1 Wednesday, 20 April 2016
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honours. This is
9 case IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
12 MR. IVETIC: I don't know if Your Honours have any preliminaries.
13 We have one that we could handle while the witness is coming in.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
15 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we had yesterday filed a waiver for
16 attendance for General Mladic tomorrow. We are now putting on the record
17 that we are withdrawing that waiver. The plans have changed in terms of
18 the visits that were envisioned at the UNDU. And the general will need
19 to be transported here and will be with us tomorrow during the
20 proceedings. I wanted to put that on the record in time for all of the
21 arrangements that need to be made can be made.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear. We wonder, the next witness who
23 was on the list will not appear. Will the witness after that be moved
25 MR. IVETIC: No, we're just assuming based upon the estimates
1 that this witness may continue for part of the day tomorrow. It may not
2 be. It may be out of an overabundance of caution I just want to make
3 sure that is on the record at this stage.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that. But it means that we couldn't fill
5 the whole of the day tomorrow if the Prosecution concludes its
6 cross-examination relatively early.
7 MR. IVETIC: That's correct, Your Honours, we could not.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Professor Stankovic.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by
13 the solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning of your
14 testimony, and we'll now continue. Mr. Ivetic will resume his
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours. And we have provided, I
18 believe, to Your Honours, hard copies with the English of P7444, which is
19 the Clark autopsy summary list. P7445, which is the -- just a summation
20 list. Also a hard copy of Dr. Stankovic's report in English. And in
21 English -- pardon me. In English, the Bosnian autopsy records. The
22 Prosecution has also received a copy, and I believe that -- that
23 Dr. Stankovic already has his B/C/S copies of the Bosnian autopsy
24 specialists at happened as well as a B/C/S copy of the P7444, since those
25 are the ones he was referring -- referring us to yesterday, but if I'm
1 mistaken I ask that the Professor let us know. I can then provide copies
2 of each as we go through them if need be.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a copy of the autopsy
4 reports in Serbian. I mean, those drawn up by the Bosnian pathologists,
5 as well as the ones drawn up by Dr. Clark.
6 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
7 WITNESS: ZORAN STANKOVIC [Resumed]
8 [Witness testified through interpreter]
9 Examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]
10 Q. Then, professor, I would wish you a good morning.
11 A. Good morning.
12 Q. And I would ask that we call up, again, the report of
13 Dr. Stankovic, which is D1447, MFI, and if we could turn to page 11 in
14 the English, and that will be page 16, I believe, in the Serbian. We had
15 left off, just about to move onto case number 3.
16 MR. IVETIC: I will be tendering all of the Bosnian autopsy
17 reports I mentioned, so to save time, I will tender the ones that we've
18 already covered and the ones we are yet to cover at the end dealing with
19 all of Tomasica.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, mainly the Bosnian autopsy reports were
22 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Most of part of the rest was available, but it's
24 good to have it all together. Thank you.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. IVETIC:
2 Q. And looking now -- I apologise. Does everyone have e-court
3 available? I seem not to. Okay.
4 Looking at case number 3, professor, there appears to be a
5 discussion on the one hand of a blunt force trauma. Can you first begin
6 by telling us how a blunt force trauma compares to a gun-shot injury.
7 A. Blunt force trauma is an injury with specific characteristics
8 manifested on the bodies of victims, if we are talking about bones, with
9 depressed fractures of bones in the direction of the force. Sometimes
10 they may retain the shape of the blunt instrument with which the
11 instrument [as interpreted] was caused. On the soft tissues, they are
12 noted as lacerations with hematoma or skin abrasions.
13 As for gun-shot injuries, their look is completely different,
14 depending on the angle at which a bullet entered the body. The entry
15 wound may be round or oval in shape. If it was caused from a certain
16 distance, it may have a depression ring and some other characteristics.
17 I think I don't need to list them all now.
18 Q. And in relation to case number 3, the Bosnian autopsy is 65 ter
19 number 33731 for those who have the binders, and ... yeah.
20 And, professor, could you briefly just tell us why you chose to
21 highlight this case as to both Dr. Clark and the Bosnian pathologist,
22 Dr. Durmisevic. What was the main thing that struck you from comparing
23 the two?
24 A. In this specific case, Dr. Durmisevic describes in the autopsy
25 report on page 2 under item 4, an injury with two depressions of the
1 cranial vault behind the coronal suture on the parietal bones with a
2 stair phenomenon to be noted on the right. Fractures spread out from the
3 depressed area, whereas in Dr. Clark's autopsy report, it does not
4 mention this injury at all. It is neither described nor is it stated
5 what was the instrument that caused it.
6 And another thing: Dr. Clark, on page 21 in the Serbian version,
7 says that the injuries were probably -- they probably occurred
8 post-mortem, most of the right ribs, the angles of the third and the
9 seventh rib, the injuries to most of the ribs on the axilla line and the
10 angles of the fourth and fifth ribs probably occurred after death. The
11 fractures occurred after death. The right radius and ulna, that is to
12 say the bones of the right lower arm, and the post-mortem injury to the
13 upper part of the right fibula. In the autopsy report of Dr. Durmisevic,
14 there is no description of the said injuries.
15 Q. And then if we could move to case number 4, which is on our
16 screen in both languages. And the Bosnian autopsy is 65 ter number
18 And if I can ask you to highlight for the Trial Chamber why you
19 chose to -- to compare this -- this case between Dr. Clark's findings and
20 that of Dr. Durmisevic.
21 A. In the autopsy report on page 2, Dr. Durmisevic, under item 2,
22 injuries, notes, inter alia, fractures of cervical vertebra from the
23 second to the sixth whereas Dr. Clark in his finding does not mention the
24 existence of such injuries of the cervical vertebra.
25 In his finding, Dr. Clark notes that there are post-mortem
1 fractures, that is to say, fractures occurring after death, of several
2 left ribs. The right diaphysis of the right humerus, that is to say, the
3 right upper arm and the medial diaphysis of the left ulna. And
4 Dr. Durmisevic failed to describe such injuries.
5 Q. And given the nature of the discrepancies we have gone through
6 thus far and that have you seen, could a professional like Dr. John Clark
7 noticed the discrepancies, in your opinion?
8 MR. MacDONALD: [Microphone not activated]
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If he had insight --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
11 MR. MacDONALD: Just with regard to my friend' question if
12 Mr. John Clark noticed the discrepancies, I believe -- I don't have the
13 transcript page at hand, but I believe Dr. Clark stated he hadn't seen
14 the autopsy reports of the Bosnian pathologists. No foundation for this
15 question, if this was the case.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we do not know. We do not know what
17 time-frame Mr. Ivetic has on his mind and whether he has -- but however
18 valid it may be, I do not know. Then it would certainly be something for
20 Mr. Ivetic, at the same time, you've heard --
21 MR. IVETIC: Yeah --
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- the comment. So, therefore, if Mr. MacDonald
23 would be right, you might find his reason to reconsider your question.
24 MR. IVETIC: I will. Let me ask a different question.
25 Q. Professor, if you had two pathologists working together and
1 generating reports on the same body, what is the normal procedure? Do
2 they communicate with one another; and, if so, how?
3 A. During the work of two pathologists who are processing mortal
4 remains of a single body, they communicate with each other. They consult
5 each other about the registered injuries and the instruments by which the
6 injuries were inflicted. In this specific case, I believe that both
7 the -- both pathologists, Dr. Durmisevic and Dr. Clark, if they saw the
8 other autopsy report, would certainly notice the discrepancies, and after
9 that, they would probably try to harmonise their views.
10 Q. I'd like to -- to save time, I'd like to look at case number 8
11 which is on page 13 in the English, and it should be, I think, page 17 in
12 the Serbian. It's going to be the next page in the Serbian; I apologise.
13 I keep forgetting to add a page to the hard copy. I guess it's actually
14 going to be one more page. 18. Okay.
15 Here, in number 8, and that's 65 ter number 33736 in the Bosnian
16 autopsy reports, and here we have one of the pathologists indicating a
17 "hard and blunt, probably," and then something with a question mark,
18 "bevelled implement, though blows inflicted with a sharp tool cannot be
19 excluded," and then we have the other pathologist saying gun-shot injury
20 to the neck.
21 In your opinion, can two pathologists come up with these
22 descriptions for the same body, for the same injuries in the same body?
23 A. Well, it is a fact that in his opinion, Professor Sarajlic noted
24 in paragraphs 2 and 3 that the injuries to the neck area may have been
25 caused by a hard and blunt probably bevelled implement though blows
1 inflicted with a sharp tool cannot be excluded either.
2 By contrast, Dr. Clark says that a probable gun-shot injury has
3 been inflicted to the neck. Such conclusions necessitate the
4 harmonisation of views between two pathologists because if the vertebra
5 are hit with a hard and blunt instrument then the manner of fracture is
6 different than the fractures caused by the impact of a bullet, and
7 especially if this is blunt force trauma and a bevelled implement such as
8 an axe, then the look of the fracture of the vertebra would be different
9 than if they had been caused by a bullet, or a gun-shot injury.
10 Q. Okay. Now, I'd like to look at item number C of your report
11 which starts on page 13 in the English but case number 1 is on the next
12 page, page 14 in the English and it will be page 20 in the Serbian of
13 your report, and the Bosnian autopsy is 65 ter number 33738, and in
14 Clark, this will be at page 25 of P07444.
15 And you have one case listed here. Can you tell us in relation
16 to the finding of the Bosnian pathologist and as to Dr. Clark what is it
17 about these finds that caused you to select this case, to highlight in
18 part C as unacceptable conclusions?
19 A. Dr. Durmisevic, on page 2 under item, injuries, describes a
20 multi-fragmented fracture of the basis of the skull and bones of the face
21 with missing fragments, and fractures spreading out towards the crown of
22 the skull. That's more or less the description of the injury noted.
23 And then, under item 2, opinion, nature of injury to the skull, even
24 though there is no clearly visible entry wound, it corresponds to the
25 impact of a bullet, a high-caliber and high-velocity bullet, which causes
1 significant fragmentation of the bone as well as fissures spreading out
2 across the crown of the skull. The most probable direction of the bullet is
3 from the occipital area towards the bones of the face which are fragmented.
4 This is Dr. Durmisevic's description.
5 Dr. Clark, on page 37 of the Serbian version, says the following:
6 "Gun-shot injury to the head with the entry hole probably to the back of
7 the head in the left lower occipital area where significant damage
8 spreading downwards may be noted. It seems that the exit wound is on the
9 front side where the lower part of the forehead bone and the face are
10 fragmented and mandibula is present in the middle part and at the left
11 angulus." It is not possible to conclude from this description whether
12 the entry wound on the head bones is in the occipital area as described
13 by Dr. Durmisevic and Dr. Clark as well. There is no description that
14 would note the caving in of bones, a caved-in fragment of bone that was
15 found with surface damage in the form of bones bevelled towards the inside,
16 and here I have in mind the occipital bones, those on the back of the head.
17 So no such descriptions are provided but a specific conclusion is
18 drawn, and when you just read the text without having other documents at
19 your disposal, you cannot conclude that this was, indeed, the trajectory
20 of the bullet. I note once again the description of the injury provided
21 by Dr. Durmisevic, which I now read out.
22 Q. Okay.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could we always try because I'm a bit
24 lost this, that, that there, compare this T number, so and so, so that I
25 can follow it. I'm still with the previous one, if you would allow me to
1 ask one question.
2 For the previous one you described, where you said that the
3 findings of what possibly or probably would have been established, both
4 experts conclude that the cause of death was unascertained and therefore
5 is unknown so -- and they do that one on the basis of probabilities, the
6 other one on the basis of possibilities. But finally they say: We don't
8 Would you agree with that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So in their conclusion, there is no disagreement at
11 all. There are in some details of the description of the injuries, they
12 seem to differ of opinion on -- on -- on -- on what it exactly is, and
13 they both explain that it's very difficult to assess what is there and
14 they're talking in terms of probabilities rather than in establishing
15 anything for certain.
16 Is that well understood?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Talking about the cause of death,
18 neither of them stated it. And that's all right.
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... for the previous
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the previous one.
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the previous case.
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... they say it is
25 unascertained. They can't establish it. To that extent, they do express
1 themselves, and if you say, They don't give a statement about that, the
2 statement is that they don't know.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not say that they did not say
4 anything. I said the same thing as you, that the cause of death has not
5 been ascertained, so that's what it is.
6 But what they do not agree about is that the description of the
7 injury to the bones of the skull which are fractured. One of them says
8 it's in the area of the back of the neck. One of them says that the
9 injuries --
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... we have heard
11 all that. But you earlier expressed yourself on what a court needs. If
12 a court receives a clear conclusion by two experts that the cause of
13 death could not be established, then that has consequences, perhaps, for
14 the court. A court might say under those circumstances, we can't
15 consider this as a murder or whatever, because we don't know how that
16 person died. At least not on the basis of the autopsies.
17 What -- why -- and that's what you emphasise again and again, why
18 would we know for certain that the expert was -- were also in agreement
19 on what they saw on the jaw or on the left lower leg if the conclusions
20 are that, at least on this basis, we couldn't -- we couldn't establish
21 how this person died? Why do we need all that? Because you expressed
22 yourself on it. I'm interested to know what you think we would need.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because each injury has its
24 characteristics. One pathologist cannot describe an injury caused by a
25 blunt force trauma as if were a gun-shot injury. What would that be
1 about? It would turn out that one of the experts cannot distinguish
2 between gun-shot injuries and blunt force trauma or that one and the same
3 type of injury is --
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... they are talking
5 in terms of probabilities and possibilities, which explains already why,
6 perhaps, they do not agree. But my question was not the issue you are
7 raising in your answer. My question was: Why do you think that we would
8 need all kind of details if, I would say, in favour of the Defence,
9 that's at least what it looks like, the experts agree they couldn't
10 establish the cause of death and, therefore, it may become irrelevant in
11 the context of this case.
12 Why would we need to know exactly why the one says it is
13 probable, why the other says it's possible? Why would we need to know?
14 THE WITNESS: I am not... in fact, I am called by the Defence as an
15 expert in this case. But I'm primarily presenting my expert opinion and
16 views on the documents which are in the case file based on my knowledge.
17 The generally accepted view in forensic medicine is that all
18 injuries present on the body during autopsy should be verified. If one
19 injury is not verified by a pathologist, that speaks of his attitude to
20 his job. There cannot be injuries, for instance, to the cervical part of
21 the spine inflicted in one way --
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... you have
23 explained that now several times. You have not answered my question yet.
24 I leave it to the parties whether you want to follow up on what I raised.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
1 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I think he has answered the question
2 where he says it speaks to the attitude of the pathologist to his job so
3 it goes to the credibility of a witness that was brought here --
4 JUDGE ORIE: My question was why we would have to know it. That
5 was the question. He has not answered that question, I think. Unless he
6 thinks that we should know the attitude, if we are talking about results
7 of -- of expert expertise and the witness apparently ignored that where
8 they say probably, possibly, et cetera that has already -- it has got
9 nothing to do with attitude but a good expression of uncertainty, if you
10 are not certain about what you see.
11 MR. IVETIC: So is it the position of this Trial Chamber that if
12 the methodology of a Prosecution expert was bad, but he happened to get
13 the right result that is not a matter that should be brought before the
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not saying that, Mr. Ivetic, and you know that.
16 But let's move on.
17 MR. IVETIC: I'm hearing that from you. That's how I'm
18 interpreting these words, that's why I'm asking for instruction and
20 JUDGE ORIE: No, then you misinterpreted my words.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. IVETIC: Without guidance, I cannot proceed.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You are invited to proceed and if you can't, then do
24 what you think you should do if you would not proceed.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. IVETIC:
2 Q. In relation to case number 1, under item C, professor, is there
3 anything else from the standpoint of forensic medicine that is
4 significant to you that you think we need to know to appraise the
5 methodology and credibility of the work of either the Bosnian
6 pathologists or Dr. Clark?
7 A. Case C?
8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... it's under C, it's case
9 number 1 which is on page number 20 in the Serbian. It's on our screen
10 now. The case of ...
11 A. Mm-hm.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Which -- because I think I gave some kind of
13 instructions in this respect. That's what 65 ter number, Mr. Ivetic?
14 MR. IVETIC: 65 ter number 33738, as I had already indicated
15 previously, and that is P7444, page 25, as I also had previously
16 indicated. And it's page 14 in the English of the document that we have
17 on our screen right now which is D1447, marked for identification.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 Mr. MacDonald.
20 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, Your Honour. I would object to this
21 question on the basis that, from Professor Stankovic's report, the only
22 disputed finding he has written down is the one that's been discussed
23 about the direction of the trajectory of the bullet. And I think my
24 friend is now seeking to bring out other differences which Professor
25 Stankovic hasn't noted in his report, and therefore hasn't noticed to the
1 Prosecution that should have been done in an expert report. That would
2 be the objection to this question.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, this objection is denied, although, of course,
4 it's preferable that the relevant information is contained in the report.
5 It does not exclude for asking for anything in addition to what is
6 written in the report already.
7 So, therefore, could the witness answer the question. Which was: What in
8 case 1 is there -- whether there's anything else, from the standpoint
9 of forensic medicine, that is significant to you and you think we need
10 to know to appraise the methodology and credibility of the work of either
11 the Bosnian pathologists or Dr. Clark. Could you answer the question.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think there are no more important
13 elements apart from the ones I've already said.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. Then if we could move to the next page in the Serbian - stay on
16 the same page in the English - we have your opinions listed on that page,
17 and I would ask, do you stand behind everything written in this part?
18 A. I stand by what I've written and what has been submitted to the
20 MR. IVETIC: The Defence would tender D1447 MFI, and we would
21 also tender the Bosnian autopsies which are 65 ter number 33730 through
22 65 ter number 33737 for cases 2 through 9 in part B in order, and 65 ter
23 number 33738, which relates to case 1 under item C.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt just before we tender. I just
1 have a question on D1447, MFI.
2 Doctor, at page 14 in English under heading D, Opinion about analysis in
3 question, you state that: "... it is the obligation of all experts who
4 took part or are still taking part in investigation procedures, establishing
5 truth and determining the sentence, to work on the basis of facts in a
6 generally accepted professional manner and within the framework of the
7 existing legal norms and thus establish the actual truth, name of the
8 [sic] offender and render judgement based on the established facts."
9 My question to you is how is it in the remit of pathologists to
10 determine sentence and to name the offender and render judgement; and if
11 so, could we get authority for this, and how they do that?
12 THE WITNESS: I first said that pathologists determine the truth.
13 Pathologists participate in the work of the judicial authorities by way
14 of producing their reports. I said so at the beginning of the sentence.
15 However, it is the obligation of all the people participating in
16 investigation activities. It's not just the pathologists that participated
17 in the investigation. The whole activity is led by prosecutors. They
18 participate in the investigation, along with ballistics experts,
19 archaeologists, anthropologists. They all participate in the presentation
20 of evidence, and the court is in charge of pinning down liability. If all
21 this had been harmonized in the pre-investigation procedure, as I've said
22 a number of times, I wouldn't be here, and I would not be making objections
23 to the work of Dr. Clark or Dr. Durmisevic or professor Sarajlic.
24 I am not taking part in rendering the judgement. I'm just explaining,
25 from my point of view, as an expert witness, certain findings made by my
1 colleagues, and it is up to you whether you will accept them or not.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question is actually part of the process of
3 attempting to accept your comments.
4 You probably were misinterpreted, I don't know. How far, in the
5 English translation of your opinion about the analysis in question, and I
6 thought analysis in question is the analysis of these three experts who
7 are pathologists, you talk of determining the -- establishing the actual
8 truth. I don't know what you may have written in the B/C/S. So when you
9 say you didn't refer to the truth I'm rather surprised.
10 Secondly, I just wanted to say to you, my understanding of this
11 opinion that you are rendering, I didn't accept -- understand it to be of
12 all experts, including anthropologists. I thought you were opining on
13 the work of these three pathologists, and in any case, whoever you may be
14 referring to, my question with respect to the name of the offender,
15 rendering judgement, still stand. You haven't answered that.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was talking about the truth that
17 I was analysing from my point of view. That's the work of the
18 pathologist. In the conclusion it says over there the exhumations of the
19 mortal remains from the mass grave of Tomasica contains considerable
20 unclarified areas and questions that remain without answer. The
21 questions put here do not aim to dispute the data collected concerning
22 the death of the people whose bodies were found in the Tomasica mass
23 grave. However, it is the obligation of all the people who participated
24 in the investigation, or are participating in the investigation,
25 determining the truth and establishing a sentence is to determine the
1 real truth within the limits of legal norms and make a judgement.
2 So it is up to us, based on these objections, if there was a discrepancy,
3 to ask the question: Why weren't their views harmonised? That is the main
4 objection. I also believe that Dr. Durmisevic and Dr. Clark and Dr.
5 Sarajlic would find it very easy to narrow their differences and come to
6 the same conclusion. Do they have the same view about the same issue,
7 the same autopsy? Is it necessary to have the same autopsy report, i.e.
8 the same description of injuries? I think the answer is yes. Whether an
9 expert will interpret those injuries in one way or another, that's up to
10 the expert, but he will make a finding by communicating with another
11 expert who performed the same autopsy.
12 For you, as the Trial Chamber, I think that this truth is something that
13 will be decisive in determining the sentence, but we are not interfering
14 in that part of your job. Neither am I interfering. I just want a unified
15 view by experts to be presented to the Trial Chamber, and the Trial Chamber
16 will then make its own decision about what to accept or not. It never
17 happened that a forensic medical expert asked to decide himself how long a
18 sentence should be or to determine whether someone is guilty or not. This
19 conclusion should just serve to come to the truth, the medical truth that
20 has to do with medical reports. I do not go beyond that. And the way that
21 autopsy findings are presented to the Trial Chamber will form the basis,
22 practically, of how the Trial Chamber will decide, whether to acquit or to
23 convict somebody. Nothing more.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Obviously we're talking at cross purposes. I don't
25 think there's any point in me pursuing the matter. Thank you very much.
1 Mr. Lukic.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I take it Mr. Ivetic is invited to continue his comments.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: My apologies, I just --
4 MR. IVETIC: Apology accepted and not necessary.
5 JUDGE ORIE: To continue, you were tendering quite a number of
6 documents. I invited the registrar to assign numbers and then Judge
7 Moloto had a question.
8 Mr. Registrar, you have had ample time now to --
9 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. 65 ter numbers 33730
10 through to 65 ter 33738 will be assigned exhibit numbers D1451 through to
11 D1459 respectively, and perhaps under seal.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let me see. Was that all you tendered? I
13 don't think we had.
14 But let's first deal with those. These are the Bosnian reports.
15 I think it would be wise to have them under seal.
16 MR. IVETIC: Yeah.
17 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Therefore, D1451 through to D1459
18 are admitted into evidence, under seal.
19 Mr. Registrar, the remaining tendered documents. There were others.
20 MR. IVETIC: The remaining already has a number. It was marked for
21 identification so I was just making sure on the record that it is tendered,
22 but I understand the procedure for experts is that Your Honours will decide
23 at the conclusion of the evidence. So I think Mr. Registrar was correct in -
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's not really tendering at this moment. We
25 will wait to decide on what is already tendered and what is now marked
1 for identification. Please proceed.
2 MR. IVETIC:
3 Q. Professor, I'd now like to return to the report of Dr. Dunjic as
4 to the Srebrenica grave-sites.
5 MR. IVETIC: So, thus if we can have D1448, marked for
6 identification in e-court.
7 Q. And I believe -- could you confirm if you have a hard copy of the
8 same in Serbian before you, sir? Professor, do you have a hard copy in
9 Serbian of Dr. Dunjic's report?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. And I would ask that we turn to page 11 in English and it
12 will be page 10 in the Serbian of the same.
13 Pardon me, it will be the next ... we have here the comment -- it
14 will be on the next page, actually, in the B/C/S.
15 We have here the comment of Dr. Dunjic. It is at the bottom of
16 the first paragraph in both languages. And it reads: "Most of the
17 pathologists engaged to perform autopsies provided in the report final
18 diagnoses without a description of the injuries, instead of providing an
19 objective finding and description of the changes observed, and the
20 conclusions of gun-shot injuries or injuries caused by fire-arms are
21 therefore, effectively, merely diagnoses that are now not verifiable."
22 Professor, first, could you explain for us what is the final
23 diagnoses in the autopsy process so we have that clear?
24 A. First of all, it's necessary to describe the changes, describe
25 the injury, and based on the characteristics of a specific injury, you
1 make a conclusion about the nature of the injury.
2 Professor Dunjic noted that some people just wrote down a diagnosis
3 without any description of the injury, and from the view of forensic
4 medicine, it's unacceptable. Nobody is disputing whether it's a blast
5 injury or a gun-shot injury, but it was necessary for people who conducted
6 the autopsies to also describe the injuries in the generally accepted way.
7 Q. And do you join in Dr. Dunjic's conclusion as stated here, his --
8 his criticism?
9 A. Yes, I agree.
10 Q. What is the significance of the lack of detail in the description
11 of injuries; that is to say, what does it do as to the validity of the
12 findings and their ability to be verified?
13 A. As for the validity of the findings, I don't have the right to
14 call it into question, but I cannot verify whether the finding is based
15 on the description of the injury. I have to believe that it's a blast
16 wound or a gun-shot injury from what is written. I just have to take
17 their word for it. I cannot see the characteristics of the injury
19 Q. And if we move to the bottom of page 11 in both languages, we
20 will see Dr. Clark's explanation as to the Kozluk grave for the differing
21 levels of preservation of the bodies in that grave. In your opinion, are
22 there possible and reasonable explanations for varying levels of
23 preservation of bodies in the same grave?
24 A. There are reasonable explanations. I discussed them yesterday or
25 the day before, and I stand by the opinion I presented. Varying degrees
1 of decomposition in the Kozluk mass grave can be explained in several
3 Q. Okay. And if it were the case, as Dr. Clark has stated, that
4 this was due to the respective position in the grave, the preservation of
5 the bodies, forensically speaking, what bodies would be expected to be
6 more preserved and what should be recorded in the records of the
7 exhumation as to those bodies? Where would they be situated in the
9 A. What Dr. Clark put is one of the possibilities. It's usual for
10 bodies towards the surface of a mass grave closer to the ground to be
11 more decomposed than the bodies that are deeper in the ground and covered
12 by other bodies. In this specific case, we have instances when numbers
13 were distributed, of exhumation in these locations, that some bodies
14 that were buried deeper were more decomposed and more soft tissue was
15 missing than in the bodies closer to the surface.
16 Q. And if we could focus on that. Where you say there was some
17 bodies that were more decomposed deeper in the grave than at the surface,
18 what does your experience tell you in relation to Dr. Clark's
19 explanation? What do those facts and your experience tell you as to
20 Dr. Clark's explanation as to their preservation level?
21 A. I said that bodies on the surface decompose faster. In the
22 interpretation I had, it was those deeper. No, it's not true. Bodies
23 closer to the surface decompose faster and the tissue is lost faster on
24 them, and the process of skeletonization is, therefore, faster.
25 As for the question about my experience, my experience is similar
1 to the experience described here, but, again, that depends on several
2 factors, and the explanation given by Dr. Clark in this specific instance
3 can be accepted.
4 Q. And what I was trying to do is -- I should have done it in a
5 different way. I was trying to clarify what may be a translation error,
6 but in the last answer you were quoted in saying: "In this specific
7 case, we have instances when numbers were distributed in this location
8 that some bodies that were deeper were more decomposed and more tissue
9 was missing than in the bodies closer to the surface." That's the
10 English that we received from your answer, and I wanted to see with you
11 if that is correct or if you said something different.
12 A. Yes, what I said is correct.
13 Q. And does that raise any concerns or questions about the usual
14 level of preservation of bodies based upon their position in the grave?
15 A. No, in this case, the position in the grave does not affect the
16 level of decomposition. There are some other factors that could be more
17 important. First of all, how much time the body has been in open air,
18 whether it was affected by animals and insects; third, the time of death
19 could be different to the time of death of the other bodies in the mass
20 grave, but these are just possibilities that I cite in this specific
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I think we're at the time for the
24 break under today's schedule.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think we are.
1 Professor Stankovic, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
2 You may follow the usher now.
3 Mr. Ivetic, in terms of time, where are we?
4 [The witness stands down]
5 MR. IVETIC: I think hour 20, hour 30 and we should be done.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And ...
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: You say one hour. Mr. Registrar, could you tell us
9 where we are?
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar tells me that you have got one hour
12 and ten minutes left so it's a little bit over one hour, so let's try to
13 wrap up. But that's not far from one hour and 20. One hour and 15 would
14 even be exactly in the middle of the two. Let's try and see whether we
15 can conclude your examination-in-chief very early in the -- not in the
16 next session but in the session after that.
17 And the assessment, Mr. MacDonald, about cross.
18 MR. MacDONALD: Three and a half hours, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Three and a half hours. And it remains unchanged
20 based on what you have heard until now?
21 MR. MacDONALD: It does, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and we resume at 25 minutes past
24 --- Recess taken at 10.03 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 10.26 a.m.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 MR. IVETIC:
4 Q. Professor, I'd like to take up where we left off and deal still
5 with these bodies of differing levels of decomposition in Kozluk.
6 Given what you told us about the positioning of these bodies in
7 the grave and the various possible causes for the varying states of
8 decomposition, can one forensically exclude the possibility that these
9 bodies in this mass grave do not date all from the same time-period?
10 A. Bodies in the Kozluk grave are such that their deaths may have
11 occurred at different periods of time.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, when we are talking about periods, is
13 that -- are you talking in terms of periods of weeks or months or years
14 or -- I mean, "periods" is a rather undefined -- do you think, for
15 example, that they could be from -- well, three years' difference, one
16 from another or ...
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, considering the decomposition
18 of the soft tissue structures, the death of these persons could have
19 occurred at different times with the difference being several weeks or
20 even several months between them.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. IVETIC:
24 Q. And now if we can move to page 12 in the English, it will be the
25 third paragraph from the top and page 12 in Serbian. And... strike that.
1 We've already covered that one, I apologise. If we could turn to page 13
2 in the English, it's the third paragraph, and page 13 in the Serbian as
3 well, and that will be the first paragraph.
4 Here it is said that in addition to injuries from high velocity
5 rifles, corpses found at Glogova 2 contained occasional shotgun pellets.
6 Given your knowledge of the military gained through your career, are you
7 able to tell us whether or not shotguns were official weapons within the
8 standard arsenals of the armies on the former Yugoslavia?
9 A. The former Yugoslav army did not have any weapons with pellets.
10 Q. If we could turn to page 14 in both languages and it will be the
11 middle of the page in the English, and it will be the first full
12 paragraph at the top in Serbian, and here, it says: "J Clark says
13 probably and W Haglund concludes that the shots were fired at close range
14 but logical as this may seem, there is no evidence of close-range in the
15 autopsy reports, 'the bodies at Ravnice were not buried but lying largely
16 on the surface and thus greatly broken up and scattered. None were
17 blindfolded and none of them had any blast damage but they nearly all
18 still died from gun-shot injuries'."
19 In your opinion, medically speaking, would you except that such
20 evidence of close-range gun-shot wounds would survive after so many
22 A. I talked about that yesterday or the day before, and I said that
23 some evidence such as burn traces on the bones, the presence of unburned
24 gunpowder traces and presence of metals such as zinc or lead which do not
25 burn may have been proven by microscopic scanning, and the evidence of
1 burning of bones could not have disappeared even if the bodies had been
2 underground for five years.
3 Q. And do you go with Dr. Dunjic's observation here as to the -- as
4 to what both Drs. Clark and Mr. Haglund said as to the wounds given that
5 they did not have any observations of such material in their reports?
6 A. You mean the observations about the presence of traces of
7 gunpowder explosion on the bodies that were examined?
8 Q. Correct.
9 A. In the description of injuries in autopsy reports, there's no
10 information about the traces of gunpowder explosion. I think that such
11 conclusions of Dr. Haglund is unacceptable considering that we may state
12 our opinion only about what is verified and established rather than on
13 the basis of assumptions. That is what's unacceptable.
14 Q. Now if we could turn to page 16 in the English, and it will be
15 page 15 in the Serbian, and in this part of Dr. Dunjic's report, there's
16 talk about bodies in Paklenik cave which have been there since 1992
17 according to other evidence. And the observation that they demonstrate a
18 similar description of putrefaction as some of the remains that are said
19 to be directly linked to Srebrenica.
20 Do you have any additional comments as to what Dr. Dunjic has
21 written here?
22 A. Well, it's possible depending on the time that the mortal remains
23 were on the surface of the ground, whether they were affected by insects
24 and animals, also the type of soil that they were on, certain aspects of
25 putrefaction may have been similar to that present at other bodies that
1 were found in and around Srebrenica.
2 Q. Next I want to look at part 2 of Dr. Dunjic's report and this
3 will be on page 17 in English and in Serbian, and the part I want to ask
4 about is item number B, first of all, that reads: "In their autopsy
5 reports, when discussing the cause of death and the occurrence of
6 injuries ante-mortem, all Prosecution experts rely on a method of
7 assuming the cause of death, which leads to an incorrect or unreliable
8 result. In the autopsy reports themselves, no evidence has been provided
9 that the injuries were sustained in life."
10 First of all, do you agree with Dr. Dunjic's criticism of the
11 Prosecution experts in this part?
12 A. There are no acceptable medical criteria on the basis of which
13 one could determine injuries to the bones in life after the body had been
14 buried and covered by soil for several years, and I agree with that.
15 As for the assumptions of the cause of death, I've said yesterday
16 that judging by the look of the putrefaction and saponification or
17 skeletonization of bodies, one cannot say with certainty what the cause
18 of death was, but in the autopsy report it may be stated that the
19 injuries may have caused death and I think that's a generally accepted
20 position and there's nothing to be said about that. No objection.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, when you refer to the report of
22 Dr. Dunjic, which referred to the cave in June 1992, I think, you left
23 out "probably," but I take it that you wanted to include that in
24 your [Overlapping speakers] ...
25 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
2 MR. IVETIC: Yes, I apologise. If it was left out, it was
3 intended to be there.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. And if we look at item A under this part of Dr. Dunjic's report,
7 says, "There are professional standards in forensic practice require a
8 conclusion on the cause of death to be based only an objective finding.
9 An objective finding must be verifiable by any expert, transparent. In
10 order for it to be verifiable there must be a full and detailed
11 description of every injury. This is the standard of forensic practice
12 in Europe."
13 Do you agree with Dr. Dunjic in this respect?
14 A. Yes, agree.
15 Q. Now if we could turn together to page 18 in the English and it
16 will be 18 in the Serbian, the third and the fourth paragraphs from the
17 top, and they read: "It is also important for the Tribunal to note the
18 existence of the so-called post-mortem injuries, these are injuries
19 inflicted on the body after the cessation of the main vital functions.
20 They can have all the characteristics (especially in case of bones) of
21 fractures that occur in living people, but without the ante-mortem
23 And also the next paragraph that follows after that. Would you
24 offer any additional comments here in relation to these two paragraphs?
25 A. No, I agree with these two paragraphs as written by Dr. and
1 Professor Dunjic.
2 Q. Now, if we could turn to page 19 in the English, it will be on
3 the top, and it's the second-to-last paragraph on page 18 in the Serbian
4 and it reads: "In my professional assessment, based on my experience and
5 practice in the forensic autopsy of the exhumed bodies, the classical
6 forensic descriptive method should have been used - a detailed
7 description of all the observed injuries and the condition in which a
8 body was found (which was, unfortunately, done only partially and by a
9 small number of pathologists)."
10 First of all, could you briefly define for us this classical
11 forensic descriptive method.
12 A. That implies a very detailed description of all the injuries and
13 changes to the mortal remains during the post-mortem examination. That
14 means locating the injury precisely, describing the look and the shape,
15 the size, the edges and sides of the injured part, whether it's soft
16 tissue or bone, the presence or absence of parts of the injured bone.
17 This is a rule of the so-called Belgrade school to which Professor Dunjic
18 belonged, which was formed by Professor Milovanovic, and in accordance
19 with which I was educated. So, therefore, this is what I accept.
20 Q. And if we could then move to page 19 in the English and it will
21 be the fifth paragraph from the top, and it will be on the same page in
22 Serbian but it is the third paragraph.
23 And here, we see the comment:
24 "The medico-legal backgrounds from which each of them came are
25 indeed evident from the autopsy records from the Nova Kasaba (1, 2, and
1 3), Pilica, Sandici, Potocari, Bisina, Glogova Liplje 4, Bisina,
2 Potocari, Lazete, Konjevic Polje, and other sites, I would just point out
3 one thing here, instead of reports (trauma report) the the autopsies were
4 mainly conducted by pathologists rather than experts in forensic
5 medicine, and they provided final diagnosis, conclusions or even final
6 opinions, due to which it is now impossible to check their finding, and
7 therefore also their diagnosis. This raises doubts about the objectivity
8 of the reports."
9 Do you agree with Dr. Dunjic has expressed here about the
11 A. I can only say that I agree with the first part as this is the
12 procedure that is applied and that is acceptable.
13 As for the second, that this raises doubts about the objectivity
14 of the report, I would rather not comment on that for a number of
15 reasons. I have no evidence to doubt the findings.
16 Q. Okay. But do you agree with the part that says it is now
17 impossible to check their findings and therefore also their diagnosis?
18 A. It is true that a new post-mortem examination could not find the
19 same state of mortal remains, so now, without the description of the
20 condition, which is provided only as a written diagnosis, rather than as
21 a detailed description of the look and location where the injuries were
22 found, it's very difficult to verify such conclusions.
23 Q. Now, if we could turn to page 20 in English, it will be the first
24 paragraph and it's still on page 19 in the Serbian and it's the last
25 paragraph on the page.
1 "Under the subheading, limitations of the pathology evidence on
2 page 2 of the aggregate reports," then there's the ERN number, "... for
3 the sites listed (Kozluk, Nova Kasaba, Konjevic Polje and Glogova) the
4 pathologist J. Clark stated as follows: 'While conscious of these
5 theoretical difficulties, this report is nonetheless compiled on the
6 assumption that the vast majority of the gun-shot and other relevant
7 injuries which were found occurred in life and were, or contributed to,
8 the cause of death. To assume otherwise would be to make any further
9 analysis of the findings virtually meaningless'."
10 What are your professional comments as to what is reflected here?
11 A. I never drew my conclusions from assumptions, and I think that
12 this way of drawing conclusions is unacceptable.
13 As for linking registered injuries with the cause of death, I
14 commented on that earlier during my testimony but I may repeat. This
15 formulation which is generally accepted among us and which I use is
16 saponification, skeletonization, or putrefaction and you conclude on the
17 basis of that, that the cause of death cannot be ascertained, but one may
18 say that a gun-shot injury was found in the area of the head so there is
19 some basis to conclude that the injury in the form of an entry or exit
20 wound may have caused death.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me now understand you clearly.
22 If you find a gun-shot injury in the head, you say there's some
23 basis to conclude that injury may have caused death. Would you take such
24 a conclusion -- let's just assume that we have a body without any other
25 injuries, just that, would you then find it professionally acceptable to
1 say, This has caused death?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It may be assumed so, but not with
3 any certainty. Because we've had situations in the war area that,
4 because of anger or some other reason, people shot at dead bodies.
5 That's why conclusions are drawn in this way. And it's up to the person
6 in charge of investigation to conclude on the basis of witness
7 testimonies and so on, that death was caused by the entry and exit wound
8 to the head.
9 So, in those terms, such a conclusion is all right, and we have
10 nothing against it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, how frequent would that be, that people
12 started shooting at bodies which were dead already but which did not show
13 any signs of other injuries apart from then what you assume may have been
14 post-mortem injuries? So that person should have had a heart attack or
15 something of the kind. How -- how -- do you have any -- could you give
16 us any idea about the frequency of that happening; and, if so, on what
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have had an opportunity to
19 receive such information from people who were present when such acts were
20 perpetrated, and I heard that while performing autopsies. That happened
21 four or five times.
22 As for the other information, I couldn't tell you whether
23 somebody who had had a heart attack wasn't hit by a bullet. I don't have
24 such information.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The frequency, so you heard of some cases.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have heard that people shot
2 at dead bodies who had previously died. Perhaps also by gun-shot
3 injuries, but for some reason, they then shot at the dead bodies. I
4 would not go into details as to the reasons, whether it was rage or
5 somebody's whim, or an attempt at additional revenge because they had
6 lost their loved ones, I really couldn't go into that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you say these cases, they may have been
8 killed before by other gun-shots. So in my example where you have only
9 one gun-shot, that would not fit into your examples.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If there is only one gun-shot
11 injury and if it's evident that it is so and if the soft tissues
12 structures are present, then it would be normal that the death was caused
13 by a bullet shot from a hand-held fire-arm and the damage that that
14 caused to centres in the brain that are of vital importance.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And now I come back to my initial question
16 about frequency. Can you tell us anything more than that you heard about
17 it a couple of times?
18 THE WITNESS: Well, you see, we performed autopsies of mortal remains
19 under wartime conditions only once that the bodies had been collected.
20 So when we performed the autopsies of the remains, the people who brought
21 the bodies and those who were in charge of investigation would point out
22 this detail to us and tell us whether certain persons shot at those
23 bodies, which they verified. So that was the information I received from
24 others, and I wasn't personally present when somebody shot at dead bodies.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Although it's not a precise answer to my question
1 about frequency but following up on your answer, how would those who
2 brought in the bodies, how they know whether someone had been shooting at
3 a dead body?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In principle, we did not have
5 special teams that carried the bodies of those who lost their lives in
6 armed conflict. It was the other combatants who were present and who
7 then transported the bodies.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And they told you?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Where was that?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For example, in the area of
12 Zvornik; then in the Sarajevo area; and then also in Ugljevik area.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And may I take it that you then reported that in
14 your autopsy report? That this is what we found but we received
15 information that the injury was inflicted after the person had died? Did
16 you record that?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think not. Because I described
18 all the gun-shot injuries in the autopsy report. All the injuries that I
19 could find on the body were described in the autopsy report. On the
20 basis of those gun-shot injuries, I then determined whether they were
21 inflicted in life, if there was such a possibility, or if they occurred
22 in death. And those -- the one who is supposed to note and verify such
23 details was the person who was in charge of the investigation.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you didn't mention that.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
1 JUDGE ORIE: But for complete information of those reading the
2 forensic reports, it would be important to know that in relation to this
3 specific body, information was received that gun-shot injuries, at least
4 according to that witness, would have inflicted, post-mortem.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the investigation
6 organs who are in charge of the investigation have the obligation to
7 include that type of information in their report. It is up to me to
8 describe all gun-shot injuries that were registered and to describe them
9 in detail, if possible. So absolutely all of them. It is my duty to
10 draw up a report from which one could conclude what kind of injuries are
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. IVETIC: If I could follow up on Judge Orie's questions.
15 Q. He asked -- if I'm reading the transcript correctly: "But for
16 complete information of those regarding the forensic reports it would be
17 important to know that in relation to this specific body information was
18 received that gun-shot injuries or at least according to the witness
19 would have been inflicted post-mortem?"
20 The question I have for you is as a forensic pathologist, in your
21 review of that body or any body, do you indicate an opinion as to whether
22 wounds are ante-mortem or post-mortem?
23 A. If it's possible for me to determine whether some injuries were
24 inflicted in life or in death, I would then include that finding in my
25 final opinion.
1 Q. And how does a pathologist looking at injuries -- what factors,
2 what ante-mortem factors would one look for to indicate that a wound was
3 sustained during the course of one's life?
4 A. There are so-called absolute and relative reactions that occur in
5 life. The absolute reactions are described by Professor Dunjic on page
6 17. Those are vital functions that were still preserved, and they imply
7 certain signs on the body. Contusions, inhalations, swallowing of items
8 of food or earth, bleeding around injuries, inflammation. That's the
9 basis on which one determines that the injury occurred in life, if there
10 are any such signs present. If they are not present, then the injuries
11 occurred post-mortem, that is to say, in death.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just get clarification on that. Those
13 attributes that you are mentioning, Mr. Stankovic, seem to relate to a
14 well preserved body. What would be the attributes in a skeletonized body
15 that show that the injuries were either ante-mortem or post-mortem?
16 THE WITNESS: If we are dealing with a skeletonized body, we cannot
17 determine whether an injury occurred during life, but in that case, you
18 would describe in detail all the injuries, the entry canal of the bullet,
19 in case of gunshot injury, and based on that you verify in your finding
20 which injuries were found on what parts of the body, or which kind of
21 instrument or weapon was used; and that, in combination with witness
22 statements, would help the investigation to connect the injuries to the
23 circumstances of the case being investigated by a prosecutor's office or
24 judicial body. So with a skeletonized body, we do not pronounce ourselves
25 on whether the injury occurred during life but we describe all the injuries.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
2 Now, relative to that point, at page 29, starting from line 3 of
3 today's transcript, Mr. Ivetic read to you a quotation from
4 Professor Dunjic's report which says: "It is also important for the
5 Tribunal to note the existence of the so-called post-mortem injuries.
6 These are injuries inflicted on the body after the cessation of the main
7 vital functions. They can have all the characteristics, especially in
8 case of bones, of fractures that occur in living people but without
9 ante-mortem attributes."
10 There any ante-mortem attributes that can be found in a bone --
11 in -- injured bone that indicates whether the injury was inflicted
12 post-mortem or ante-mortem? This is now a skeletonized bone.
13 And I'm asking you this question because you said that you agree
14 with this proposition by Dr. Dunjic.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think what I said and what
16 Dr. Dunjic said is one and the same thing. Attributes like colouring in
17 the colour of blood of the surface of the bone which was injured could
18 indicate - that is to say, the strong blood colour - could indicate that
19 the injury occurred during life, but it's not an absolute indicator and
20 it belongs with vital reactions during life, such as inhalation,
21 inflammation, thrombosis, et cetera. It could be an indicator but cannot
22 be accepted with certainty because the colouring in the colour of blood
23 would also occur in a person who sustained a gun-shot injury during life
24 and sustained the same injury immediately after death, there will, in
25 both cases, be a colouring of that spot in the colour of blood.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: When you talk about immediately after death, it
2 seems like you're talking about a well preserved body. My question
3 really is focussed on a skeletonized body mainly because Professor Dunjic
4 talks of fractures to the bone and doesn't refer to soft tissue. And the
5 nap of my question is: Are there ante-mortem attributes that could be
6 used to determine whether or not an injury was inflicted post-mortem or
8 Now, the attributes that you given so far as I indicated at the
9 beginning relate to a well preserved body. I'm asking if there are such
10 attributes with respect to a skeletonized body.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such attributes do not exist in a
12 completely skeletonized body.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... you said you
14 agreed with this proposition by Dr. Dunjic, where he talks of ante-mortem
15 attributes which would not be found if the injury is inflicted
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These ante-mortem attributes could
18 be only if we didn't have the colouring in the colour of blood at the
19 place of fracture.
20 I don't know what else the attributes would be. It's one of the
21 basic attributes to look at when you examine a skeletonized body.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you don't know what the attributes would be,
23 what is it you are agreeing with when you answered Mr. Lukic [sic] by
24 saying -- Mr. Ivetic by saying, no, I agree with these two paragraphs as
25 written by Dr. and Professor Dunjic. That's what you say at line 10 of
1 that same page, 29, that I referred to.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I just take a look once again?
3 MR. IVETIC:
4 Q. That would be on page 18 in Serbian, the third and the fourth
5 paragraphs from the top.
6 A. "They can have all the characteristics, especially with
7 fractures, as when the person was alive ..."
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Keep on reading.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is that the part?
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is the part. But you've got to read the next
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "The in-life nature of fractures
13 cannot be determined based on only on the lines on the skull and that's
14 the main objection to the work of the pathologists who did localisation
15 on Srebrenica.
16 "The same or very similar injuries can be inflicted by shrapnel,
17 a blunt instrument, et cetera. They can occur also just after death,
18 perimortem when the lines of fracture have the same appearance. The
19 colouring in the colour of blood of the soft tissue around the injury in
20 very decomposed bodies must be interpreted very relatively and cannot be
21 treated as in life.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: But that's not the paragraph. Sorry, let me
23 interrupt you, professor. I think you're reading a different paragraph.
24 The paragraph we're referring to the one above which says: "It is also
25 important for the Tribunal to note the existence of the so-called
1 post-mortem injuries. These are injuries inflicted on the body after the
2 cessation of the main vital functions, they can have all the
3 characteristics (especially in case of bones) of fractures that occur in
4 living people but without the ante-mortem attributes."
5 And your response to this phrase, this paragraph, when asked by
6 Mr. Ivetic as to what your opinion was, you said you agreed with it.
7 Hence my questions.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I said.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... now you say in
10 skeletonized bodies, you are not aware of any attributes that can be
11 found to determine whether the injury is ante- or post-mortem.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because we don't have the soft
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... my question
15 relates to skeleton -- because he is talking about a fracture to the
16 bone. He is not talking about soft tissue. He is saying the fracture on
17 the bone has no ante-mortem attributes.
18 MR. IVETIC: With all due respect to Your Honour, I don't think
19 that's what being said I think when you introduced this, we read this
20 paragraph and you said to go to the next one which the witness did. So I
21 don't know whether the confusion lies but --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there for a second, Mr. Ivetic.
23 Indeed, that's what Judge Moloto said but I think he referred to leaving
24 out the last six words. That is, "but without the ante-mortem
25 attributes." And then the witness started reading the next paragraph,
1 whereas, apparently Judge Moloto invited the witness to read the last few
2 words of the paragraph.
3 MR. IVETIC: And this is where I think the confusion is coming in
4 because we're been talking about ante-mortem attributes in soft tissue.
5 And so I'm confused because I'm hearing the same thing. There has not
6 been any change.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: In this paragraph, which you, Mr. Ivetic, quoted
8 to Mr. Stankovic --
9 MR. IVETIC: Yes --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- it refers strictly to bones, fractures to the
11 bones, and you asked his position on that paragraph. He said he agreed
12 with it. And each time he has now introduced soft tissue, I've tried to
13 say to him, that's not the point of my question. My question is on a
14 skeletonized body.
15 MR. IVETIC: And in relation to this paragraph, Your Honours, I
16 do have to stress the part that you are stressing "... but without
17 ante-mortem attributes," according to the testimony of the witness is the
18 tissue. So we can't say he is talking about stuff not in relation to
19 tissue when ante-mortem attributes are mentioned.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Stankovic, what was read and to what you
22 agreed, would you agree that if you have a skeletonized body, that it may
23 be extremely difficult to establish whether there are any ante-mortem
24 attributes which, therefore, would make it difficult to finally establish
25 whether those injuries were inflicted post-mortem or ante-mortem, if you
1 only have a skeletonized body?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've said that it's very difficult
3 to make a distinction on a skeletonized body between ante-mortem and
4 post-mortem injuries. I've been saying this all the time.
5 MR. IVETIC: And with all due respect, that's what these
6 paragraphs say as well.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put a question now to the witness.
10 At the beginning of your testimony, you told us that you have
11 carried out thousands of autopsies. Did you ever come across a case
12 where you found that a person died and later on were shot at the head?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was with the bodies that
14 I worked on in Brcko. The location was Grbavica village where we found
15 13 bodies. I think that's when I made the finding that first some other
16 injuries occurred and then a projectile was fired into their head or some
17 other part of the body. I can't remember.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You say "some other injuries occurred." Which
19 kind of injuries are you referring to?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think there was one body that was
21 decapitated, and after that, gun-shot injuries were inflicted in the
22 chest; maybe also in the head, I'm not sure. I remember the name. It
23 was a man called Pudic, and Perica Jovicic, one of the two.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: These are the cases you are referring to. Thank
25 you very much. You have answered my question.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one other question. If you shoot
2 someone in the head and we assume that he may have -- that he dies from
3 that, if you shoot at him again 20 seconds later, do you consider that --
4 do you call that post-mortem, or do you call that perimortem, or do
5 you -- and are you able, on the basis of your forensic analysis, to make
6 a distinction between which shot hit the person of which he may have died
7 and the other shot, which was inflicted 20 seconds, 30 seconds, perhaps,
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's almost impossible to
10 distinguish between the first and the second shot for several reasons. I
11 won't go into details now. Because, first of all, we don't know within
12 those 20 seconds after the first shot, the person could still show signs
13 of life. The second gun-shot injury to the head, I couldn't say whether
14 it occurred after death. I would, rather, describe it, and if it's a
15 fresh body, I would say that it's the immediate cause of death. The
16 immediate cause of death would be the gun-shot injuries to the head.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Both of them.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, both of them. Gun-shot
19 injuries to the head would be listed as the immediate cause of death. I
20 would not be able to say whether it was the first or the second because
21 the interval between them is very short.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
23 MR. IVETIC: I think it's time for the break.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It is, indeed, time for a break. First of all,
25 Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I am aware that we've stolen some of
3 your time -- well, we've used some of what is not your time --
4 MR. IVETIC: Our time, everyone's time.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, everyone's time. Could you give us an
6 indication as to how much more time you would need?
7 MR. IVETIC: I think 45 minutes or so should suffice.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then ...
9 One second, please.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Most likely -- and, of course, unforeseen
12 circumstances not included, we'll take a break now and resume at quarter
13 to 12.00, and we'd like you to finish your examination-in-chief in the
14 next session. Then -- assuming that we're not absorbing time, and then
15 that cross-examination would start tomorrow. As I announced earlier, we
16 might -- we started early also in order to be able to conclude but to
17 adjourn a little bit earlier today, so that's what was on our mind at
18 this moment.
19 We take a break, and we resume at quarter to 12.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 11.23 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 11.45 a.m.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. Professor, now I propose that we look at part 3 of the Dunjic
1 report. So I'd like to turn to page 24 in both languages, and the part I
2 want to deal with is entirely on page 24 in the Serbian and it will be
3 the last three paragraphs in relation to NKS 2-012 in the English, and it
4 will continue onto the next page and conclude while discussing NKS 2-013.
5 In relation to these cases and what is written in Dr. Dunjic's
6 report, what are your professional opinions and/or comments as to the
8 A. It's about two autopsy reports that contain practically the identical
9 description of injuries to the head and in one report, it's NKS 2-012, it
10 is concluded that the cause of death is the injury to the head inflicted
11 by a bullet from a high-velocity weapon, and in NKS 2-013, the same
12 pathologist,Dr. Kirschner, states the cause of death as extreme trauma to
13 the head. From the description of injuries it is not impossible to make such
14 findings, that one is a gun-shot injury, and the other is extreme trauma
15 to the head. Now, I can read out the contents of the autopsy report, but
16 I believe this is the main objection to this way of drawing conclusions.
17 Q. If I could seek clarification. You are recorded in the English
18 transcript as having said: "From the description" -- just lost it.
19 MR. IVETIC: I think we've lost part of the -- part of the answer
20 between lines 20 and 21.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps you put the question again and you will
22 receive a proper answer.
23 MR. IVETIC: I think that's the best way to proceed. Thank you,
24 Your Honour.
25 Q. I'm going to ask you the question again and ask you to repeat
1 your answer and that is: What are your professional comments as to these
2 two cases given the description of the injuries and the conclusions
4 A. The first case, NKS 2-012, traumatology report reads: "External
5 fracture of the skull with fragmentation. Bones of the middle part of
6 the face are missing except one part of the upper jaw. The -- one part
7 of the skull is preserved but the whole left part of the crown and part
8 of the occipital bone are missing. Fracture of the lower" --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could -- could the interpreters please ask for
10 this text to be displayed somewhere because we don't have it on the
11 screen and the professor is reading too fast.
12 MR. IVETIC: If we could turn to --
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Next page in English --
14 MR. IVETIC: Next page in the English.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you slowly start reading again.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean the second case? Shall I
17 read it again?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "In the case NKS 2-013, the same
20 pathologist, Dr. Kirschner gives the following description. A traumatic
21 defect of the skull 11 by 10 cm involving the left temporal, par. and
22 occipital regions, linear fractures, radiating from the defect through
23 the left and right parietal bones to the right temporal bone. Cause of
24 death: Extreme trauma, to the head."
25 This way of drawing conclusions, where we have two identical
1 descriptions of the head in two different cases, in one case, the
2 conclusion is drawn that the cause of death is a gun-shot injury to the
3 head, and in the second case, the cause of death is listed as extreme
4 trauma to the head. I don't see from which finding these conclusions are
5 drawn and why the conclusions on the injury differ in view of the same
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. Now I think we have it clearly.
9 Now, I'd like to turn to page 27 in the English and it will
10 relate to the third bold-faced paragraph in the middle. And in Serbian,
11 it's page 27 near the bottom and it relates to Dr. Dunjic's comments as
12 to the testimony of Dr. Lawrence in the Karadzic case: "Also at the same
13 trial, on 8 December 2011, in reply to a question from the accused
14 Radovan Karadzic, he said that 'it is not possible to establish the exact
15 interval between death and burial'."
16 Do you agree that it is not possible to establish the exact
17 interval between death and burial as in regards to this part of Dunjic's
19 A. That's page 25 in Serbian?
20 Q. 27 near the bottom in Serbian. 27 in e-court which would, I
21 think, be page 20 -- one moment. Let me just find the English and I'll
22 find the Serbian real fast. It's beginning of 27 ... December ... that
23 is on page 26 in the hard copy and it's going to be the third
24 paragraph from the bottom: [Interpretation] "...also at the same trial on
25 8 December 2011..."
1 [In English] Have we found that now, professor?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. And do you agree with Dr. Lawrence that it is not possible to
4 establish the exact interval between death and burial in the instance
5 that is being discussed?
6 A. I agree.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could I take the witness back to the previous
9 You said in relation to the -- the -- the previous case we
10 discussed that the descriptions in the two cases are identical. Now, I
11 see that they are referring to similar damage to the head but they're not
12 identical, are they? The one gives sizes of the impact. They're not
13 identical, are they?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said almost identical. They're
15 not identical but they are nearly identical.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. IVETIC: At the very bottom of the same page in English and
19 it will be paragraph 3 on the 27th page in Serbian from the top. And
20 that will be -- and that will be 27 in the hard copy. It will be 28 in
21 e-court and it will be the third -- excuse me, the second full
22 paragraph from the top which in Serbian starts: [Interpretation] "Item 14
23 of the same document." [In English] And then I'll continue reading in
25 "Item 14 of the same document" - the ERN number is given - "by
1 Dr. C. H. Lawrence reads as follows: Six remained with an undetermined
2 cause of death. In my opinion, these six cases probably represent
3 perforating gun-shot wounds in soft tissue which can no longer be
4 recognised because of loss of soft tissue and absence of boney damage."
5 Then the -- Dr. Dunjic indicates:
6 "This kind of assumptions and opinions, for which no professional
7 evidence or explanation has been provided, seemed contradictory. A
8 perforating wound in soft tissue, but the soft tissue has been lost due
9 to putrefaction, and there is even absence of boney damage? On what
10 bases did he then form his opinion and establish that these are
11 perforating wounds? "
12 What would be your professional comments as to these findings by
13 Dr. C. H. Lawrence and the documents by Dr. Dunjic.
14 A. From the comments of Dr. Dunjic and based on the findings of
15 Dr. Lawrence, it follows that the mortal remains that were examined did
16 not have any soft tissue on them and after that Dr. Lawrence concludes
17 that it was probably a perforating wound of the soft issue inflicted by a
18 fire-arm that can no longer be recognised because of the loss of soft
19 tissue and absence of boney damage. This type of conclusion is
20 unacceptable because if there is no soft tissue based on what do you then
21 conclude that these perforating wounds existed on the soft tissue? There
22 is no soft tissue on the bodies which were examined.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: But as you correctly said, he says probably. He
24 doesn't make a definitive conclusion. He says probably.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In forensic medicine, there can be
1 certainty, probability, and possibility, so these are various degrees of
3 I cannot accept that someone should make such findings without
4 the soft tissues being available. Possible or possibly or probably,
5 that's a very wide notion. Let me not explain in detail what that means,
6 but I see no reason why Dr. Lawrence would state this.
7 No soft tissue is present in the examined mortal remains. No
8 damage to the bones. That means that one cannot talk about gun-shot
9 injuries with any certainty. I don't see why it's a problem to say that
10 or should one say: Probably but based on what?
11 JUDGE ORIE: What you're telling us is that the forensic findings
12 do not support that probability. That's ...
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- clear [Microphone not activated].
15 MR. IVETIC: And if we could look at part four of the Dunjic
16 report found at page 29 in the English and page 28 in the Serbian, what
17 comments do you have on the material in this part of Dunjic's report that
18 is the part that says, "Inconsistency in the report of Prosecution
19 investigator D. Janc."
20 A. I think that Dr. Janc is a policeman and he mentioned some
21 activities that he was involved in as a police officer. This has to do
22 with the bodies, whether they died in 1995 or some other year. I
23 wouldn't state my opinion about that because that's not within the
24 purview of what a forensic medical specialist normally does.
25 Q. And if we could look at page 31 at the bottom in English and page
1 30 in the Serb version, and it will be the fourth paragraph up from the
2 bottom on page 30 in the Serb, and it will be in relation to Bljeceva.
3 "Similarly, document number KTA 672/04 of the Tuzla cantonal
4 prosecutor's office states that the Bljeceva 1 site contains remains that
5 are not related to the fall of Srebrenica. A total of 39 bodies were
6 found there. The document includes the information that the body
7 designated as," then there's a designation "belongs to an individual who
8 was tied with ligatures. It also states that several bodies," and then
9 identifying numbers are given, "were in plastic body bags marked," if we
10 can go to the next page in English, "ZOV. The document notes that the
11 former ICTY Srebrenica investigation team leader Alistair Graham visited
12 the site on 23 July 2004."
13 Now, Professor Stankovic, at the beginning of your testimony, we
14 talked about the origin of plastic body bags marked ZOV, and at
15 transcript page 43278, you told us these -- those were used in 1992 and
16 were used up later that year. What question does this raise in your
17 mind, the presence of ZOV body bags in a grave linked to Srebrenica which
18 apparently the Tuzla prosecutor's office is convinced are not related to
19 the fall of Srebrenica?
20 A. I can only say what I have said before, namely, that the army had
21 those bags, that it supplied the area of Eastern Bosnia with the bags and
22 that in 1992 all the supplies had been exhausted, and there's nothing
23 more I can say about the bags that were found in the Bljeceva grave.
24 Q. Okay. If we can turn to page 34 in the English, the fourth
25 paragraph from the bottom, and in Serbian it will be 33 and the fourth
1 paragraph from the bottom as well, and we have here: "When bodies are
2 putrefied, decomposed bodies and body parts, the cause of death cannot be
3 established with certainty and the opinion must be given very
4 provisionally as I have already written but all pathologists and even
5 anthropologists, including archaeologist R. Wright, categorically speak
6 of perimortem injuries - i.e., injuries occurring during life and
7 immediately before death (died from gun-shot wounds [sic]) this is
8 unacceptable from the professional standpoint."
9 Professor, what are your comments as regards to this part of
10 Dr. Dunjic's report?
11 A. I have tried today to provide an answer, but obviously it was not
12 comprehensible. I can just repeat one more time --
13 JUDGE ORIE: For the Chamber, it was comprehensible, but
14 Mr. Ivetic, again, asked the question, so ...
15 MR. IVETIC: I was left wondering, given the last session, if
16 that was clear at all, so ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: No, I think we dealt with the matter in detail.
18 MR. IVETIC: Then, I will move on and save us time. Thank you,
19 Your Honours, for assisting there.
20 Q. I will then move to part 5 of the Dunjic report and page 38 in
21 the English and the third paragraph from the top. And it will be page 36
22 in the Serbian and the third paragraph from the top of the page in the
24 And here Dr. Dunjic is drawing attention to the fact that
25 Dr. Clark stated that he did not know about the armed conflict between
1 the two warring parties in the critical period between 11 and 17
2 July 1995. And goes on to say: "According to his assessment around 5
3 per cent were hit by shrapnel. On 20 February 2007, the same
4 pathologist, J. Clark, said in court 'that there were not many people
5 who been wounded before that' ... ' for the vast majority death cannot be
6 linked to combat'."
7 And then Dr. Dunjic has some comments about this. What would you
8 like to say as to this.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm a bit confused. You refer to part 5
10 and page 38 in English. And for me --
11 MR. IVETIC: Part 6, I apologise. Part 6.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Part 6.
13 MR. IVETIC: It is page 38 in English and third paragraph from
14 the top of the page.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah. Thank you. I was confused about what part we
16 were in.
17 MR. IVETIC: As was I, apparently.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah.
19 MR. IVETIC:
20 Q. Professor, do you have any comments as to this section.
21 A. Well, these were Dr. Clark's observations, whether he was aware
22 or not of the existing war conflict between the two warring parties. I
23 believe he was not aware, if that's what he says.
24 And as for his position, that for the majority, it could not be
25 ascertained whether death had anything to do with combat. It would be
1 good if Dr. Clark had said what was the percentage of the people whose
2 death could be linked to combat and who were the ones whose death could
3 be linked to execution or something else. I believe that on the basis of
4 all the material that he had at his disposal, he could have stated this
5 with a certain degree of likelihood. He may have composed a table
6 showing that, which would have been very useful.
7 Q. At the same page at the bottom in English and the same page in
8 the Serbian, the second paragraph from the bottom, it is recorded again
9 in relation to Dr. Clark: "It was possible to show that at least the
10 vast majority had died a violent death, mostly from gun-shot injuries,
11 but with a substantial number from blast injuries caused by shells."
12 Now, keeping that in mind, I'd like to turn to page 40 in
13 English, the second paragraph from the top, and page 38 in the Serbian at
14 the top, and I want to look at the middle of the statement that's
15 Enver Adzic ERN number 0037746748 that is listed where he describes:
16 "Sometime around 1000 hours on the same day, a Chetnik paramilitary unit
17 opened strong artillery fire at the remaining brigades and civilians who
18 were in Buljim at the time. 1.000 soldiers and civilians in his
19 assessment. They were shelled from PAMs," which we are told are
20 anti-aircraft machine-guns, "PATs," which we are told are anti-aircraft
21 guns, "Pragas, Zoljas," which we are told are hand-held rocket-launchers,
22 "and RPGs ... the source (witness) also pointed out to us that his group
23 had five automatic rifles which they fired at the direction of the
24 Chetniks and thus covered their retreat deep into the woods but Refik's
25 body was left behind, lying on the spot where he was killed."
1 The question I have for you, sir, is if you know: Can this
2 weaponry that this witness -- that this individual talks about being used
3 at Buljim account for the type of injuries that we just looked at where
4 it was said that a substantial number were from blast injuries caused by
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
7 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 I think my friend should add to the original quotation from
9 Professor Dunjic's report that he read that Professor Clark was speaking
10 only about three graves in particular at the time. Those three graves
11 being Ravnice, Glogova and Zeleni Jadar. The way the question is
12 currently phrased, it could be taken that the vast majority that we are
13 discussing is the entire set of victims pulled out of all of the
14 Srebrenica related graves.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
16 MR. IVETIC: I would agree with that, and I apologize for not
17 putting it at the top. With that clarification, then, I think the
18 witness can answer.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The injuries noted by Dr. Clark
21 could have been caused by the weaponry listed by you, the PAMs, PATs,
22 Pragas, Zoljas and RPGs.
23 MR. IVETIC:
24 Q. And now I'd like to turn to page 45 in the English, second
25 paragraph from the top, and it's the bottom of page 41 in the Serbian
1 dealing with Mr. Baraybar, and, in essence, the objection by Dr. Dunjic
2 is: "It should be said here that this is very difficult, almost
3 impossible, to establish on putrefied and skeletonized corpses, even for
4 forensic pathologists while he is an anthropologist. Hence in my
5 opinion, in his comments regarding this issue, he overstepped his
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: What page are we at in English?
8 MR. IVETIC: In English, it will be page 41 ... pardon me, 45 in
9 English, 45 in English. It should be the second paragraph from the top
10 under the heading, Jose Pablo Baraybar, and it talks about: "In his
11 reports for specific sites Jose Pablo Baraybar anthropologist comments
12 and explains the ante-mortem nature of gunshot injuries, both ante-mortem
13 and/or perimortem, based on the appearance of the bones and established
14 fractures. It should be said here that this is very difficult, almost
15 impossible, to establish on putrefied and skeletonized corpses, even for
16 forensic pathologists, while he is an anthropologist. Hence, in my
17 opinion, in his comments regarding this issue, he overstepped his
19 Do you agree, professor.
20 A. I agree with the position that Dr. Baraybar overstepped his
21 speciality considering that he is an anthropologist.
22 Q. Now I would like to look at page 47 in the English, the middle of
23 the page, and page 43 in the Serbian, and it will be the second
24 paragraph from the bottom, under examples, and here in relation to Hz-04
25 B262, it is recorded that Dr. Lawrence states: "On body parts and in the
1 body bag, there were injuries consistent with injuries inflicted with
2 violence and with homicidal intent including gun-shot wounds ..."
3 What is your expert comment as to what Dr. Lawrence has stated
5 A. Firstly, I think that forensic medical specialists are not those
6 who are to determine intent. I think the court should decide on that on
7 the basis of all available information. I have not seen a single
8 reasoned explanation as to how and in what way evidence of violence
9 inflicted on the body was destroyed. What were the injuries and how they
10 occurred. If we consider that the bodies were exhumed and had been
11 buried in mass graves. Is it possible that, during the burial and
12 exhumation, injuries may occur on the body parts that had already been
13 injured? That's usual and it is to be expected. Because if you have a
14 gun-shot injuries to the head, it's realistic to expect that during
15 burial in pits there might be light fractures of the bones because the
16 integrity of the bone is already damaged, and even light pressure of soil
17 or other bodies may cause additional injuries or damage that might look
18 like deliberate destruction. But in this specific case, I would say once
19 again I think that forensic medical specialists should not judge
20 intentions unless they have information or evidence suggesting that
21 readily available.
22 Q. And now I'd like to look at page 48 at the top in English and
23 page 44 -- actually, it will be the ... it will be the fourth
24 paragraph from the top in English, and it will be page 44 in Serbian, and
25 it will be the second paragraph from the bottom in the Serbian.
1 And it reads: "The report on this site mentions cases where
2 blindfolds were found. Because the blindfolds were similar, in fact
3 nearly identical on both sites HZ 04 and 05 (length, width, pattern), he
4 was shown a photograph at the Radovan Karadzic trial, showing that the
5 'Mujahedin' who were then active in the BH wore bandanas, which he left
6 without comment. This begs the question: Were the blindfolds, in fact,
7 bandanas that had slid down after the process of putrefaction and
8 decomposition of soft tissue?"
9 Can you comment on this from a forensic medical point of view.
10 A. Depending on the description of the blindfolds on the bodies that
11 were found, one could say whether it was possible for a bandana that was
12 tied around the forehead to fall to the area around the eyes or not. If
13 the bandanas were tied across the earlobes, not above them but over them
14 and tied at the back of the head, and tied tightly, then it could be
15 stated with certainty that the bandanas were tied by another person. If
16 the bandanas were above the earlobes and, if, after putrefaction, they
17 may have loosened and may have fallen over the eyes, then it could be
18 assumed, and it could be possible that bandanas tied in this manner fell
19 over the eyes because the cartilage of the earlobes decomposes much later
20 than soft tissues. But to repeat, it's necessary to look at the
21 descriptions provided in the relevant documents.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I ask you, in addition to this,
23 wouldn't that also depend on the position of the body? I mean, it's
24 gravitation that moves something in a direction, and I take that you're
25 talking about gravitation, how it could come down. But that also depends
1 on the position of the head, horizontal, vertical. Would you agree with
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I fully agree with you. I just did
4 not want to be too expansive in my answer. I only wanted to mention two
5 possibilities. But, yes, I do agree with you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. Sir, did you mention cartilage in the ears or in the earlobes?
9 A. Earlobes.
10 Q. And I'd like to look at D339, page 3, with you. That would be a
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
14 MR. IVETIC: If we can have page 3 of the exhibit.
15 Q. In this image caught from a film, first of all, looking at the
16 insignia on the uniform of this individual, do you have an opinion as to
17 what warring faction this person is a member of?
18 A. Judging by the look of the uniform, he is a member of the Muslim
19 armed formations.
20 Q. And looking at the cloth he has tried around his forehead, could
21 you describe for us hypothetically what would happen to the positioning
22 of that cloth if this person became deceased as the body begins to decay
23 and putrefy?
24 A. If a person with this type of bandana where the widest part is in
25 the area of the forehead was in a grave in a vertical position, placed
1 vertically in the grave, once putrefaction occurred and considering that
2 the bandana is in this specific case above the left earlobe, it is
3 possible that such a bandana could fall over the eyes, in view of the
4 putrefaction that caused the thinning of soft tissue structures. So it's
5 possible for it to fall over the eyes.
6 Q. One more photograph, D340 --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we do --
8 Are you aware of any bodies that were buried vertically in
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you see, when bodies are
11 thrown into a mass grave, if they are buried in an orderly fashion, then
12 they are placed one next to the other at a certain depth and in the lying
13 position, lying on their backs. But if bodies are thrown into a mass
14 grave, then it might happen that it is in a half-erect or in one of the
15 erect positions or bent backwards or frontwards. So these would be cases
16 of bodies that are not properly buried. We've had such cases in
17 Glodjanska Brda. That's above Zvornik. We found there a mass grave with
18 soldiers who were buried inside the trenches, and some of them were in
19 sitting positions inside the trench. They were buried just so. We found
20 them with their faces turned in all directions. So the archaeologists
21 were the ones who did this. If we had information that this person was
22 in such a position, as I described, which would follow from the
23 exhumation report, then the body would be so. We could talk about what I
24 talk about. If the body was leaning with its back and the explanation
25 that I have provided would then follow.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.
2 MR. IVETIC: If we could now have D340.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Can I ask you a question to you,
4 Mr. Ivetic.
5 Is it the position of the Defence that the blindfolds that were
6 found in the grave are - the word identical is used in this paragraph -
7 are identical to the bandanas?
8 MR. IVETIC: To which bandanas, Your Honour?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, you are showing us a picture of a bandana
10 and the paragraph refers to Mujahedin having worn bandanas. Those
11 bandanas that were worn by the Mujahedin.
12 MR. IVETIC: And I showed this picture and asked a hypothetical.
13 I'm about to go specifically to Srebrenica if you like.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand your question. I just want to get
15 the thinking of the Defence on this issue. Is it the position of the
16 Defence that the blindfolds found in the [indiscernible] are identical to
17 the bandanas that were worn by Mujahedin at the time when this incident
18 took place? That's the question.
19 MR. IVETIC: If you take out Mujahedin, I will agree with you.
20 It is the Defence position that certain pieces of cloth found in the mass
21 graves can not excluded to be bandanas worn around the heads of
22 combatants, not just the Mujahedins, during the time period. And as I
23 said we're about to go to precisely Srebrenica and the column of men who
24 left Srebrenica and look at a video still from that video of something
25 that I think will address your question.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I go back to my question, is it the position of
2 the Defence that those bandanas are identical with the blindfolds that
3 were found? Yes or no.
4 MR. IVETIC: Again, when you say those bandanas --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, the bandanas that I have been talking about
7 MR. IVETIC: And without having the bandanas in the photographs,
8 I can't make a determination but it's not the Defence's job to prove
9 anything, Your Honours, we only have to establish reasonable doubt. And
10 we say, yes --
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking you to prove anything. I just want
12 to find your position and if you don't want to tell me what your position
13 is, that's fine. Thank you so much.
14 MR. IVETIC: I think I've rather eloquently stated my position,
15 and I will restate it: It is the Defence's position that the pieces of
16 cloth found in the mass graves as to Srebrenica cannot all be excluded as
17 potentially being pieces of cloth worn and the heads of combatants that
18 were killed in combat and that in the graves then would go over the eyes
19 or go off the body because some of the pieces of cloth were found loose
20 in the grave, not affixed around heads. And we're about to look at a
21 photograph of some survivors from the Srebrenica column with bandanas on
22 their heads.
23 Is that eloquent and sufficient enough for you, sir?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Not for me. Thank you. Doesn't answer my
1 MR. IVETIC: Well, then I don't know what other details to give.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead. Do your job, what you're going to do.
3 MR. IVETIC:
4 Q. If we look at D340, and this is a still from the Prosecution's
5 Srebrenica trial video of actual members of the column of Srebrenica men
6 as they arrived in Tuzla, and if we can look at pages 2 and 3 side by
7 side, what is your opinion as to this cloth that this man has, if fellow
8 members of the column of men leaving Srebrenica had the same or similar
9 cloth on their heads and became deceased and were buried, would it be
10 possible for that cloth to fall over the eyes of the bodies as they
11 decompose? Again, given all the criteria that you've indicated in the
12 answers to our previous questions about the positioning of the body.
13 A. I cannot rule out the possibility that such a piece of cloth
14 would slide down over the eyes, but I cannot say that with any certainty.
15 Q. That's fine. That's fine.
16 Now, in Dr. Dunjic's report on page 49 in English, the second
17 paragraph from the top and on page 45 in Serbian, the fifth from the top
18 in the number of paragraphs, do you have any comment as to the
19 conclusions and opinions of Dr. Dunjic as expressed here in relation
20 to ... the fact that some victims were perhaps killed inside the grave
21 and that Baraybar and Wright said this based on projectiles found in a
22 grave under a body. Do you have anything to say in relation to this?
23 A. I can only say that Mr. Baraybar and Dr. Wright are not forensic
24 pathologists, and it's not within their area of expertise, so they are
25 not able to speak about such things in view of their role.
1 Q. And now I want to move to part 8 of the Dunjic report which
2 starts on page 50 in English and page 47 in the Serbian. And near the
3 bottom of the page, Dr. Dunjic talks of some of the findings from a
4 meeting of anthropologists and pathologists in 1997 in San Antonio which
5 reviewed the work of the Prosecution experts. I would therefore like to
6 look together with you and everyone at 65 ter number 20008, and I have a
7 hard copy in Serbian, if it will assist us to move more efficiently.
8 And the first question, professor: Are you familiar with this
9 document, this report? Have you seen it?
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we have it first on the screen.
11 MR. IVETIC: Oh. I apologise.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's wait for it.
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. Now that we have it on the screen, professor, have you seen this
15 document before? Are you familiar with it?
16 A. Yes, I've had several occasions to read the report of the
17 oversight committee.
18 Q. If we look at page 3 in the English and page 3 in the Serbian, we
19 see a number of allegations listed, and I want to obtain your
20 professional comment as to numbers 9 and 10 on the list. "Changing the
21 written autopsy report by the supervising pathologist after the
22 Prosecutor had departed," and "10, changing the cause and manner of
23 death, again, after the prosecutor had been departed and had never been
24 notified of those [sic] changes."
25 What is your opinion as to these allegations and others in the
1 report as they relate to pathologists?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
3 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, I heard my friend read out that it was after
4 the prosecutor had departed, but I think the word is actually
6 MR. IVETIC: That is accurate. Prosector in both numbers 9 and
7 10. I apologise. I have a blurry copy in front of my and the screen is
8 a little too far away for me to see.
9 Q. Professor, what are your comments as to these and the other
10 allegations contained in the report that relate to the work of the
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you ask a position on allegations.
13 There are two questions. First, whether the allegations are true or not,
14 that's one way of looking at it. And the other is that if they are true,
15 what would it mean. I do not find that you have distinguished between
16 that and asked for a general -- you put a rather general question. So
17 could you please further refine your question.
18 MR. IVETIC: Yes. I will be guided by Your Honours and rephrase
19 my question to say --
20 Q. If these allegations were true, as contained in the San Antonio
21 report, how significant would you find that from a forensic medical
23 A. I'm looking at what Dunjic said in his report. That's 47, page
24 47 in the Serbian version, and I will be commenting on that section.
25 If Dr. Kirschner, with relation to the cause of death and manner
1 of death, without precisely approval or consultation with the persons who
2 actually did the autopsies as Gallagher stated, changed this then it
3 would be a burden on this report. Nobody has the right to change
4 somebody else's findings regardless of his capacity. If, like Milevski
5 says, Dr. Kirschner exerted pressure on team members - or gave
6 instructions, sorry - if he pressured team members who determined the
7 cause of death, he had the right as team leader to express his opinion
8 but the definitive position should be given by the person doing the
10 As for the tempo of exhumations being too fast that led to the
11 co-mingling of the bodies, it's a professional problem that could have
12 been solved. But that's something that could have been dealt with by the
13 Prosecutor and he should have pointed out to Dr. Haglund that the speed
14 of exhumations an autopsies was maybe too high.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
16 MR. MacDONALD: It appears the witness is reading. I'm not sure
17 what he is reading from.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I think he --
19 MR. MacDONALD: He is also going outside the question by
20 answering other allegations.
21 JUDGE ORIE: What he has told us that he would look at
22 Dr. Dunjic's report, what he said about it. Now, I think the question
23 was focussing on numbers 9 and 10.
24 MR. IVETIC: And the other allegations.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And the other allegations.
1 MR. IVETIC: So ...
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Apparently the witness is dealing with all of
3 them. Perhaps no need to remind you, Mr. Ivetic, that we're already at
4 well over seven hours.
5 MR. IVETIC: That's why I was trying to speed it up.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you try to take care that your focussed
7 questions to the witness and, for example, to know that this witness
8 thinks that if the speed is too much that someone else should have
9 intervened might not be really within the expertise of that witness,
10 although I can imagine that you find that. But let's try to focus on
11 what is contentious.
12 MR. IVETIC:
13 Q. Okay, professor, why don't we do it this way. Focussing on what
14 Dr. Dunjic has specified in his report, that he has pulled from this San
15 Antonio oversight committee report, or I should say, report of the
16 oversight committee from San Antonio, if true, how significant would
17 those issues be in your opinion from -- from a forensic medical
19 A. Well, in my view, it would be unacceptable, that kind of conduct.
20 But whether they were acceptable in a specific job of work, it's probably
21 up to the person leading that work to judge and to give an explanation.
22 Q. And ... in the -- the report we have in front of us, if we look
23 at page 12 in both languages, and it's the committee recommendations
24 under section 8, and we see a number of recommendations here. Now, this
25 was in 1997, for future exhumations and excavations. The Tomasica
1 investigation and autopsies occurred after these recommendations. In
2 your opinion, based on what you saw in that review of that Tomasica
3 evidence, how well were these recommendations adhered to?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
5 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, Your Honour. I object to that question as
6 it's -- I think slightly misleading. These committee recommendations are
7 with regard to mass graves exhumed under the UN and the war crimes
8 tribunal as it was in 1995 and 1996 and so on. The Tomasica grave in
9 2013 was under the control of the national authorities, though Dr. Clark
10 was there as well. So I'm not sure my friend isn't trying to compare two
11 very different things here in this question, in asking the witness to
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could you split up, and apart from the
14 ambiguity in the question that how well were these recommendations
15 adhered to could mean how well did they act in accordance, which was
16 later recommended, or whether, as a follow-up of the recommendations they
17 acted in accordance with them.
18 And apart from the matter raised by Mr. MacDonald, perhaps you
19 rephrase the question.
20 MR. IVETIC: Let me rephrase the question.
21 Q. Taking into account what we discussed, I believe, yesterday, the
22 testimony of Dr. Clark that he was involved in the investigations with
23 the encouragement of the ICTY Prosecutor's office and ICMP, to what
24 degree were the investigations in Tomasica undertaken with any of these
25 recommendations in mind? Did you see any evidence of these
1 recommendations being applied in that investigation?
2 A. I think these recommendations are very correct. With regard to
3 Tomasica, some of the points were accepted, the majority were not. And
4 that led to the objections that I stated, speaking of Tomasica.
5 Q. Okay.
6 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we have already had this same document
7 in evidence as D329 but without a Serbian translation. This version,
8 which is a Prosecution 65 ter number, has the Serbian so I would ask that
9 either this replace the prior exhibit or that the Serbian translation be
10 attached to the prior, whichever formation works. But I think it would
11 help us to have both languages in the record.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, what is the most suitable of dealing
13 with it? Either to loosen it from this one and attach it to what is
14 already in evidence, or to replace the English version which is in
15 evidence by the new version which is both in English and in B/C/S.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I would recommend the latter.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then could you please -- you're hereby instructed to
18 replace and could you help me with the number, Mr. Ivetic. D329.
19 MR. IVETIC: That's correct.
20 JUDGE ORIE: To be replaced with what was on our screens which
22 MR. IVETIC: 20008.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You're instructed to act in accordance with what I
24 just said.
25 Mr. Ivetic, we are well beyond the hour. We are well beyond the
1 seven hours.
2 MR. IVETIC: And I have exactly four questions remaining.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to do that in the next five to six
5 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
6 JUDGE ORIE: So that we can conclude after five-quarters of a
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. IVETIC: Understood.
10 Q. If we return to the Dunjic report, D1448 MFI, and part 9 of the
11 same, and that is at page 52 in the English and page 48 in the Serbian,
12 and this is, again, item -- part 9 of the Dunjic report. What do you
13 have to say about part 9 of Dr. Dunjic's reports? What would be your
15 A. I would not say anything on this part, the number of victims
16 killed between the 11 and the 19th July, because it's not within the area
17 of expertise of a forensic pathologist.
18 Q. And if we look at part 10 of the report, page 53 in Serb and page
19 57 in English, and I would ask you the same question in relation to this.
20 A. For the same reasons. I believe that a different kind of
21 expertise is necessary. Different experts should speak as to who died
22 when, which information is in the possession of the Army of Bosnia and
23 Herzegovina, and which information is in the possession of other
24 institutions. That's not within the area of forensic pathology.
25 Q. And now I have a question as to page 68 onwards in English and
1 page 63 onwards in Serbian, the opinions listed by Dr. Dunjic. What
2 would you have to say about the opinion section of the report?
3 A. I believe that we have already discussed enough. You know that I
4 accept part of what Dr. Dunjic says, and there is a part that I didn't
5 want to comment on because I believe it's not within the area of
6 expertise because -- of a forensic pathologist, but Dr. Dunjic probably
7 wanted to point out these issues that should somehow be cleared up by
8 other experts. I wouldn't like to go into much detail because I believe
9 that we have already discussed it. We would just be repeating ourselves.
10 Q. And I had forgotten to look at page 65 in English and page 61 in
11 the Serbian and the questions posed by Dr. Dunjic, and these go on to the
12 next page.
13 Do you have a comment as to these?
14 A. I think again that in my testimony I've already touched upon some
15 of these questions and tried to answer some questions put to me by the
16 Trial Chamber and the OTP, and I wouldn't like to deal with these
17 questions. Because they follow from all the forensic expertise in the 11
18 sections that Dr. Dunjic's report consists of.
19 MR. IVETIC: And with that, Your Honour, we would just put on the
20 record that we will be tendering D1448 marked for identification,
21 subject, of course, to the cross-examination and the procedure for
22 Your Honours' decisions.
23 Q. Professor, I thank you. It's been a long three days, but I have
24 no further questions in direct examination for you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic, D1448 is already marked for
1 identification. We will postpone our decision on admission until the end
2 of the -- the conclusion of the evidence of this witness.
3 Professor Stankovic, we'd like to see you back tomorrow. I give
4 you the same instructions as before. But tomorrow it is 9:30 again and
5 not 9.00. The instruction is that you would not speak with anyone about
6 your testimony and I would understand that in a rather broad sense. I
7 would not speak with outsiders on forensic pathology at this moment and
8 wait until later.
9 We'd like to see you back tomorrow, and we'll adjourn a bit
10 earlier than usual. You may follow the usher.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Ivetic, this is one matter remaining.
13 Page 61, line 21 of the transcript, says that: "I would have said I want
14 to find your position, and if you don't want to tell me your position,
15 that's fine. Thank you so much."
16 That is what Judge Moloto said. I do agree with Judge Moloto.
17 You didn't answer his question whether it's -- the bandanas were
18 identical; but at the same time, a little bit later you gave an
19 explanation, not on whether that was your position or not but on
20 something else which at least assisted me to some extent, but that's then
21 clear as well.
22 We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume, tomorrow, Thursday, the
23 21st April, 2016, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.01 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 21st day of
1 April, 2016, at 9.30 a.m.