1 Monday, 25 April 2016
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.37 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 No preliminaries have been announced; so, therefore, after
8 Mr. Registrar has called the case, the witness can be escorted in the
10 Yes, now let's first have the case called.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honours. This is
12 case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
14 Mr. McCloskey.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Mr. President, good morning. I would just
16 like to introduce a new lawyer on our team, Marta Bitorsoli.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Welcome in this courtroom.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Stankovic.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I again would like to remind that you you're still
22 bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your
24 Mr. MacDonald will now continue his cross-examination.
25 Mr. MacDonald.
1 WITNESS: ZORAN STANKOVIC [Resumed]
2 [Witness testified through interpreter]
3 Cross-examination by Mr. MacDonald: [Continued]
4 Q. Good morning, Professor Stankovic.
5 A. [No interpretation]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher assist. Channel and volume.
7 Can you hear the interpretation now, Mr. Stankovic -- still not.
8 Can you hear the interpretation now?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It has been fixed.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honours. Your Honours, I plan to
13 play two more of the audio clips, and thanks to Ms. Stewart, I believe
14 that the dialogue and the translation of the dialogue will appear from
15 the CLSS verified translation when they are played on these occasions.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That's good.
17 MR. MacDONALD:
18 Q. Professor Stankovic, I'm just going to remind you of some
19 testimony you gave on Thursday. Then I'm going to play you an audio clip
20 of the conversation between yourself and Ratko Mladic, and then I'm going
21 to ask you some questions.
22 So on Thursday, at transcript page 43557, going into 43558, I
23 said to you:
24 "... well, genocide and war crimes are the most serious crimes.
25 You didn't say anything to him about the severity of a potential
1 sentence, that a life sentence must be prevented?"
2 And you answered:
3 "Well, you know yourself that essentially I cannot give any
4 explanations because I don't see myself as competent, nor could I have
5 discussed his future charges or the length of sentence because, frankly
6 speaking, my influence on this or anyone's, when it comes to that,
7 without the decision of a Trial Chamber, is insignificant or none. So I
8 couldn't have discussed that in the manner that you are now presenting
10 And then the Presiding Judge, His Honour Judge Orie said:
11 "What you could have done, tell us about what you did. The
12 question was: Did you say anything to him about -- about the potential
13 sentence? Did you say anything in relation to that, whether you could
14 have done it or not is -- did you or did you not?"
15 And you answered: "No."
16 MR. MacDONALD: So I am going ask now for a clip to be played.
17 For the benefit of the booths it starts on page 5 in both languages.
18 We're looking for the words spoken by Mr. Stankovic: "Well, so then I'm
19 afraid ..."
20 It is going to be clip number 4 which has 65 ter number 01610e.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I don't see anything on our screen yet. There it
22 may come. Yes, there we are. Now we still need English.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. MacDONALD: Sorry, one more thing, Your Honour. I wonder if
25 it could not be translated so Your Honours can hear the B/C/S original
1 and then you'll see the dialogue on the screen.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and we start where on the English?
3 MR. MacDONALD: When Professor Stankovic says the words: "Well,
4 so then I'm afraid ..."
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see it. That's the fifth box from the
7 Please proceed.
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's impossible, I understand, to have both the text
10 in e-court and listen to the audio.
11 MR. MacDONALD: I'm happy to say that Ms. Stewart has synced the
12 text in Sanction, so it should simply appear, and we shan't need the
13 e-court, Your Honours. So it should simply appear on the screen in front
14 of you as the dialogue continues.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll wait and see what happens.
16 [Audiotape played]
17 MR. MacDONALD: I wonder if perhaps we could bring the transcript
18 back up onto the screen now.
19 Q. Now, Professor Stankovic, that was you telling Ratko Mladic at
20 the end there that "a life sentence, no matter, you see that, we have to
22 That's you saying those words, isn't it? And before you
23 answer ...
24 MR. IVETIC: I have an objection. From the B/C/S original it was
25 clear that this was not the end of the discussion, that it was
1 interrupted by the second speaker. So I think to be fair to the witness
2 we have to have the whole part listened and presented because it's all
3 part of one spoken word. So we can't take out of context and add a
4 punctuation point as if the sentence is completed when it's not
6 JUDGE ORIE: Is there anything that follows, Mr. MacDonald, which
7 might accommodate the concerns expressed by Mr. Ivetic?
8 MR. MacDONALD: If we turn the page in the English, Your Honours,
9 certainly not that I'm aware of. To -- if it helps with Mr. Ivetic's
10 objection, the Prosecution is planning to entire the entire transcript so
11 Your Honours can see all the clips we have played in context.
12 MR. IVETIC: Yes, but if you're playing it for the witness, I
13 think the witness is entitled to have the entirety of his sentence before
14 him if you're presenting it to him out of -- out of -- pulling one piece
15 out of context and asking him to comment as to the same.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then, the portion played is what it is. If
17 you think -- you have invited Mr. MacDonald to add context which you
18 consider relevant. If is he not inclined to do, you can do so on
19 re-examination, Mr. Ivetic.
20 What I see is that what then follows is "we have to prevent" --
21 at least in the transcript it reads that Ratko Mladic then says: "Yes,
22 yes." Whatever is there after that, you can certainly raise that.
23 MR. MacDONALD:
24 Q. Professor Stankovic, I'm just going ask you the question again.
25 At the end of the clip we just heard, that's you telling
1 Ratko Mladic that "a life sentence, no matter, you see that, we have to
3 MR. IVETIC: And, Your Honours, I'm going to object again. He
4 can't say "end quote" if the continuation is the next part, but that
5 implies that it's a --
6 JUDGE ORIE: It's the end of his quote, Mr. Ivetic, and if you
7 want to add quotes later on, and you have now drawn the attention several
8 times to the witness that he should look at what then follows. You could
9 have done that in re-examination and that is an improper way of doing it
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Q. Professor Stankovic, I've read you some of the words you said
14 twice now, and that's you saying those words to Ratko Mladic back on the
15 9th October 1995, isn't it?
16 A. Just one question. Will I be able to get two minutes a bit later
17 so that I can provide my own explanation? I'm talking about the rest of
18 my testimony. And now I will answer. So after listening to this
19 intercept and once your examination is over, I would like to ask the
20 Court to allow me to explain this entire position. But now I will
22 JUDGE ORIE: If you first would please answer the question.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I answered. I said yes.
24 MR. MacDONALD: Unless Your Honours have any questions on that
25 clip, I would just seek to move on.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I have a short question.
2 Mr. Stankovic, last Thursday you told us that you couldn't have
3 even spoken about the possible length of a sentence; here you do. Is
4 that -- you're talking about a life sentence. Do you have any
5 explanation as to the answer you give last Thursday and the answer you're
6 giving now?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to just
8 say something. I would like to provide a general explanation. I don't
9 want to go into details. But perhaps when the Prosecutor is done with
10 his cross-examination, I wanted to get a couple of minutes just to say
12 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'd like to have an answer to my question.
13 Whether -- and I'll rephrase it. Do you agree that what you told us on
14 Thursday is not consistent with what we hear now and the answer you gave
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. MacDONALD: Just before I do, Your Honours,
20 Professor Stankovic made reference to this as an intercept. Just to tell
21 the Court of the origin of this tape, it comes from -- well, it was Ratko
22 Mladic who taped this conversation and we gained custody of it when we --
23 well, we found it in his home, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Before giving Professor Stankovic an opportunity to
25 explain, a general explanation, I would like to hear in two or three
1 sentences from him what he is going to explain.
2 Because your main role here is to answer questions that are put
3 to you. A opportunity will be given to clarify matters as long as it is
4 relevant, and by one or two sentences, perhaps three, you should first
5 introduce what you want to tell us. If that's relevant, we'll give you
6 an opportunity. If we consider it not to be relevant, then we'll stop it
8 Please proceed, Mr. MacDonald.
9 MR. MacDONALD:
10 Q. Professor Stankovic, I'm going play one last clip from this
11 conversation for you. Before I do, again, I'd like to remind you of some
12 testimony you gave on Thursday.
13 At transcript page 43557, I said:
14 "Now, Professor Stankovic, the indictment against Ratko Mladic
15 for genocide and war crimes had been issued a couple of months earlier.
16 Your meeting with Richard Goldstone, the man who has signed that
17 indictment, issued that arrest warrant, at this meeting with
18 Ratko Mladic, did you say anything to him like you might try to get the
19 indictment against him withdrawn, or anything along these lines?"
20 And you answered:
21 "Mr. Prosecutor, I'm so small compared to an international
22 tribunal and have so little influence or could have had such influence,
23 that I couldn't have stated something like that."
24 MR. MacDONALD: So I'd now like to play the last clip. It is
25 65 ter number 01610. And, again, Your Honour, thanks to Ms. Stewart --
1 my apologies, Your Honours, 01610f. And thanks to Ms. Stewart, the
2 dialogue should come up on the screen in front of you.
3 [Audiotape played]
4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, the part that was played does not
5 correspond to the transcript that was displayed. The additional parts
6 were not displayed but the transcript keeps going on. So there was
7 something unintelligible from Mr. Stankovic and then we heard
8 General Mladic say: "No, no, let them have it," and then in the
9 transcript it says "withdrawn." So we did not have that part of the
10 transcript up on the recording although it was heard.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think I saw some of "withdrawn" in the last line I
12 looked at. So I do not know what's then --
13 MR. IVETIC: We only had -- in the English on page 6, the last
14 line shown was the third one from the bottom; whereas the audio and the
15 conversation continues after that and we have something unintelligible
16 and then we have Ratko Mladic disagreeing with Mr. Stankovic, saying:
17 "No, no, let them have it withdrawn ..." I think it is very critical to
18 what's being presented and what's being insinuated by the Prosecution.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have the text on the screen again, the text
20 we looked at a second ago.
21 Yes, I -- as a matter of fact, I'd like to see the text we looked
22 at when we listened to the audio. Is it possible to that have text?
23 So -- because that was presented when we listened.
24 [Audiotape played]
25 JUDGE ORIE: This portion we looked at, where is something
1 missing within the confines of what we are looking at?
2 MR. IVETIC: Right after the last words, Your Honour, where it
4 "R Mladic: Let them have it be withdrawn ..."
5 That is the third one up from the top in the English in the
6 transcript in e-court. And then the conversation continues. You have
7 Zoran Stankovic saying unintelligible --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, while -- again, if there's anything in addition
9 to what we looked at and that was played apparently if I understand --
10 MR. IVETIC: It was played. So that's the point. It was by the
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then let's have a look at it in e-court and then we
13 will slowly read -- we are then able to read what was for the witness
14 presented as audio. And could you assist us, Mr. -- have it withdrawn.
15 "Zoran Stankovic: Unintelligible.
16 "Ratko Mladic: No, no, let them have it, and then apparently
17 with a question mark, "withdrawn. No, no, I don't need the indictment at
19 Where does it stop, Mr. --
20 MR. IVETIC: Somewhere, I think, in the middle of that last
21 sentence that Your Honour has read, it cut off.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So somewhere where it reads in my transcript:
23 "No, no, I don't need the indictment" --
24 MR. IVETIC: Yeah, yeah, I think closer to the front, though, of
25 that sentence.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That is what was played to the witness and
2 what we now have looked at as transcript of the conversation.
3 Please put your question to the witness, Mr. MacDonald.
4 MR. MacDONALD:
5 Q. Professor Stankovic, the clip we just heard, that's you speaking
6 to Ratko Mladic again, isn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And when you say, "I'll try to have them deal with the
9 indictment, you know," do you mean that you're going to try and have the
10 indictment withdrawn?
11 A. I have been working in this field as an expert for too long to be
12 able to claim that any indictment could be withdrawn without a trial. So
13 I just wanted to say the following, if you permit me a couple of minutes.
14 At the time the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro did not
15 recognise The Hague Tribunal. The entire material that the committee on
16 gathering information on violations of international humanitarian law was
17 supposed to provide to The Hague Tribunal was handed over to the
18 United Nations in New York. During that time, representatives of Croatia
19 and the Muslim-Croatian Federation provided their material to The Hague
20 Tribunal. As I said, I was processing graves in Eastern Bosnia. I was
21 processing mass graves. I worked in Siroka Kula near Gospic. No one
22 was charged for those crimes.
23 And then, bypassing my state, which did not want to recognise it,
24 I came to the Tribunal on my own initiative, with a group of prisoners
25 who had been in the war.
1 In 1994, there was a person who was raped there. There were people who
2 were abused, such as the priest Perkovic, and we presented this all to
3 the Prosecutor's Office of The Hague Tribunal and we expected some sort
4 of reaction. There was no reaction forthcoming. And so then I began to
5 look for possibilities how to have our material reach The Hague Tribunal
6 and how on the basis of that material people who were responsible for the
7 death of the persons whose autopsies I carried out could be punished.
8 So for that purpose, I was invited to London in May 1995. I went
9 to Nora Beloff's where I spoke with a great number of people. I
10 had a lecture in the Foreign Relations Committee in the British Parliament
11 and also in the biggest military-strategist institute in London. Then I
12 gave a series of lectures at other institutions in Cambridge, and I asked
13 for help to have our documents reach The Hague.
14 That was when people offered to defend Ratko Mladic. They said,
15 We would defend him and also try to overturn the indictment. We would
16 try to have that indictment withdrawn. This was something that I could
17 not decide about by myself. I informed General Mladic about it. He
18 recorded it as he did. It is correct that I did say what you have quoted
19 here, and everyone knows that for genocide, if it is proved, there
20 can be no other sentence other than a life sentence or a death sentence.
21 So then if I used that sentence, it's possible.
22 This is a conversation recorded by General Mladic 21 years ago.
23 Some things -- well, I had a -- many conversations. I failed to see some
24 things. It was not my intention to speak any untruths. But I don't see
25 anything in particular here. I mean, everything that is stated here, I
1 have acknowledged that I said that. Thus, my only efforts at that time
2 were to say that the citizens and Serbs also had victims in the war.
3 Until that time, 1995, there was no indictment issued for that, and
4 these things were evident and everyone was aware of that. That was my
5 only motivation, as far as General Mladic is concerned, and as far as his
6 Defence is concerned. These people said that, We're going to get a
7 team of lawyers together. We will appoint attorneys.
8 We will look at the indictment. We will gather information.
9 They said, We're a large country and we can defend even larger
10 figures than Ratko Mladic, and we wanted to hear back from him.
11 So I was only the messenger conveying this
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just ask a question, sir. Which are these
14 people who said that they would defend Mr. Mladic? Can you name them,
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can just say that we were in
17 Nora Beloff's apartment. She's a well-known journalist. I didn't even
18 know who she was when I was invited to London. I had no idea who she
19 was. I was there, and a group of people gathered in this apartment.
20 They discussed everything that had been going on in the territory of the
21 former Yugoslavia, and, at the same time, they wanted to engage lawyers
22 or jurists who would defend Ratko Mladic. Not only him but other
23 indictees as well.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question is: Who is the person who said, Yes,
25 we will defend Ratko Mladic? What's his name?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot talk about names. There
2 was just this woman I knew. There were around ten people in the
3 apartment discussing this, but I cannot tell you their specific names
4 because I don't know them.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put another question to you.
7 Last Thursday, you were asked about a possible conversation
8 between you and Mr. Mladic. Then you denied to have talked about these
9 matters we are -- we have now listened to.
10 Why didn't you explain on Thursday what you now explained today?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because on Thursday, I couldn't
12 remember all the details. And during the war and after the war, as for
13 my activities on collecting information about war crimes and the
14 autopsies I performed, I couldn't and I cannot remember all the details.
15 I could not even remember where I had slept in London for ten days. I
16 couldn't remember at all. It was just before coming here that I
17 remembered that I had slept at the residence of the Embassy of Serbia and
18 Montenegro in London. So that's the whole truth that I wanted to tell
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: When you spoke on the phone to Mr. Mladic about
21 your conversation with these people you are now referring to, did you at
22 that time know the names of the people you talked to?
23 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, there might be some confusion --
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No --
25 MR. IVETIC: -- you mentioned phone.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- please. Please don't interrupt me. When you
2 had this conversation we listened to, at that time, did you know the
3 names of these ten people in the apartment of this journalist?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The only thing I knew was
5 Nora Beloff. There was Marica Mate [phoen], myself, and these people.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you telling us that you discussed these
7 serious matters, indictment with respect to genocide, withdrawal of an
8 indictment, presenting evidence about crimes others have committed, and
9 you don't know the people, the names of the people? Are you telling us
10 that story?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I'm saying.
12 Except that I know that this took place in Nora Beloff's apartment and
13 that was even the first time that I saw her. I had never seen her
14 before, nor had I known who she was. That was when I met her for the
15 first time, in May 1995, in London. And that was the first time that
16 they mentioned something like this in relation to Ratko Mladic.
17 There were others in contacts with others, but this time I
18 conveyed this to General Ratko Mladic when he was in Banja Luka. That
19 was before my second visit to London, because I gave another lecture at
20 King's College in Cambridge and I don't remember where else.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you at that time know which institutions
22 these people did represent? Where did they come from?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I only knew what Nora Beloff
24 told me. That's what I knew and nothing else.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I also have a few follow-up questions here.
2 Professor Stankovic, you're an intelligent man. On both issues -
3 that is, talking about possible sentence and the withdrawal of the
4 indictment - last Thursday, you did not respond directly to the questions
5 but started explaining that you couldn't have done it, that you were not
6 in a position to discuss these matters.
7 Instead of giving a direct answer that "I didn't discuss it," you
8 went beyond that, explaining what now, today, turns out to be something
9 inexplainable. Because by telling us that you couldn't have done it,
10 you're telling us that it did not happen. You didn't rely on your
11 recollection, but you reasoned yourself into that answer.
12 Do you have any explanation as to why you -- you did not tell us
13 at that time that you just did not touch upon that matter in the
14 conversation, why you started explaining us that you couldn't have done
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have told you that I
17 had a great number of activities relating to war crimes in the past
18 period that also had to do with indictment and collection of information.
19 I couldn't remember everything at a given moment. So if that's
20 responsibility and if that's some sort of blame, then I accept that. For
21 some matters, time is necessary. In these three days, I --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are again now relying on the lack of
23 recollection rather than to answer my question.
24 I have one follow-up question. Did you consider discussing the
25 withdrawal of the indictment against Mr. Mladic as a detail?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In any case, a detail that we
2 discussed while we were in this apartment.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I think you explained that you had
4 forgotten because you might not have remembered details. Do you consider
5 the withdrawal of an indictment against Mr. Mladic in his position a
6 detail or would it be a major issue?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A withdrawal of the indictment,
8 once it has been issued, is not possible, and I was aware of that. That
9 it was not possible without a trial. So everything that we discussed was
10 a trial, collecting a sufficient amount of information, to have valid
11 information, and only after that withdrawal could take place, or a
12 refutation of the indictment. Nothing else. It's a very difficult and
13 complex issue.
14 If, at that time, my position as a lieutenant colonel of the army
15 and a specialist doctor of forensic medicine was so powerful that I could
16 talk about a withdrawal of the indictment without a trial, then that
17 would mean that something was wrong with me. If I was trying to resolve
18 the issue of an indictment that had been issued in such a manner. In my
19 explanation, I have already said, we had behind us the position of the
20 state, which did not recognise ICTY. And my role was - and I advocated
21 this - that as soon as the Tribunal was formed, that we should collect as
22 much information as we could, and submit it, so that we could counter by
23 this information what we were charged with.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Now you explained to us that you considered it
25 unfair that some were accused, where others were not accused. Had you
1 formed an opinion at that time also about whether there were -- whether
2 there was evidence for the charges brought against the accused, so
3 irrespective of whether others should have been accused as well? Had you
4 formed an opinion about that?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The indictments that were issued
6 against these people at the time were based on certain evidence, and the
7 indictments have to be proven in court. So I had the information that
8 the indictments were issued on the basis of certain evidence. Now, to
9 prove the evidence, that was up to the court. And we were preparing to
10 see what the evidence contained and to see what could be said in court.
11 Just as I accepted some matters that are indisputed and that have been
12 proven here in court, and that was our position too. The only problem
13 was that few people were in favour of co-operation with ICTY, and willing
14 to co-operate with it. For example, even after the fall of Srebrenica,
15 it was said that all the documentation was taken by General Mladic, so
16 this was discussed, and we requested that from him. We had a CD that
17 included all the activities of Naser Oric's unit. I see now that the CD
18 is missing.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I ask you a general question. Is it
20 true that in the past, in your dealings with trials in this Tribunal, you
21 went far, far beyond the matters on which you are called today as an
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Depends on what I was asked. But
24 in terms of all of the issues for which I was engaged as an expert
25 witness, I answered all the questions as an expert witness, and I think I
1 have done so in this trial as well.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I was not talking about what you did in this trial.
3 I'm asking -- I was asking a general question whether, in the past, you
4 dealt with these matters, such as preparing for the Defence, looking at
5 whether an indictment could be withdrawn, possible sentence to be
6 imposed, that you engaged in activities and conversations which went far
7 beyond what your expertise in this case, and in other cases, is about.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, I think not.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I have a follow-up question.
11 Mr. Stankovic, were you ever charged with -- in any way with war
12 crimes, by this Tribunal or anywhere else?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: A minute ago, you said:
15 "... we should collect as much information as we could so that we
16 could counter by this information what we were charged with."
17 Why are you saying "we were charged with"? Who is "we" in this
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, everyone talks about
20 individual responsibility before ICTY or any other Tribunal. If somebody
21 commanded army, then, as the leader, he is held responsible but not just
22 for himself, but he is also taken to account for the army that he
24 General Mladic had 20.000 soldiers who were killed. When I
25 invited him to surrender to ICTY, I had this on my mind. I think that
1 these 20.000 soldiers that he commanded should be mentioned, why they
2 died, under what circumstances, and how. Therefore, if the president of
3 my country is indicted, the whole country is indicted. Because he did
4 not elect himself. He was elected by the citizens, and the consequences,
5 as can be seen, are against the country.
6 In addition to individual responsibility, there is a general
7 responsibility too. So when we talk about this, General Ratko Mladic is
8 not an individual who stands accused. He is indicted together with his
9 army, the army that he commanded. That's how I realise that. I may not
10 be right. Therefore, that was the main point.
11 Since the breakout of armed conflict in the territory of the
12 former Yugoslavia, no one is held responsible for thousands of dead JNA
13 soldiers. I performed autopsies on them, and I requested from the state
14 and from the state leadership to determine truth and to insist that
15 somebody is held responsible for their death. Autopsy report was
16 returned to me from the military court in Belgrade, and I was told:
17 These are the victims of war. I couldn't agree with that. And all the
18 time I have been working on collecting information so that truth would be
19 told about those who perished. Because, as we have seen today --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I stop you here. It's a lengthy answer to a
21 short question. But that triggers a follow-up question.
22 If I understand you correctly, every Serb soldier is accused if
23 the commander of the army is accused of war crimes. If that is your
24 position and you were a member of the army, is that consistent with your
25 role as an objective expert witness in this Tribunal?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, please tell me what did I say
2 that's not true and then you may punish me as well.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No. You -- I don't have to tell you anything.
4 I'm asking you. Is your understanding of your role as an expert witness
5 in this trial that you have to defend the Serb army and its commander?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not defend either the army or
7 its commander. I defended the truth in which I believed on the basis of
8 the analysis of documents. I believe that it followed from generally
9 accepted forensic views, nothing more.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: One final question. You expressed your
12 responsibility on withdrawal of indictment without trial. Did you ask
13 anyone about whether that's possible or not?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's the fourth time that I'm
15 saying that I knew there was no one to ask anything. Until an indictment
16 is issued, it's possible to withdraw it. Once it is issued, then the
17 only instance that can withdraw it is either the one who issued it, on
18 the basis of the trial, or if it's decided that it's unacceptable. No
19 one else. I've said this several times now today.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I said -- I think you said it's not possible
21 to do it without a trial; but, as a matter of fact, it is. But I leave
22 it to that because we're not here to discuss the Rules of Procedure and
23 Evidence of this Tribunal with the witnesses, but since you touched upon
24 it, I just wondered how familiar you were with the details.
25 Mr. Ivetic.
1 MR. IVETIC: If Your Honours are done with questions, I'd like to
2 correct the record.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. IVETIC: At temporary transcript line -- at page 16, line 3
5 through 5, Judge Orie is quoted as saying:
6 "You are again now relying on the lack of recollection rather
7 than to answer my question."
8 Your Honour's question was posed on the prior page, page 15,
9 lines 18 through 21 --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Are you going to correct me or to correct the
11 transcript? I mean, if I said something which is inconsistent --
12 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- of course, that's not a correction of the
14 transcript, but that is an objection to how I presented matters to the
15 witness. These two are not the same. I don't mind either of them, if
16 you want to do it, but let's do it under right heading.
17 MR. IVETIC: Okay. I'm try to correct the record so that we have
18 a correct record of what the witness said, what the -- and whether it was
19 or was not an answer to the question that was posed, because there has
20 been an insinuation that it was not an answer to the question. And,
21 Your Honour's question at line 18 through 21 of the prior page:
22 "Do you have any explanation as to why you -- you did not tell us
23 at that time that you just did not touch upon that matter in the
24 conversation, why you started explaining us that you couldn't have done
1 And respectfully, Your Honours, lack of recollection is an answer
2 to your question. So Your Honour's comment that it was not an answer to
3 the question is incorrect.
4 Later on in the transcript --
5 JUDGE ORIE: I asked the witness something different. I think
6 asked the witness why he did not give an answer to the question, say,
7 That's what I did or I don't remember what I did. But why he started
8 explaining in general terms that what we -- he was asked, whether he had
9 done it, that he couldn't have done it rather than whether he did or did
11 But let's leave it to that. It's -- I think you've made your
12 point clear and it's on the record --
13 MR. IVETIC: Is your question not accurately recorded, Your
14 Honour? Is that what Your Honour saying?
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'll have a look at it.
16 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 MR. MacDONALD: I think I have just one more question,
19 Your Honour.
20 Q. Professor Stankovic, I'm just going to read one part of the clip
21 we just heard and then I'm going to ask you a question.
22 The part of the clip we just heard, it starts the fourth box in
23 in the page in front of us. For you, Professor Stankovic, you can follow
24 on the screen, it's at the bottom. It starts at the bottom of this page.
25 It will go into the next page. And you stated:
1 "Now, that is why I am going, as I said, these people, because
2 they are very influential people ... I'm going to, when this is over,
3 that we do away with everything we can; so that tomorrow you can move
4 about normally, that you are not proclaimed or that they say: 'He's a
5 war criminal' and whatnot ... we don't want to talk to him, we don't want
6 to go like this."
7 Now, Professor Stankovic, a couple of times now you suggested
8 that this withdrawal of indictment may be linked to a trial, but you're
9 not talking about a trial here back on the 9th of October, 1995. You
10 have no idea at that point if a trial is going to happen. What you're
11 trying to do is get the indictment for genocide and war crimes withdrawn
12 before any trial; isn't that right?
13 A. No, that's not right. Because if an indictment is issued - this
14 is the fifth or sixth time that I am saying this - it means that it is
15 not possible to withdraw it, especially if it's for such serious crimes,
16 except by a decision of the court, as I've already said.
17 MR. MacDONALD: Your Honours, I have no further questions. I do
18 have some documents to tender. I'm not sure if you want to do that as a
19 preliminary after the break, possibly.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do it as a preliminary after the break.
21 Mr. Stankovic, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes when the
22 re-examination will be conducted by Mr. Ivetic, and perhaps some more
23 questions by the Prosecution.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at five minutes to 11.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
3 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, thank you, Your Honours.
4 With regard to the documents the Prosecution would like to
5 tender, firstly Your Honours may remember that we tendered the
6 photographs sent by Dr. Clark of the six bullets in the skull.
7 Ms. Stewart has now made an excerpt of only those photographs that shown
8 to the witness. That is 65 ter number 33753a and we simply ask that be
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number reserved was P7819 MFI.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And now the reduced number of photographs
14 should replace what was originally tendered.
15 THE REGISTRAR: And I add, Your Honour, that will be under seal.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And that will be under seal. And you're instructed
17 to replace them. And then -- let me one second, please. One second.
18 Yes, the P number doesn't appear on the transcript.
19 Mr. Registrar, could you please repeat the P number that was reserved.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, P7819, under seal.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted under seal.
22 MR. MacDONALD: Your Honour, the second thing the Prosecution
23 would seek to tender is the part of Professor Vincent Di Maio's book that
24 was shown to Professor Stankovic, the page about ammunition through the
25 ages. Ms. Stewart has again created the excerpt already. That is
1 65 ter 33740b. It covers -- it also includes the book cover and other
2 pages at the start as well as the first page of the chapter, and that
3 should be MFI'd in the meantime, Your Honours, as there is no translation
4 as of yet.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I take it that there's no objection against
6 marking for identification.
7 MR. IVETIC: None, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI P7820, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification.
11 MR. MacDONALD: The third document is 65 ter number 33745a, and
12 that is the section of the autopsy report from Cancari Road 12 that was
13 shown to Professor Stankovic, as well as photographs of the bullet and
14 jacket from one of the wounds, as well as a fluoroscopy. Again, we'd ask
15 that be marked for identification pending translation, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the number to be assigned?
17 THE REGISTRAR: MFI P7822, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it 22 or 21, Mr. Registrar?
20 THE REGISTRAR: I stand corrected, it's P7821.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Without the assistance of my colleagues I would be
24 MR. MacDONALD: And the final document, Your Honours, is the
25 entirety of the audio clip uploaded into e-court as under 65 ter number
1 01610a, and the entire transcripts in English and B/C/S are there as
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the length of it because we have listened
4 only to certain portions.
5 MR. MacDONALD: The entire audio clip is just over 18 minutes,
6 Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And that is in pages, some --
8 MR. MacDONALD: It's pages 1 to 8 in the English and 1 to 7 in
9 the B/C/S.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then any objections against the audio?
11 MR. IVETIC: Not at this time, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P7822, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: P7822 is admitted into evidence.
15 Professor Stankovic, sorry for dealing with some administrative
16 matters. Mr. Ivetic will now re-examine you.
17 Please proceed.
18 Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
19 Q. Good morning again, Professor.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. I propose to start where we have left off before the break and
22 the audio recording of that one meeting with General Mladic that you have
23 been discussing.
24 My first question: Last week at transcript page 43563, you
25 started to mention someone named Jonathan Eyal in London. Could you
1 please tell us precisely who that person was and how they fit into what
2 you were doing in London?
3 A. During my first visit to London in May 1995, among other things,
4 I gave a lecture about the victims of war in the largest military
5 strategic institute in Great Britain, abbreviated as RUS. Those who
6 greeted me there were Admiral Cobolt, Jonathan Eyal, and there were a few
7 other people also. I gave a lecture there about these victims.
8 Jonathan Eyal, at the time, was a man who was analysing conflicts
9 in the area of the former Yugoslavia. He was very much quoted in our
10 media, and I can say, judging by that, that he was a significant figure
11 in view of the fact that he looked at what I was talking about, spoke
12 about, victims, Serbs primarily, who were killed up until 1995 as well as
13 the attitude towards those victims. This something that he was
14 interested in and I described to him what I was doing. So practically he
15 was an analyst of those conflicts and that is how he also behaved in
16 these lectures of mine.
17 Q. Okay. And now I want to shift gears and focus on Nora Beloff,
18 who you told us was a journalist and a former member of MI6, I believe.
19 Now, last Thursday, you started to tell us about the meeting at
20 Nora Beloff's apartment once, at transcript page 43558, and you were
21 interrupted and not allowed to continue by the Trial Chamber. Then you
22 also started to talk about Nora Beloff and the meeting in her apartment
23 at transcript page 43561, and then the Prosecution interrupted you and
24 did not let you continue. And then you again tried to talk about the
25 meeting at Nora Beloff's apartment at transcript page 43564, and again
1 the Trial Chamber interrupted you and did not allow you to continue with
2 your answer.
3 What would you have said last Thursday as to the meeting in
4 Nora Beloff's apartment had you been allowed to continue your answer and
5 how similar would it be -- would the continuation of that answer be to
6 what you have told us today?
7 A. Just a couple of things. First of all, I didn't even know who
8 Nora Beloff was. Secondly, she invited me invited via the embassy and I
9 received this invitation some time in early May, and that's the basis on
10 which I went to London. When I got there, I expected a younger person
11 but this person who was dealing with all of this was an old lady who
12 immediately started telling me who she was and then she told me when she
13 was born, which degrees she had. She said, I was in Russia as an agent
14 of this intelligence agency of theirs during World War II. Well, first
15 of all, I said that I'm not an intelligence officer. I'm such and such a
16 person, lieutenant-colonel, and so on and so forth. So that was that
18 Then she said, Did you bring material that speaks to the
19 suffering of the Serbs? I said yes. And then in that conversation, the
20 first thing was that it was said, Can we speak out, because very little
21 was spoken about Serb victims during that period from the beginning of
22 the war to 1995, what the truth was, and all this information, all the
23 things that we had I brought in the form of autopsy reports. Then I gave
24 an interview to The Times, one to the Strategic Policy, and then there
25 was another large interview. I can't remember who for. After that, we
1 went together to the British parliament where I gave a presentation to
2 the Foreign Policy Committee of the British parliament, all of that.
3 Then I went to Cambridge, and then after that, that was that first part,
4 I talked about the problems that we had with placing the documents that
5 we had on war crimes, that our state did not recognise The Hague
6 Tribunal, that General Mladic did not recognise The Hague Tribunal, that
7 the Republika Srpska leadership did not recognise it. We had problems,
8 but the forthcoming period this would be a major problem for us, nothing
9 would be known about our victims. And then Strategic Policy, it's a
10 magazine that is published, its circulation is about 2.000. They talked
11 about victims in Gospic, the things that were publicly said. At the time
12 that is what was discussed and this is what she told me in the presence
13 of these people, that they would like to defend General Mladic, that they
14 would like to get the indictment, that she would like to have an
15 interview with him, and so all of that was said.
16 And I said, I cannot tell you anything about him. I can convey
17 that him. He is a person who makes own decisions. He does not accept
18 other people's opinions too much. And that was something that I did. I
19 conveyed it. And then, again, they called me once more in September to
20 go, and, again, I went to see General Mladic about this so that we could
21 discuss this matter.
22 Q. And apart from acting as a messenger to convey messages to
23 General Mladic from this group of people in London, and potentially back,
24 did you undertake any other efforts to assist these persons in London
25 with their task of helping General Mladic?
1 A. Well, no. You heard what General Mladic said. Already at the
2 time he was distrustful towards everyone. He trusted just a couple of
3 people, such as General Tolimir. I knew he was recording me. As soon as
4 he told me, Could you please speak up, it was clear to me what he was
5 doing. And in that entire situation, such as it was, I was just a person
6 who was conveying. As for decisions, nobody could interview with his
7 decision-making, least of all me. I was a messenger.
8 I'm going to give you another example.
9 When the Institute for War Documentation of the Netherlands
10 wanted to speak with General Mladic and to collect data, he refused.
11 Then they brought me envelopes for General Mladic, General Perisic, and
12 Karadzic, and some other people. I tried to convey that and to say,
13 These people gave me this. These were sealed envelopes. Answer the
14 questions and I will return them. He said, Take it back. Who told you
15 that you could take that? And I took it back, and I still have it to
16 this day. The envelope is still sitting at my house with its seal
18 Q. And just for sake of clarity, you indicated the Institute for War
19 Documentation of the Netherlands that would be known under the acronym
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And now moving to a slightly different but related topic --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you do so, I have one question for the
25 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You just told us about your conversation and
2 prevention at the Foreign Policy Committee of the British parliament, and
3 I would like to know on whose behalf you told them, "that our state did
4 not recognise the Tribunal, that General Mladic did not recognise it, and
5 that the Republika Srpska did not recognise it"?
6 They're your words you just told us. On whose behalf did you
7 tell them?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On my own behalf. Because that was
9 true. As I said in 1994, I was in The Hague with a group of camp
10 inmates, and there was talk about us directly co-operating with The Hague
11 Tribunal because that was the court that was formed. I think Dusan Tadic
12 was already in prison. I visited him on that occasion. I said, That
13 court will pass -- hand down judgements. You must co-operate with them,
14 otherwise the state will just have negative results and negative
15 connotations if it does not do that. So, actually, that was my own
16 personal position on this matter.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. You indicated last week, I believe, that you had contacts with
20 Carla Del Ponte and others from the Prosecutor's office of the Tribunal.
21 Were any of those contacts to render assistance to General Mladic, or
22 were they to assist the work of the Prosecutor's office of the Tribunal?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
24 MR. MacDONALD: It's quite a leading question, Your Honours. I
25 wonder if it might be rephrased.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
2 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
3 Q. In the contacts that you had with Carla Del Ponte and the members
4 of the Prosecutor's office of the Tribunal that you told us about last
5 week, were any of those meetings in relation to assisting General Mladic?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] Still leading.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please rephrase your question.
8 MR. IVETIC:
9 Q. In relation to the contacts that you had with Carla Del Ponte and
10 the members of the Prosecutor's office of the Tribunal that you told us
11 about last week, what were the topics or themes that were discussed?
12 A. Documents collected by the committee for gathering data on
13 violations of international humanitarian law of the Government of
14 Serbia and Montenegro were discussed. Also, implementing the obligations
15 of the state vis-à-vis The Hague Tribunal. That was discussed. About
16 the arrests of people who had indictments issued against them. This is
17 something that was discussed within the committee for gathering
18 information, and I was only present as a member of the committee.
19 Professor Dr. Zoran Stojanovic, professor of criminal law at the Faculty
20 of Law in Belgrade, who was also the federal minister of justice at the
21 time, was the chairman of that committee.
22 So I was just present at the meeting. I asked, what about
23 evidence that we furnished that had to do with victims in these locations,
24 and when indictments would be issued against those people who were
25 responsible for the deaths of people whose autopsies I carried out. They
1 didn't promise or offer anything to Ratko Mladic. No offers of help of any
2 kind were given. The discussion dealt strictly with adhering to the law.
3 Q. Thank you. And now I want to move to a different topic, and that
4 is your engagement in this case that we are here for today.
5 Could you tell us how and when you were engaged by the Defence
6 for serving as an expert in this case.
7 A. I think it was in late 2014 and early 2015 when the Defence
8 offered me the opportunity to be an expert witness dealing with the mass
9 grave in Tomasica, and I accepted that, and I wrote and submitted the
10 report that I wrote and submitted.
11 After that, in October of last year, after Professor Dunjic died,
12 the Defence again asked if I would accept to speak and to present in a
13 certain way Professor Dunjic's report before The Hague Tribunal's
14 Trial Chamber, in view of the fact that in an earlier period I did an
15 expertise on 2.082 mortal remains in the case of General Krstic. I
16 agreed, and that is how I ended up being an expert witness in these two
17 cases -- in this case.
18 Q. Did you at any point time seek out the Defence prior to that time
19 to seek to be an expert at this trial?
20 A. No, I never offer my services to anyone.
21 Q. And the Prosecution stated at transcript page 43554 that you have
22 a "close personal relationship" with General Mladic. When you attempted
23 to answer that question, they cut you off and did not let you answer that
25 Do you consider that you have a close personal relationship as a
1 friend of General Mladic?
2 A. Look, I know that some conversations that I had with
3 General Mladic were recorded by him, but I can say that as far as he is
4 concerned and people like him who lost close family, their children, and
5 whose autopsies I performed, I was ready 24 hours a day to respond to any
6 call from them, to speak with them, about autopsy details or whatever
7 they wished to talk to me about. Therefore, I kept saying -- I
8 kept talking about that special relationship that we have.
9 General Mladic never behaved as a superior officer towards me.
10 He constantly viewed me as the person who performed the autopsy of his
11 daughter and that is how he behaved. He behaved like that. Also, when
12 he was placing his daughter in the coffin, when he placed the makeup on
13 her, this is how he behaved whenever we were in contact. And that is
14 that special relationship that perhaps people cannot or do not want to
15 understand. I pray to God, even though I'm not a religious person, never
16 to have -- never to form friendships in the same way that my friendship
17 with Ratko Mladic was formed, because of the death of his daughter.
18 Q. And you indicated in your answer that -- for people like him who
19 lost close family, their children, and whose autopsies you performed, you
20 were -- you are ready 24 hours a day to respond to any call. In how many
21 cases have you had personal interactions with persons who are family
22 members of -- of persons upon whom you performed an autopsy as a forensic
24 A. We made a calculation. Out of 5.000 autopsies of children who
25 were victims during war and that were conducted at the forensic medicine
1 institute of the VMA in Belgrade, we --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat what he ...
3 MR. IVETIC:
4 Q. [No interpretation]
5 A. I apologise. We --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we get a translation of what Mr. Ivetic has
7 just said.
8 THE INTERPRETER: He said: The interpreting service is not able
9 to follow you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 MR. IVETIC:
12 Q. Now, Professor, could you please start your answer from the
13 beginning and try to speak slower so that the translators can follow you
14 and we can get the entirety of your answer.
15 A. The forensic medicine institute of the military medical academy
16 during the war performed autopsies of 5.000 persons who were killed in
17 the war-torn areas. Each of those bodies were shown to members of the
18 family in view of the fact that all of them or some members of the
19 closest family wanted to see the mortal remains.
20 We estimate that at least four people during these viewings --
21 would attend these viewings and we would show the mortal remains, and
22 this amounts, in the seven or eight years that we did that, to about
23 20.000 family members with whom we were in contact when we were showing
24 the mortal remains of their close ones to them.
25 MR. IVETIC: Sorry, I don't think the last part of the answer was
1 translated. At least I heard something in B/C/S and I heard nothing in
2 English afterwards.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ask the witness to repeat himself.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I -- Witness, Mr. Ivetic says that some of
5 what you said was not interpreted. I'll read to you what at this moment
6 we see on our transcript, and please add whatever you may have said in
7 addition to that.
8 The last we read is:
9 "... in the seven or eight years that we did that, to about
10 20.000 family members with whom we were in contact when we were showing
11 the mortal remains of their close ones to them."
12 What did you say after that, if anything?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nothing more than that. It's all
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. Now, Professor, have your interactions with Mr. Mladic, including
18 this one meeting 20-odd years ago, had any effect upon your ability to
19 review the autopsy reports that you reviewed in this case in an objective
21 A. No. My mother, who was an orphan of war and whose father was
22 killed in the World War II, told me when I completed my studies, she
23 said, I suffered a lot, I am from a family of workers and peasants, and
24 it was difficult for me to complete your education. Please never say
25 something that is untrue in your work. Don't add or subtract anything
1 for anyone. I was the best student at school, but after my father's
2 death, I remained in the country and I had to work the fields and I had a
3 hard life. For me this is the greatest obligation and I'm trying to
4 fulfil it to this day with regard to anyone and everyone and everything.
5 Q. And now I want to return to your actual evidence as an expert
7 You have seen now from cross-examination because you were shown a
8 photograph from Dr. Clark and the autopsies that were not provided to be
9 reviewed as part of the autopsy records. How does this compare with the
10 usual practice as to photographs taken during autopsies?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
12 MR. MacDONALD: Yes. I would object to that question as
13 confusing, Your Honours. Mr. Ivetic introduced the idea that it wasn't
14 reviewed as part of the records and then asks about, from what I can see,
15 taking photographs during autopsies. So I'm not sure which procedure he
16 is actually asking Professor Stankovic to comment upon.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If it is unclear to Mr. MacDonald, perhaps,
18 Mr. Ivetic, you could phrase the question in such a way that he even
19 understands it.
20 MR. IVETIC: Let me try to break it down.
21 Q. Sir, you were shown a photograph said to be taken by Dr. Clark in
22 relation to the six bullets to the head of a particular Tomasica victim.
23 First of all, was that photograph included in any of the autopsy
24 materials that you reviewed from the Tomasica file?
25 A. No, I did not have photographs while reviewing these autopsy
2 Q. The explanation given by the Prosecutor last week was that
3 Dr. Clark had just given them those photographs. How does that compare
4 with the usual procedure of photographs taken during autopsies?
5 A. As soon as the autopsy report is completed, so should be the
6 photographs, and a photo file is compiled as an additional part of the
7 autopsy report. It should be relating to the specific case, Tomasica
9 Q. And would photographs as part of an autopsy report assist a
10 pathologist, such as yourself, such as Dr. Dunjic, or anyone else, to be
11 able to review and understand those autopsy records better?
12 A. Yes. Especially as photographs from this autopsy were really
13 well taken. They're high-quality photographs, and one may discern in
14 them everything that was done during the autopsy and where the
15 projectiles were found.
16 Q. And is everything depicted in the photographs identified in the
17 written autopsy report description for the injury wound -- for the injury
19 A. Even though I requested the Bosnian-Herzegovinian autopsy report,
20 I did not find it among the reports that were submitted, but Dr. Clark
21 described it in several sentences on page -- on one page of his summary
22 report. He says that six projectiles were found in the skull, and he
23 mentioned the exact locations where those projectiles were found.
24 Q. Okay. Now, during the cross-examination at transcript
25 page 43545, you were asked about your previous testimony in the Krstic
1 case in relation to blindfolds at the Srebrenica grave-sites. To refresh
2 your recollection, these are the 367 cases you could reasonably assume
3 were executions, saying those were those including ones -- pardon me.
4 Were those 367 cases including cases where there was only a strip of
5 cloth around the eyes or did they all have ligatures around the hands or
6 legs, if you remember? Do you remember the numbers of each?
7 A. I mentioned that piece of information in the Seselj trial. My
8 finding which has more details was presented in the Krstic case. These
9 were blindfolds, ligatures on the arms and the legs, taken all together,
10 not separately. I don't know how many blindfolds and ligatures on hands
11 and legs there were separately or all together.
12 Q. And in your use of the term "blindfold," can you explain for us
13 forensically the evidence you would like at to differentiate between an
14 actual blindfold, on the one hand, and a strip of cloth that had been
15 tied around the forehead as a bandana that had potentially slipped down
17 A. What I looked at was primarily the description of the blindfold
18 in the autopsy report, whether it extends over the eyelids, is it above
19 the ear lobes or not, or across the ear lobes or below the ear lobes,
20 considering the possibility that blindfolds located above the ear lobes
21 could have been tied across the forehead and may have slipped down,
22 depending on the position of the body in the grave, as we have said, due
23 to the loss of soft tissue in the areas where they were tied and so on
24 and so forth.
25 So primarily, we focused on where and how those blindfolds were
2 Q. And if we could have look at D1448 MFI in e-court, this should be
3 Dr. Dunjic's report that you provided testimony about.
4 MR. IVETIC: And once we have that document, if we could turn to
5 page 70 in the English and page 65 in the Serbian, and I believe it will
6 be at the bottom of the page in both languages. We're still waiting for
7 the, I think, Serbian.
8 Q. And in this section of Dr. Dunjic's report, he is talking about
9 the reporting of Prosecution witnesses. And we see here that as to some
10 of the alleged blindfolds that were recovered by the Prosecution in
11 Srebrenica, these alleged blindfolds are actually recovered loose in the
12 grave rather than being affixed to any bodies?
13 Forensically speaking, to a degree of medical certainty as a
14 pathologist or court forensic expert, can we exclude these blindfolds
15 found looses in the grave, not affixed to bodies, from being strips of
16 cloth that were previously worn as bandanas and slipped off the foreheads
17 of bodies?
18 A. There are several possibilities.
19 First, that the blindfolds slipped from someone's head during the
21 Second, that they may have been on the clothes or somewhere else,
22 not on the head.
23 So these are two main possible causes as to why there are some
24 separate blindfolds in the mass grave. They may have slipped from
25 somebody's head or they may have been on some other part of the clothes
1 and were then found in the mass grave loose.
2 Q. And in relation to the bodies exhumed from graves in Srebrenica,
3 where the strip of cloth goes above the ear, can one with certainty
4 exclude the possibility that these strips of cloth worn bandana-style
5 over the forehead?
6 A. That possibility cannot be excluded.
7 Q. Moving on. You were asked in cross-examination --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Are you changing subject or --
9 MR. IVETIC: Yes, changing subject.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask, when you prepared this report which was
11 presented in the Krstic case about the 367, did you -- at that time, had
12 you considered also whether what you then described as blindfolds could
13 be bandanas which has -- had slipped down, or had you considered that or
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I did not take that
16 possibility into account at the time. It was only when I saw the
17 position of Professor Dunjic that I took this possibility into account
18 and I could not exclude it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But it never came to your mind when you
20 drafted the report in the Krstic case?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have an explanation as to why you didn't
23 think about that and now, in relation to Dr. Dunjic, his report, that you
24 say you can't exclude it?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I simply did not see this
1 possibility. I was not aware of it when I testified. And after having
2 seen Professor Dunjic's report which he envisaged, I could not exclude it
3 any longer. And at the time when I testified as an expert witness, I
4 simply never considered this possibility or whether they wore those
5 bandanas across their forehead or not.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Saying that you can't exclude it. Did you form an
7 opinion about the probability also in relation to the position of the
8 bodily remains in the mass graves? I mean, just for record --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think -- [Overlapping
10 speakers] ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- I think I asked whether you formed an opinion
12 about the probability of that also in view of the position of the bodily
13 remains in the mass graves.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you first asked me here what
15 is the position of bodies in a grave, whether they are horizontal or
16 vertical, lying or standing, and I then said that if they were in one of
17 the upright positions, a sitting position or so, then it's possible for
18 such a bandana to slip down. But not necessarily. So I cannot speak
19 with any certainty whether they slipped down or not.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And if the body is horizontal, then you wouldn't
21 consider it a possibility, an option, that the bandanas would have
22 slipped down?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The likelihood would be very small.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
1 MR. IVETIC: And just for Your Honours as well, Dr. Lawrence on
2 19th of July, 2013, also talked about the -- of being unable to exclude
3 the possibility of a strip across the forehead falling down across the
4 eyes as the body began to fall part.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's argument, but you're referring us to
6 relevant portions of the evidence, that's fine.
7 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. The Prosecution does it every
8 time, so I think I'm entitled as well to point to evidence that is
9 [overlapping speakers] --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if that is true, neither of you are entitled,
11 let it be clear, even if I said that it's okay at this moment. So I
12 would have accepted that if I were you, but, of course ...
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. Now, during the cross-examination, you were asked about a wound
15 whose scar tissue was shown to you in a photograph and that was at
16 transcript page 43509. And my question for you, sir, is how does --
17 how -- the -- in terms of diagnosing the cause of a wound, is it better
18 to have access to the scar tissue or to the fresh wound? Medically
19 speaking, which is easier to diagnose?
20 A. It's certainly easier to make a diagnosis if you are dealing with
21 a fresh wound.
22 Q. Okay. And at transcript page 43518 to -19, you were asked as
23 follows, beginning at line 21 of that day's transcript. The question
24 posed to you was as follows:
25 "Q. Professor Stankovic, with regard to the criticism of
1 Professor Dunjic of Dr. Clark that he makes an assumption regarding the
2 injuries found on the bodies, that assumption being that the wounds were
3 inflicted in life. If the forensic pathologists who did the thousands of
4 autopsies on bodies and bones from Srebrenica, if each of them had said
5 in their cause of death section, If these wounds were inflicted in life,
6 then they were the direct cause of death, would that resolve the -- that
7 particular criticism of Professor Dunjic?"
8 And your answer was:
9 "I think that it would, yes."
10 And my question for you is a bit different. Would this, as
11 suggested by the Prosecutor, the addition of these words in the pathology
12 reports, would that have resolved the complaints and objections raised by
13 both you and Dr. Dunjic as to the lack of descriptive detail in the
14 trauma or injury section of autopsy reports?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. And would the addition of words suggested by the
17 Prosecution have resolved the complaint and objection that both you and
18 Dr. Dunjic raised as to conclusions by Prosecution pathologists that
19 certain injuries were homicide or undertaken with a specific intent?
20 A. I have not understood your question sufficiently.
21 Q. Would -- let me rephrase it this way.
22 Would adding the words "if these wounds were inflicted in life,
23 then they were the direct cause of death," would that have resolved the
24 complaints and objections that you voiced and that Dr. Dunjic voiced that
25 certain Prosecution pathologists were rendering opinions that the death
1 was a homicide or that the injuries were inflicted with a particular
3 MR. MacDONALD: Yes --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
5 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honours.
6 I have no problem with my friend's question up until the last
7 words. We certainly agree that some of the autopsy reports recorded
8 homicide, but, as far as I am aware, they do not say homicidal intent.
9 And I'm unaware of any pathologist concluding upon intent.
10 My friend may be thinking about one of the pathologists talking
11 about post-mortem injuries, but that is a separate issue that Dr. Dunjic
12 raises. It's not to do with the autopsy reports.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, there's a suggestion that --
14 MR. IVETIC: I'm about to actually read that section. If I could
15 just have a moment to find it in my notes from last week.
16 I believe we had -- here it is. We had in Dr. Dunjic's report,
17 at page 26 in the English and in the Serbian it was page 25 at the
18 bottom, a question relating to the results as to Cancari 3 and CR-12,
19 document 00920598 to 652 in relation to C.H. Lawrence. Since I
20 cross-examined him, I'm pretty sure he was a forensic pathologist who was
21 a Prosecution expert witness, but I could be wrong. And in summary, the
22 conclusions from this cite C.H. Lawrence noted under item 12: There were
23 many post-mortem tampering injuries of the skull, ribs, and pelvis which
24 would tend to obscure perimortem injuries in these regions.
25 So that in sense, the pathologist is definitely talking about the
1 injuries being with an intent to obscure perimortem injury and that was a
2 topic that Professor Stankovic testified about last week.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Is it tend or intent? I think that's what keeps you
4 apart which -- a certain situation may tend to -- to -- as it's said
5 here, to obscure, not necessarily intentionally obscure, but which is of
6 a kind that could obscure other injuries which were inflicted at an
7 earlier stage.
8 Mr. MacDonald.
9 MR. MacDONALD: If I might add to this discussion some
10 information, Your Honours.
11 This was raised with Dr. Dunjic in Karadzic testimony and it
12 transpired that the --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, let's -- the -- you have an opportunity to do
14 that in --
15 MR. MacDONALD: But it's about a translation question,
16 Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: It's a translation question.
18 MR. MacDONALD: Yes. It transpired that the B/C/S that
19 Dr. Dunjic reported had the word "intentional" in it, which did not
20 appear in the original English. That came up in Dr. Dunjic's Karadzic
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if that assists you in -- at least in
23 the English text that there's no intent mentioned.
24 MR. IVETIC: I've read the English, of course, so I -- I don't
25 have the B/C/S in front of me to make a comparison but I would be happy
1 to do so. And if that's the case, let me rephrase the question a third
2 time to try to avoid that confusion.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you do, what does the English say,
4 does it say "tend" or "intent," the one that you are reading?
5 MR. IVETIC: I have to go back and find it. I have been flipping
6 through the pages, but I believe I read it -- the English that I read is
7 the -- is the English of Dr. Dunjic's report, so if there is an issue of
8 the translation, we would have to look at Dr. Lawrence's report, which I
9 don't have in front of me --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
11 MR. IVETIC: -- at the moment.
12 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, if the word "tend" would have
13 been written as "intent," the whole sentence becomes rather difficult for
14 me to understand. But if you would verify it, that would be appreciated.
15 But then --
16 MR. IVETIC: If we could limit then --
17 Q. Professor, I apologise. If we could limit, then, my question to
18 the aspect of homicide, would simply adding that "if the wounds were
19 inflicted in life, then they were the direct cause of death," would that
20 affect or change your objections to certain pathologists determining that
21 injuries were the result of homicide?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Could you explain that.
24 A. That's what we talked about. If the injuries were sustained in
25 life, if as a consequence of these injuries - for example, the
1 destruction of the bones of the skull - we can say if it's a gun-shot
2 injury to the head inflicted in life, then the cause of death is the
3 destruction and the damage of life-giving centres in the brain, then the
4 cause of death is this gun-shot injury to the head.
5 Q. I feel we are having a translation -- we're missing each other in
6 the translation. Since I'm talking about homicide and ... let me try it
7 this way.
8 Would adding the words "if these wounds were inflicted in life,
9 then they were the direct cause of death," without changing any of the
10 other findings in the autopsy report, would that affect your complaints
11 and objections to certain pathologists making conclusions of homicide or,
12 in the B/C/S, "ubistvo"?
13 A. I want to say what is the origin of death, whether it was
14 homicide or suicide or accidental, if that's what you have in mind, then,
15 in principle, on the basis of all the arguments, it's the Trial Chamber
16 that decides what was the origin of death. At the moment when there is a
17 single gun-shot injury to the head, it may have been inflicted in combat
18 or it may have been execution, intentionally inflicted by another person,
19 that is to say, or it may have been the consequence of suicide or the
20 consequence of an accident. We've had that in the army. If a soldier is
21 cleaning a weapon, then it fires, and then an accident occurs.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask, is there any dispute about this matter,
23 apart from, of course, the legal connotation of homicide not being the
24 same in every system, but that if you find a dead body with an injury
25 which would -- without any doubt, such as a gun-shot wound in the head,
1 would -- certainly there's a possibility that it would have been
2 inflicted by someone who executed or intentionally killed, but that it's
3 not for a forensic pathologist to decide whether that was the case or
4 whether it may have been an accident, is there any dispute about this?
5 Because that's what you are apparently bringing to our attention.
6 MR. IVETIC: If there is no dispute, then I'm quite happy. But
7 the Prosecution has presented --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- let's --
9 MR. IVETIC: -- evidence of their own Prosecution expert saying
10 that it is, so ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first ask whether there's any dispute about
13 MR. MacDONALD: Your Honours, from the -- well, from the
14 Prosecution --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Carefully read what I said and tell me whether
16 there's any dispute about that.
17 MR. MacDONALD: We certainly agree that when it comes to whether
18 or not someone has been executed, intentionally killed, are really the
19 question of intent and that's for the Trial Chamber to decide.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if it would have been an accident, then
21 you might see exactly the same on the body and the person may have died
22 from that gun-shot injury, but it's not necessarily homicide -- it's --
23 it's -- it -- it may be accidental rather than intentional.
24 That's a possibility. I'm just wondering.
25 MR. MacDONALD: Well, Your Honours, there is a slight difference
1 here in that we understand it is a cultural matter that pathologists,
2 particularly from United States, use "homicide" simply to say the killing
3 of one person by another person without reflection upon intent.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's the other matter I raised, which is
5 that "homicide" is not an unambiguous expression in legal terms,
6 depending on the system we're working in.
7 I think we have explored this with sufficient detail.
8 MR. IVETIC: Okay --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, it's time for a break. I would like to
10 know how much time would you still need.
11 MR. IVETIC: I would think six minutes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Six minutes. That's the type of accurate assessment
13 I like very much.
14 Mr. Stankovic, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes for
15 another six minutes of re-examination.
16 And how many minutes for you, Mr. MacDonald, as matters stand
18 MR. MacDONALD: I'm currently between --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Three and a half?
20 MR. MacDONALD: I'm currently between zero and one question,
21 Your Honour. I'm just trying to decide.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm more interested in minutes than in
23 questions, but -- please, you may follow the usher.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break and we'll resume at 20 minutes
1 past 12.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.20 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: While we are waiting for the witness to be escorted
5 into the courtroom, Exhibit P7819 was admitted under seal. However, upon
6 verification with the -- verification by the Registry with the
7 Prosecution, there is no need to have it under seal.
8 Therefore, P7819, which are the photos of the bullets to the
9 head, is a public exhibit.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I do understand that you need until
13 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours.
14 Q. Professor, one last question in relation to the topic we were
15 talking about before the break.
16 You testified several times, and in relation to Dr. Dunjic's
17 report, about the failure of the Prosecution forensic experts to adhere
18 to the classical method of what they note in the autopsies and saying
19 that it -- they often only had summary findings that then could not be
20 verified by another expert. Would that objection or complaint still
21 remain even if the Prosecution experts added words to the effect that if
22 these wounds were inflicted in life, then they were the direct cause of
23 death; that is to say, would the addition of those words affect your
24 complaint as to the failure to adhere to the classical method?
25 A. No. We stated our objection. It is our position that all
1 injuries should be described in detail. As I repeated several times, the
2 place needs to be located, the description given. Everything that has to
3 do with an injury would need to be stated and put into the autopsy
4 report. We believe that only a descriptive diagnosis would be a
5 professional insufficiency, a failure.
6 Q. And you were shown document 33693 during cross.
7 MR. IVETIC: I would ask for that same document to be shown.
8 Q. And I think it was page 3 of the same that you were asked about.
9 This is the autopsy protocol of (redacted) that you yourself were
10 involved in.
11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Not to be broadcasted in its unredacted form.
13 MR. IVETIC: Oh, okay. I apologise. Then if we could not
14 broadcast the same. Do we then need a redaction?
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was not primarily the name but it was,
16 rather, the details, the content.
17 MR. IVETIC: Okay. And --
18 JUDGE ORIE: But if the Prosecution disagrees, then I'd like to
20 MR. MacDONALD: I agree with your assessment, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 MR. IVETIC:
23 Q. And, Professor, now we have the document before us. First of
24 all, Doctor, are you asserting a cause of death anywhere in this
1 A. Only with a certain degree of probability. Because I repeat --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please indicate where he is
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We didn't receive interpretation. And when you
5 are reading from the document, please indicate where you are reading
6 from. That would help the interpreters.
7 Please repeat your answer.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The document that we can see on the
9 screen, page 3, the section, opinion, item I:
10 "The body of a male exhumed from the soil in a skeletonized
11 state. The autopsy alone cannot establish with certainty the actual
12 cause of death."
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. And last week we already talked about the correct translation of
15 the fifth item under your opinion as to what degree of probability you
16 were assigning. Can you identify for us the various levels of
17 probability that are used in forensic work of a pathologist and where on
18 this scale these findings would lay.
19 A. In principle, there are three degrees of probability, or, rather,
20 three degrees that we use in forensic medicine. Definite is one of them,
21 where the answer implies that there are no dilemmas; most probably, where
22 it is indicated that the opinion is most probably correct but not
23 100 per cent certain; and then reasonably. It can reasonably be assumed
24 where an assumption can be made but it does not have to be that
25 necessarily. In short, that is the lowest possible degree of
1 probability, meaning that there are reasonable grounds to assume
2 something, and that would be the lowest degree of certainty or
4 Q. Okay. And now my last question is on another topic. At
5 transcript page 43543, you were asked about Dr. Haglund's revised story
6 about the role of Prosecutor Peter McCloskey in the collection of autopsy
7 records and the examinations of the San Antonio Oversight Committee, and
8 the question that was posed to was as follows:
9 "Q. You'll know that Dr. Haglund said at transcript page 14920
10 to 14921: 'That's -- that's -- that's what they questioned, and actually
11 Mr. McCloskey took the -- all of the writings on how -- what the -- what
12 the pathologists had done and he went all over the world, and -- to see
13 if they needed to have their -- their writings changed or if they were --
14 if it was the same way it was, and then they would change it, and then he
15 would go on to another country and find another people. So he went
16 basically all to the -- I think there were 30, 30-some pathologists that
17 we had from Turkey, England, United States and all over. And that's --
18 he carried things around, but Mr. McCloskey, of course, didn't change
19 anything. It was none of his business. He just took it to the
21 And now the question I want to ask of you, Professor, from the
22 standpoint of a forensic science expert and forensic pathologist, how do
23 you consider these activities in the revised account of Dr. Haglund, are
24 they in accord with the generally accepted practice relating to
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
2 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, Your Honours. I'm just wondering of my
3 friend's use of the "revised." Revised story, revised account. So
4 far -- as far as I am aware -- I'm not sure if my friend is implying that
5 Dr. Haglund once said one thing and now says something else.
6 If he could just clarify that.
7 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours. In presenting this to the
8 witness in cross-examination, the Prosecution was relying upon what had
9 been taken from Haglund's previous testimony and was in the Dunjic
10 report, and they were saying that Haglund had explained that in a
11 different way, with more details, subsequent to that and they were asking
12 that of this witness. And so it is a revised account. It is a
13 subsequent account that gives more details than what was cited in the
14 Dunjic report as to these matters - I'm trying to find the page number of
15 the same right now --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Whether or not subsequent or revised, let's focus on
17 what he says here. And you are, I think, asking about how -- whether
18 it's appropriate to do it this way and you're focusing on this account.
19 MR. IVETIC: That's correct. And I can give you the 65 ter
20 number of the prior account where he has a different description and that
21 is P1831 in our case, English page 11.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's focus on what you want to hear from the
24 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
25 Q. Professor, you've heard what Mr. Haglund said that
1 Prosecutor McCloskey was involved in. From the standpoint of a forensic
2 pathologist and expert in forensic science, how do you consider these
3 activities? Are they in accord with the generally accepted practice in
4 the field as you know it?
5 A. No. It would be realistic to expect that if somebody wanted to
6 verify somebody's findings, they would request that in writing and would
7 also submit the entire material to the expert they were engaging, with
8 specific questions, requesting specific answers to the things that they
9 were interested in. It is not customary for a member of the Prosecution,
10 or anyone else from the investigation side, carries documents around
11 without having a written order as to what somebody was supposed to say
12 about a specific document. And it's not customary for what is written
13 then is not then in the documents that are being discussed today.
14 Q. Okay. Professor, I thank you for answering my questions. I have
15 no further questions for you. And thank you for your patience. I know
16 we went longer than anticipated.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic. Well, six minutes became 12,
18 but, still, a very limited number of minutes.
19 Now you, Mr. MacDonald.
20 MR. MacDONALD: No questions, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No questions.
22 Professor Stankovic, this concludes -- if my colleagues have no
23 further questions and I don't have any further questions for you, this
24 concludes your testimony in this court. I'd like to thank you very much
25 for coming a long way to The Hague and for having stayed with us for
1 quite a while and having answered all the questions, whether put to you
2 by the parties or by the Bench.
3 You may follow the usher, and I wish you a safe return home
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may just say a couple of
6 sentences. I thank you for the specific questions, to the professional
7 attitude of the Trial Chamber towards me, and I wish you all the luck in
8 your further work.
9 Thank you.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Is the Prosecution -- is the Defence ready to call
12 its next witness, which is ...
13 MR. IVETIC: I hope we are, Your Honours. They should be in the
14 back. I haven't heard anything other than that. But Professor
15 Radovanovic would be our next witness and I am prepared to question her.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And, of course, I should have asked the usher
17 to bring her in right away, but --
18 MR. MacDONALD: Your Honours, I wonder if Ms. Bitorsoli,
19 Mr. McCloskey, and I might be excused for the next witness.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, you're excused.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Ms. Radovanovic. Before you give
24 evidence, even if it's renewed evidence, the Rules require that you make
25 a solemn declaration, the text of which is now handed out to you.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. I solemnly declare
2 that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC
4 [Witness answered through interpreter]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Radovanovic, you'll first be examined by
8 Mr. Ivetic. No need to say that he's to your left.
9 Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
10 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. If we may perhaps have the microphone
11 adjusted downwards. I suspect we night have some issues from the booth
12 if it's not.
13 Examination by Mr. Ivetic:
14 Q. Good day, Professor. It's good to see you again.
15 A. Good day.
16 Q. Since we have last time gone through your background, your
17 career, and your CV, I will not do so again today, but I would ask that
18 you please state your full name for purposes of the record.
19 A. Svetlana Radovanovic.
20 Q. And if you could tell us, Professor, were you tasked by the
21 Defence team in relation to the Tomasica evidence?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. IVETIC: And before we get to the terms of that tasking, I
24 would like to take a look in e-court at 65 ter number 1D06184, of which I
25 have a hard copy to be given to the witness to assist her in going
1 through the same. Thank you.
2 Q. And my first question, Professor: Do you recognise this document
3 that you now have in hard copy and which we have on our screens before
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And could you please tell us what this document is.
7 A. This is a report that I wrote after looking at the report and
8 other materials used by the Prosecution expert, Dr. Tabeau.
9 Q. Did anyone other than yourself take part in the drafting of this
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do you stand by the report as written or are there any
13 typographical errors or other errors that you wish to correct with us
15 A. I do want to correct some errors.
16 Q. If we could first turn to page 17 in the Serbian and page 13 in
17 the English, and I would like to focus on footnote number 26 of the same.
18 And in relation to footnote number 26, what would you like to draw to our
19 attention or correct here?
20 A. This footnote, footnote 26, should say "See footnote 24."
21 Q. Okay. And now if we can look at page 20 in the Serbian and it
22 will be page 16 in the English, and paragraph number 42 of the report.
23 And if you could take a look at that and tell us -- actually, we should
24 wait for the -- okay, now we have it in both languages.
25 Professor, if you could look at paragraph 42 and tell what us you
1 would like to say about this paragraph and any corrections necessary.
2 A. This paragraph should be omitted because yesterday I established
3 that the quote that I cite here, the quotation of Dr. Tabeau, does not
4 correspond to the English because the translation actually is different.
5 Q. Okay. And when you say the translation is different, are you
6 referring to the Serbian translation that was provided of Dr. Tabeau's
8 A. Yes, I received an official or a certified copy of Dr. Tabeau's
9 report, and this translation does not correspond to the report that is
10 written in English.
11 Q. Okay.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from striking it from this report, could I
13 invite the Prosecution to present a new translation because it's a B/C/S
14 translation and apparently there's a translation error. If it's there,
15 the existing one should be replaced by the new one.
16 MR. IVETIC: It is a slight error. I don't know if we can deal
17 with it in court. It's basically that "DNA" has been inserted in the
18 Serbian where there is no "DNA" if we're matching in the English. So
19 it's -- it's a small error that could perhaps be dealt with --
20 JUDGE ORIE: If it explains a wrong paragraph in the new report,
21 then there must be -- there must be really a difference between the two.
22 Otherwise -- so therefore I would like to have it verified exactly what
23 now the proper translation in B/C/S would be.
24 MR. FILE: We're happy to do that, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
2 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 Q. Professor Radovanovic, apart from these corrections which we have
4 now gone through in the courtroom today, do you feel that you need to
5 make any other corrections to your report or do you stand by the same as
6 having been correctly written?
7 A. I think that it is fine now.
8 Q. Okay. And now I'd like to turn to page 3 in both versions of the
9 report. And here in the report you have a listing of reports and data
10 sources studied and analysed. Could you confirm for us if you used any
11 sources outside of what is -- strike that.
12 Could you confirm for us what sources you had at your disposal
13 for purposes of preparing this report?
14 A. I cited them here. I can read them out one by one. Otherwise, I
15 agree with what is stated here under numbers from 1 to 90 [as
16 interpreted], with the observation that from the 11th to the 17th of
17 January, I was here at this Tribunal, and I asked to look at specific
18 documents so that I could review them. The Defence submitted this
19 request to the Prosecution in a timely manner as to which materials I
20 wanted to look at, and I refer here about the documents that I received
21 that I wished to look at and also those that I requested but did not
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you say numbers 1 to 90 or 1 to 19?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 19.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
1 MR. IVETIC:
2 Q. And if we could turn the page in both versions. And I think here
3 we'll see the part that you just told us about, and you say you were not
4 given all of the requested material for your inspection.
5 Could you detail for us what was the most significant of the
6 material which you did not receive for purposes of your inspection that
7 had been sought from the Prosecution as identified in this last
8 paragraph of the page.
9 A. I did not receive the Red Cross material from 2005. I did not
10 receive certificates of death. And I did not receive the criteria on the
11 basis of which Dr. Tabeau did the matching.
12 I would also like to note that before I appear in court, I'm
13 asked to submit my request about the materials that I wanted to review.
14 I submitted a request, and the request contained all the material that I
15 wanted to look at, including some materials that I did receive, but also
16 the request included material that I did not receive, and I did not get
17 any explanation why this material was not given to me for my review.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Radovanovic, did you immediately report
19 that you did not receive materials you had asked for to the Defence?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I told the Defence that I did not
21 receive certain materials.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you assist me, my recollection doesn't
23 serve me well, Mr. Ivetic. Has this been brought to the attention of the
24 Chamber and has the matter been raised in court or by other means so that
25 we could have repaired what may have been wrong since January?
1 MR. IVETIC: By other means, Your Honours. We met with the
2 Prosecutor in relation to the request. In relation to the certificates
3 of death we were told that they had disclosed to us everything that they
4 had received from the BiH prosecutor's office and that that was what it
5 was, that they didn't have any additional certificates of death.
6 Then Your Honours might recall when Madam Tabeau testified back
7 in -- last year, as to Tomasica, we asked her in court for the matching
8 criteria that were utilised by her for Tomasica and Madam Tabeau said
9 that would take time. Your Honours said that obviously she did not have
10 to do it that day, and since that date we have not received criteria from
11 the Prosecution demography expert, the matching criteria that they used
12 for Tomasica.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Have you addressed either the Prosecution or this
14 Chamber to ensure that what you needed or what your expert needed would
15 be provided even if that could not be provided within one day?
16 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, it was my understanding that
17 when Ms. Tabeau was in court she promised she would do the criteria, and
18 that was in relation not only to my request but Your Honours' request,
19 and so I -- I mean --
20 JUDGE ORIE: So then you wait until the end of April to establish
21 that it's not there or -- I mean, if it is it important --
22 MR. IVETIC: We had meetings with the Prosecutor and that was
23 the -- the matching criteria was item number 13 on our list that was
24 given to the Office of the Prosecutor, of which I had at least two
25 meetings with Mr. Traldi and Ms. D'Ascoli in relation to the same
1 and I -- you know, if the criteria --
2 JUDGE ORIE: If that's without --
3 MR. IVETIC: -- aren't ready, they're not ready. I can't -- I
4 can't --
5 JUDGE ORIE: If that's without result, then the usual way of
6 proceeding is to ask the assistance of the Chamber. Because this Chamber
7 has one thing clearly on its mind. Whatever we can do to assist the
8 parties that they receive the material they need, we'll do it. And now
9 we find ourselves, late April, in a situation where it's not there. And
10 that it was all unexplained, to some extent, if I understand it well, it
11 was explained, although perhaps that explanation may not have reached the
12 expert witness.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, you referred to the meetings with
14 Mr. Traldi. When did they take place?
15 MR. IVETIC: There were several meetings, Your Honours, that were
16 before the trip of the experts in January. The original list was
17 presented, I believe, by, as I recall, Mr. Lukic in a meeting he had with
18 members of the Prosecution even before the meeting was scheduled so it
19 was -- that would have been late 2015. And, of course, the meeting --
20 pardon me, the trip of the expert to The Hague occurred in January of
21 2016 as they have listed there.
22 I have one additional matter to raise --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic I just wanted to know, you referred to
24 testimony number 123 on a list given to the Office of the Prosecutor.
25 When was this list given to the Prosecutor?
1 MR. IVETIC: Item 13, Your Honours, on the list --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay, that's correction --
3 MR. IVETIC: -- so that's a correction --
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is a correction for the record. When was
5 that given to the Office of the Prosecutor?
6 MR. IVETIC: It would have been, I believe, sometime in
7 November of 2015.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And once it was established in January that not all
10 the materials were available that the expert witness needed, were there
11 other meetings to try to resolve that matter?
12 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honours. Because Madam Tabeau testified
13 when she testified as to Tomasica that she did not have those. She would
14 have to create them. And so my understanding of the rules, as
15 Your Honours reminded me last week, when something is not in the
16 possession of the Prosecution, I can't ask for them to be enforced to
17 disclose that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm --
19 MR. IVETIC: So until it is completed by Madam Tabeau, I have
20 nothing to ask for. I can only note that we haven't received it. And
21 then I ask the expert what that means in terms of the work of a
22 demographer and how such criteria are utilised, et cetera.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think we are mixing up two things. First of
24 all, what should be disclosed, there is no need to disclose anything
25 which is not in your possession. That's a different matter from asking
1 what you may need. And I'm a bit confused because a minute ago you told
2 us that you understood that Ms. Tabeau would on the instruction of the
3 Chamber produce something, and then you said you met, although not after
4 January when it became clear that that material was not there, you met
5 with the Prosecution. Where I would have expected that, to the extent
6 your understanding is correct, and let's just assume that for argument's
7 sake, that then you would have addressed the Chamber and would have asked
8 the Chamber to urge Ms. Tabeau to produce what you say she was instructed
9 to produce. I leave it to that for the time being and --
10 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours instructed me to liaise with the
11 Prosecution in relation to the upcoming visit of the experts --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- Mr. --
13 MR. IVETIC: I'm allowed to make a record, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ivetic, let me be quite clear.
15 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
16 JUDGE ORIE: A chance to get what your expert needed was missed,
17 was lost, and this Chamber is quite convinced that it should do
18 everything to assist the parties in getting what they need, and that's
19 where we find ourselves at this moment.
20 Let's leave it to that, and please -- but I see that Mr. File
21 wants to make an observation.
22 MR. FILE: Just a brief comment, Your Honour.
23 I just wanted to emphasise for the clarity of the matter that
24 there were not any meetings or communications between Defence and
25 Prosecution about this issue once Ms. Radovanovic arrived and was working
1 here during the week. I just wanted to make that clear.
2 Also the one item that was skipped was the ICRC list. We did
3 give Dr. Radovanovic the 2009 list, which is what Dr. Tabeau used in her
4 report and which also encompasses the contents of the 2005 list. That
5 also was not mentioned to us as an issue during that week. If it had
6 been, that's the response we would have given them.
7 And my final point was that I would have expected this also to be
8 raised in the Defence 15th and 16th report on the Tomasica experts which
9 was filed on the last day of Dr. Radovanovic's visit here. If there had
10 been some issue for access, it could have been addressed then.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
13 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours. And the 2009 ICRC report is
14 something we will discuss in due course, so we will have all that
15 information. I just didn't want to be accused of testifying or
16 influencing the witness in my comments.
17 Q. Now, if we can -- I actually have to see if the -- where we left
18 off. Okay. The question had been answered so we can move on to the next
20 If we can turn to page 2 of the report in both languages, here
21 you identify the engagement of your services and the assignment. Is what
22 is written here in your report consistent with the mandate that you had
23 in relation to this report?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now I would like to focus for the next several questions on your
1 visit to the ICTY premises in January of this year, and I'd first like to
2 ask you to explain for us what was the purpose of that visit.
3 A. The purpose of the visit was to check certain materials, that is
4 to say, to have insight into materials used by Dr. Tabeau, particularly
5 the internal database on mortality because I have never seen it. I do
6 not know what it contains except that from some reports I could read what
7 Dr. Tabeau says about it but not really in detail. It's rather
8 superficial. So that was the basic purpose.
9 I also wanted to receive reports or, rather, the materials that
10 Dr. Tabeau mentions in her reports such as, for example, the certificates
11 of death and so on, which she does not use -- or, rather, she uses them
12 but which I haven't seen. I wished to see them here if possible.
13 Q. And did you perform the work while you were here at the ICTY
14 individually or with the assistance of anyone?
15 A. I had the assistance of two assistants whom I financed
17 Q. And how long did that site visit last?
18 A. From the 11th until the 17th of January, 2016.
19 Q. During the time that you were at the ICTY Tribunal, were you
20 permitted access to the actual Prosecution premises of the
21 Demographic Unit or was your review conducted elsewhere?
22 A. I conducted my work in the office of the Defence lawyer.
23 Q. Okay. And during your review of materials at The Hague in the
24 Defence offices at the Tribunal, were you given full and unlimited access
25 to the entirety of the Demographic Unit files and system or something
2 A. No, I did not have unlimited access. I never, ever had it. What
3 I got was something else; namely, what I asked for or, rather, one part
4 of what I asked to inspect.
5 Q. Did you have any access to the external sources cited by
6 Dr. Tabeau, such as the ICMP database?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you ever seek directly from ICMP the material that had been
9 sent to Dr. Tabeau as to Tomasica?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And what was the response of ICMP?
12 A. Well, I will paraphrase it briefly.
13 The point was that I was to address the Prosecutor's office at
14 ICTY because they had submitted it to the Prosecutor's office, and they
15 said that they could not submit it to me.
16 Q. Were you given an ability to identify materials discovered during
17 your stay at the ICTY as well as work product on the computers that you
18 could ask to be copied and to receive later on to continue your work?
19 A. Yes, I received instructions to the effect that whatever I do, I
20 may place in a specific file and take with me once it was time for me to
22 Q. And --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry, one question.
24 Did you ask the Prosecution for access to the ICMP database?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I addressed the ICMP directly
1 and I did receive from the Prosecution the reports which Dr. Tabeau had
2 received previously in the form of a table and a memo dating from
3 June 2014. And I addressed ICMP at a later date, not I but the Defence,
4 with a request stating exactly what I would like to receive from them,
5 but they told me that they forwarded those materials to the Prosecution,
6 but not proofs of death. They told me that they submitted that to the
7 Prosecution also, but I haven't found them among the Prosecution
8 materials. They then told me that I should address the Prosecutor's
9 office of ICTY because they had recently submitted all those materials to
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And did you do that?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I received from Dr. Tabeau
13 what she had received from ICMP. If that's all. I really don't know. I
14 did receive some materials from her.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. Now, you've indicated that you were told that you could put
18 documents in a file and that that would be copied and you could take it
19 with you when you left. Were you able to get everything that you
20 identified and put in that file folder to take with you? That is to say,
21 was everything copied per your request?
22 A. No, not everything that I requested was copied. I requested -- I
23 was looking for certain results that we concluded and also a mortality
24 database because it includes a great number of files. So I wanted to
25 take it with me because I could not inspect it completely in the short
1 time that I spent here. The Prosecution responded by saying that I could
2 not receive the internal mortality database but that they were forwarding
3 me what was adequate to my needs and in accordance with the Rules. How
4 the Prosecution knew what was adequate to my needs, I really don't know,
5 and I also don't know what the Rules are.
6 Q. And to be fair I will read into the record the e-mail which I
7 received from the Office of the Prosecutor on this matter on the 26th of
8 January, 2016.
9 "Dear colleagues, we have completed our Rule 70 review of the
10 material which your expert team had copied into the 'save' folder on your
11 computers provided to them. On that basis, we have compiled a CD of
12 files which we believe will satisfy the needs of your expert and our
13 obligations. For instance, as you know, the large databases available
14 here must remain on-site; in one case, where it appears that the expert
15 team was seeking a large number of records associated with the 'Knjiga
16 Nestalih Prijedor' within the integrated mortality database which we are
17 unable to provide, we have instead provided both the 1998 and 2002
18 editions of the KNP to attempt to facilitate your expert's work. If
19 there are additional types of material which your expert requires and we
20 are unable to provide, please let us know, and we will work with you to
21 provide relevant and non-privileged material. The complete CD will be
22 placed in your locker today. Please do not hesitate to contact us with
23 any questions."
24 Now, let's talk about this integrated database of mortality.
25 What was the purpose of you --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do that, how -- because I do understand
2 that there's an unsatisfactory situation at this moment as far as
3 disclosure is concerned, was a response sent to the Prosecution: This is
4 not sufficient for us? Did you ask for any meeting to further discuss
5 what was missing? Mr. Ivetic, could you clarify that issue for us.
6 MR. IVETIC: After the visit of the experts to the ICTY, I
7 don't -- I at least was not involved in any meetings with the Prosecution
8 on that topic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And when did you receive -- or did you discuss this
10 you just read from -- with the expert?
11 MR. IVETIC: Yes, the -- the -- the response of the Prosecution
12 was indicated, and the expert indicated to me why they needed the
13 integrated database which the Prosecution said they could not give to us.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And did you then or did the expert witness
15 then contact the Prosecution to further discuss this matter?
16 MR. IVETIC: I don't believe so.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. Now, Professor, let's talk about this integrated database of
20 mortality. What was the purpose of you seeking that data source after
21 the completion of your ICTY site visit?
22 A. The integral database is a database consisting of ten other
23 databases of which one deals with mortality. But Dr. Tabeau considers
24 all these sources taken together the mortality database. I have never
25 seen it. I saw it the first time in The Hague, and I tried during a
1 short time to realise what it consists and what may be of assistance to
2 me from this database.
3 It has 56 characteristics listed in the heading, on the basis of
4 which it may be concluded what Dr. Tabeau was doing, how she was doing
5 the matching, what she considered good information, what she did not, and
6 so on. It contains more than 181.000 lines but -- I call them "lines"
7 but they relate to specific persons.
8 What I could do over the few days that I was here was that it
9 contained many double cases and to check how many of these there are.
10 Dr. Tabeau notes that in some of her reports also and she says that such
11 and such a portion are doubles. But even though I did not receive the
12 criteria for matching, the later criteria as Dr. Tabeau calls them, as we
13 will see later, I could not draw a conclusion what sort of combination
14 was used. The fact that Prosecution offered me the book of the dead from
15 Prijedor, it's a book that has been published and one can buy it. Why is
16 this database secret? Of all the sources that it contains, most have
17 been accessible to the public. Some of them I cannot reach, but as for
18 the book of the missing, you can buy it. A lot of the information is
19 published. There's the book of the dead published in Bosnia, including
20 detailed information such as first and last name, the date of birth, and
21 the date of death, and father's name, and so on.
22 But I think that some information may be secret, such as autopsy
23 reports and so on, but I also believe -- not that I believe, but that I'm
24 signing a statement that I would keep a secret, and I'm fully grown up
25 and I'm fully aware of the consequences that may follow if you violate
1 such a statement. So I was really surprised when I learned that I could
2 not take it with me. And I suppose that the only reason is that it
3 contains particular details of certain individuals.
4 For me, it's important because I could draw many characteristics
5 from it and then formulate something precisely and in detail because
6 Dr. Tabeau says that some information is detailed or matching. She shows
7 how she matched certain information with the population census. I could
8 also check how other sources of information match information, and for a
9 certain time it would be sufficient for me to try to reach precise
10 statistics that I would be willing to say with full accountability how
11 reliable or unreliable it is.
12 That was why I needed this database.
13 MR. IVETIC: If we can look at P7449 in e-court, and I do have a
14 paper copy in B/C/S for the witness since it is a long document. This
15 will be Dr. Tabeau's report on Tomasica.
16 Q. And the part I'd like to ask about is between pages 8 and 9 in
17 the English under Part 2.7, and it is page 9 to 10 in the Serbian.
18 A. What I have received is my report and I -- if I understood you
19 properly, you offered to provide me Dr. Tabeau's report. No, no, no.
20 No. A mistake. I made a mistake only it's not the right page. I'm
21 sorry. You said pages 9 and 10 in Serbian? That's why I thought it was
22 not the same report.
23 Q. It should be pages 9 and 10 in the Serbian, which is pages 8 to 9
24 in the English.
25 A. All right. Okay.
1 Q. And --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Before we -- Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock
3 and I see it's 20 minutes past 1.00.
4 MR. IVETIC: Oh, I apologise.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If you are starting to explore a new area, I think
6 it would be better done after the break.
7 Could the witness follow the usher. Ms. Radovanovic, we'd like
8 to see you back in 20 minutes.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 1.20 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 1.42 p.m.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
15 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 Q. Professor, we have before us Dr. Tabeau's report, P7449, and I
17 believe we need the next page in the B/C/S. And once we get that, it
18 should be, I believe, the second paragraph -- second full paragraph from
19 the top in the B/C/S and it will be the bottom paragraph in the English
20 that reads as follows:
21 "In addition to the 1991 census, a number of victims were
22 additionally searched for (if there was a need) in the integrated" --
23 A. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm not able to follow. Let me know which
24 page in the Serbian.
25 Q. It is page 10 in the Serbian. It's on the screen right now. And
1 it's the third paragraph from the top but it's the second full paragraph.
2 A. I found it. Thank you.
3 Q. I'll start again:
4 "In addition to the 1991 census, a number of victims were
5 additionally searched for (if this was a need) in the integrated BH
6 mortality database (hereinafter: IntDB) developed in 2010, by the
7 Demographic Unit of the OTP, which combines the information on war
8 victims from numerous demographic sources on war mortality. The DU
9 sources on war victims often contain information on detailed
10 circumstances of death which may contribute to the proof that a certain
11 victim was killed during the incident for which he was listed. The IntDB
12 was only used" - if we can turn the English - "however, for
13 double-checking information and not for extracting new one for the POD
14 analysis in the present report."
15 First off, Professor, is this integrated database that Dr. Tabeau
16 is referencing in this part of her report the one that we have been
17 talking that you sought access -- sought to take with you when you
18 completed the site visit at the ICTY premises?
19 A. Most probably. I didn't have the opportunity to see anything
20 earlier or in another place to be able to make any kind of comparison.
21 So I assume that that was the one that is being discussed.
22 Q. Dr. Tabeau, in this part of her report, mentions that the
23 database contains information on detailed circumstances of death. Were
24 you able to find in the integrated database of mortality that was shown
25 to you in January this type of detailed information on the circumstances
1 of death that is described here?
2 A. According to the sources that I looked at, there are no detailed
3 circumstances there. But, again, I have to say that I did that in five
4 or six days, so I could not go through every source item by item, person
5 by person. The database, in its heading, which was a main guide-line for
6 me as to what I would look at, did not have a column on incidents that
7 occurred for me to be able to say, well, I'm going to follow that
8 particular column in order to see what the source of the data was. The
9 sources that I've looked at, and I looked at all of them other than the
10 registrar of births for Mostar, which I assume would not relate to
11 Prijedor, contained documents from where I could see what the incidents
12 were in which the victims were killed.
13 There is something that the B and H prosecutor's office submitted
14 to Dr. Tabeau but that was in the internal database. I received that
15 separately. There are some documents but these were not persons that
16 were already identified. These were persons that were going to be
17 identified on the basis of the DNA analysis, and they were descriptions,
18 some there, as to incidents that happened, and there is a number of
19 reports about identification of mortal remains where there were some
20 details about it or not --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to slow down.
22 MR. IVETIC:
23 Q. Professor -- Professor, the translators have asked that you
24 please slow down in giving your answers so that they can properly
25 transmit everything that you say to those that are following the English
1 channel. So if I could ask you to please slow down. And it appears that
2 we lost what you were saying immediately after you started to say:
3 "... as to incidents that happened, and there is a number of
4 reports about identification of mortal remains where there was some
5 details about it or not," and that's where the translators lost you.
6 So if you could please take up your answer from that point.
7 A. Yes. There are some reports received from the B and H
8 prosecutor's offices. These are reports establishing the identity where
9 in some of them you can actually see the circumstances in which somebody
10 died. There are also reports where persons are listed that had not yet
11 been identified on the basis of DNA analysis, and there are some details
12 about how those victims died. One can draw some conclusions on the basis
13 of this information about how those persons died. But at that time, that
14 was not in the database. I don't know whether Dr. Tabeau is going to add
15 that or not. I received a certain number of material which does not
16 overlap with the number of victims that were given by Dr. Tabeau and that
17 does not overlap with the information that she received from the BiH
18 prosecutor's office.
19 Q. And just so we can be clear, these records or reports that were
20 received from the B and H prosecutor's office, were such types of
21 materials within the integrated mortality database or not?
22 A. I received them separately. I don't know whether they are a part
23 of it or not.
24 Q. Okay. And you, I think, earlier identified ten sources that were
25 in the integrated mortality database. Do you recall what those sources
1 were? You've mentioned the Mostar books of dead. What were the other
3 A. There were the Red Cross lists from 2009. There was the Prijedor
4 book of the dead. Then the DEM-2T database which includes all of the
5 soldiers. Then there was a separate database about soldiers of the
6 Republika Srpska and about Croat soldiers. Then was information about
7 exhumations. Then there was information from the Muslims Against
8 Genocide organisation.
9 I think I have listed all the sources. I'm not quite sure,
11 Q. I'd like to read to you something that Dr. Tabeau has testified
12 about during her testimony at our trial last year as to Tomasica and then
13 I will have some questions for you. This was from transcript page 36716,
14 line 18, through 36717, line 10:
15 "The reference sources shown on this slide are the 1991
16 population census for Bosnia-Herzegovina and the integrated mortality
17 database, which is an integration of a large number of sources on both
18 known deaths and missing persons, again, for Bosnia and Herzegovina,
19 entire country. These sources are part of the usual methodology that my
20 unit and myself have been using in compiling our reports. So the
21 methodology involves linking a list of victims, say, Tomasica identified
22 persons, back with the 1991 population census to confirm their personal
23 details and whereabouts at the outbreak of the war, like place of
24 residence and to study the ethnicity, et cetera. And the integrated
25 database is a list of victims that have been also exposed additionally to
1 checks in the sources on survivors, like records of internally displaced
2 persons, refugees and voters registered for 1997, 1998, and 2000
3 elections in Bosnia, country-wide elections in Bosnia. This is to
4 exclude potential survivors or actual real survivors who should not
5 appear on the lists of victims. So it is -- this reference sources are
6 part of the usual proof of death routine of my unit and myself. So the
7 abbreviation POD on this slide stands for the proof of death review
9 Professor, did you have occasion to discover what methodology of
10 matching Dr. Tabeau utilized for her integrated database of mortality
11 that she describes here is part of the usual routine of her unit and
13 A. Well, I believe that it was part of the usual routine, but this
14 is not how it is done in scientific studies.
15 Based on what I could see in the internal database, I could see
16 what Dr. Tabeau marked in that database as matched. It's under the item
17 "match." And that's why it would have been important to me, in view of
18 the rules that she used, to take it and to actually study that particular
19 database in detail. Dr. Tabeau also says there that these are usual
20 sources of data that her team uses but does not say that these are usual
21 sources of data that are used in scientifically based statistical
22 demographic research, and this is a crucial difference.
23 And if you permit me to ask for a piece of paper, since it's
24 quite a long quotation, I would need to take some notes. I don't know if
25 I'm allowed to make the notes on the report.
1 Q. I apologise, Professor. I have some blank paper here.
2 MR. IVETIC: And while we're at it, I'd ask for 1D6189 of which I
3 have a hard copy, since I know the professor likes to use her
4 magnifying-glass to read things.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. [In English] Thank you.
6 MR. IVETIC: And I would ask for 1D6189 in e-court.
7 Q. And now while we have both versions on the screen, Professor,
8 could you explain for us what this is that we are looking at. Where did
9 this come from?
10 A. This is something that I did here in The Hague. I took out this
11 as examples. There was around a hundred of such examples, but as they
12 were very similar I believed it was sufficient for me to present these.
13 It's a comparison and this comes from the internal database on mortality.
14 Comparison of information received from ICRC and the population
15 census. The last column, matched, marked with 1, which means that there
16 is a correspondence of information. I can now read first and last names,
17 but let me not do that. I will just draw your attention to the ICRC list
18 where the person with this first and last name, and father's name as
19 well, born on 6th of May, 1973, in Prijedor, that is the place of birth,
20 and that's the information from the ICRC. Matched with the population
21 census, a person with the first -- with the same first name, last name,
22 and father's name but born six years later, not on the same date, not on
23 the same day, and in a different place, and Dr. Tabeau says that she
24 matched this. I suppose -- or, rather, I don't suppose, but if the first
25 and last names are identical, and we know that in the census there have
1 been many corrections, I really don't know how many and how, and I don't
2 know if this was done in ICRC as well in terms of first and last names
3 but it probably was, then matching on the basis that persons have
4 identical name only when you have the information that such a person was
5 born in a different place at a different date with a difference of six
6 years and you say you've matched this person with the census, this is
7 something that I, as an expert who deals with this sort of things, would
8 really question. And all the examples are similar, if you want me to
9 read them, but more or less, it's about the dates and places which
10 differ. The only thing that is identical in all examples are the first
11 and last names and the father's name.
12 Let me repeat that as early as in 2005, when asking how many
13 corrections were made to the census, as I note in my report on
14 Srebrenica, I requested from the demographic department and Dr. Tabeau to
15 tell me how many corrections and how many visual assessments that they
16 were matched was done, I received an answer that there were thousands of
17 names that were corrected and that probably there were as many visual
18 assessments that they were matched.
19 Q. Professor --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question, perhaps a matter of
21 detail, but could you look at the fourth name listed here. Because you
22 explained to us this was all persons with the same family name, same
23 first name, and same father's name. Now I see that the father's name is
24 not the same on this fourth entry. Is there -- in view of what you -- if
25 view of what told us --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have seen it now.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is that a mistake or is it that you made a
3 mistake when you said that these names are all the same?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not a mistake, but I think
5 that I said mostly all names are the same. We can go through them one
6 item after another, but this is absolutely taken out from this.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there's no need to do that. I understood that
8 you said all names are the same, but I leave it to that.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. IVETIC:
11 Q. Professor, if you could clarify for us this column that says
12 "matched" and has a number 1 which you said there was correspondence of
13 identity, who -- who or whom has matched the two columns or the two --
14 the two -- the two names to say it's the same person? Was that something
15 that you did?
16 A. No. This is information taken from the internal mortality
17 database, and if you see the source is noted at the bottom of the table.
18 I only looked and reviewed the database, and I am not supposed to correct
19 or add or take out anything from or to that database.
20 Q. You said generally --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just ask --
22 MR. IVETIC: Yeah, go ahead.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ms. Radovanovic, what does 5 under the column "new
24 ethnicity" signify; and what does 1 under "matched" signify?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Number 1 signifies that the match
1 is accepted, that it's been matched. Number 0 stands for no match. And
2 if there is a match, it means there is a correspondence. And number 5 is
3 a designation for ethnicity taken over from the population census.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: And which ethnicity is number 5?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Muslims.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. You indicated that generally the matching appears to be related
9 to the name, last name, and father's name. How reliable is that type of
10 matching, in your opinion?
11 A. There's very little reliability. Even though in reports on
12 Srebrenica, Dr. Tabeau and Dr. Brunborg claim that in a small area such
13 as Srebrenica the likelihood that somebody has the same first and last
14 name is very small. The ARK later represented by Dr. Tabeau and
15 Prijedor, which in 1991 had more than 100.000 inhabitants, I believe, may
16 happen to have persons with the same first and last names. Though I
17 haven't checked that. But my deep conviction and on the basis of my
18 experience with previous matchings, I know that some names were
19 corrected, and whether they are present as such in the ICRC database or
20 whether there was a mistake and then it was corrected in the census, I
21 really don't know. I can just tell you as a curiosity that in the census
22 in Bosnia-Herzegovina there are five persons with the name
23 Svetlana Radovanovic, with the identical first and last name.
24 Q. And Judge Moloto asked you about the number 5 under the column
25 "new ethnicity." What is the meaning of the column --
1 A. Yes --
2 Q. What is the meaning of the column "new ethnicity"?
3 A. What I know for sure, in the population census, the response on
4 ethnicity is collected and then entered in letters, but when the census
5 is processed, then there are codes. So the material is first encoded and
6 it's called a codex of ethnicity in which each ethnicity has been
7 designated a specific number so that, for example, a Serb is number 7,
8 the Muslim 5, the Croat -- I can't remember all of the ethnicities, but
9 the codex included 20-odd nationalities in the 1991 population census.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: You --
11 MR. IVETIC: Go ahead.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You said in the Bosnia-Herzegovina census, you
13 found five names by Svetlana Radovanovic. Was the father's name also the
14 same for all five?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It seems you haven't understood me
18 well. I didn't say Muslims, but there are five Svetlana Radovanovics and
19 I am an a citizen of Serbia, so I looked for the first and last name.
20 Even if there is no father's name, if you try to do the matching on the
21 basis of 72 criteria, as Dr. Tabeau says, someplace she would use the
22 initial. So I -- I didn't mean matching with Muslims but matching with
23 the census of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The total population.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm also not asking you about Muslims. I don't
25 know where you get Muslims from. You said that you looked at the
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina census list and you saw five Svetlana Radovanovics.
2 You're trying to show that going by the name and last name is not a safe
3 way of identifying people. What we have been talking about here, you
4 have been criticising not just the name -- first name and last name, but
5 first name, last name, and father's name. Hence I'm asking you: Do the
6 five Svetlana Radovanovics that you have found, do they have the same
7 name of the father?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, they don't have the same
9 father's name.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. That was all my question.
11 MR. IVETIC: And, Your Honours, I think the confusion lies in the
12 transcript having the word "Muslim" inserted and I think that's what the
13 translation to the witness was in your question so --
14 JUDGE ORIE: If there was any confusion in that respect, then it
15 has now been clarified.
16 MR. IVETIC: We're at the time for the break, Your Honours. I
17 would just tender this document at this time and then we can take the
19 MR. FILE: No objection, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 1D6189 will be Exhibit D1464,
22 Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
24 Professor Radovanovic, we'll adjourn for the day. We'd like to
25 see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30, and I again instruct you that you
1 should not speak or communicate with whomever about your testimony,
2 whether that is testimony already given, and that includes any evidence
3 you have given earlier, or evidence still to be given.
4 You may follow the usher.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow,
8 Tuesday, the 26th of April, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom,
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 26th day of April,
12 2016, at 9.30 a.m.