
11 "His subsequent actions in discarding worksheets from the autopsy
12 reports in which he made changes, while apparently done without malice,
13 compounds his original mistake and was totally inappropriate."
14 Do you know that Mr. Kirschner, at the time, physically changed
15 files, or, rather, concealed pages and inserted other corrected ones?
16 A. I don't recall knowing anything about that at all until this
17 happened. I think all the answers are in this ...
18 Q. Very well. Now I'd like to move on to Roman numeral IX,
19 discussion and conclusions. In the B/C/S version, we need the last
20 paragraph on page 10 and in the English version, the first line on
21 page 11. I'm going to ask you whether you agree with some of these
22 conclusions. What is written here is the following:
23 "There was mutual agreement on management problems on the part of
24 the supervisors."
25 You were one of the supervisors; isn't that right?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. In addition to yourself who was else was a supervisor because we
3 see the plural here?
4 A. Well, when -- when Dr. Kirschner was gone, other people had taken
5 his place. He'd appoint people to do that, take his place.
6 Q. When did he leave? From when did he no longer take part in this
7 work? Or did he actually complete this work at these locations?
8 A. I don't recall. I -- I -- I just can't answer that one. I ...
9 Q. You don't know until when Dr. Kirschner worked with you in the
11 A. He never worked with me in the field. He always worked in the
13 Q. You don't know until when Dr. Kirschner worked in a laboratory
14 while you were working in the field?
15 A. I didn't follow him around and see what he did every day and how
16 he had to go -- and as long as it was working in the laboratory, it was
17 fine, okay? So ...
18 Q. I do apologise for tormenting you. But when did you complete
19 your work in Bosnia?
20 A. I'd have to look through these to tell you exactly what ... I
21 read all these over, but I -- I don't remember what I read over.
22 Q. Please take a minute and check this for us. Please check until
23 when you worked in Bosnia.
24 A. Let's see ...
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
1 MS. HASAN: If I can be of any help, the period is specified on
2 page 4 of Dr. Haglund's CV. And it provides - I don't know if
3 Dr. Haglund can confirm - that he worked there from July to
4 November of 1996, or that at least he was engaged in -- in -- in that
5 work, for that time-period.
6 THE WITNESS: Yeah. And that's ...
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Very well. Do you remember that from July until November
9 Dr. Kirschner worked with you?
10 A. He was in the laboratory a lot of times and a lot of times he had
11 to do other things, and he left. I didn't keep track of him.
12 Q. [In English] Okay.
13 A. But he put other people in his place when he left.
14 Q. [Interpretation] In these conclusions, again, there is a
15 reference to lack of communication or lack of a chain of command. Would
16 you agree with these findings of the committee or not?
17 A. This is -- there -- there -- this is what they thought. I don't
18 necessarily have to agree with all of them.
19 Q. Precisely. That's what I'm asking you, whether this conclusion
20 of theirs actually portrays the situation on the ground; is it right? If
21 you don't think it's right, please tell us what you think.
22 A. Oh, I didn't think it was that way, so ...
23 Q. Did people know who the volunteers worked for and were there
24 volunteers on the ground. And did people know who they worked for?
25 A. Well, I always thought they did, yeah.
1 Q. Then they we could conclude that conclusion number 2 in this
2 report is not correct either because it says lack of information as to
3 who the volunteers were working for.
4 A. This is their -- these are people that had very good laboratories
5 and that and everything was very solid. I felt that we were dealing with
6 the people that worked for us and you can see there's 40 or 50 people
7 that are not even in here, so they didn't have a problem at all so ...
8 Q. Doctor, you have a right to disagree with the report, and that is
9 why I'm asking you. Because I wish to say that in some segments they are
10 not right, that you are more familiar with the situation on the ground.
11 So if you disagree, tell me, I disagree with their finding. And
12 that's fine with me.
13 A. I certainly don't agree with all of their findings. I found out
14 something that was happening that I wasn't even aware of. Some of this I
15 thought was very good. They had a very good talk with me at the end and
16 they were surprised that we were able to do as much as we could and did a
17 good job.
18 Q. Did people on the ground know that this was a criminal
19 investigation because they were employed by the Office of the Prosecutor
20 of the international Tribunal?
21 A. Who -- who was --
22 Q. People on the ground who worked with you. Did they know that
23 this was a criminal investigation?
24 A. Of course they did. But they weren't under the Tribunal. They
25 were being -- the small pay that they got and their travel and that was
1 done by the Physicians for Human Rights.
2 Q. People who worked on the ground, did they include persons who
3 were employees of the Tribunal?
4 A. No, no. They weren't -- they weren't involved with the PHR. But
5 we had some people from the Tribunal, and the majority of the people were
6 sent by Physicians for Human Rights.
7 Q. Let us go back to the question; namely, would you agree that they
8 knew that this was a criminal investigation?
9 A. All the people on ground? I don't -- I don't believe so. The
10 ones they called up to -- to -- that -- that they could talk to, they
11 would know about it. I'm not sure about all the other people knowing
12 about it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask the parties' attention to page 29,
14 line 19, where the transcript reads "They weren't involved with the PHR."
15 That's not, I think, what the witness said. I think he said they were
16 not involved with the Tribunal but we -- although some. The majority of
17 the people were sent by Physicians for Human Rights and I think that
18 should be reflected in the first line of the answer as well.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I will have to call up 1D1158.
21 That's the transcript from the Popovic trial. We'll need page 6.
22 However, it's the second part because the system could not take in the
23 entire transcript. So it's the second part of the transcript. I just
24 see what page this is, whether this would be the right part. Obviously
25 I've been informed that in e-court there is a sort of an attachment
1 because the entire transcript could not fit in. 8959 is the page. It's
2 page 6 in other part of the transcript. Yes.
3 Q. In relation to the previous question, Doctor, in the Popovic
4 trial, you were asked this same question. I'm going to refer to it now.
5 [In English] "Q. So you disagree with that?
6 "A. --"
7 A. I stand by my previous testimonies. Right here I'm not standing
8 by them very much.
9 Q. [Interpretation] In the Popovic case, you said it was hard for
10 you to believe that people on the ground did not know that this was a
11 criminal investigation.
12 A. I stand by that.
13 Q. Then you were asked whether one of the reasons why these persons
14 had not been informed about the type of work involved was that you, as
15 the main supervisor, never informed them fully.
16 Did you inform people on the ground about the type of work
18 A. Is there an answer to this in the other testimony?
19 Q. [In English] Yes, there is.
20 A. Okay. I stand by that.
21 Q. But today you don't remember what you answered; right?
22 A. It's very wavery for me to make these kind -- to answer these. I
23 stand by these because that's when my memory was well, okay?
24 MR. LUKIC: I don't see much use of this cross-examination.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: As long as Dr. Haglund's willing to try, I --
2 we -- we must take people as we find them. We find ourselves here in
3 2013 because the accused was on the run for several years. And no one
4 can be perfect. There's no such thing as a perfect witness. If
5 Dr. Haglund continues to try, I will support him. If he has had enough,
6 I -- I will stand down. But we don't have any perfect witnesses. No one
7 has a perfect memory. All we can ask him to do is try, which he is
9 MR. LUKIC: If I may respond shortly.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may.
11 MR. LUKIC: In Stakic case in front of this Tribunal,
12 Judge Schomberg ruled that everybody has the right to run and it has
13 nothing to do with this cross-examination.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Everyone has the right to ...
15 MR. LUKIC: To run.
16 JUDGE ORIE: To run.
17 MR. LUKIC: And to hide, yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't think that Mr. McCloskey said that the
19 accused had no right to do that but that it has consequences. That is
20 how -- what I understood, Mr. McCloskey.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Exactly. I understand why someone runs.
22 MR. LUKIC: But, again, it has nothing to do with this
23 cross-examination, and I don't think that we can finalise this
24 cross-examination. That's my true belief.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 [Defence counsel confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the witness is available for
3 cross-examination. Consider what you would like to ask him. And we'll
4 listen to the answers, and we'll see how it develops.
5 The Chamber is not ruling that cross-examination is not further
6 possible. It's in your hands.
7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Was there a lack of communication between those
9 supervising, that is to say, you and Dr. Kirschner on the ground, and was
10 there a lack of communication between those supervising and the
12 A. I don't believe so.
13 Q. So you would disagree with this finding of the commission too.
14 Since, in item 4, they assert --
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we have 65 ter 20008 back on the
17 Q. In item 4, the commission asserts -- or actually finds that there
18 was a total lack -- well, in English, we need page 11. And I believe
19 it's the same page in the B/C/S version. So this is one of the
20 conclusions of the commission. Number 4:
21 "Total lack of communication between supervisors and between
22 supervisors and volunteer personnel."
23 You would disagree with this conclusion by the commission; right?
24 A. I don't think it was total because how would we have ever gotten
25 anything done?
1 Q. I accept this answer. Would you agree with conclusion number 6
2 where it is stated:
3 "Universal agreement on the alteration of reports and final
4 opinion as to the cause and manner of death without consulting the
5 prosecutor who had performed the post-mortem examination. This should
6 not have been done."
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, this questions that been asked five times
8 now, and the witness said that it was inappropriate to do it. And he
9 added to that with concent, without consultation, therefore. So would
10 you please put your next question to the witness.
11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I thought we are in the
12 field of conclusions now and it [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 JUDGE ORIE: The question at all arises whether we should ask the
14 witness conclusions or opinions or whether should -- and to the extent we
15 ask him about conclusions and opinions, it's pretty obvious, here and
16 there, where it's divergent from what the committee concluded, and let
17 that be some guidance.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Do you recall if the commission found that there was unnecessary
20 haste in having certain grave-sites exhumed; and do you believe that it
21 was done in a rush?
22 A. I don't know what you're talking about. When you're talking
23 about hate. But we didn't rush through these. We were very -- we did
24 it, but we did very well. So I don't think we rushed through those. If
25 you're an archaeologist you could stay for five -- you go back for five,
1 six, seven, eight, nine years to dig a grave. We don't do that. We
2 don't do that in forensics.
3 Q. In item 7, the commission found that there was little need for
4 rapidity of some grave-site exhumations and only one exhumation should
5 have been performed at one time. You would disagree with that as well,
6 would you not?
7 A. The only time there were two graves -- doing that had a separate
8 team in Croatia and a separate team to finish up in Bosnia. Of -- I
9 don't see it as a problem. Had very good people in both places.
10 I was going to say if -- if -- in the United States if they had
11 two or three homicides, they wouldn't wait to do one for another. They
12 would go and do them probably much all at the same time. Send people to
13 different places, so ...
14 Q. Very well. Thank you. So was there rapidity or haste, or do you
15 disagree with the conclusion of the commission? Do you believe there was
16 no haste in the process of digging up the grave-sites?
17 A. No, I think we did it very well. And -- no.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Did you take the time you thought you need to do it?
19 That's the question, I think, Mr. Lukic would like to --
20 THE WITNESS: That's why we didn't do any more graves.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Was there any changing of bone position? And is
24 it true that to a certain extent they were not protected after being dug
1 A. The only ever time I had a problem with that was in Rwanda.
2 Q. Since it was only the task the commission to reach search
3 conclusions on Srebrenica exhumations, that is to say, the exhumations in
4 Bosnia, in item 8, they assert that there was some validity to the charge
5 of shifting and non-protection of the bones.
6 You would disagree with this conclusion of the commission as
7 well, as you have just stated?
8 A. People at the -- at the grave and any time that we weren't there.
9 There's --
10 Q. You would disagree with the conclusion, would you not?
11 A. And this is what one now?
12 Q. [In English] It's number 8.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you, in your question, be clear
14 about what is exactly to be understood under "shifting." It's unclear to
15 me. I haven't read the whole of the report. I ...
16 What does it mean?
17 MR. LUKIC: I would rather ask the witness [Overlapping
18 speakers] ... shifting. The bones -- the bones that moved from one
19 location unprotected to another location.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether it means that. But if that
21 is -- then please put the question in such a way that we perfectly
22 understand what you consider to be shifting. Were bones moved from one
23 exhumation, Mr. Lukic, to another, or is that ...
24 MR. LUKIC: The bones were moved from the location to the
25 laboratory --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
2 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: You can't do any useful post-mortems if you don't
4 move the bones from the grave-site --
5 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... unprotected and left
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, so shifting is now --
8 MR. LUKIC: The main part here is unprotected here. Whether
9 it's -- of course there had to be moved and shifted.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apparently your question is not entirely clear
11 to yourself as well. I take it that the bones were transported from one
12 place to another, in order to perform the autopsies or the post-mortems.
13 Would you agree with that?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, for each grave we would have a place that we
15 could lock up and have protected of anything we moved from the grave.
16 They were zipped up, numbered, and then when we were done, we would take
17 them all to the laboratory once we had done with the particular grave.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Are you aware what the committee's concerns
19 were about the non-protection of bones, if you know?
20 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm not sure what I meant -- what that meant,
21 I mean. When bones are exposed and were waiting overnight, they were --
22 would be covered with tarps and so other things could get in them.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Would there be personnel to watch the site
25 THE WITNESS: Yes. We had -- we had -- we had individuals. We
1 had people that are guarding the graves every night.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 Mr. Lukic.
4 MR. LUKIC: I want from this witness is to tell me if he agrees
5 with this finding of the commission or not.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You're asking -- the thing I'm trying to make clear
7 to you is that by just reading a line I, at least, have difficulties in
8 understanding exactly what shifting means in this context. So,
9 therefore, for a witness to answer a question, it should be clear to him
10 what is put to him and it may well be that the witness has a better
11 understanding. That's the reason why I asked him whether he has any
12 knowledge about these concerns. And then he answered questions of fact.
13 And apparently, that's at least how I understand his answer, that he did
14 not -- he was not aware of charges of -- or concerns about shifting, and
15 that he described to us how the bones were protected.
16 That's the factual question.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: I'm very satisfied when he confirms that something is
19 wrong in this report.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I can imagine what you like to hear from the
21 witness. But I -- the Chamber is supervising the questioning of this
22 witness, and we do it in the way as you at this moment experience.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Would you agree with the ninth conclusion of the
25 commission, which reads:
1 "There was too much subjectivity and not enough objectivity in
2 the performance of the exhumations and post-mortem examinations."
3 A. I really don't understand that particular statement, actually.
4 Q. Very well.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, if you could make it concrete what that
6 means exactly, subjectivity of exhumations or objectivity in the
7 performance of exhumations. You could perhaps --
8 MR. LUKIC: I cannot either because if I compose this document, I
9 would probably be able to do so. I don't know what they meant
10 either [Overlapping speakers] ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, so neither does the Chamber, neither does
12 Mr. Haglund.
13 MR. LUKIC: I accept this answer.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Did you plan and co-ordinate the anthropological and pathological
17 investigations on the ground?
18 A. We had no pathologists on the ground at the graves, but I was in
19 charge of the graves, so ...
20 Q. Did you plan and co-ordinate your activity with the pathologists?
21 A. We brought the bodies to the -- to the laboratory, and then
22 they -- they could take over from there.
23 Q. Did overall work suffer due to a potential lack of planning and
24 co-ordination with the pathologists?
25 A. I never had a problem with that.
1 Q. Doctor, is it correct that you disagree with the conclusion
2 number 10 of the commission, which reads, as you can see on the screen:
3 "There was no attempt to schedule or co-ordinate anthropological
4 and pathological investigations."
5 A. Are you telling me that something was written down so that
6 somebody could read how to work or ...?
7 Q. In the conclusions, the commission attempted to put forth the
8 reasons for its conclusions and opinion at the end of the report. You
9 told us just now that there were no problems on the ground, due do any
10 kind of lack of planning and co-ordination with the pathologists. I
11 accept that answer, and I'll move on.
12 In the course of your work, were you bothered by the fact that
13 there was some media presence?
14 A. Of the -- the only time I ever had any sort of people that were
15 taking photographs or anything like that, I had permission or I was asked
16 by the Tribunal to let them on -- on the -- on the grave -- not on the
17 grave, but on the area where we had -- we had a -- we had a pretty broad
18 area of -- roped off so people can come in and our people would keep them
19 out, not -- not our anthropologists, but the people we had there to guard
20 the grave. And I think it only happened two times.
21 Q. So the amount of attention dedicated to the media did not affect
22 your work; correct?
23 A. Didn't affect my work. I talked to them when I was asked to by
24 the Tribunal, and, no, we had a very good -- we got along very good with
25 them. We just had to explain what they could do and what they couldn't
2 Q. Would you agree with me that conclusion number 11 which is before
3 you where it is stated that there was too much concern with regard to
4 media involvement is inaccurate? Did you pay too much attention to the
5 media? I believe you told us you did not.
6 A. I could talk to them according to the Tribunal sometimes, and I
7 did. And they didn't get on the grave. Only twice when the Tribunal
8 told me I could allow them to come on. I got along very good with the --
9 the people, but this doesn't mean that I had to give them any of our
11 Q. I would kindly ask you to answer the question. Would you agree
12 with this conclusion, or would you not agree with this conclusion by the
14 A. I think so. I mean, they may have -- I think we had very good --
15 we were pretty strict about the media. And I don't know how they even
16 get these ideas, so I have no idea where they come from.
17 Q. This conclusion of the commission that there was too much concern
18 with regard to media involvement, is it, in your view, accurate or
20 A. There's an awful -- there was an awful lot of interest in these
21 graves, and -- and what was going on. So they did -- they wrote an awful
22 lot. I don't know if they didn't get it from us but they got a lot of
23 information. They worked hard.
24 Q. I don't know of any other ways to put this: In the course of
25 your work there, did you pay too much attention to the media?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
2 MS. HASAN: If I understand it correctly, then this question has
3 actually been put to the witness several times, and he's done his best to
4 answer the question.
5 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. But I didn't get an answer.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's still to be seen. If you give me one
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, page 40, line 10, "... didn't affect my
10 work." Isn't that an answer to the question?
11 MR. LUKIC: Could be. Thank you.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, some words were attributed to you, and I
13 wanted to ask you if you would agree with those.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need to see 65 ter 25677.
15 Q. You have been shown this book in the Popovic case.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 4.
17 Q. Actually, just to jog your memory --
18 A. I don't remember this at all, so ...
19 MS. HASAN: Just so that it's clear, it's not a book, it's a
20 seminar that was given.
21 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, seminar, sorry.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's be very precise then on that.
23 MR. LUKIC: Another document [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... what is before you on the
25 screen at this moment, Dr. Haglund, seems to be a report on a seminar
1 sponsored by the Crimes of War Project and The Freedom Forum, a seminar
2 which took place, I don't know when, Mr. Lukic. Could you assist?
3 MR. LUKIC: One moment.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Would it be December 2007, Mr. Lukic? That's at
5 least --
6 MR. LUKIC: That's what I can see, yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- what appears from your list.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Mm-hm.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And, Mr. Lukic, you're asking questions about
10 page 4.
11 MR. LUKIC: Four, yes. That's paragraph 3.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that is all under the heading, as we see
13 on the first page, Mr. Haglund, there is a heading which reads: From
14 Rwanda to East Timor collecting physical evidence of war crimes. And you
15 are the one reported to have spoken at that seminar. I don't even know
16 whether this is an announcement of a seminar or a report of the seminar.
17 Do you remember that you have been at a seminar in 2007 where you
18 have lectured or given a presentation?
19 THE WITNESS: Very likely that I was there. I don't remember
20 this. I've written many, many papers and many, many chapters in books,
21 and I have to read them again. I don't remember them.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic will put some questions to you about what
23 you purportedly would have presented there.
24 THE WITNESS: Okay.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: I'm trying to find whether this refers to Rwanda or
2 Bosnia --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's the heading on the first page. And I
4 see no other heading on pages 2 and 3, so -- and it says from Rwanda to
5 East Timor.
6 MR. LUKIC: On page 2, the last paragraph, it was talking about
7 staffing and it's talking about Bosnia. Just to look at the -- the kind
8 of staffing in Bosnia in 1996 as:
9 "All told, I had about 100 people on the ground, about 50 at the
10 time rotating through; that's 33 pathologist, 24 anthropologists."
11 From the next page --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please read slowly so that the ...
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Wait for the page to come up.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. You're quoting from page ...
15 MR. LUKIC: Two and 3.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Two and 3.
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes. The last paragraph on page 2, continuing on
18 page 3.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Could you please slowly read.
20 MR. LUKIC: And in Popovic trial, this gentleman was shown this
21 passage, this quotation in regard of Bosnia,
22 so [Overlapping speakers] ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well --
24 MR. LUKIC: And he accepted that it
25 was [Overlapping speakers] ...
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, I'm not a Judge in that case so I would
2 like to understand what happens in this case.
3 MR. LUKIC: And the quotation is on page 4.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and the quotation is about Bosnia. That's
5 clear. Could you please slowly read it.
6 MR. LUKIC: Mm-hm. It's paragraph 3. Can you blow it up for the
7 doctor. Page 4, paragraph 3. The first part of paragraph -- yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. We're now on page 3.
9 MR. LUKIC: Four.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Four. Then I would have to ...
11 Please continue. Meanwhile, I'll see whether the subject changes
12 anywhere in between. Yes, please proceed.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. I quote:
14 "I slow plate this one and that's one of the responses [sic] --
15 reasons," sorry, "I had a four-ring circus going on. I was going
16 absolutely crazy here. But sometimes you're lucky and you have the
17 resources you [sic] cover the grave and sometimes you are not."
18 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, this description of yours, does it
19 actually say that there was chaos in the field?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
21 MS. HASAN: Yes, Mr. President. I was just waiting to hear the
22 end of the question, but prior to that, my friend represented that the
23 witness, in Popovic, had attributed these comments to Bosnia which in
24 fact is not the case.
25 So I just want it to be clear for the witness before he answers
1 the question. I can -- I don't want to read out his answer. I want him
2 to have the opportunity to answer the question, but I just wanted to make
3 that clear.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's --
5 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, can I read from the Popovic transcript so maybe
6 the doctor can recall easier what he answered.
7 THE WITNESS: Okay.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
9 MR. LUKIC: We need 1D1158.
10 So 1D1158, we need -- it's transcript from Popovic trial. We
11 need page 18, but the second part attached says here. So it's second
12 part. We need page number -- from transcript page number 8971. And then
13 we need lines 5 to 15. Because I would start quoting -- it was quoted
14 the same quotation from line 2, it's visible in this transcript, and the
15 question was in line 5, says:
16 "Q. Is that your statement, sir?
17 "A. Absolutely.
18 "Q. And that was your statement in regard to these digs in 1996
19 in Srebrenica; correct?
20 "A. That was a characterisation of how, in a post-conflict
21 environment, when are you doing these things, that's how you feel. Yes.
22 And you have to regulate the pace of -- of the work. And sometimes you,
23 um, ..."
24 And goes on. I have it on page 19 and 20. It was pretty long
25 answer. But it's obvious that it's in connection with Srebrenica and
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it says -- I've not seen that now. It's -- it
3 says, "... in a post-conflict environment, when you're doing these
4 things ..."
5 It's an interpretation of the answer in relation to the question.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Doctor, sir, do you remember today whether this statement of
8 yours pertained to Bosnia; and if it did pertain to Bosnia, what did this
9 mean, this four-ring circus? And in American English what is a
10 three-ring circus mean?
11 A. Life can be a circus. It can be a four-ring circus. It can be a
12 three-ring circus. Many things are going on at the same time. It seems
13 like it is crazy. But when you start look into each one of those circles
14 something is happening. You can work -- look at them at one time, but
15 you keep going around and you -- and so that's -- that's sort of what
16 life is like and that's what -- sort of what this was like. I didn't
17 think I was crazy. I think -- it just was very, very busy. That's fine.
18 I like to work.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic I'm looking at the clock. I think it's
20 time for a break.
21 Mr. Haglund, if you would follow the usher, we'll take a break of
22 20 minutes.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break and resume at quarter past 12.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 11.57 a.m.
1 --- On resuming at 12.20 p.m.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
3 Meanwhile, I use the time to say something about Exhibit P997.
4 Exhibit P997 contains two B/C/S translations, and the Registry is hereby
5 instructed to remove the translation with ERN number R008-6180-B/C/ST.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In e-court, can we please have
9 65 ter 25679. It is a Prosecution Exhibit.
10 Q. You were already asked at the Popovic trial whether you knew
11 Elizabeth Neuffer. [In English] I don't know if I pronounced her name
13 A. Yes, I know her. She was killed in Iraq.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. You were asked about one paragraph, and I'm going ask you about
16 that. In English, we need page 17. Since it's double, we need the
17 right-hand side, the second paragraph from the top of the page. In
18 B/C/S, we need page 36, the middle of the page. So the late Ms. Neuffer
19 wrote the following:
20 [In English] "After the exhumations ended, several members of the
21 team complained to Tribunal investigators that shortcuts had been taken
22 that could compromise the evidence. Among the complaints, other than
23 Haglund's management style, were that the graves had not been made
24 secure. Animals had raided some of them, dragging off body parts. Other
25 allegations centred on administrative sloppiness; some bodies and their
1 parts had been wrongly labelled. Fearful that Defence attorneys in the
2 case might have been handed a powerful weapon, the Tribunal and its
3 lawyers launched an internal inquiry."
4 Do you know what the source of information is, the information
5 included by this lady in her book?
6 A. She used to call me a lot to ask me questions, and I wouldn't
7 give her answers. So she was a very good friend of mine but when people
8 are writing books they write what they want to write. I don't have
9 anything to do with that. I don't believe all of this, and I -- I loved
10 a lot of -- the part of the book but that's about all I could say about
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you tell us when the book was
13 published? I may have missed it on the first page, or ...
14 MR. LUKIC: I have only two pages with me. Actually, the first
15 page, and I cannot see when it was published. But we will -- we would
16 probably be able to provide Your Honours with that date soon, in
17 15 minutes probably.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. The second part or, rather, the last part of this assertion that
21 this was an internal inquiry, do you know how this commission was made
22 up, or do you not have any knowledge about that?
23 A. When we've been talking about today is not really considered an
24 internal inquiry, right? I don't know. She found out this -- she -- she
25 worked for newspapers all of her life. She was good at finding things.
1 I have no idea where she would get this information.
2 Q. Thank you. We are not going to dwell on this any longer. Now
3 I'd like us to go back to 65 ter 20008. We need page 13.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one thing. The internal inquiry, as far
5 as you understand matters, the witness partially can't help us, but is
6 that the same as the San Antonio matter, which of course --
7 MR. LUKIC: Yes. That's what I was referring to.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, then it's clear to me that there was only
9 one and not another one because the San Antonio was not entirely
10 internal. Thank was my --
11 MR. LUKIC: We'll see why I think it was internal --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
13 MR. LUKIC: -- soon.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's --
15 MR. LUKIC: And only that I was just helped by my colleague
16 sitting in the back that this book, "The Key to my Neighbour's House" was
17 published in November 2002, although it was reprint.
18 JUDGE ORIE: It was a reprint.
19 MR. LUKIC: Reprint.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, of course, I was interested in -- if you
21 asked about the sources if it was long after the San Antonio report had
22 been published then it may shed a different light on the sources for
23 the ...
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Doctor, under Roman numeral VII towards the bottom of the page,
2 you will see this note, nota bene, NB. What is written here is as
4 "Preserve old materials and have it available to the entire court
5 in order allay the charge of conspiracy or collusion. Develop a series
6 of questions to counteract any cross-examination attack on the reports.
7 Consider using outside forensic experts."
8 A. What is this that you're asking me?
9 MR. LUKIC:
10 Q. [In English] It's on the bottom the page, Doctor. It's under NB.
11 MR. LUKIC: And can that be blown up? Too much?
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That happens if the witness is touching the
14 THE WITNESS: I saw that. Thank you.
15 This was a suggestion in that query that they had.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. So this position taken by the committee obviously shows that the
18 committee is interested --
19 A. I think a lot of this -- okay. I think a lot of it that they say
20 has been -- had been done but they wanted make sure that this is in their
21 report because they were doing what should happen in a situation like
22 this, so ...
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, I would like to --
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Question though --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to hear your question. I didn't
2 hear any question in relation to that nota bene.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. My question, Doctor, is: Do you know who formulated this
5 position of the commission which is obviously aimed at preventing the
6 Defence from challenging, in cross-examination, the findings of your
8 A. That's what they do. That's what they expect other people to do.
9 I think that's what's expected here too.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But do you know who formulated this?
11 THE WITNESS: No. I think there was a group of people there
12 doing it. And they do it at theirs. We try to do it as much as possible
13 too, so ...
14 JUDGE ORIE: By the way, Mr. Lukic, I object against the way in
15 which you characterise what is said here.
16 MR. LUKIC: What would you ... I think it's clear that it's --
17 I'll follow -- I have some follow-up questions.
18 JUDGE ORIE: There's no way that these recommendations are aimed
19 at preventing the Defence for challenging in cross-examination. It
20 rather seems that if there is a challenging cross-examination, where
21 there are flaws, to prepare for the proper answers or at least some
22 answers to that, not to prevent them from challenging it. It's a
24 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. During your questioning before this commission, did you gain the
2 impression that this was precisely the task of the commission --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could all other
4 microphones please be switched off. Thank you.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. -- to make it impossible to relativise the cross-examination and
7 the evidence?
8 A. I'm not -- could you repeat that whole thing there.
9 JUDGE ORIE: One of the members of the Chamber is trying to get
10 the power back on his computer and ...
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Disappeared for a while.
12 MR. LUKIC: Should we call a technician?
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think we're close to a solution.
14 The usher is thanked for his assistance. It has been repaired.
15 Please --
16 MR. LUKIC: I have to repeat my question.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. LUKIC: We were all distracted by efforts of Judge Moloto to
19 get his power back.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Would you agree, Doctor, that the work of this
21 commission was actually aimed in its entirety at making it impossible to
22 relativise the report in any way through cross-examination?
23 A. This is what happens in the United States at -- at -- at courts.
24 It happens all over the world. I'm sure that these gentlemen and gentle
25 ladies, here, same as you, you do the same thing. This was something
1 that wasn't being done. This is something that happens everywhere. A
2 lot of these things when I look at them everybody does that. They just
3 are confirming, you know, what things should be done. Doesn't mean that
4 people aren't doing things properly.
5 Q. Okay.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It's a bit unclear when you refer to "this" various
8 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could I -- the question was whether the aim of the
10 commission was entirely at making it impossible to relativise the report
11 in whatever way during cross-examination. Was that the aim of the
12 committee to make that impossible?
13 THE WITNESS: No. But I think when -- when you first are under
14 the command of these -- not in the command. You're not under command.
15 But they try to cover as much stuff as you could explain so that they put
16 out of the way with these gentlemen and gentle ladies need to ask
17 questions about. That's the way I understand it. I think it happens
18 everywhere in all courts, and ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Q. Doctor, after the session of this commission, you no longer went
22 to Bosnia ; is that right?
23 A. Yes. I was done there, yes. Pretty much. Not all. Yeah.
24 Q. What happened to Dr. Kirschner? Was he dismissed from that job?
25 A. He was done with it. I believe he was done with the job at that
1 point. I can't remember -- I don't remember actually when this was done,
2 if there was still work that we were doing because I think I was in
3 Africa at the time, so ...
4 Q. All right. Now we're going to move on to Rwanda and your work in
5 Rwanda. That was mentioned yesterday. The Court in Rwanda in the
6 Rutaganda case rejected your scientific approach and your scientific
7 work; is that correct?
8 A. Yes. That's -- that's true.
9 Q. The Judgement was confirmed by the Appeals Chamber. You're aware
10 of that, aren't you?
11 A. Possibly, yeah.
12 Q. Did you apply the same methods in Rwanda and in Bosnia?
13 A. The same -- same way we went about things, yes.
14 Q. In that case, in the Rutaganda case that is, you established the
15 age of the killed person; is that right?
16 A. It was an approximation.
17 Q. I would like to ask you something: Do you think that you made a
18 mistake in the Rutaganda case?
19 A. I don't think I made a mistake in the Rutaganda case, but I think
20 a lot of the remains that we exhumed had nothing to do with that. But we
21 were just asked to dig those graves, so ...
22 Q. Do you believe that mistakes were made in the exhumations in
23 Bosnia and in the processing of the exhumed parts?
24 A. Not that I -- that I can remember. I don't think that -- I think
25 we did well. It was the first time it was done on, and it was done well.
1 Q. Were any mistakes made by the pathologists?
2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. During your work in Bosnia, did you make any distinction in terms
4 of whether someone had been killed in fighting or executed or whether
5 someone was a civilian or a soldier?
6 A. These were people that were taken away from Srebrenica. I don't
7 know if they fought -- whether there. I have no idea, but they were --
8 they were actually -- they were killed. They were killed and they were
9 not fighting in a -- with other people. They were just killed.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 1D1153 in
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the Defence counsel kindly speak into the
14 microphone, please. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're invited to speak into the
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I'll move closer. Thank you.
18 Q. [Interpretation] We see a document containing names. It seems to
19 be a mutant of sorts between English and B/C/S contained in the same
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Out of caution, we should not broadcast.
22 MR. LUKIC: Not broadcast. I was just warned. Thank you.
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. I will not refer to the name and it should not be broadcast
1 outside the courtroom. But we're interested in the eighth name from the
3 The person in question was registered under protocol number 68/02
4 in the reports. It is reported that the remains were found in the Cerska
5 grave-site. At the same time, we have the same person registered by the
6 Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina - that is to say, the Muslim army - as
7 someone who was killed on 10 January 1994.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
9 MS. HASAN: Could it be made clear for the record what exactly
10 this document is.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the document which will not be shown
12 is ...
13 MR. LUKIC: Was used by my colleague Ivetic a few days ago. And
14 I think you got explanation from him at the time or ...
15 JUDGE ORIE: If you just say what it is, then ...
16 MR. LUKIC: I think it's part -- part of an expert expertise --
17 one of expert testifying in front of this Tribunal.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
19 MS. HASAN: Perhaps I can just make the record clear. It's a
20 table that is part of Radovanovic, his annex 3, which was a Defence
21 expert in a prior case before this Tribunal.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then that's clear.
23 MR. LUKIC: I would just kindly ask to see page 3 of the same
25 Q. And, Doctor, all this list, it concerns people killed before
1 July 1995, I'm only showing you two of them, one in connection of Cerska,
2 and the other one in connection of Branjevo Military Farm.
3 So, here, you'll see the fourth name from the top is in
4 connection to Branjevo Military Farm. It has registration number
5 9295/07. And according to the Army of B and H records, this person was
6 killed on 22nd April 1994. So do you have any explanation how was it
7 possible that all these persons were killed in 1995, according to you,
8 and still we can find it in the records of Army of B and H, that,
9 according to their records, these persons were killed in 1994?
10 A. Are you mentioning that I have their names somewhere? If it was,
11 it would be something that we found on the body. We did not identify
12 these people. You're going to have to deal with the people that actually
13 ended up doing the -- the identifications. I had nothing to do with the
14 identifications, only giving them information that we had found on
15 bodies, and blah blah.
16 Q. What I'm telling your is -- or what I'm trying to tell you is
17 that according to ICP records --
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. -- those persons were exhumed, the first one from Cerska and the
20 second one from Branjevo Military Farm.
21 A. You talk to them about the identification then. I have no -- I
22 don't want to get involved in this because I don't know.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, don't you think that is a question
24 relevant, in fact, to ICMP and not this witness?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- I think what Mr. Lukic would like to know,
1 Mr. Haglund, and if you know anything about it, tell us, if you don't
2 know anything about it, tell us as well, whether you would know what
3 could possibly explain that there's a divergence between the date on
4 which the body was reported to be exhumed and another register which says
5 that that person had died already a year before that, whether you have
6 any knowledge of that?
7 THE WITNESS: No, I had no knowledge of that.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That answers the question. Thank you.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, would you allow for the possibility
12 today in your testimony that the graves contained the bodies of those who
13 were executed, as well as of those killed in combat, not only in 1995 but
14 also in the years previous?
15 Do you allow for that possibility or can you exclude that
16 possibility based on the scientific methods you applied?
17 A. Let's look at the Cerska grave. Okay? These people that
18 weren't -- they weren't fighting. They were lined up along the road and
19 killed. Period. They were killed there. They weren't fighting with
20 anybody, to my knowledge.
21 Q. In your view, was this person, too, a combatant who was
22 registered by the Army of BiH as having been killed on 10 January 1994?
23 Is that what you're telling us?
24 A. Half the way to the person is identified. Then we could tell
25 that. If they came from that grave, that's when they were killed. They
1 were all killed at the same time. I don't have an answer to this.
2 Q. Very well. And your assertion also applies to the person on
3 page 3, from the Branjevo Military Farm, registration number 929507 was
4 also killed like others in July 1995. Is that your testimony?
5 A. It's the same situation. Okay?
6 Q. Thank you. I don't know if I received an answer in terms of
7 whether you distinguished between combatants and civilians and if you did
8 make an attempt to distinguish between them?
9 A. These people were buried and they were killed and buried. They
10 weren't fighting.
11 Q. What happened with those killed in combat? Did you have
12 information that people were being killed during the breakthrough? Where
13 were such corpses of Muslim fighters buried when they were killed in an
14 attempt of breakthrough, through VRS territory from Srebrenica to Tuzla?
15 Did they vanish? Did someone hide them, bury them? Do you have any sort
16 of knowledge in that regard?
17 A. No.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we have in e-court 65 ter 2555,
19 which is a Prosecution Exhibit. [In English] Is it with three 5s?
20 Two 5s? 25555. Actually four 5s. Sorry. That is it. [Interpretation]
21 Just to let you in on the context, as you can see, it is an UN document,
22 Sector North-East Tuzla, B and H, civil affairs. The date is the 17th of
23 July, 1995. That is to say, from the time of events. On page 4 in the
24 B/C/S and page 2 in the English, we find the part I'd like to focus our
25 attention on. We need the last bullet point of item 1. Can we zoom in.
2 Q. It is reported, as you can see, on the 17th of July, 1995, as
3 follows. I'll quote:
4 [In English] "Up to 3.000 were killed on the way mostly by mines
5 and BSA engagements. Unknown others were captured. Some committed
6 suicide. Unknown others went to Zepa."
7 [Interpretation] Doctor, did anyone from the UN, be it a
8 representative of the Tribunal or a different representative of the UN in
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina tell you that there were such people who were
10 killed in combat during the column breakthrough from Srebrenica to Tuzla?
11 A. I've read about that. I know about that. But ICRC, when the
12 women came across, they would report that people were missing. And I
13 don't know if they told how they were killed. And -- and -- and then
14 ICRC would go and tell the families, yeah, they were dead. How they
15 found that out, they didn't know. And we closed them down because they
16 were -- they were actually saying some people that were dead that weren't
17 dead, and so people they didn't know were dead. We stopped them from
18 doing that.
19 Q. If it is in dispute that there were those killed, the
20 Prosecutor's Office does not deny that there were people killed in
21 combat. Could you have ascertained that in any way? Did you exhume a
22 single individual who was killed in combat in the process of the column
23 breaking through from Srebrenica to Tuzla? Did you find a single case
24 like that?
25 A. I have no idea that they were -- that they weren't in combat. I
1 know that. Okay? Unless -- unless they'd been in combat and then added
2 to the grave at the same time the people were killed there.
3 Q. [Overlapping speakers]
4 A. If they were shooting -- if they were having a conflict, somebody
5 shot them in the back, I have no idea. But I have nothing to do with
6 this thing about the ICRC mis -- misnaming people that were dead and not.
7 We didn't know. So we had to wait until it was over. And ... I didn't
8 do the -- the identifications.
9 Q. That is why I'm asking you this. Based on scientific proof, can
10 you exclude the possibility that in the graves there were the bodies of
11 both those executed and those killed in combat?
12 JUDGE ORIE: The witness has answered that question already. He
13 said what he observed was a typical picture of people lined up and then
14 killed, but that he could not exclude that some other bodies were added
15 in the same grave. That's what I heard you say, Mr. Haglund. Did I
16 understand you well.
17 THE WITNESS: It's -- it's possible, but I don't know.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the question has been answered.
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll move on.
20 JUDGE ORIE: "Unless they'd been in combat and then added to the
21 grave at the same time the people were killed there."
22 So he has answered that question.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Do you have an explanation as to where those
25 killed in combat were buried, if they were not in the same graves with
1 those executed? Did you reach any conclusions in the course of your work
2 or not?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, same comment. You've asked this
4 question. The witness even raised his hands and said, I've got no idea.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
7 Q. [Interpretation] In the Popovic trial, you were asked about
8 something, and I will read it out as we are nearing the end. Please do
9 bear with me for a little longer.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need 1D1161.
11 I apologise. We need 1D1158, the second part in e-court, the
12 attached part. Pages 30 and 31, which should correspond to transcript
13 page 8983, spilling over to 8984.
14 Q. We are interested in line 22, towards the bottom of the page:
15 [In English] "Q. All right. Down on the fifth line, after the
16 parentheses, it says: 'Accepting support directly from national
17 governments would compromise the perception of independence and,
18 consequently, their credibility.'"
19 On the next page is recording your answer as:
21 "Q. Okay.
22 "A. It could, yes.
23 "Q. It could.
24 "A. Yes."
25 Now we have to go to line 10. And there we can find the
1 question. I quote:
2 "Don't you think that accepting money from the Office
3 of the Prosecutor on a criminal case does the same -- has the same
5 "A. I don't know if the Physicians for Human Rights got any
6 money from the Office of the Prosecutor.
7 "Q. No, but you did, didn't you?
8 "A. Yes. Yes, I was employed by them."
9 A. I stand by that.
10 Q. Thank you. [Interpretation] Let us ascertain something that has
11 been established previously --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just try to understand. I -- I re-read the
13 question -- the answer. You were asked whether accepting money from the
14 Office of the Prosecutor in a criminal case would have the same -- and
15 reference is made, compromising effect.
16 Your answer was:
17 "I don't know if the Physicians for Human Rights got any money
18 from the Office of the Prosecutor ..."
19 And then the question was:
20 "No, but you did, didn't you? "
21 The answer was:
22 "Yes. Yes, I was employed by them."
23 Was that a reference to the Office of the Prosecutor, that you
24 were employed by them.
25 THE WITNESS: The Tribunal was paying me for doing the
1 exhumations, the individuals with PHR that came, the physicians and that,
2 I believe they donate -- I believe they donated their time but they were
3 paid enough to eat and to get here and get back home, et cetera. These
4 are people that, you know --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you were paid by the Tribunal, you said.
6 Were you -- did you have a labour contract or was it services rendered?
7 On what basis were you paid?
8 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what they would call it. I think you
9 would have to ask possibly the individuals here or something.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But were you on the payroll receiving salary from
11 the Tribunal or were you hired to do a job?
12 THE WITNESS: I was hired to do a job, and it took two and a half
13 years to finish it when you get all the records from them.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps the parties could agree on what the
15 basis exactly was of the employment or perhaps Mr. McCloskey would even
16 know and could tell us immediately.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm pretty sure it's an SSA which is a contract
18 for a special work for an expert. But I can check into that. That I
19 don't recall. But I'm pretty sure that's what it is.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If the parties agree on that that --
21 MR. LUKIC: I can clarify further and I think it -- we have it
22 confirmed previously.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Oh. Does that mean that there's no dispute about
24 it? Then, of course, the question is what -- the questions are aiming
1 MR. LUKIC: I would like to ask my
2 questions [Overlapping speakers] ...
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if the questions are relevant and if the
4 questions are on matters in dispute then of course you are fully free to
5 ask questions. I'm just inquiring whether there's any dispute about
6 those matters so as not to lose time unnecessarily.
7 MR. LUKIC: I will finish in a couple of minutes.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, sir, you were actually hired and
9 contacted --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan is on her feet.
11 MS. HASAN: Yes, before we move on to the next question, the
12 portion read out by my learned friend which began on transcript page 8983
13 from the Popovic case was a question about getting support directly from
14 national governments. And --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's perfectly clear.
16 MS. HASAN: Yes, if I may go on.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MS. HASAN: And the answer that we stopped as was, no -- which we
19 just read, "... but didn't you?" Answer, "Yes, yes, I was employed by
20 them." And the witness actually continues with his answer on line 17.
21 We're talking here about NGOs accepting money not -- not forensic experts
22 being paid for a job. And I think the entirety of the witness's answers
23 should be in the record.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there are two issues. First, what the facts
25 were. Second, what judgement or opinion you could have as to
1 compromising. Part of that testimony is whether it compromised, yes or
2 no, which is judgement an opinion rather than anything else. You can ask
3 a witness whether he felt to be under pressure. That's factual. But
4 let's try to stay away from judgement and let's focus on facts.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, you were hired by Mr. Goldstone -
8 correct? - who at the time was the Prosecutor both for Rwanda and
9 The Hague Tribunal. You worked for the Rwanda Tribunal and then he told
10 you to go to the locations in Bosnia to continue your work. Is that how
11 your deployment to Bosnia actually took place?
12 A. That's correct.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] There was a long discussion about
14 this in the preceding case and I tried to cut it short concerning this
15 topic. If I can have a minute, I believe I may be finished with my
16 questions. Let me just try to verify.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 MR. LUKIC:
19 Q. Doctor thank you for answering our questions. That was all we
20 had for you. Thank you again.
21 A. Thank you very much. And have a good day.
22 Q. Same to you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We are at a point where we take a break, but we'll
24 not do that before you have informed us, Ms. Hasan, whether there's any
25 need to re-examine the witness.
1 MS. HASAN: I do have a few questions for the witness.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us how much time those questions
4 would take? If it's more than three, four, or five minutes, we would
5 take the break now.
6 MS. HASAN: It would be more than five minutes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then the witness is invited to follow the usher.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 JUDGE ORIE: And we resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 1.14 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 1.39 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
15 Re-examination by Ms. Hasan:
16 Q. Witness, during yesterday's testimony, and that was at transcript
17 page 14952, at lines 3 to 4, you were asked a question about working
18 under Dr. Kirschner. Do you recall -- do you recall that?
19 A. Well, he was there, yeah. He was, yeah --
20 Q. Right. And -- and you spoke about it a little bit today as well,
21 about the type of determinations of age and the -- the measurements of
22 bones that were also done by the anthropologist to assists the
23 pathologists in their work?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you just help us a little bit more in relation to how it was
1 that the anthropologists contributed to the work that the pathologists
2 were doing?
3 A. They would clean the bones. They'd do the -- the aging. They'd
4 measure the stature of the individual and of -- and then they would do a
5 lot of things about some of the individual bones that they were trying to
6 match with the individual it belonged to. Some of the -- some of the
7 graves, yeah.
8 Q. Was there any reconstruction of bones done by the anthropologist
9 to also assist the pathologist?
10 A. Yes, they did. And they also -- after the examination of the
11 clothing was done, they would clean them off and wash them. And so that
12 the families would be able to have them in a decedent shape.
13 Q. And would the anthropologist also -- did they have any role in
14 the analysis of the skeletal remains and the injuries to those remains?
15 A. Well, sometimes they worked together with the pathologist on
17 Q. Can you just elaborate a little bit more on that, how that
19 A. Well, with the bone?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. Yeah. Not with the -- the [indiscernible] and they'd help.
22 They'd -- well, we had a -- the doctors from very many countries and they
23 had never worked with anthropologists before and so they assisted them in
24 what they're finding and how they find it, and then they were kind of
25 excited about learning about those things.
1 Q. So, sorry, was the anthropologist assisting the doctors? Do I
2 understand you correctly, or was that the other way around?
3 A. Well, sometimes they -- yeah, they assisted the doctor, yeah.
4 Q. Okay. Now, you were also asked yesterday at transcript
5 page 14962, approximately at lines 19 to 25, about the positioning of
6 some bodies that were in the Nova Kasaba 2 grave and that they were in
7 kneeling positions, some of them, and some were in sitting positions.
8 A. Yes.
9 MS. HASAN: Could we call up Exhibit P1834 [Realtime transcript
10 read in error "P1384"] MFI.
11 Q. And in the course of answering that question you refer to that
12 there were some photographs that showed this?
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. HASAN: If we could turn to page 32. And since it's just a
15 photograph, probably the English version will do.
16 Q. So can you tell us that -- first about the -- the picture you see
17 on the top of that page?
18 A. Yes. Yes. You can see the individual's face down and their
19 hands are tied behind their back, sort of commingled with other
20 individuals too. These are complete bodies that we're looking at.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
22 be asked to speak in the microphone. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Haglund, you've heard the request.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes. Would you like me to repeat what I said?
25 Okay. We have an individual on other -- other individuals, number 14,
1 and he has his -- his wrist tied behind his back.
2 MS. HASAN:
3 Q. And are you able to tell us whether or not this was an individual
4 who was in the types of positions you referred to in a sitting or
5 kneeling position?
6 A. This was what grave you got this from?
7 Q. This is from your Nova Kasaba report and it's grave 2, it says on
8 the bottom of the page.
9 A. Yes, yes. This is that one grave. Yes, he was shot there.
10 Q. If we could just --
11 A. Fell forward.
12 Q. And if we just turn back one page.
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. And can you tell us what we're looking at here. We see -- we see
15 some numbers there with the number 14 in the top right-hand corner of the
16 page. It depict the person we just saw in the photograph?
17 A. Well, yes. That person fell forward after he had been shot,
19 Q. Okay. And this shows -- does this depict the bodies that you
20 were trying to explain to us where some of them were kneeling, some of
21 them sitting, some of them were laying over and that they fell on top of
22 each other?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do we --
25 MS. HASAN: Thank you. I have no further questions.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Hasan.
2 Mr. Lukic, the cross-examination has triggered no need for
3 further questions?
4 Mr. Haglund, this concludes your testimony in this Court. I'd
5 like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and for having
6 answered all the questions that were put to you, both by the parties and
7 by the Bench. And I wish you a safe return home again.
8 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. I'd like -- I like your group,
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, I think that there are still three
12 remaining MFIs, that is P1831, P1833, and P1834.
13 I think the parties have already expressed themselves on it. The
14 Chamber has delayed the decision until after cross-examination. Is there
15 anything the parties think they should add to what they had submitted
17 MS. HASAN: No, Your Honour, not in relation to that. I just
18 have two points. Just earlier now I think the exhibit I referred to was
19 incorrectly recorded. It's at page -- transcript page 69, line 4. And
20 it's says "could we call up P1384 MFI." It should be P1834 MFI.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MS. HASAN: And in addition to that, Your Honours, we are
23 prepared to offer in the -- the cross-examination that was conducted by
24 counsel in the Popovic case as well as the direct. If that would -- if
25 the direct would assist in understanding the cross-examination, the
1 Prosecution is prepared to offer that into evidence.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, any response to that offer?
3 MR. LUKIC: Can we respond tomorrow during the housekeeping
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may consider the situation.
6 Then as far as --
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Hasan has put the right number on the record
8 but it was not recorded. The document was P1834. Please correct me if
9 I'm wrong.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now we move to the decision on the MFI'd,
11 P1831, P1833 and P1834.
12 The Chamber delayed the decision. Any further observations by
13 the parties? If not, P1831, P1833, and P1834 are admitted into evidence.
14 Then before we move to the next witness, I would like to use the
15 opportunity to read -- to deliver two decisions.
16 The first one is a -- concerns the Chamber's consideration of the
17 Prosecution's proposal to call a legal expert.
18 On the 18th of February of this year, the Prosecution made an
19 oral proposal and circulated a related memo with the intention of
20 developing an agreed list of legal documents relevant to the case and
21 identifying an international law expert to assist the Chamber in
22 clarifying the legal status and obligations arising from such documents.
23 In response to this proposal, at transcript page 8874, the
24 Chamber noted that lack of clarity sometimes results from the examination
25 of witnesses as opposed to the legal understanding of the Chamber, and
1 that the Chamber is primarily tasked with establishing legal issues. The
2 Chamber nonetheless invited the parties to prepare submissions on the
3 matter for it to consider in determining whether a legal expert would be
5 The Defence filed its submission on the 1st of March, 2013,
6 opposing the Prosecution's proposal on the grounds that use of a legal
7 expert is contrary to the jurisprudence of the Tribunal and invades the
8 purview of the chamber. The Prosecution did not make any additional
10 The Chamber is not persuaded that it should deviate from its
11 original position expressed in court on the 18th of February, and,
12 therefore, does not see the necessity of calling a legal expert.
13 The Prosecution is instructed to file the related memorandum for
14 completeness of the case record.
15 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
16 The next decision is a decision on two outstanding issues with
17 regard to Witness Martin Bell which are, first, the admission of his
18 consolidated witness statement and the remaining exhibits associated to
19 it; as well as, two, the admission of five video-clips on which the
20 witness gave comments in a comment chart.
21 In its Rule 92 ter motion concerning Witness Martin Bell of the
22 21st of December, 2012, the Prosecution tendered one consolidated witness
23 statement of Martin Bell dated the 8th of March, 2010, currently marked
24 for identification as Exhibit P832, together with 44 associated exhibits.
25 Following the testimony of Witness Bell on the
1 31st of January and the 1st of February, 2013, the Prosecution, on the
2 18th of February, submitted a revised list of the remaining associated
3 exhibits which were not yet addressed in court and had not yet been
4 tendered into evidence. This revised list contained a remainder of 38
5 associated exhibits to the consolidated witness statement of
6 Witness Bell.
7 On the 11th of February of 2013, the Defence filed additional
8 submissions as to the associated exhibits and statement of Witness Bell,
9 followed by the Prosecution's response of the 18th of February of this
10 year. The Prosecution's request for leave to exceed the word limit is
11 hereby granted.
12 Considering the parties' discussion relating to certain
13 paragraphs of the consolidated witness statement of Witness Bell which
14 deal with Zvornik and the paramilitary unit of alleged JCE member
15 Zeljko Raznjatovic, commonly referred to as Arkan, the Chamber recalls
16 its decision pursuant to Rule 73 bis (D) of the Rules of Procedure and
17 Evidence of the 2nd of December, 2001. By this decision, the Chamber
18 granted the Prosecution's request for reduction of its case while at the
19 same time noting that it does not strictly prohibit the Prosecution from
20 presenting evidence on incidents the Prosecution has proposed to remove,
21 if it considers this necessary to prove an element of a charged count.
22 The Chamber instructed the Prosecution in such instances to
23 clearly indicate any such proposed evidence in its Rule 65 ter filings
24 and to explain its specific relevance to the Prosecution's case.
25 Evidence relating to Zvornik is one of those instances.
1 With regard to the Defence's argument that the topic of Zvornik
2 was not noticed in Witness Bell's Rule 65 ter summary, the Chamber, at
3 the outset, notes that the Defence was, in fact, able to cross-examine
4 Witness Bell on the disputed paragraphs of his consolidated statement.
5 This can be found at transcript pages 7906 to 7913. Moreover, the
6 Chamber has provided guidance on the 24th of August, 2012, which can be
7 found at transcript page 1639, stating that even though it is preferable
8 that the Prosecution indicates its intention to elicit evidence on a
9 certain topic already in the Rules 65 ter summary, if such an indication
10 is included in the Rule 92 ter statement, it provides sufficient notice
11 to the Defence.
12 For these reasons, the Chamber admits into evidence the redacted
13 version of Witness Bell's consolidated witness statement, currently
14 marked for identification as Exhibit P832.
15 The Chamber will now turn to its decision on the remaining
16 associated exhibits. As stated earlier, these concern 38 remaining
17 associated documents, out of which one, namely, Rule 65 ter number 10028,
18 in the meantime, has been admitted through another witness as
19 Exhibit P1066 and therefore does not require a further decision by the
21 Out of the remaining 37 documents, 35 are short video-clips; the
22 other two being a map, Rule 65 ter number 08297; and a short newspaper
23 article from the "New York Times" on the situation in Zepa in early 1993,
24 Rule 65 ter 19311. Both of these documents are inseparable and
25 indispensable part of the witness's testimony and therefore meet the test
1 applied by the Chamber in its oral decision of the
2 22nd of November, 2012, on the admission of associated exhibits related
3 to Witness Tucker.
4 The Chamber therefore admits these two documents into evidence as
5 associated exhibits to the consolidated witness statement of Witness Bell
6 and requests the Registry to assign exhibit numbers for them.
7 With regard to the 35 remaining associated video-clips, the
8 Chamber notes that while none of them meet the test applied for
9 Witness Tucker, it considers that admitting them into evidence will help
10 the Chamber to visualise the evidence provided by Witness Bell in his
11 statement. For these reasons, the Chamber admits into evidence the
12 remaining 35 associated video-clips bearing Rule 65 ter numbers 22328,
13 22353, 22360, 22414A, 22509A through F and J, 22531A [Realtime transcript
14 read in error "225301"] through D and E, 22565A through D, 22619B through
15 E, 22625B, C, and E through J, 22630B and D, as well as 22646B and C, and
16 requests the Registry to assign exhibit numbers to them.
17 Turning to the second issue in relation to the admission of the
18 remaining underlying video-clips to Witness Bell's comments chart
19 admitted as Exhibit P833 on the 31st of January, 2013, the Chamber notes
20 at the outset that out of the nine underlying video-clips on the chart,
21 the Prosecution withdrew its request to tender the two clips bearing Rule
22 65 ter number 22630E and 22784C. Furthermore, two clips were admitted
23 into evidence during the testimony of Witness Bell as Exhibits P834 and
24 P841. With regard to the remaining five video-clips, the Chamber notes
25 that Witness Bell, during his testimony, affirmed the accuracy of his
1 comments made on the chart on which he identified the voices of either
2 himself or of direct colleagues in relation to the respective clips.
3 This can be found at transcript page 7815. And having analysed the
4 documents, the Chamber considers that they meet the standard of
5 reliability necessary for admission. The Defence has not objected to the
6 admission of these video-clips.
7 And, in light of the foregoing, the Chamber admits Rule 65 ter
8 numbers 22625K, 22688A, as well as 22784A, B, and D into evidence and
9 requests the Registry to assign exhibit numbers to them.
10 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
11 Madam Registrar, you're invited to assign those numbers in a memo
12 which is to be filed.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the sake of the record I would like to
14 correct one number which was incorrectly recorded. It is page 76,
15 line 9, there we find 225301. Instead of that it should be 22531 without
16 a zero in the middle.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We have ten minutes left which is not much.
18 I could deal with a few matters which would not take the full ten minutes
19 but perhaps better than to call the next witness at this moment.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think that would be a good path, Mr. President.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Especially since we'll not immediately start
23 tomorrow morning at 9.30 with the examination of the witness.
24 Then let me just look what I still have.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: I would like first to deal with the Chamber's
2 outstanding decision on the document bearing 65 ter number 09670 in
3 relation to the witness statement of Witness Smith admitted as P785.
4 Following the Chamber's decision on the remaining associated
5 exhibits of Witness Smith which was issued orally on the 15th of July of
6 this year, the Chamber yesterday received the outstanding clarification
7 of the Prosecution in relation to the document bearing 65
8 ter number 09670. At transcript page 14549, the Prosecution informed the
9 Chamber that the document relates to the first sentence of paragraph 130
10 of the witness statement of Witness Smith, which was previously admitted
11 as P785.
12 The Chamber has reviewed the respective paragraph and considers
13 the document to be an inseparable and indispensable part of the witness's
14 testimony and, therefore, admits the document 65 ter number 09670 into
16 And, Madam Registrar, would you please assign a number.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Document 09670 receives number P1849,
18 Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: P1849 is admitted into evidence. And this concludes
20 the Chamber's decision on that matter.
21 I would like to deal now with a follow-up on a decision, a
22 decision of the 19th of October, 2012, wherein under Rule 92 bis the
23 Chamber admitted into evidence redacted versions of two photographs of a
24 collapsed house and instructed the Prosecution to upload these redacted
25 versions into e-court. The redacted photographs were subsequently
1 assigned exhibit numbers P392 and P393.
2 The Chamber also invited the Prosecution to provide a full
3 translation of the redacted text accompanying the photographs and then
4 seek the replacement of the exhibits.
5 On the 29th of October, 2012, the Prosecution submitted fully
6 translated versions of the two photographs through an informal
8 On the 30th of October, through an informal communication, the
9 Chamber informed the parties that it considered this submission as a
10 request for replacement. The Defence did not respond to this request.
11 The Chamber has considered the fully translated versions of the
12 two photographs and accepts that they replace the redacted versions
13 initially admitted.
14 The Chamber notes that e-court already contains the fully
15 translated versions so no further instructions are necessary.
16 Then the last issue concerns Exhibit P1495.
17 On the 19th of July, the Chamber admitted P1495 into evidence.
18 It appears, however, that translation errors pointed out in court on the
19 28th of May, 2013, at transcript pages 11636 through 11638 have not been
21 Can the Prosecution confirm that the English translation of
22 P1495 has, by now, been verified?
23 You may not know the answer by heart, immediately, Mr. McCloskey.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: He is looking at Ms. Stewart.
25 [Prosecution counsel confer]
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: We'll need to check into that a bit -- a bit
2 more, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you have not verified it, you're invited to
4 do so. And if it has been verified, we'll then further proceed to
6 Those were the matters I had on my agenda.
7 Mr. Lukic, can already anything be said about the presence of
8 Mr. Mladic tomorrow during the housekeeping session.
9 MR. LUKIC: He will be with us tomorrow morning. So nothing has
10 to be arranged extraordinary.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's good to hear.
12 We'll adjourn for the day, and we will resume tomorrow, Thursday,
13 the 25th of July, 2013, at 9.30 in the morning, in this same
14 courtroom, III.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.13 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 25th day of July,
17 2013, at 9.30 a.m.