1 Wednesday, 24 May 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.
6 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Good morning. Judge Parker is unable to
7 sit today, so according to the rules, Judge Thelin and I are going to sit
9 Mr. Strinovic, good morning. May I remind you of the affirmation
10 you took yesterday, which still applies today.
11 So I will now invite Mr. Domazet to continue with his
13 MR. DOMAZET: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 WITNESS: DAVOR STRINOVIC [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Domazet: [Continued]
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning to all, good morning, Mr. Strinovic.
18 We shall now pick up where we left off.
19 It seems to me we were talking about the way the bodies were
20 exhumed. Were they all packed, as it were, and shipped off to Zagreb on
21 the same day, or depending on the order in which the bodies were arranged?
22 It seems to me you said that this was done when the entire grave was
23 already dug up. Can you please provide some details on this?
24 A. As I have said before in my evidence, the first thing to do was to
25 dug up the entire grave and to get all the bodies exposed, to expose all
1 the bodies in the ground. Then the extraction of the bodies began from
2 top to bottom, from one to 200 bodies were placed in bags individually,
3 photographs were taken of each body, numbers were attached to both bodies
4 and bags. Both were marked and placed in a special container after which
5 the bodies were eventually taken to the forensic pathology institute in
7 Q. As for these numbers, one to 200, these were applied, as it were,
8 in a chronological order, I assume. How did this work? Body by body or
9 1, 2, 3, and so on and so forth, or was there no special order?
10 A. It depended on how readily available, so to speak, the bodies were
11 to be extracted, to be pulled out. The first bodies to emerge from the
12 grave were given the early numbers, so to say. I'm not sure if there was
13 any skipping numbers, just because a body happened to be out of reach at a
14 given point. But the general principle that applied was from top to
15 bottom. And the numbers were applied following the same logic.
16 Q. Yes, I understand. There may have been minor deviations from this
17 guiding principle, but this is the essential thing. Those in the top-most
18 layers were closer to the first numbers assigned and those bodies that
19 were closer to the bottom of the pit got all the late numbers. I asked you
20 yesterday about the names of the Yugoslav observers, you confirmed that
21 for me. However, I looked at the transcript, and the names were not
22 recorded. Probably because those names are very difficult to transcribe.
23 I'll repeat these names for you and please confirm if these are the right
24 names. Professor, Dr. Dunjic, and professor, doctor, just a minute,
25 please. Dunjic, and professor Dr. Vujadin, Otasevic?
1 A. Yes. As far as I know these were the experts involved in the
2 exhumation, Professor Otasevic was in Zagreb as well.
3 Q. Yes, you did say that, you said you remembered him more from
4 Zagreb than Ovcara. You don't actually remember seeing him at Ovcara, but
5 you do from Zagreb. Are you aware of the fact that Professor Otasevic
6 produced a report dated sometime, I think, like November 1996, a report
7 which he invoked during the Ovcara trial in Belgrade. Have you perhaps
8 had an opportunity to see that report?
9 A. No, I haven't.
10 Q. I would like to ask you several things. Please tell me if you
11 agree. You explained the same thing you explained, how the bodies were
12 exhumed, how the bodies were placed in bags. I'm wondering if you were
13 there on this particular day when a CNN crew was allowed inside and were
14 taking footage of the exhumations for the whole day? Were you there on
15 that day?
16 A. I wasn't there myself, but I did hear of something like this
17 happening, yes.
18 Q. It seems that he was there on that day. He says that the expert
19 opinion, the joint expert opinion of the entire team would be delivered to
20 The Hague Tribunal, which you confirmed. As for any issues related to
21 identification, that sort of information was forwarded to you because you
22 were the experts working on that, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. He did speak about DNA analysis being used. There seemed to have
25 been over 50 bodies where there was a hint of identity, but he said that
1 DNA analysis would be nevertheless and that it would be done both in the
2 U.S.A. And in Zagreb. Does that ring a bell?
3 A. As far as I know, there was talk of there being DNA samples being
4 taken for testing purposes, both in Europe and in the States. I never
5 received any feedback on whether those samples were ever processed and
6 what, if any, the results were.
7 Q. One discrepancy, he talked about 200 bodies, but he believes 199
8 of those bodies to have been male and one only female. I think your
9 report specifies a figure of two in relation to female bodies. Is this an
10 error that he committed, an oversight, or what do you think this might be?
11 A. I don't know when Professor Otasevic wrote about the gender of the
12 bodies found. Later sessions of DNA analysis ascertained with a very high
13 degree of certainty that there were two female bodies. It is quite
14 possible that an error occurred during the early stage of the processing,
15 and then this error was perpetuated, resulting in a continuing oversight.
16 Q. I've just checked, and he wrote the report on the 16th of
17 November, 1996, which I think was just after.
18 Yesterday you said you appeared as an expert at the Belgrade
19 Ovcara trial to give evidence about the exhumation. You remember that,
20 right? Of course you do. On that same day you were there, Dr. Kubat was
21 there, Dr. Milos Tasic, and Dr. Budakov. That was on the same day I think
22 it was the 20th of April last year. Do you remember that?
23 A. Yes, that's quite correct. Yes.
24 Q. And given the fact that all four of you were there at the same
25 time, the judge asked who first, who now, and as it happened you, as a
1 guest, testified first, and then Dr. Kubat and then Tasic and then
2 Budakov. Do you remember that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Having given evidence, did you remain seated in the courtroom, did
5 you listen to, for example, Dr. Milos Tasic's testimony?
6 A. No. I gave evidence, Dr. Kubat gave evidence, and then I left the
7 courtroom altogether. And I don't know what happened later.
8 Q. Since you didn't know about these later witnesses, do you perhaps
9 know that Dr. Tasic too had a look at the reports or notes for the
10 autopsies and that he also gave an opinion?
11 A. Yes, as far as I know, Dr. Tasic's assignment was to look at the
12 reports and to ascertain cause of death in relation to all the bodies
13 found at Ovcara.
14 Q. I'll just ask you something about this, maybe my colleagues will
15 also ask you questions, maybe they will try to clear up individual issues.
16 But I would like to know if you can actually confirm this. Looking at
17 what we have just been speaking about, he says that he found exactly 41
18 different cases of bodies on which bandages were found, bandages or
19 plaster-casts, with no documentation to indicate any previous injuries
20 underneath those bandages and plaster-casts. You said a lot of things in
21 relation to bodies and which bandages or remains of bandages were found,
22 so could this possibly be the same thing as the cases that you indicated
23 in your tables and documents?
24 A. Yes, there is a special column saying "bandages." And then all
25 the bandages that were found in the report were again mentioned in my
2 Q. As for his comment concerning cause of death, he says 192 cases of
3 fire-arms, 198 cases fire-arm wounds, and one case of a blunt object
4 trauma. Probably a knife. Does that tally with your own results?
5 A. I don't think there are any substantial discrepancies.
6 Ascertaining the cause of death is a very complex procedure if you're
7 dealing with bodies that spent a long time in the ground. Maybe there
8 might occur small discrepancies when two different experts give their
9 opinions, but I would say that most of our results did, indeed, tally.
10 Q. I would like to return now to the issue of DNA analysis. You say
11 that Kubat is an expert in this field and I believe he provided testimony,
12 detailed testimony about this at the Belgrade Ovcara trial. I would like
13 to ask you something about the various percentages. I see that science
14 has again been making progress. You spoke about 99.9 per cent, and then
15 you started speaking about 99.999 per cent. So what is this 0.001 per
16 cent that you spoke of as the margin of error? What exactly are we
17 talking about, something that would leave room for the possibility that
18 things weren't what they seemed?
19 A. As far as I know, DNA analysis is infallible, to all practical
20 intents. The figure of 99.999 and about six digits, this is not rounded
21 off for purely mathematical reasons. These are added up. In theory, you
22 can never obtain any result that amounts to 100 per cent, so this is the
23 maximum result possible, as it were. As for any errors, obviously errors
24 are always possible. But what this means is that the possibility of an
25 error is practically infinitesimal. If you look at this in real-life
1 terms, in realistic terms, then this would amount to roughly speaking 100
2 per cent. It is just that we do not choose the figure of 100 per cent to
3 express our degree of certitude, rather we prefer to use 99.999999.
4 Q. Thank you very much. This is crystal clear. My question: Why
5 wasn't DNA analysis performed on all 200 bodies? Was this because of the
6 lack of reliability that you have just indicated? What about the classic
7 method? You've explained that. Is that method so reliable that there was
8 no need, although, in some cases, DNA analysis was performed, but was
9 there no scientific grounds to do that and was that not in fact part of
10 the initial agreement to do it like that?
11 A. DNA analysis first -- was first discovered in 1994, but it was
12 first really applied in 1998 and 1999, it became more of a routine
13 procedure, but it was still relatively new to science and it had not been
14 thoroughly studied yet. On the other hand there was a lot of pressure
15 coming from the families themselves to kick off with the identification
16 procedure. On the other hand, we had a number of cases that were just so
17 obvious to us, so clear cut, that we thought they were in a way cut and
18 dried for us and there was no need to perform DNA analysis and that is why
19 in some cases we decided not to perform DNA analysis.
20 Just one example, the first body identified, the first Ovcara body
21 identified was a man from Zagreb who happened to be in Vukovar at the
22 time. About six months before he went to Vukovar, he had been to his
23 dentist's, where a tooth was extracted, so that a cast was made of both
24 his lower jaw and his upper jaw. The wife, his wife kept this cast and
25 she still had it at home. Therefore when the experts got down to it, when
1 they start trying to identify the body, the wife provided the cast and the
2 mould. And it was very easy to identify the person because this is nearly
3 as reliable as DNA analysis or any other method.
4 There were lots of such cases where incontrovertible evidence was
5 found that seemed rock solid. That seemed as good as any form of DNA
6 analysis or anything else. It is certain on the other hand that the
7 humanitarian aspect was involved too, and pressure coming from the
8 families themselves was one of the reasons accounting for expedited
10 As time went by, the probability was decreasing that the classic
11 method might be applied successfully in identifying bodies from Ovcara.
12 And the result is that over the last few years you see DNA analysis being
13 applied almost as the sole method.
14 Q. So despite any success of the classic method, the DNA analysis was
15 still a desirable thing to do, so some families made the request and you
16 tried to meet them, right?
17 A. As far as I know whenever a family was still uncertain or whenever
18 they were pressing for DNA analysis, we tried to do our best and keep them
20 Q. There is this one case in these documents, the family of Tomislav
21 Baumgertner, 195. The family refused, it seems, to accept identification.
22 Although both the classic method and DNA analysis were applied, however
23 the result was the same and the family refused. Are you familiar with
24 this case and do you know why it was they refused to accept the results?
25 A. As far as I know, this wasn't the only case of this happening.
1 There must have been about two or three cases of the family refusing to
2 confirm our results. This, however, is not that unusual, really. Even
3 outside Ovcara it's a fact of life that we encounter in our work.
4 Sometimes families find it very difficult to face these situations. There
5 might even be some rifts within the family, there can be all sorts of
6 reasons for this to be the case, and for a family to refuse to confirm a
7 positive ID. We are simply powerless in cases like these. We do a
8 text-book job, we do the classic method, we do DNA analysis, identity is
9 positive, and we know who the person is. However, despite this, we are
10 still powerless if the family refuses to grant confirmation. And it's
11 impossible to go ahead with the burial. Yet there is nothing we can do
12 about that.
13 These cases are not as rare as people usually imagine them to be.
14 However, in cases like these, as I've already pointed out, we are
15 powerless, and the case officially remains unsolved.
16 Q. If I understood properly what you said, does that mean that such a
17 person is still officially missing in that case?
18 A. As far as I know, all cases that haven't been resolved by the
19 family signing and the people haven't been buried in the ground, are still
20 officially considered as missing.
21 Q. Thank you. Out of the data we received from your testimony and
22 from other evidence it seems that there were at least 11 people who were
23 not identified but up until today only eight of such people remain,
24 meaning that three of those 11 were subsequently identified. One of them
25 is Damir Simenic. I believe that's the number 146. I believe yesterday
1 you said that Marko Ribic for a while was believed to be that person. How
2 did that come about?
3 A. I would have to go through the file again, but what I can remember
4 off the top of my head is that there were certain indications that indeed
5 this could be the other person. The family was called in and obviously
6 further processing determined that a mistake was made. I believe the DNA
7 testing was carried out confirming positively who it was.
8 In the initial phases of treatment and gathering data, it is
9 possible that an element carries more weight than the other elements in
10 existence and then we start moving in that direction to confirm that
11 indeed this was one person, but subsequently we find out in our
12 discussions with the family that it is someone else. When this can be
13 confirmed via a DNA test, we do so, and this is nothing unusual in our
14 line of work.
15 Q. The other two of those who were subsequently identified were
16 Branimir Krunes, number 15, and Josip Mihalec, number 134. Do you know
17 what the reasons were that they were not identified and why did it take so
18 long for them to be identified? Did you come in possession of some other
19 data or perhaps the DNA tests were unavailable at the time?
20 A. I can't be precise because I don't have the documentation before
21 me. But, as I've stated already, problems arise with complicated cases
22 which cannot be resolved in classical terms. Then we go with the DNA
23 analysis. The first issue there is to isolate the DNA from the bones and
24 that can be a very complex thing to do if the remains are old, if the
25 denture is damaged, and then it can take even up to six months to be able
1 to isolate a DNA sample. The next question is how to reach the family to
2 provide us with a blood sample to compare the DNA results with. We have
3 some problems even today, some families cannot be -- get in touch with,
4 and I presume that these two people fell into that category where we had
5 difficulty reaching their families to give us the blood sample to compare
6 that to the results of the DNA test. This is not only a problem with the
7 Ovcara cases, but with some other cases of which we have some 500. They
8 all share the same fate, they haven't been treated with the DNA tests
9 because we simply had no blood samples to compare the results to.
10 Q. Mr. Strinovic, I suppose you have the tables before you, the ones
11 used by Mr. Smith yesterday. Could we please go to tab 1, there is a
12 written report, your written report in the Milosevic case. I believe it
13 was Exhibit 451. Please go to item 21. Perhaps I can read it out. The
14 second sentence is somewhat unclear to me, and I would kindly ask for your
15 comment. It reads as follows: "As the coordinator of the medical team
16 for identification I coordinated the work. However, I neither supervised
17 the work of the identification teams nor examined their reports."
18 Is that what the report reads, and could you please clarify a bit
19 this -- these were your words I quoted, your report?
20 A. Yes, indeed. And I can clarify. Identifying and processing
21 bodily remains of those killed in wars were carried out by forensic
22 pathologist for all over Croatia, but in some places, such as Zadar, we
23 had an experienced pathologist who had, for 20 years, been doing autopsies
24 and provided testimonies before courts. He wasn't a forensic pathologist
25 per se, but that's precisely what he had been doing for decades. I wanted
1 to use this example to show that we had experienced specialists, experts,
2 who dealt with the exhumations and treatment of those bodily remains.
3 They all submitted their reports, and they were responsible for those. We
4 didn't control their work in the sense of going through the reports and
5 making corrections or additions, but rather such reports remain as they
6 were, and they are available for courts' perusal. They are used in
7 Croatia, as well as by the Tribunal here in The Hague and elsewhere.
8 Q. Yes, but you are talking about the experts who carried out the
9 exhumations or autopsies. Those are the international experts. But it
10 seemed to me that this court referred to the identification teams which
11 were 100 per cent Croatian in their make-up. And I believe you said that
12 you only monitored. As the coordinator, you didn't participate in the
13 very autopsies. Therefore, if I'm not mistaken, this concerns only the
14 identification procedures using the classical method?
15 A. When I provided the previous answer I did have in mind only the
16 Croatian experts and the job that we did. I have to stress though that 90
17 per cent of the work was carried out by Croatian physicians, and just a
18 small portion was done by international experts who were chosen by courts
19 and such work was conducted under the control of international
20 organisations and foreign physicians. But I had in mind the cases with
21 Croatian physicians with great experience who did their job as best as
22 they could. My role was to coordinate, meaning that when a mass grave was
23 located, to organise a team, to dispatch it, and to have it present at
24 exhumations. And after that to go on with the treatment of the bodies, be
25 it in situ or in -- in Zagreb or elsewhere. Most of the bodies were
1 treated in Zagreb.
2 Q. I believe we agreed yesterday that your report from the Milosevic
3 case does not concern itself only with Ovcara, but with some other things
4 as well. But this is somewhat different, it says I didn't monitor, and I
5 didn't submit the reports. It seems that at least in the Ovcara case your
6 testimony doesn't tally with what is stated here completely.
7 A. When we talk about the work done by the international
8 organisations, I went through the reports that I received. In the case of
9 Ovcara, the forensic institute was given the reports for all 200 bodies
10 that were found at Ovcara. And I received that portion of documentation
11 relating to identification. What we didn't get is the cause of death
12 findings. We went through the documentation in detail, and we used it to
13 identify the bodies subsequently.
14 Q. As regards the identification teams, when the classical method was
15 used, I suppose you, as coordinator, monitored their work and received
16 their reports as well. Am I right to conclude that only Croatian experts
17 participated in that, that there were no international experts or either
18 of the monitors from Yugoslavia?
19 A. As regards the exhumations and examination of the bodies carried
20 out by Croatian experts, as far as I know there were always
21 representatives of international organisations present. In cases when
22 bodies presumably belonging to Serbs were found, then we always had
23 Yugoslav representatives present.
24 Q. Thank you. Before I move on, I have a question relating to your
25 testimony in chief. Perhaps you can provide a comment. When Mr. Smith
1 asked you to, you read out an article from Novi Vjesnik of the 28th of
2 October, 1992. The figure mentioned there is 174, and this was prior to
3 the actual exhumations. Since you were a member of the commission for the
4 missing persons, and since you worked at Ovcara, could you comment on that
5 figure, perhaps? Did people mention such a figure before the actual
6 exhumations began? I just want to know the reason why.
7 A. I really can't say why they used that number. I can't comment any
8 further. In tab 3 in front of you, that's Exhibit 458, we see the table
9 compiled by the international experts. There are 56 cases there of
10 tentative identification suggested in the last column. Could we see that
11 as their proposal later on checked and verified by your team, which in
12 turn resulted in the final figure of 83 as regards tentative
14 A. That is correct. The initial information as regards identities
15 was received by the international expert. They thought these indeed could
16 be the names associated with the names shown here, and there were 56 such
17 cases, but we had to run our check on that, and verify. But this is the
18 group that you are concerned with, yes.
19 Q. In the table there is a date to be seen. Is that the date of
20 exhumation or the date of autopsy, or perhaps something else?
21 A. You are probably asking me about the first date mentioned. I am
22 uncertain about the date. This is probably the date when the exhumation
23 was carried out in September of 1996. One can presume that that was the
24 date when the bodies were being extracted.
25 Q. If that is so, could we agree that there is -- that there are very
1 different dates shown. If these indeed are the dates of the exhumations,
2 does that mean that those bodies were exhumed over a number of days and
3 not in a single day?
4 A. Yes, if these are the dates of exhumations, then obviously they
6 Q. Could you please look at tab 5? That's Exhibit 459, the list of
7 the missing persons. And there are still those 11 unidentified ones,
8 meaning that that was before the three were identified subsequently.
9 At the end there is an attachment of six names with a note. It
10 reads, "Z-N/A." Have you found that? Could you please explain?
11 A. Unfortunately I don't know. I didn't put this table together,
12 but someone from the office for the detained and missing persons would
14 Q. Thank you. If we go further down there are 76 names. Who are
15 those people? Is that the list you mentioned of potentially missing,
16 since those names do not appear in any list of those who were identified?
17 A. As far as I know, the list that follows the 200 people from
18 Ovcara are those who went missing from the Vukovar Hospital. They were
19 on one of the lists, the one which had around 270 people.
20 Q. Thank you. If we add those figures up, we would come with a
21 total of 270 or 280. Perhaps that would be the very list you've
22 mentioned. You mentioned that list in one of my initial questions as the
23 figure that was at the disposal of the commission, and you said that the
24 numbers varied and that some estimates were even far higher. Is that
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. Given the fact that you became a member of the commission late in
3 1991, and the commission was not only dealing with Ovcara but with other
4 mass graves, and potential mass grave sites as well, did your commission
5 take part in any way in something that happened in Gospic around this time
6 of the year, back in 1991, with Serb civilians as the victims? Zoran
7 Stankovic, a person you spoke about yesterday, was in some way involved
8 there. So my question, were you personally or any members of your team
9 involved in the identification procedure in Gospic?
10 So my question, were you personally or any members of your team
11 involved in the identification procedure in Gospic.
12 A. As far as I know, that specific case, the Gospic case, when
13 Dr. Stankovic was there, there was a team from Rijeka, the chief forensic
14 pathologist from Rijeka working jointly with Dr. Stankovic. But as far as
15 I know, no one from our commission was actually present.
16 Q. Yes, when I speak about the commission, I mean the one of which
17 you were a member?
18 A. Yes, the commission for detained and missing persons.
19 Q. You remember, Mr. Strinovic, Mr. Smith asking you yesterday about
20 some names from these lists. He wanted to have some of the names compared
21 for errors, for spelling mistakes. And you told us a little about that.
22 And you think those were simple errors, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can we first of all agree that the name of Josip is perfectly
25 common in Croatia, but there is also another variant, as it were, Josif,
1 J-o-s-i-f, as opposed to Josip with a P. Can you confirm that these are
2 two different variants, if you like, of the same name?
3 A. Yes, this is possible. However, in Croatia Josip is far more
4 common. Josif is extremely uncommon on the other hand. I don't actually
5 know anyone named that.
6 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Can the registrar please put 462 on
7 the ELMO, Exhibit 462, that's tab 7. The 65 ter number is 881, both
8 English and B/C/S ERN 00560699. This isn't the number, 00560699.
9 Q. This is a photocopy, if you look at your own tabs perhaps you can
10 find these IDs. The ID of Mr. Balog. I would love to have that on the
11 screen, though. What we see now is an autopsy report. Yes, that's it.
12 If we could please just zoom in a little. We talked about him yesterday.
13 You remember, don't you? We could please zoom in slightly, since it's
14 very small and difficult to see.
15 Do you have that on your screen, Doctor? Would I be right in
16 stating that his name, as reflected on his ID, based on which he was
17 identified, and we just cannot be wrong, is J-o-s-i-f, with an F. Please
18 don't just nod. For the sake of the record, speak up.
19 A. Yes, that's right. His ID says "Josif."
20 Q. But we've seen a lot of these tables giving his name as Josip,
21 with a P. Is that right?
22 A. Yes, you're quite right. It is quite obvious that whoever was
23 entering all the names was not familiar with this other variant of the
24 name, Josif, which was quite uncommon, so the person just assumed that the
25 name was Josip.
1 Q. Yes. You have pointed out the name is a bit uncommon, but this
2 may be a simple error, such as those you discussed yesterday. This can
3 only be Josif Balog. Certainly not Josip, although the names do indeed
4 sound alike. I hope we can agree on that.
5 A. We certainly can.
6 Q. Thank you. Could these be two different persons, just because of
7 this one letter discrepancy? What do you think?
8 A. I think the reason is what I've just stated for you. That and
9 nothing else.
10 Q. This does follow from your answer, sir, but I presume this to be a
11 mere assumption on your part, right?
12 A. [No audible response].
13 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Strinovic. I have no further questions
14 for you, sir.
15 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues] ...
16 for this witness.
17 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Thank you, Mr. Domazet.
18 Ms. Tapuskovic.
19 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Just one thing for the transcript.
20 I don't think the last answer was reflected. The witness said "yes," when
21 I asked him whether this was a mere assumption.
22 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
23 Cross-examination by Ms. Tapuskovic:
24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Strinovic my name is Mira Tapuskovic. I am one
25 of Miroslav Radic's Defence counsel. I hope you can hear me clearly
1 enough, since we have some problems with our microphones. You mentioned
2 several times yesterday about you going to Hungary, especially in 1992,
3 whether Pecs or Budapest. Do you remember the meeting you had with the
4 International Red Cross people, and the commission of the then Federal
5 Republic of Yugoslavia that took place on the 12th of July, 1992?
6 A. I can't say I remember the date. I remember the -- I remember
7 meetings, there were several of those. It's really difficult for me to
8 say now who was when and where, who attended a particular meeting or what
9 specifically was discussed at each of these meetings.
10 Q. Fair enough. Thank you. But do you remember that at one of these
11 meetings Dr. Vesna Bosanac was with you as a member of the Croatian
12 delegation? She was the hospital director when the civilians and patients
13 from the hospital were evacuated back in 1991? Do you remember that?
14 A. Yes, I do. She was there. That's a fact.
15 Q. Can you tell us if, on that occasion, Vesna Bosanac gave you a
16 list of persons who allegedly had gone missing from the Vukovar Hospital
18 A. I really don't know if she did or not. But there was no need for
19 her to do that in Pecs or in Budapest. She could easily have done this in
20 Zagreb, so I don't know.
21 Q. My question was if on that particular occasion a list was given to
22 you. She came with you to this meeting in Budapest and my conclusion is,
23 since she was not a member of the commission, or at least that's not what
24 our information indicates, her role was probably to speak about those
25 persons who had allegedly gone missing from the Vukovar Hospital. Do you
1 agree with me?
2 A. Yes, that probably was the reason she attended that meeting.
3 Q. Thank you. What about any time later on during the identification
4 procedure. What about Vesna Bosanac or anybody else on her behalf from
5 Croatian's health ministry giving you a list of persons who had allegedly
6 gone missing from the Vukovar Hospital with accompanying information?
7 A. I personally never received such lists. As far as I know, these
8 were forwarded to the commission. And later on, when the examinations
9 started, the lists were used to identify bodies.
10 Q. Thank you. You say you personally never received any such lists
11 from Vesna Bosanac or anyone else on her behalf. However, such lists were
12 handed over to your commission, right?
13 A. Yes, I think that's a fair statement.
14 Q. The exhumation took some time, the autopsies took some time, we
15 know about the time-line because this is something that you shared with us
16 yesterday. You told us how long this had taken. Identification is the
17 lengthiest procedure of all, we might say. What about the Croatian laws?
18 Do the Croatian laws say anything about any dead-line for submitting a
19 request or a questionnaire to ascertain whether a person was detained or
20 missing? Are there any laws in the Republic of Croatia specifying a
21 dead-line on how long persons can be registered as missing and how long
22 this question mark over their fate is allowed to remain in place?
23 A. I can't really say. My job is the identification procedure. I'm
24 not sure how long the procedure can take under the existing laws, but I
25 know that every effort will be made to identify any bodies. I think that
1 is open-ended and there is no specific dead-line for this.
2 Q. Thank you very much. I think your answer is in reference to the
3 identification procedure. Perhaps the question was a little too long, or
4 rather there were two questions instead of just one. After 1995 is it
5 possible to fill in forms or questionnaires in order to inform your
6 commission or the Croatian government about the fact that families or
7 relatives were looking for someone who had gone missing in Croatian
8 territory back in 1991 during the war?
9 A. You will have to ask someone else. You'll have to ask someone
10 whose job that happens to be. This is certainly not a question for a
11 forensic pathologist, and the question then follows from -- the answer
12 then follows from that.
13 Q. I asked you whether you remember that visit to Budapest with Vesna
14 Bosanac. Do you perhaps remember how many persons she reported as missing
15 from the Vukovar Hospital? What about the figure of 236 persons? Is this
16 something she might have provided at the time?
17 A. I really don't remember the exact figure. This strikes me as a
18 distinct possibility what you have just suggested, but the simple truth of
19 the matter is, I don't know.
20 Q. You testified in the Milosevic case back in March 2003. For the
21 benefit of my learned friends, the page number is 17938, lines 8 and 9.
22 You state here that 255 persons from the Vukovar Hospital were reported as
23 missing to your commission. I assume that your answer would have been
24 accurate at the time, wouldn't it. Can you tell me what you base this
25 figure on, what documents, what information, when you spoke of these 255
1 missing persons?
2 A. As far as I remember now, I think this was something that I got
3 from the office for detained and missing persons. They had the documents,
4 they gave me this figure. It's not something I heard at one of the
5 meetings. I was provided with this specific figure before my testimony
6 back in 2003.
7 Q. Thank you. Please don't hold it against me if I use the
8 terms "commission" and "office" interchangeably. You yourself pointed out
9 the roles were changed a while later, although the essential tasks
10 remained the same. You mentioned Dr. Clyde Snow yesterday who was in
11 charge of the exhumation to all practical intents, wasn't it?
12 A. No, that isn't true, he want in charge of the exhumation. Clyde
13 Snow was the first person to discover the site. He was there twice in
14 1992. The entire exhumation was led by international experts, but Clyde
15 Snow was there.
16 Q. Thank you very much. Do you know that in September 1992 Clyde
17 Snow was in Zagreb at the medical faculty, in fact, where he met
18 Dr. Kostovic? Did you know about this?
19 A. Yes, I think the date you have just specified is exact, and I did
20 know about their meeting.
21 Q. Clyde Snow testified in the Dokmanovic case back in 1998 on the
22 17th of March, to be more specific. The page is 1520, lines 18 and 19.
23 Dr. Snow said that Dr. Kostovic had informed him about the fact that 200
24 persons were reported as missing from the Vukovar Hospital. Are you
25 familiar with this bit of information? Is this something that
1 Dr. Kostovic at one time or another shared with you, or perhaps this is a
2 figure that you heard from Dr. Snow?
3 A. I don't know about the specific figure. Can't say I heard about
4 that. I did know that Dr. Kostovic had a figure that he was using at the
5 time, but this normally varied, and the range was pretty wide, from 200 to
6 400. I do not know what it was that Dr. Snow said specifically, which
7 figure he was using, in other words.
8 Q. Thank you. But you will agree with me, won't you, that for all
9 these years I've just given you the first figure bandied about by Vesna
10 Bosanac in July 1992 during that meeting in Budapest. And then the trials
11 at this Tribunal, over this time we have seen a wide range of figures
12 being used in relation to the persons who had allegedly gone missing from
13 the Vukovar Hospital. Do you agree with me?
14 A. Yes. It was exceedingly difficult to have a reliable list of
15 persons missing from the Vukovar Hospital. A lot of people were just
16 passing through, there was a lot of coming and going, and this may have
17 caused some of the discrepancies and aberrations in these figures.
18 Q. Thank you very much. I asked you about you compiling different
19 lists of missing persons, those who had allegedly gone missing from the
20 hospital. Mr. Domazet referred to your testimony in the Belgrade case,
21 the case that we colloquially refer to here as the Belgrade Ovcara case.
22 You testified before that court on the 20th of April, 2005.
23 For the benefit of my learned friends from the OTP, the page is 3,
24 transcript page is 3, number 3.
25 You say you first compiled lists of missing persons from the
1 hospital. Do you remember that, sir?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Can you explain what exactly you meant when you said, "I compiled
4 lists." Or rather, "We compiled lists." We have this reference in the
5 plural on several different occasions. "We have lists of missing persons
6 from the Vukovar Hospital." What exactly do you mean by "we"?
7 A. When I spoke about gathering information in order to compile a
8 list of missing persons, what I meant was the commission for detained and
9 missing persons did this job. The commission gathered all the information
10 and compiled the lists. As a forensic pathologist, all I wanted from the
11 lists was to retrieve as much antemortem information as possible. I
12 wanted to use the most comprehensive list of people missing from the
13 hospital in order to obtain as many names as possible, and then I could go
14 back to any remaining families and get more information. This was about
15 gathering solid, rock-hard antemortem information based on any lists
16 compiled by the commission at the time.
17 Q. Therefore, it seems that the sheer quantity of antemortem
18 information that you were able to gather was what really mattered to both
19 you and the commission. The exact figure of missing persons was not as
20 material, was it?
21 A. The thing is, no one on earth was able to ascertain the exact
22 figure. This was always a ball-park figure being used. I understand you
23 would like to know the exact figure, but back then it was simply
24 impossible to ascertain that figure. You had to cast net as wide as
25 possible, you had to gather as much information as possible, so as to make
1 your job easier later on, make your own job easier. So that the
2 identification procedure might be easier later on, perhaps. So the idea
3 was to cast the net as wide as possible in search of information, any
4 information in relation to those missing from the hospital and the guiding
5 principle was, yes, gather as much information as possible.
6 Q. Thank you. Precisely because of what is stated in the transcript
7 from that trial, the plural is mentioned, several lists. Do you remember
8 the exact number of those lists?
9 A. I don't. The only thing I know is that the figure that appeared
10 was around 400, and that's when we attempted to collect the antemortem
12 Q. Could you please refer to the set of documents given to you
13 yesterday by the OTP where the tab numbers are. Please go to tab 1, that
14 is Exhibit 451. This is your report, Mr. Strinovic. I don't see the date
15 on the report, but I presume it was compiled for the OTP in the case
16 against Milosevic; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, I believe so.
18 Q. Since you testified in March, I presume you wrote this in early
20 A. Yes, I believe that should be so.
21 Q. Please go to para 21 and 22 of your report. My learned friend,
22 Mr. Domazet, asked you a question concerning paragraph 21. I won't dwell
23 on its contents, but rather on the titles. When one reads your report one
24 can see that the titles of individual paragraphs are formulated as
25 questions, they begin with, "Did you ..." or at least this particular one
1 does. All of those 22 questions were put to you by the OTP asking you to
2 provide answers?
3 A. I believe it to be correct.
4 Q. Thank you. If we go back to paragraph 10 of your report on page
5 2, I will read out, and perhaps you can confirm whether I've read it out
7 [In English] "I must emphasise that primarily forensic
8 pathologists were used to do the work."
9 [Interpretation] Have I read that portion correctly, the first
10 part of the first sentence in paragraph 10?
11 A. Yes. In the original I stated that primarily forensic pathologist
12 were used to do the work.
13 Q. Yesterday you explained the difference between an anthropologist,
14 a pathologist, and a forensic pathologist. And you also spoke about the
15 way teams were formed. You said that you insisted that each team be given
16 a forensic pathologist and an assistant. Is that so?
17 A. Yes, in principle.
18 Q. When reading paragraph 10 one can see that you mostly used
19 pathologists, experts who deal with disease, first and foremost, rather
20 than using forensic pathologists who deal with violent deaths, as
21 explained by yourself yesterday.
22 A. No, it must be a mistranslation. In Croatian it clearly stated
23 what I said yesterday, that primarily we used forensic pathologists and
24 only exceptionally when they were not present we made use of pathologists.
25 I said that loud and clear yesterday, and I believe it has been written
1 down that way.
2 Q. That's precisely why I wanted to discuss this paragraph with you,
3 because obviously there was a mistranslation. In the original we have
4 forensic pathologists, and in the English it just says "pathologists."
5 A. Perhaps I can clarify further. Often in the English language the
6 term pathologist can also include forensic pathologists. But in the
7 Croatian language we have clearly separated to two specialisations, that
8 of pathologist and that of forensic pathologist. They are completely
9 separate, whereas in English the border is not so clear. Pathologists can
10 do either of the things, and I presume that was the reason for the
12 Q. We'll deal with those differences at a later stage of
13 cross-examination when we start talking about the exhumations,
14 identifications, and the use of international teams.
15 You have mentioned the Zadar case where in one of your teams you
16 said you had an expert without proper forensic pathologist papers,
17 diplomas. Was that Mr. Josip Dujela?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You've discussed his work in Martic case two months ago; is that
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you confirm to us that when identifying the 200 bodies from
23 Ovcara there was always a member of the team who had all the proper
24 qualifications for that work, or rather to clarify, did you always have a
25 forensic pathologist on board? Or were there cases of physicians doing
1 that work such as with Mr. Josip Dujela from Zadar?
2 A. As the work of the international experts is concerned at Ovcara, I
3 never inquired about their qualifications. I always believed that those
4 who sent them there chose the right people. It wasn't my job to control
5 their expert knowledge and qualifications. The only thing I know was that
6 there were radiologists, dental experts and anthropologists there from the
7 international community, as well as forensic pathologists. As to
8 pathologists being there, that I don't know.
9 Q. I agree with you, Mr. Strinovic. On line 25, page 27 my question
10 was precisely so, I asked you about the identifications only. Yesterday
11 you said you were the person who put those teams together. Once the
12 autopsies were carried out, the international teams who did that turned
13 the bodies over to your commission. Is that your statement from
15 A. That is correct. When it comes to identifications, that is
16 extracting the elements from the documentation necessary to compare with
17 the antemortem data, that part of work was carried out by the forensic
18 institute in Zagreb. I was there, as well as my other colleagues,
19 forensic pathologists. We worked on that to conclude the identifications.
20 We only used forensic pathologists from Zagreb as concerns
22 Q. That was precisely what I wanted to ask you. In your work
23 concerning the mortal remains of the 200 people from Ovcara were you able
24 to meet Dr. Yvonne Milewski in Zagreb?
25 A. There were a number of delegations and people who came to the
1 institute concerning Ovcara and similar cases. And I must admit that that
2 name doesn't ring a bell.
3 Q. Perhaps I can refresh your memory. Dr. Yvonne Milewski worked on
4 the autopsies. We have her report, and she carried out about 11 per cent
5 of all the autopsies. She even stated that in a way she coordinated the
6 work of the other pathologists there. Therefore, she was routinely
7 present during autopsies, and that procedure took a couple of months,
8 longer than the exhumation itself. Does that refresh your memory?
9 A. In the room where we did autopsies there were constantly 30 to 40
10 people present. Of course some of them introduced themselves, but then I
11 really can't remember this lady.
12 Q. Dr. Milewski was asked by the OTP to give evidence. She put
13 together a separate report. Her report and her evidence was part of this
14 case. I refer to Exhibit 381.
15 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we have a
16 break now, please, so that I can go through my questions and perhaps
17 shorten my cross-examination.
18 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Thank you, Mrs. Tapuskovic.
19 We will have a break of 20 minutes now. So we will resume at 20
20 past 11.00.
21 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 11.24 a.m.
23 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. We may continue, Mr. Strinovic. We will deal with the tables in
25 your report. I presume you would agree with me that this report you
1 prepared for the OTP in the case against Milosevic contains several tables
2 and they pertain to various locations in the Republic of Croatia?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Could we please go to the first table. Do you have that in front
5 of you?
6 A. I don't know which one you mean.
7 Q. In your report that is the table entitled, "Totals." The ERN
8 number in the English is 0307-1 --
9 THE INTERPRETER: The interprets didn't catch the last two
10 figures. 98.
11 Q. Could we agree that this table reflects the total number of
12 victims examined by your office, by yourself?
13 A. Yes, we could say that.
14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. I
15 will interrupt my series of questions for a moment. During the break I
16 was told that on page 29, lines 14 and 15, when I asked the witness about
17 Dr. Yvonne Milewski, and when I stated that she was under a contract with
18 this Tribunal, that hasn't been entered in the transcript. She was
19 contracted by the Tribunal, and that report has already been given an
20 exhibit number.
21 Q. Now, to go back to the table, Mr. Strinovic, sorry for
22 interrupting. In the third column, actually in the third row, it
23 states "Zagreb Ovcara" meaning that the examination or the treatment of
24 the mortal remains was carried out in Zagreb. Isn't that correct?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. There are three types of columns that is under different headings.
2 One reads "established," the other group is "probable," the third one
3 being "unknown." These headings, do they pertain to the cause of death,
4 because there's no clear explanation of what "established", "probable,"
5 and "unknown" means. Is that regarding the cause of death or the total
6 number of mortal remains?
7 A. That pertains to the cause of death, established, probable, and
9 Q. And then in the column just below "established" we
10 have "shooting," meaning the cause of death, as you stated, was shooting
11 from a fire-arm. If we go three rows down we see the figure of 200.
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. All other columns are empty. There are no entries, and in the far
14 right column we have the total of 200. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. So according to this part of the table there were 200 cases at
17 Ovcara, 200 cases of shootings as the cause of death?
18 A. Yes, that's how we could read that table, although I need to say
19 that I don't know when this table was put together, particularly in
20 relation to all the data we received regarding the cause of death.
21 Q. Just before the break you confirmed that you compiled this report
22 for the OTP just before your testimony in the Milosevic case, and this was
23 in March 2003, wasn't it? Would you agree with me that the table was
24 compiled just before March 2003?
25 A. I don't know about this particular table. I don't know when
1 exactly it was compiled. If I look all this information, the information
2 was obviously obtained from the Office for Detained and Missing Persons.
3 Therefore, I really can't say when the specific table was actually
5 Q. Doctor, the table is an integral part of your report, isn't it?
6 A. Yes, indeed.
7 Q. There are all together about 10 of these tables, and just one of
8 these, the one that is on page 7, the ERN in English is 0307-1920. Have
9 you got that table, sir? Perhaps if I could help you with this, the
10 heading is "Ovcara."
11 For the interpreters, this is table number 1. I see that Mr.
12 Strinovic is finding it difficult to find that one, since in this folder
13 we have both the B/C/S and the English. I know there's been some
14 confusion about the page numbers, and that may be why Dr. Strinovic is
15 taking a long time. The heading is "Ovcara."
16 I think you have it in front of you right now. That must be the
17 one. And it's on our screens too.
18 Mr. Strinovic, do you agree with me that there's only one table in
19 reference to the mortal remains found at Ovcara, only one such table in
20 your report?
21 A. Yes, that sounds right.
22 Q. Thank you. If you look at the upper left corner of the table
23 there is the letter N, equals, 200. Would I be right in concluding based
24 on that N stands for "number", and that the total is 200, would that be a
25 fair conclusion?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Further, "cause of death," "gunshot injuries", or
3 rather, "fire-arm injuries"?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you very much. If we could now please move to tab 4. This
6 is Exhibit 457. Mr. Strinovic, this is a separate table, and it is not
7 part of your report, is it?
8 A. You mean the report?
9 Q. I mean the report that we discussed a while ago at tab 1. The
10 report that you used for your testimony in the Milosevic case?
11 A. Yes, that's true.
12 Q. Therefore, it's not part of that report, is it?
13 A. No, it isn't.
14 Q. If I may put it that way, we have a heading here which
15 says "paragraph 49." Is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Paragraph 49, is that the number of the Croatian indictment
18 against Slobodan Milosevic?
19 A. I don't know. I'm not sure.
20 Q. You testified yesterday. During your evidence in chief you were
21 asked about this table, and you said that you and your associates compiled
22 this table with information with cause of death information which you
23 obtained sometime in 2002 or thereabouts. Do you remember saying that?
24 A. Yes, that is probably true.
25 Q. For your information, I've compared the Croatian indictment
1 against Slobodan Milosevic, and paragraph 49 only mentions the alleged
2 victims from the Vukovar Hospital. If we look at this table we see that
3 in 195 cases the cause of death was established. Is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Out of those 195 cases, in 188 cases the death was caused by
6 gunshot wounds.
7 A. I'm sorry if I gave a different figure, but I think the right
8 figure is 188.
9 Q. That's exactly what I mean. Can you please explain this? This
10 table was compiled for the purposes of the indictment against Slobodan
11 Milosevic. You said you compiled this with your associates. You say that
12 the figure of 188 is in reference to the number of deaths caused by
13 gunshot wounds. A while ago we discussed the table from your report, the
14 one with the heading, "Ovcara," and the one with the heading "total," in
15 which you mention a total of 200. 200 deaths caused by gunshot wounds.
16 Can you please explain how this is possible? How is it possible within
17 such a short space of time, for such different information to be provided
18 in a document that you submit to an international institution such as the
19 Tribunal, regardless of the case in question?
20 A. Just by looking at it, it seems quite obvious to me that in the
21 first case we had less information about those 200 persons who died as a
22 result of gunshot wounds, who were shot. Later on we were given more
23 accurate, more detailed information, it was based on this later set of
24 data that we had that we compiled this second report. The information
25 provided was better quality, it's as simple as that. We did not look at
1 the cause of death. We tried to use some documents and reports or partial
2 reports to arrive at certain conclusions. The first bit of information
3 about 200 people who were shot died as a result of gunshot wounds, was the
4 result of our information at the time. Later on we realised, based on
5 information that we received later on, that the figure of 195, 188 of
6 those were accounted for by gunshot wounds. So it's obvious that there
7 were two different kinds of information being provided, and this applies
8 to both the first time around and second time around. We did not have
9 information of our own, this was information submitted to us, and as
10 information was submitted to us, we tried to improve the accuracy of our
12 Q. I've heard your explanation, but we do agree that your report does
13 not bear a date, and we ascertained in a round about way as it were when
14 it was your report was produced. You confirmed that it was compiled early
15 in 2003. What about this table, there is no date on it, is there? But we
16 have concluded that it was made for the purposes of the Croatian
17 indictment against Slobodan Milosevic which was raised, I'm not mentioning
18 the date, but certainly it was after 2000 [Realtime transcript read in
19 error "2003"]. You say you had no information, you say you received
20 information from other sources.
21 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there is an error
22 about the indictment against Slobodan Milosevic. The Croatian indictment,
23 it says 2003, I was using a ball-park figure of after 2000. At this point
24 in time I'm not interested in the exact year. Thank you.
25 Q. You say you received information from some other source. It
1 wasn't generated by you, in other words. When were the autopsies
2 finished, and when did you receive all the documents, the entire
4 A. As I explained yesterday, the identification documents were
5 submitted to us immediately after we finished our job in late 1996 and
6 early 1997. These were parts of the autopsy reports that had to do with
7 identifying bodies, but not with cause of death. We never received entire
8 reports, we always received bits of reports that we could use to draw
9 certain conclusions, but cause of death reports were never part of what we
10 received. We used whatever information we received, and this is clearly
11 reflected. But one thing that I have to point out is that this was not
12 submitted to the Croatian side through any legal channels. I'm not sure
13 how I acquired those eventually, whether it was here at the Tribunal or
15 Q. Mr. Strinovic, I remember exactly what you said yesterday. What
16 you said about how you acquired some parts of the documentation, and you
17 even indicated clearly the specific portions of the autopsy reports which
18 you received. However, you received all those data at a point in time
19 when the autopsies had been long over. When you eventually compiled these
20 reports, had you by this time received any other kind of information
21 except for information related to the cause of death?
22 A. I'm not sure what other type of information we possibly could have
23 received. Those who performed the autopsies submitted reports to us and
24 those were final reports, not containing the cause-of-death section. That
25 was not disclosed to us.
1 Q. Can you confirm that all these three tables, the total table, the
2 Ovcara table and the paragraph 49 table were compiled based on the same
3 set of documents, on the same pool of information, to put it that way,
4 that your office was in possession of?
5 A. Obviously not, otherwise the tables would be identical. We had
6 different documents, and that's why the information in these tables are
7 different. In one of the tables you have 200 persons killed as a result
8 of gunshot wounds and in the other table you have different figures, 198.
9 If we had been using the same information all the time, our results would
10 have tallied. That much is obvious, isn't it?
11 Q. That is what I asked you a while ago, whether there was additional
12 information later on, and you clearly said none. Let us move on, however.
13 I'm still looking at paragraph 49, we still have that in our screens. In
14 the lower left corner, it reads, "age range 16 to 72." Is that right?
15 A. Yes, that's what the table says, isn't it.
16 Q. We shall in due course be discussing the report of Dr. Yvonne
17 Milewski. You say you don't know her. What would be your answer if I
18 suggested to you that Dr. Milewski, who looked at all 200 autopsy reports
19 pursuant to a request by the OTP, concluded that the age range of the
20 victims was 17 to 66?
21 A. I don't know when this study was conducted, which year. But we
22 looked at our reports when we were identifying bodies, and this is the
23 range that we established. The two ends of the range signify obviously
24 the youngest person found and the oldest person found at Ovcara.
25 Q. Can you agree with me that the discrepancy between 72 and 66
1 appears to be six years? This is a considerable figure, when ascertaining
2 the age of dead bodies that were found somewhere?
3 A. I will repeat this. I have no idea what this study was based on,
4 whether there doctor based her findings on anthropologists' findings, or
5 on death certificates. Thus knowing the date of birth in relation to each
6 and every body. We did this based on death certificates, which means that
7 we were in possession of such information as to indicate when all of these
8 people were born.
9 Q. We are now looking at this table, and we all received a set of
10 documents yesterday. Can we please have on our screens Exhibit 381. This
11 is Dr. Milewski's report.
12 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just to remind you,
13 the report and the transcript were admitted under Rule 92 bis some 10 days
14 ago or so. Just a minute, please.
15 Q. You asked me what basis that Dr. Milewski have for her work, and I
16 said that she was contracted by the OTP to compile the report. In its
17 introduction entitled, "The Analysis of Pathological Findings During
18 Autopsies of Bodies Exhumed from the Ovcara Site Close to Vukovar in
19 Croatia on the 4th of March 1998." She indicates her confirmation that
20 she checked 200 autopsy findings. Therefore, Dr. Milewski went through
21 the same documents and the same autopsy findings you had at your disposal.
22 A. No. It seems I need to clarify yet again. These are two
23 different things. Dr. Milewski had autopsy reports before her in which
24 the given forensic pathologist or anthropologist provided approximate age
25 determined at autopsy. That's what she based her report on. We compiled
1 our report based on the identified persons. The anthropologist cannot
2 provide the exact year of birth, but rather their margin of error is plus
3 or minus five years. Based on the death certificate we determined the
4 exact of date of birth, once the person had been identified. That's why
5 we used precise information, and the doctor used information, approximate
6 information, based on the findings. We did have the same documentation at
7 our disposal, but she used the findings. Among other entries when it
8 states age, we have a range. After the identification we were in
9 possession of the exact date of birth, and as such they were entered and
10 that's the basis of what we put down between the ages of 16 and 72. And
11 these are two completely different things. We can't compare that.
12 Q. All right. The age range does contain a certain margin of error
13 for various reasons but once the entire identification process has been
14 completed we can be certain of the given person's age.
15 To move on to a different topic dealt by -- dealt with by
16 Dr. Milewski, and I need to clarify my position here. You came here as an
17 OTP witness, and Dr. Milewski provided her finding and report upon OTP's
18 request. And her report and her tables, as well as her evidence, was
19 admitted into the file. Could you now please go to the table I termed
20 paragraph 49? That is in tab 4. I would kindly ask the usher, what we
21 have now is Dr. Milewski's statement, and right after comes her report,
22 the sixth page in the English, paragraph E.
23 I will go on with my questions while we're waiting for the
24 document. In your table entitled "paragraph 49," it reads that in four
25 cases the cause of death is unknown. Is that correct?
1 In 188 cases the cause of death was shooting. And provided we
2 will be able to locate the page, that's page 6, not of the statement but
3 of the report. Exhibit 381. We have it on the screen. According to our
4 data, both the statement and the report by Dr. Milewski were given one
5 exhibit number.
6 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we seem to be
7 unable to have the document. This is the statement. It's not the
8 document I had in mind. With Your Honour's leave, I have the B/C/S
9 version of the report here, and perhaps the usher could assist me in
10 handing it over to the witness so that the witness could read it for
12 Q. Dr. Strinovic, on that page that you have in front of you the
13 several lines at the bottom are marked in orange. That is paragraph E.
14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, now we have it on
15 the screen.
16 Q. Could you please read out paragraph E?
17 A. Paragraph E states: "There are seven individuals in which a cause
18 of death could not be reached with objectivity or with certainty."
19 Q. Thank you. Dr. Milewski provided her findings in 1998. And you
20 compiled your tables, especially the paragraph 49 table, somewhat later.
21 What one can read there is that in four cases the cause of death could not
22 be ascertained. Could you provide a scientific explanation for the
23 discrepancy between these two separate findings as regards the number of
24 those cases in which the figures differ concerning the cause of death?
25 A. I can provide a brief or an extended explanation from various
1 points of view. What is of essence here is that we did not have the
2 entire documentation at any given time. When we compiled this table we
3 were given the cause of death as were given to us in the documents we
4 received. I must state that it is difficult to determine the exact cause
5 of death in such cases. Therefore, the autopsy experts in the Ovcara
6 cases could come up with various explanations. Therefore, the cause of
7 death as entered could not have been the single solution possible. There
8 may have been interpretation of their findings. If we gave this report
9 and the documentations to various forensic pathologists, I'm pretty
10 certain that they would come up with different figures too. Because the
11 cause of death column is not a solid one, but rather a diversified one.
12 The cause of death can be somewhat different as regards to shooting or
13 trauma. Perhaps the best solution would be to assess each case
14 individually regarding the injuries that exist and the injuries can be
15 analysed in different ways. And then we could establish a more or less
16 certain diagnosis as to the cause of death.
17 In cases such as these, when some time as passed, there are
18 numerous changes. First of all, there are changes to the clothing. You
19 can see the holes in the clothes but with time they disappear. We can
20 also see the defect on the skin, but the skin disintegrates. Then we go
21 further down to the organs, but they can disintegrate too. Then we reach
22 the bones. Some bones have neat fractures which do not correspond to
23 bullet injuries, but some bones fall apart in such a way that it is
24 difficult to conclude what the actual cause was.
25 I'm trying to explain to the Chamber and to you why this category
1 of the cause of death is a complex one. It is difficult to come up with a
2 certain figure out of the great number of cases.
3 We had data we received with the causes of death stated, and on
4 the basis of that we put together this paragraph 49 table. If we were to
5 analyse these cases again it would be difficult to come up with the exact
6 figure. You are talking about small shades, nuances, and even top experts
7 could offer different interpretations. It is easy to establish the type
8 of injury in a person who has passed away recently, but if we are talking
9 about six or more years, the situation changes completely. And even the
10 bodies at Ovcara differed. Those that were closer to the surface were
11 poorly preserved, whereas those at the bottom were better preserved
12 because more soft tissue remained. Therefore, we could see the actual
14 So, to reiterate, there is a difference between four and seven,
15 but I tried to account for that. It concerns the interpretation, the way
16 we read documentation. And apart from that, we have received a list of
17 causes of death from which we could establish the exact figures.
18 Therefore, that list was used to make this table, although we didn't make
19 the initial list concerning the cause of death.
20 We had the previous table with that 200, and now we have this one
21 with a number which is somewhat less. I am trying to explain to the
22 Chamber that it is a very delicate issue, and as I have stated,
23 discrepancy may occur. But this margin of error between four and seven,
24 is a very small one.
25 Q. Thank you, Doctor. You've also provided an answer to one of my
1 future questions. I won't go through all details of Dr. Milewski's
2 report, but I believe we can conclude that because of the very reasons you
3 have cited now there was a difference between the total number of those
4 who passed away because of gunshot injuries, and the number appearing in
5 your table, which is 188, and the table called "paragraph 49," and the
6 figure offered by Dr. Milewski. She stated that gunshot injuries were the
7 cause of death in 190 cases. Therefore, the same reasons could account
8 for that discrepancy as well?
9 A. Yes, I believe so.
10 Q. I believe you are trying to tell us that various experts of same
11 qualifications of the same specialisation using the same material can come
12 up with different findings.
13 A. The degree of certitude differs as to the cause of death. And, as
14 such, it can be interpreted in different ways.
15 Q. You've testified in the Belgrade Ovcara case, and upon the court's
16 requests there were experts who testified there as well. You've mentioned
17 them by name. Their results, as regards certain parameters, differ from
18 your results as well as from the results provided by Dr. Milewski.
19 Therefore, I believe the same explanation can be used in that instance as
21 A. I didn't see the reports of my colleagues from Novi Sad, but I am
22 almost positive that we could explain the discrepancies by using the same
24 Q. Thank you. I'm trying to reorganise my questions yet again, since
25 you've already answered some of them. Since we are talking about
1 autopsies and establishing cause of death, in this specific case of the
2 bodies from Ovcara you were not the person who actually carried out the
3 autopsies. But nevertheless I believe you can provide an answer to my
4 next question. When you testified in the case against Milan Martic in
5 April of 2006, there was discussion of the testimony of Mirko Blazanovic
6 [phoen] or Blazanovic from Lipovacka Dreznica. Do you remember that?
7 A. Yes, the name does ring a bell.
8 Q. Specifically, the late Mirko Blazanovic died of neck injuries or
9 soft tissue injuries, and this is what you took into account when you made
10 that assertion. After the post mortem was carried out, and your testimony
11 on this matter is in the transcript of the 12th and 13th of April, 2006,
12 and it says that regardless of the fact that the remains of Mr. Blazanovic
13 were examined, the exact cause of death could not be determined as a
14 gunshot wound and that witness testimony was taken as true that he had
15 sustained neck injuries and then it was noted that in the case of this
16 victim, that he -- the cause of death was a gunshot wound. Can you please
17 tell me whether this approach of establishing the cause of death by
18 examining the documents that you had could have been and was applied in
19 any case or in relation to any remains from Ovcara?
20 A. I don't know what those who wrote out the causes of death were
21 guided by. As far as I know, exclusively on the level of the -- on the
22 basis of the findings and radiological findings, it could have been
23 established whether there were in any projectiles or particles that could
24 suggest a cause of death. And based on other post-mortem findings, the
25 cause death were established. As far as I know they did not use any other
1 information or elements to decide what the cause of death was, but they
2 only used the information they obtained during the post mortem.
3 Q. Very well. But you did not answer my question. You testified in
4 a different case that you were familiar with a case that a victim was
5 reportedly killed by fire-arms even though this was something that was not
6 established in a post mortem. So my question is, are you aware, I'm not
7 asking about whether your teams from your commission worked that way.
8 What I'm asking you is if you know whether this approach of establishing
9 the cause of death was applied in relation to any of the remains from
11 A. Yes, I think that I did answer, that I am not aware of any such
13 Q. Can you rule out 100 per cent that there were no such cases?
14 A. I was not because I was not the one who wrote the protocol or the
15 one who entered the information about the cause of death.
16 Q. Thank you. You told us a lot, Doctor, about the procedure from
17 the discovery of the grave site, then the identification process, and we
18 can agree that practically there were three phases in this whole matter;
19 the exhumation phase which took about 40 odd days, then the autopsy phase,
20 which took three months, and then the stage of identification, which
21 practically, according to what you told us, is still not finished today?
22 A. Yes, that is correct.
23 Q. And nobody knows when that stage would be completed, the stage of
24 identification. According to what you told us yesterday and today, we can
25 agree, perhaps, that none of the Croatian experts or doctors, medical
1 specialists in the teams that you formed, as far as I understood, and that
2 you coordinated, did not sign a single document relating to establishing
3 the cause of death or the post mortem. This was something that was
4 entirely done by international experts?
5 A. Yes, as far as I know, that is how this was done.
6 Q. Yesterday you told us that in the initial years until the
7 discovery of the grave site, or actually -- or rather that you said that
8 this took until 1995, that the primary objective of the commission was to
9 compile as much information as possible, to hold meetings in order to
10 compile as much information of antemortem information as possible, that
11 would serve as the basis for the identification process which you knew
12 would eventually take place. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. You stated, and I think that this was in the Belgrade Ovcara case,
15 and yesterday you told us here that in 80 per cent of the cases the
16 identification was conducted by the classic method on the basis of
17 information received from relatives, friends, neighbours or anyone who was
18 able to provide relevant information, and that the rest of the identified
19 remains were identified by DNA?
20 A. Yes, but this is not exclusively applied to Ovcara, but for all
21 the cases processed by us.
22 Q. So all the identifications conducted on the territory of Croatia,
23 as well as all the remains of victims that were killed in the time period
24 during the conflicts in Croatia, that's the period it applies to?
25 A. Yes, that is correct.
1 Q. Doctor, now, if we look at tab 6, that is Exhibit 460. We see the
2 table. Have you got it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You said that the table was drafted in 2006. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And that it was drafted in the forensic medicine institute, and
7 that you worked on it with your colleagues; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. A break-down is given here, and of the 200 total remains, it is
10 noted how many of them were identified by the classic methods and how many
11 were identified using DNA, and then you have the identified -- identifying
12 Ovcara numbers of the remains, in which case the identity was not
13 established for those remains. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. On the last page of that table you provided the total data, and
16 there it states that out of a total of 200 remains, 192 were identified,
17 and that of that 93 were identified with the classic method and 99 using
18 the DNA method. Is that correct, Doctor?
19 A. Yes, yes, that is correct.
20 Q. Thank you, I have to just note that for the transcript.
21 If we look at the figures and the ratio of 93 identities
22 established by the classic method and 99 cases using DNA analysis we see
23 that the ratio is not 80:20?
24 A. Yes, that is correct. That is obvious.
25 Q. Actually the ratio here is 1:1, practically. Can you please
1 explain why this is so?
2 A. Of course I can. This was the largest mass grave exhumed in
3 Croatia, and at the start of the identification process all the persons
4 were identified using the classic method. These were very clear cases
5 with a lot of elements, and which were so convincing that it was possible
6 to carry out an identification acceptable to the relatives. So during the
7 first year identification was done by the classic method; DNA as a method
8 was not so perfected at that time. As time went on and the remaining
9 cases became more and more complicated it was not possible to get enough
10 elements using the classic method, so then we had to resort to the DNA
11 method. That is why, because of the large number and because of the very
12 complex cases involved, where the population was quite similar to a
13 degree, I'm talking about men of middle age or younger men, so in such
14 cases it was very difficult to identify them, and that is why we had to
15 use the DNA method which in 1998 or 1999 was introduced in the area as a
16 valuable method and of sufficient quality to be able to carry out
17 identifications. Then we began to apply that method routinely in the
18 Ovcara case, but in -- even there we did not manage to resolve all the
19 cases as we expected, so that even now there are some outstanding,
20 unresolved identification cases. And that is why these methods were used
21 in this way, we're talking about a large grave site.
22 Q. Doctor, you said that the DNA analysis is something that is
23 relatively new. Does that mean that the application of the DNA analysis
24 is new in Croatia, in Croatian medical circles and not in international
25 medical circles? When was the DNA method of analysis discovered?
1 A. I don't know the exact year of that, but I know that relatively
2 quickly we began to apply the method, the lab was established in 1994 in
3 Zagreb, and it began to use this method of analysis, but it wasn't so
4 perfected at that time, and with the passage of time, as a method, it
5 became more and more perfect, faster, and yielded results of a greater
6 quality. That's it.
7 Q. Thank you. I would now like to ask you to look at Exhibit 452.
8 This is a new table. It was drafted by the forensic medicine institute.
9 You provided explanations yesterday about this table in response to
10 questions from the Chamber, and this table provides a break-down of
11 identified remains according to the classic method. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes, that is correct.
13 Q. When you talked about establishing the identity using the classic
14 method you attached a lot of value to documents, if the documents had any
15 names on them?
16 A. Yes, they were important in the sense that such a document
17 immediately provides some name. Then of course it needs to be checked and
18 double-checked in order to be able to carry out a correct identification.
19 But that is the initial step.
20 Q. So a name and remains put together does not automatically mean
21 that the identity of the remains is established?
22 A. Yes, that is correct.
23 Q. In how many cases -- excuse me. In how many cases was the
24 identity of remains established on the basis of documents? I counted and
25 I established that in 41 cases the identity out of 93 persons, because we
1 have, would you agree with me, 93 persons whose identity was established
2 in the classic way?
3 A. Yes, that is correct.
4 Q. In 41 cases the identity was established using documents. You
5 then also cite a number of other parameters on the basis of which identity
6 was established, of which the most frequent one, and that is in 20 cases,
7 is a combination of such parameters. Doctor, can you tell me what that
8 means, combination of two parameters, three parameters, all kinds of
10 A. When we're talking about a combination as the main element for
11 identification, what we mean are several parameters, a number of
12 parameters. Of course we're always happy if, in the case of a
13 combination, we have many parameters. General ones, height, age, sex and
14 so on. And then those that have to do with clothes, documents, teeth and
15 so on. The more parameters we have, the simpler it is to make an
16 identification, and in that case combination is the correct term. If we
17 have a combination of a small number of parameters, then they have to be
18 very convincing. So a convincing parameter would not only be a document,
19 we would also need to have a dental analysis, accompanied photographs, or
20 documents indicating old fractures, braces, and other things.
21 So in such cases a smaller number of parameters which are
22 convincing can also be used for positive identification. So if we have a
23 number of such parameters, a small number of them, but they are reliable,
24 they are specific, they are strong evidence, then we can take that as
25 being sufficient. Of course, all of that depends on the approval of the
1 relatives, relatives or the family always has to accept an identification
2 in any case.
3 Q. Thank you, Doctor. So that means when you put down "combination"
4 in the table, since it was not indicated what sort of a combination and
5 which parameters are involved in each case, we cannot rule out that in all
6 of the 20 cases or in a number of the 20 cases personal documents were one
7 of the parameters in order to make the identification?
8 A. Yes, that is always so. We always consider several parameters.
9 Q. So you are not ruling out the possibility that this number of 41
10 persons whose identity was established on the basis of documents could
11 also be an even larger number, because of an as yet unestablished number
12 of combination factors used to identify persons?
13 A. Probably, yes. Because a document, if it's a reliable document,
14 is quite overpowering evidence and we indicate it as such.
15 Q. Well, I understand the combination to mean a combination of all
16 possible parameters, including documents.
17 A. Yes, let me clarify it once again. If we have a document and
18 other parameters, then the document will be emphasised, and that will be
19 noted as the chief parameter used for identification. If we have other
20 elements without documents, then we can have a combination, unless there
21 is something that can be particularly convincing, which could be the
22 dental history, tattoos or something like that.
23 Q. So, Doctor, can we say that when you are making autopsy reports,
24 when you are carrying out identifications, is it common to indicate where
25 documents were found, or the items that are being linked to certain -- a
1 certain set of mortal remains?
2 A. Yes. Anyone who performs an autopsy in their report should
3 emphasise or note down where any objects were found. Was it found in a
4 pocket or next to the body, with the body, or something to that effect.
5 It is necessary to write down where any item or document was found.
6 Q. Thank you, Doctor.
7 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is 12.30. I
8 don't know if it is time for the break.
9 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Thank you, Ms. Tapuskovic.
10 We will now adjourn for -- until a quarter to 2.00. So we will
11 reconvene at a quarter to 2.00.
12 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 1.48 p.m.
14 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Ms. Tapuskovic, please proceed.
15 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 Q. Mr. Strinovic, let us now continue, please. Let us consider these
17 identification issues and all the circumstances surrounding this work.
18 Yesterday you testified in chief that the work of international experts,
19 especially their work on autopsies, was correct or in keeping with the
20 rules. That is page 44 of yesterday's transcript. No more and no less.
21 You described their work as in keeping with the rules. You also say that
22 their autopsies created a number of problems in your work at a later
24 A. Yes, that is indeed what I said.
25 Q. These problems that you referred to yesterday were reflected in
1 the fact that you did not have sufficient photographs, sufficient
2 parameters, sufficient detail such as is normally obtained during an
3 autopsy. Would that be a fair assessment?
4 A. Yes. Primarily I had in mind good, solid photographs that we
5 could use. Photographs of details that were described but not
6 photographed sufficiently.
7 Q. This assertion to the effect that omissions may have been made
8 during these autopsies, did possible omissions affect the identification
9 of any remaining bodies or did this only affect the duration of the
10 identification process itself?
11 A. I would say this only affected the duration of the entire process.
12 The process as a result became relatively slow. Ultimately, however, each
13 body was identified in such a way as to make sure that both we and the
14 families felt the ID thus achieved was reliable.
15 Q. My learned friend, Mr. Domazet, asked you a number of questions to
16 do with the identification process, Especially the stage at which
17 relatives could either choose to sign an identity certificate or refuse to
18 sign a certificate. What I want to know now is from a purely medical
19 point of view, if you have solid, reliable information on a person's
20 identity, this person at this point no longer has a number but rather a
21 name is assigned to a particular body. You've mentioned one such case.
22 Would that be the case, sir?
23 A. Once the classic method has been applied, however reliable it may
24 be from a purely medical standpoint, we never pressed for this sort of
25 result to be accepted under any conditions. We never considered the case
1 closed, in purely medical terms. If there was a 99.9 per cent
2 identification, an identification that confirmed our suspicions or
3 theories, then we would normally accept this as a positive ID, even in
4 cases where the family refused to sign the certificate.
5 Q. Would you agree with me then that in these cases from a purely
6 medical standpoint, a victim has been identified, but from a legal
7 standpoint this person remains anonymous, as it were, an unknown person?
8 A. Yes, that is true when DNA analysis is concerned.
9 Q. So if the family refused to sign a certificate like that for any
10 reason at all, there can be no death certificate issued. Is that the
12 A. Yes, that's right. No death certificate, no burial.
13 Q. Likewise, you can't have an excerpt from the death register
14 issued. I'm not sure if that book is still called the same in Croatian as
15 it used to be?
16 A. Yes, the name remains the same, and that is true.
17 Q. Thank you. We spoke yesterday about erroneous entry of
18 information over the years. We had yet another table, one of the many
19 that we have been dealing with. This is Exhibit 461, and it's at tab 2,
20 for your reference, Mr. Strinovic. You confirmed yesterday that this
21 table was compiled by the OTP. Neither you nor your office were actually
22 involved in the production of this table, right?
23 A. Not quite. We did provide some of the information that went
24 towards the making of this table.
25 Q. Fair enough. Am I right in concluding that all the questionnaires
1 printed by the government of the Republic of Croatia and the Commission
2 for Detained and Missing Persons, all the questionnaires in relation to
3 missing persons from the Vukovar Hospital, allegedly, were submitted to
4 the OTP at their request?
5 A. Are you talking about antemortal information or which other
6 questionnaires or forms do you have in mind.
7 Q. With the Chamber's permission I will show you exactly what I mean.
8 These are questionnaires or forms that we as participants in this trial,
9 have received from the OTP. It reads "Government of the Republic of
10 Croatia," you have the coat of arms right there, "Commission for Detained
11 and Missing Persons." This is a standard form or questionnaire excising
12 11 pages. Can the usher please assist me with this. I wish to show the
13 witness these forms.
14 There is a name on it, please don't mention the name, just have a
15 look and tell me if you recognise the standard form that appears to be
16 used here. Mr. Strinovic, are you familiar with this sort of form or
18 A. Yes, of course I am. This is the kind of form that we refer to as
19 antemortem information. This is used from the day a person goes missing
20 officially. This form is printed and then information is gathered in
21 relation to all the missing persons in Croatia, and the same applied to
22 the case of the Vukovar Hospital.
23 Q. Can you tell me who exactly was entitled to report a certain
24 person missing or to report a suspicion that a person had gone missing or
25 had been detained?
1 A. That is a question for the Red Cross or for someone working with
2 the office for detained and missing persons. I can't be positive about
3 this. The nearest and dearest, the closest relatives, I should assume,
4 but I can't provide you with a legal answer that would be well-founded.
5 Q. Before I showed you this document, I asked you whether you knew
6 about these forms and questionnaires being submitted to the OTP at their
7 behest. Or is this something that the Croatian government decided to do
8 of their own accord, or perhaps the commission for detained and missing
9 persons itself?
10 A. I can't positive about this, I don't know if I can answer your
11 question. I could speculate, but the truth of the matter is I really
12 don't know.
13 Q. Please don't speculate. You don't know, fair enough. You also
14 spoke about what specific type of information was available to your
15 commission, which type of information may have been available to
16 Dr. Milewski as she was compiling her own report and opinion. Can you
17 confirm that the Commission for Detained and Missing Persons, or rather
18 the government of Croatia, obtained complete autopsy reports and findings
19 containing all the information processed by international experts?
20 A. As far as I know, and I believe I have stated this a number of
21 times so far during my testimony, we received all the information save for
22 information related to the cause of death.
23 Q. Would I therefore be right to conclude that in the Republic of
24 Croatia at this point in time no one is in possession of complete
25 documentation in relation to these people who, for all we know, were, in
1 fact, Croatian citizens?
2 A. I have no idea whether anyone at all in Croatia was given full
3 sets of documents on the cause of death. One thing I do know is that we
4 were not.
5 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. Strinovic, briefly, I am not likely to
6 be dwelling on this for too long, but let us look into a problem that we
7 raised yesterday ascertaining the degree of accuracy of information
8 entered right at the start, the questionnaires and forms of the commission
9 for detained and missing persons and then leading all the way up to such
10 information as date of birth, name and surname, mistaken identity,
11 something along the lines of the questions that my learned friend was
12 asking. This is about OVC-009. I'm referring to that particular body by
13 way of an example, or as an illustration. All I'm saying is that
14 allegedly missing persons from Vukovar Hospital, 264 of them, were cited
15 in the annex to the indictment in our present case.
16 Among the persons cited there, there are two names and I'll have
17 to say their names, one is Ivan Oreski. For your information, right next
18 to that person's name there is a plus sign, which means that no mortal
19 remains were ever found or identified. This person is listed as someone
20 who was born in 1950. The next name in the indictment is Vladislav,
21 Oreski. According to the indictment the body was identified and the year
22 of birth was 1967. A while ago I showed you the questionnaire or the form
23 in relation to one of these persons. Ivan Oreski. If I could have the
24 usher's assistance for a moment, please. I would like to run something up
25 on e-court. It's a 65 ter document. The number is 837. The ERN number
1 is, the B/C/S reference, 0102-3987.
2 Have you got that, Mr. Strinovic, can you see that on your screen?
3 A. Not yet.
4 Q. Since we seem to have page 1 of this form on the screen right now,
5 can we please now go to the next page, and the ERN or the number is 1, and
6 the last three digits of the ERN number are 988.
7 Do you have that, Mr. Strinovic?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I've just received
10 word that the other members of our Defence teams don't have that on their
11 screens. The witness, however, does. I'm not sure if you do,
12 Your Honours.
13 Q. Mr. Strinovic, if you look at number 2, there is the name, the
14 name is Ivan, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Number 3, surname, Oreski, right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. Number 10, date of birth. The 12th of April, 1950,
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. If we look at your table, a table that has already been admitted,
22 and the Exhibit Number is 461, tab 2. Please go to page [as interpreted]
23 88. Have you found that page?
24 A. Yes, I have.
25 Q. Number 88, OVC-088, the name right there is Vladislav Oreski, date
1 of birth, the 12th of April, 1950. The next thing you can see, or rather
2 at the far end, the last column, 1967.
3 A. Yes, I've got that.
4 Q. Can you explain how this came about? How it came about that we
5 have two different persons, one identified and the other still on the
6 list, but still not found or identified? How can it come about that their
7 representative details are mixed up in this way, although their dates of
8 birth are quite different?
9 A. I can't do that just based on this table. I would need to go back
10 to the original report or the death certificate. And then perhaps I would
11 be better able to answer your question.
12 Q. Thank you. Can we please go back to a 65 ter document, and the
13 number is 837. We had it on our screens a while ago. And please if we
14 could go to page 3 of that particular document. We will just have to wait
15 a while for this to come up. Next page. Next page, the last three
16 digits, 990. Question number 20 and the corresponding answer, can we
17 please try to zoom in on that.
18 Mr. Strinovic, we're still dealing with that document in relation
19 to Ivan Oreski. Can you please read question number 20?
20 A. "State all the information known in relation to the person in
21 question following the person's forcible abduction, disappearance or
23 Q. Thank you very much. That is the question. Can you now please
24 read the answer, the handwritten answer?
25 A. "From the 22nd of November, 1991, to the beginning of January,
1 1992, he was at the hospital in Sremska Kamenica, and then later --" and
2 then it says turn the page.
3 Q. Indeed it does, but there is as an asterisk there, too, isn't
4 there? And in brackets it says "turn the page, please," right??
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can the usher please turn the page for us. Can we please zoom out
7 a little so that the witness may have a view of the entire page.
8 Mr. Strinovic, do you agree with me that the next page, page 4,
9 does not show a continuation of the previous entry, which we were led to
10 expect would be there. In this case the person entering the information
11 was Mila [phoen] Oreski, the wife, who signed page 11?
12 A. Yes, it's quite obvious that there is no continuation of the
13 previous text on this page. I assume the continuation would have been on
14 the reverse of the -- of page 3.
15 Q. Yes, that was precisely my assumption too. I would like to ask
16 you this now: Have you ever seen this particular form before?
17 A. Listen, I've seen thousands of these. I would be hard put to tell
18 you if I've seen this particular one or not. We had different kinds of
19 information in these. We see here that the person went missing on the
20 20th of November, 1991. But I don't know whether I've seen this one
21 before or not. I can't say.
22 Q. Does that mean you don't remember if you took any steps to follow
23 this information through, what is stated here in answer to question 20 of
24 the questionnaire?
25 A. As far as I know, whenever a case was nearing identification, the
1 questionnaire would be re-checked. But what was really important, whether
2 it was a case of the classic method being used or DNA analysis, was that
3 antemortal information, the information provided to us, was extremely
4 useful for identifying a body and for trying to find out who the body
5 belonged to. However, all the information entered there, not all the
6 information there was relevant or decisive and this was probably one such
8 Q. The reason I'm asking is because Mr. Oreski's wife indicates that
9 he was at the hospital. Mr. Oreski is still listed as one of the persons
10 in the annex to our indictment, still listed as an unidentified person,
11 that is the reason I'm asking. Thank you.
12 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek that this
13 document be admitted into evidence.
14 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: It will be received.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document will become Exhibit
17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. Could you please look at Exhibit 459 in tab 5. No, I apologise.
19 I was looking at what we've already dealt with. I would kindly ask the
20 usher to show us document 381 on the screen. This being the report being
21 Dr. Milewski, page 48. This part concerns the mortal remains of case
23 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, a correction for
24 the transcript, this is case OVC-112.
25 Q. Do you have that on the screen in front of you, Mr. Strinovic?
1 A. Yes, but could we please zoom in.
2 Q. I would kindly ask the usher to zoom in. Thank you.
3 Mr. Strinovic, could you read out Dr. Milewski's opinion, as I
4 have already stated in paragraph 10 of her statement to the OTP she stated
5 that she went through all the autopsy findings. Could you read out what
6 she stated in her opinion here as regards OVC-112?
7 A. It states cause of death, unascertained, or unestablished.
8 Q. The next line, please, the modality of death?
9 A. Unascertained.
10 Q. Could we now please see the autopsy finding, being Exhibit 462, if
11 we could have it on the screen, page 521. ERN number 0056-0249.
12 Mr. Strinovic, this is an example of the autopsy report such as
13 the ones we received, "we" being the Defence, for all 200 remains. In the
14 upper left corner you can see that this refers to OVC-112, being the same
15 mortal remains. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. Could we please see page 3 of this report? Could we
18 please zoom in on the bottom part of the page? Thank you.
19 Could you please read out what is stated here? We know that you
20 can use the English language. Could you please read out the last four
21 lines on this page?
22 A. As cause of death, gunshot wound to the head. Manner of death,
24 Q. Thank you. Would you agree with me, Dr. Strinovic, that what is
25 stated here as regards the cause of death and manner of death are quite
1 different from what you yourself read out from Dr. Milewski's report. I'm
2 sorry, I can't really see you because of the ELMO.
3 A. Before providing my answer, I have to clarify. This is an example
4 I've tried to explain before. When trying to establish the cause of death
5 with people or whose bodies spent a considerable number of years in the
6 ground, doctor wrote in her report that the injuries may have been caused
7 by a bullet or some other type of projectile, but she couldn't make up her
8 mind because the skull was so fragmented that she couldn't reach a final
9 conclusion as to the cause of trauma. Hence, she wrote down "unknown."
10 She explained this massive trauma to the head. On the other side the
11 person who carried out the autopsy, based on the same parameters and the
12 same defects to the skull made his own conclusion. He wrote down homicide
13 and gunshot wound.
14 This is an example of a complex case in which two different people
15 of same qualifications can interpret things differently. One would
16 specify reason unknown, the other will say gunshot wound. The third
17 person would say trauma that might include gunshot wound. Therefore it is
18 difficult to be specific as to the cause of death. I understand both the
19 person who carried out the autopsy and the doctor because they were
20 uncertain as to the actual cause of death.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
23 questions for the witness.
24 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Thank you, Mrs. Tapuskovic.
25 Mr. Bulatovic.
1 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may have a moment,
2 Your Honours, to prepare myself.
3 Good afternoon to Your Honours. Good afternoon to everyone in the
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Bulatovic:
6 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Good afternoon to the witness. My name is Momcilo Bulatovic, one
8 of the counsel for Mr. Sljivancanin. On behalf of Mr. Sljivancanin's
9 Defence team I will put some questions to you and I will my best not to
10 repeat my colleagues' questions so as not to waste any time.
11 Mr. Strinovic, in your report that you were asked about by Ms.
12 Tapuskovic, I saw your particulars there and some background facts. I was
13 particularly interested in item 9 where it reads that you can repeat that
14 you were the coordinator of the medical part of the team during exhumation
15 and identification, meaning that you selected the teams for this work.
16 Could you please explain what specifically was your job in the process of
17 identification and your presence at Ovcara during exhumations and
18 autopsies? What did you do specifically?
19 A. It's a pretty complex question, inviting several answers. You
20 probably want to know about my general duties I had during the
21 identification process, and then separately as regards Ovcara itself.
22 As for the general part, work was organised in such a way that
23 until 1995 the commission of which I was a member since 1991 was primarily
24 tasked with gathering information. As of 1995 onwards the commission
25 focused on locating mass graves, on exhuming and identifying bodies. When
1 the exhumation process began the amount of work expanded. There were
2 numerous locations, large numbers of mass graves, and a lot of work. We
3 needed to organise and dispatch teams. We knew that in certain parts of
4 Croatia there were forensic pathologists who carried out some work during
5 the war, and based upon the request of the governmental office and on my
6 proposal, they were included in those teams which worked in the field,
7 both in exhumations and subsequent autopsies and identifications.
8 A large number of cases, particularly those more complex ones,
9 were treated at the forensic institute in Zagreb. I was there, together
10 with my colleagues, and we did all the autopsies there. And then we were
11 also tasked with identifying the bodies and getting in touch with
12 families. Therefore, the medical segment was what I was involved with in
13 the entire process of locating bodies and identifying them. I worked with
14 other physicians and with the teams I mentioned. On the other hand, I
15 myself participated and was present at exhumations, especially at the
16 beginning, together with some of my other colleagues. The same goes with
17 autopsies, a large portion of those were carried out by the institute's
18 experts who also worked in the field in Petrinja, Kostajnica, and
19 elsewhere. Some bodies were treated in situ, while others were treated at
20 the institute. Therefore we can look at this in two ways one of being the
21 task of organising the whole process and the other hand I did everything
22 the other experts and physicians did.
23 As regards Ovcara, was tasked with being a monitor at exhumations
24 and autopsies. I wasn't constantly present at exhumations because there
25 was another colleague who attended regularly, basically on a daily basis.
1 Throughout the process of exhumations, there was always at least one
2 physician present. When those bodies were then transferred to the
3 institute, the autopsy procedure began carried out by international
4 experts, and together with Professor Matasuic [phoen], who came at that
5 time from Nis in Serbia, attended regularly. We would go to the room
6 which was adjacent to our institute and we followed the autopsies. As
7 regards establishing the cause of death and elements needed for
8 identification, that was my duty. As regards the treatment or the
9 examination of mortal remains.
10 After that the same were handed over to the Croatian side, and
11 then we began with the identification procedure, which was carried out at
12 our institute. I worked on it together with my colleagues. We processed
13 the data, we got in touch with the families, and carried out
14 identifications. What couldn't have been resolved in the classical way,
15 the Zagreb lab headed by Dr. Hubak carried out DNA tests and then again we
16 would call in families who would then be given the DNA results, and that's
17 the way the Ovcara operation was carried out up until today, because we
18 still have some cases that are open and we will continue working on it.
19 Therefore, this is, in brief, the entire explanation of all the
20 duties I have had since the beginning.
21 [Defence counsel confer]
22 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. I'm interested in you attending the autopsies carried out at the
24 institute in Zagreb. When you attended those autopsies did you have any
25 role there? Could you offer suggestions to the international experts,
1 could you provide comments? What was your role and that of
2 Professor Ratasevic's [phoen], as both of you appears there in the same
3 capacity, but representing two different sides?
4 A. As my role was explained to me, my role of a monitor was to
5 observe, rather than suggest or demand that additional procedures be put
6 in place. There was a team who did that, which did that, whereas
7 Professor Ratasevic and I could only observe, be present during the
9 Q. In your previous professional career did you work on autopsies?
10 A. Excuse me?
11 Q. In your previous career did you deal with autopsies?
12 A. I have concluded my specialisation 26 years ago and I have been
13 working as a forensic pathologist for at least 30 years and I must have
14 carried out some 10.000 autopsies single-handedly. Beginning with 1991
15 and the beginning of the war we began seeing specific cases and since then
16 I've been gathering experience on working with mortal remains of those
17 killed during wars.
18 Q. Concerning your presence during the autopsies carried out by
19 international experts, were you required by the Croatian government to
20 submit a report of your remarks of what was done?
21 A. No, we had no special meetings and no requests were made. I was
22 simply present there to try and establish that they follow the rules of
23 the profession, but the government never asked me to write a report as to
24 how and what was done.
25 Q. As such an experienced expert, could you see anything that could
1 point to the lack of expertise or that those experts did something that
2 wasn't by the book? Or to the contrary, were you convinced that they did
3 everything according to the rules of their profession?
4 A. As far as I could see and follow during the autopsies, it was
5 teamwork. It was carried out both by forensic pathologists, by
6 pathologists, by dental experts, by anthropologists who had an important
7 role to play. Therefore, everybody was treated by several experts, and
8 what I was able to observe was that it was done in a fair, correct manner,
9 because they paid due attention and applied the rules of the profession.
10 What I did say earlier though, is that we found some data
11 insufficient, and there I wanted to say that there may have been more
12 photographs. Some things were more obvious and had -- had we had more
13 photographs, the work would have been easier for us. Perhaps some of the
14 photographs were not of good quality. And some of the findings were
15 described in the reports, but we didn't have the photograph. With such a
16 photograph the identification process would have been far easier. That
17 was my remark when I tried to explain the quality of the procedure.
18 But as for the autopsies themselves, that was done in a correct
19 way. At least three experts checked every single body, and I had
20 absolutely no objections as regards their work.
21 Q. The international teams which carried out the autopsies, did they
22 comprise all of the people they should have, anthropologists,
23 radiologists, dental expert, and so on and so forth?
24 A. It was a large team, which had rotations but there were always
25 several experts present at any time. But there was always a radiologist,
1 an anthropologist, a dental expert, meaning people from various areas and
2 I had no objection to that.
3 Q. The participation of a radiologist is very important in such
4 autopsies when trying to establish the cause of death. Can you remember
5 whether X-rays were taken of all remains before the autopsies so that
6 perhaps in such a way any metal objects could be located as being
7 important for the final findings.
8 A. [as interpreted] As far as I know, diascopy was done, which is a
9 radiological examination. Before a body would be put in a bag, this was
10 done by a radiologist. They did so in each of the cases.
11 Q. Could you please explain this diascopy or radiological
12 examination, what can be found by using that?
13 A. A radiological examination is done to try and establish whether
14 there are any shades caused by metal objects that become visible on
15 X-rays. It can be either a prothesis, be it in the mouth or on some other
16 part of the body, perhaps an artificial hip or something else. Another
17 thing that we are particularly interested in are bits of shrapnel or
18 something else that would have been the cause of death.
19 Q. Do you remember whether such objects were indeed found, and if so,
20 was that recorded and perhaps later those objects analysed if a bullet was
21 found, what calibre it was, if there was a bit of shrapnel, what it
22 originated from?
23 A. As far as I know a number of such shades appeared indicating the
24 presence of metal objects. There was also the criminal police present
25 there, or rather their experts who worked together with the other
1 specialists. They took out those objects and sealed them off separately,
2 and we were told that they were being taken to The Hague to the Tribunal.
3 After that we didn't see those objects again. Soon after such objects
4 were located, they were extracted and taken away and we couldn't use them
5 anymore for any other research.
6 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Page 69, line 3 of the transcript,
7 my question was merged with the answer. I believe that needs to be
8 separated. Somewhere where it states "as far as I know," in line 3.
9 Or "as far as I know." That is already the beginning of the witnesses's
11 Q. Mr. Strinovic, after the autopsies were completed, were the bodies
12 of those autopsied then handed over to the government of Croatia, were any
13 additional autopsies done on these bodies, any additional examinations,
14 was anything else done in terms of establishing information that was not
15 contained in the protocols which you received until the autopsy reports
16 were completed?
17 A. After the bodies were received those persons who were already
18 likely recognised were identified. All the cases, those cases and later
19 cases, in case relatives or -- provided some new information or anything
20 new appeared which was not in the autopsy report, the body was
21 re-examined. And as far as I know, when we received the remains, DNA
22 samples were taken in the cases where we felt it was required. DNA
23 samples were taken from teeth, usually it would be taken from two teeth,
24 and also from the thigh bone, just above the knee.
25 Q. You responded to a question by my colleague, Ms. Tapuskovic, about
1 what you received along with the body in terms of documents. Did you
2 receive any additional information, were any other documents added to the
3 autopsy reports?
4 A. It was just as you said. We received the protocol, there was
5 another page with the dental examination findings, which was not
6 thoroughly done, so we made additional analysis of teeth, so we eventually
7 had our own protocol.
8 Q. You mentioned in response to an answer [as interpreted] of my
9 colleague Ms. Tapuskovic when she showed you the form by the commission
10 for missing and displaced persons, that you were talking about antemortal
12 A. Yes, that is correct.
13 Q. The international experts who did the autopsies, did they have the
14 same information at their disposal? Do you know if they received copies
15 of such a report?
16 A. As far as I know, they did have access to some of these antemortem
17 information sheets, and on the basis of that they could obtain about 56
18 names that were first in line for identification. Yes, they did have the
19 antemortem information at their disposal.
20 Q. The identification process for these 56 persons, the commission of
21 which you were a part of, the Commission for Missing and Detained Persons,
22 did you also participate in the work done by the international medical
24 A. No, they worked completely separately, they received the
25 antemortem results and then based on their own work they reached their own
1 conclusions independently in relation to those 56 persons. We didn't work
2 jointly, we began to work on the day that they left. The mortal remains
3 had been handed over to us, we received the protocols --
4 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreter did not catch the last part
5 of the answer.
6 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Since you were present at the autopsies that were done at the
8 institute in Zagreb, I would like to ask you the following: Were the
9 autopsies carried out in the same order that they were dug up? Were they
10 done in the same order as the numbers which you received the mortal
11 remains were unearthed, they were given a number, then there was a
12 classification according to some standard, some criterias. How did you
13 decide which order you would process the bodies in?
14 A. As far as I know, there wasn't any kind of strict order in which
15 the autopsies were carried out. It depended on the accessibility of the
16 body bags; the order that the body bags were placed on the table was the
17 order that was followed for the actual autopsies.
18 Q. Dr. Strinovic, would you please look in the collection of
19 documents provided to you by the OTP, if you look at Exhibit 461, and that
20 is tab number 2. Did you find that table?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. Could you please look at under number 2, OVC-002, Antun Mutvar.
23 Now, there is a column with the heading "date." Do you see it at the top,
24 it says the 15th of November, 1996 in that column. Have you found it?
25 For Ovcara 002?
1 A. Yes, I've found it.
2 Q. It states there 15th of November, 1996. According to the records
3 that would be the date of the autopsy, would it not?
4 A. Yes, that is how it should have been.
5 Q. Now, could you look at the two dates above and below for Ovcara 1
6 and for Ovcara 3, I'm not going to mention the names. We have the date
7 7th of October, 1996 in both columns. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you please explain to us if Ovcara 2 at the beginning, that
10 would be a body that was exhumed, why was the autopsy carried out on the
11 15th of November 1996 while the others bearing numbers 1 and 3 were
12 autopsied on the 7th of October, 1996? Do you have an explanation for
14 A. No, really, I don't have an explanation, probably that was the
15 order that the body bags came in. Why this was so, I really have no idea.
16 I can't give you an explanation.
17 Q. The table that we had the opportunity to see, the one that was
18 drafted for the classic identification method --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- and that was exhibited as Exhibit 452, what I would like to
21 look at is the section where it says, "Bandages, woundings." Do you
22 remember that? This is the table by the university for medicine, the
23 institute for forensic medicine. And you can see that now on your screen.
24 Do you see it?
25 A. Yes, yes, I do have the table in front of me.
1 Q. I would like to look at the column for bandages and wounds. You
2 talked about that at the Belgrade Ovcara trial on the 20th of April, 2005.
3 Could you please clarify a little bit exactly what this column means and
4 where was this information acquired from that is in this column?
5 A. The column for bandages and wounds contains information from the
6 autopsy protocols that we received, which contain a section on wounding or
7 reason for hospitalisation. This was an entry or a section maintained by
8 the international experts. So in case there were any bandages or wounds,
9 it is recorded if there is something like that or not. The protocols that
10 you saw contains such a section, and we simply copied that section in our
11 data. And that particular section existed in each protocol.
12 Q. When you were examined at the Belgrade trial, the so-called
13 Belgrade Ovcara on the 20th of April, 2005, on page 4 of the transcript of
14 that date, explaining this, you said the following: "Bandages and wounds
15 is separate there. In some cases there were bandages, but no other wounds
16 were noted. All that was noted was that there was some bandages that were
17 applied or there were wounds, in the sense that it was evident and that
18 there was a prior injury or wound. Maybe there was some amputations,
19 there were some fractures that had been stabilised or surgically treated."
20 I must note that there are a lot of typos in the transcript the
21 way it is, but I think that we do understand one another. Doctor, could
22 you please clarify what you mean when you say here, "previous wounds,
23 surgical treatment," and so on, what is this about?
24 A. First, let's deal with the bandages. When a bandage is mentioned
25 in the autopsy protocol, we also entered that into our database. A
1 bandage would have been applied where there was a wound or on top of a
2 plaster-cast, or it could have been placed in a place where there was no
3 wound. So these were all possibilities for the existence of the bandages.
4 And then when we're talking about wounds, or injuries, it could be
5 anything, it could be some sort of skin injury, it could be a bone injury,
6 any kind of injury. It could be organ injuries in the abdominal cavities,
7 any kind of organ injury. And this again was noted in the protocol under
8 the reason for hospitalisation. So it was either an entry for a wound or
9 a bandage. Both of them were in the same column. As I said, the reason
10 for the existence of the bandage would have been possible to establish or
11 not. I hope that this was a little bit clearer now.
12 Q. Well, now you have given me a new topic for thought, because you
13 mentioned that perhaps sometimes there was a bandage there when there was
14 no need for it, so what would be the motive for somebody placing a bandage
15 when there was really no need for that?
16 A. Are you asking me that question?
17 Q. In your long years of practice, did you ever come across a case
18 where somebody had applied a bandage without any reason or need?
19 A. Yes, it's possible.
20 Q. Is it possible for anybody to place a plaster-cast without its
21 actual being needed?
22 A. That is also possible.
23 Q. In case an X-ray is taken, would such X-ray films show places of
24 old fractures or wounds?
25 A. It would always be possible to establish the existence of a
1 perhaps newer fracture. Sometimes it would be difficult to establish that
2 in case we were talking about a very small bone or a very slight fracture.
3 But in cases of fresh bone fractures, this would be something that would
4 come up on an X-ray.
5 Q. In the autopsy reports you had the cause of death and all sorts of
6 other information that was mentioned there. So what I would like to know
7 is the following: Can an autopsy establish the age of -- or how old the
8 wounds were that are noted in the autopsy report?
9 A. When we're talking about each single autopsy, especially if it is
10 being carried out using elements for identification, then in case a
11 fracture is found one tries to establish how long ago the fracture
12 occurred. So it is possible to establish whether it is a fresh fracture
13 or if it is a fracture that is already began to heal of several weeks'
14 standing or if several years or some time has passed since the fracture
16 Q. From what I understand then, it is possible, if we're talking
17 about bone injuries, but if we're talking about soft-tissue injuries, what
18 about then?
19 A. Well, that's how I understood the question, that it related to
20 bones. If we're talking about soft-tissue wounds, then we can only
21 determine that depending on how well preserved the mortal remains are. If
22 the soft tissue has already disintegrated, then our assessment would
23 depend on what actually has been preserved of the body. If the soft
24 tissue is preserved, then it's possible to establish things like that.
25 Q. If several injuries are found, is it possible to determine the
1 order in which these wounds were inflicted?
2 A. As a rule, the order in which the wounds were inflicted is a very
3 delicate question, and it's very difficult to provide a definite
4 assessment. There is also a question of the different intensity of the
5 injury, also the distribution of injuries, and then in some cases it is
6 possible to determine whether an injury was inflicted at the initial
7 stages, at the beginning and the others then followed. But this is very
8 difficult, especially in the cases of victims of Ovcara.
9 Q. Still talking about wounds, now we're talking about gunshot
10 wounds. Is it possible to establish what type of fire-arm was used when
11 the wound as inflicted, and we're talking about bones now and soft tissue.
12 A. Yes, it's very difficult to answer your question precisely. We
13 have several situations. If the projectile is found in the body, then
14 matters are clear. If there is no projectile but only the damage or the
15 injuries there, and if the injury is on soft tissue, then it will not
16 really be of much help. If we have a bone injury, it depends on the type
17 of bone which was injured. Some bones shatter in a regular way, and then
18 you would have a regular, round hole, and then you could determine the
19 size of the projectile on the basis of the size of the hole. And then you
20 could go on to determine the type of weapon.
21 Some bones fragment into a lot of pieces, and then it's very
22 difficult to establish the instrument of injury. It is quite sure that
23 major damage, as compared to cases where there is minor damage to bones as
24 well, can then indicate the speed of the projectile, and then indirectly
25 with give an indication of the calibre, because we know that there are
1 slow projectiles that are linked to certain weapons, there are very
2 fast-moving projectiles which we can then relate to a different kind of
3 weapon. All of these things are possible to see on the body, to see on
4 the wounds, and then based on all those factors you could come to some
5 sort of assessment.
6 Q. You mentioned or we mentioned shrapnel here. Is it possible to
7 establish, you're not an expert for that, but in the case where shrapnel
8 is found on the body, on the depth of penetration and the size of the hole
9 caused, is it possible to establish the distance from which the projectile
10 was fired?
11 A. Shrapnel is a very complex issue, because shrapnel is very
12 different. It's not of regular shape like a projectile is. There are
13 different sizes, different speeds of shrapnel. So, first of all, it's
14 very hard to find shrapnel in the body. It can be detected by X-rays,
15 which is how it is most often done. During autopsy, if they are
16 irregularly shaped they are often embedded in the bone or a part of the
17 body, so it's not easy to find such fragments. If we're talking about the
18 distance in comparison to projectiles where we do have some sort of
19 guide-lines in the case of shrapnel, this is almost impossible. They're
20 of different sizes, they can be different velocity, some can create
21 surface wounds, some can create deep wounds, some can completely go
22 through the body and exit the body. So perhaps this would then depend on
23 the parts of the body which it was found, and then it could be discovered
24 by X-rays.
25 Q. When we're talking about fire-arms, now we're talking about a
1 specific situation. I know that this is theoretically possible, but what
2 about this situation: Is it possible to establish the distance from which
3 projectiles were fired from a fire-arm?
4 A. You see, every type of fire-arm, depending on its charge, has
5 matter leaving the barrel. And this goes some way towards indicating the
6 distance from which this was fired. If the charge is considerable, then
7 the dispersion of flame or pellets can be quite large. With smaller
8 weapons it can be very little, about 30 centimetres, perhaps the
9 dispersion will not cover a large area. It is based on this dispersion
10 rate that you can ascertain a possible distance. Everything past this
11 point is very difficult to detect in terms of ascertaining a distance.
12 Since at this point we're looking at bullets and projectiles that have
13 their own typical distinctive features. It also depends on type of injury
14 found, is it just a lesion, is it a contusion, but it's difficult to about
15 specific distances, whether it was fired at close range or what I
16 described as relatively close up, it is possible to ascertain this. The
17 further you get from this point the more difficult it is for us as
18 forensic experts to ascertain the distance. It might be several metres,
19 it might be long-range, for all we know.
20 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have several
21 questions, several more questions about this, I won't take long, I hope,
22 but this might be a convenient time for a break, based on what you
23 suggested yesterday. If I am wrong, I could as well go on, if you would
24 like me to.
25 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: That's all right. We will have our break
1 now for 20 minutes, so we will reconvene at 20 past.
2 --- Recess taken at 3.03 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 3.27 p.m.
4 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Mr. Bulatovic, please proceed.
5 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Mr. Strinovic, there's one question about something else that now
7 occurs to me. Do you know that at point during the autopsies any canals
8 caused by bullets were found in any of the bodies?
9 A. I can't really answer that question. I would need to go back to
10 the original report and have a look. I can't say off the bat.
11 Q. We heard that some projectiles or bullets were found. Were any
12 pellets found in any of the bodies exhumed from Ovcara?
13 A. I don't specifically remember.
14 Q. I asked you some questions about the X-ray technique. I've had a
15 look during the break, and I want to clarify some things. When you have
16 an X-ray of a body, can we see both new fractures and old fractures?
17 A. If you use the normal X-ray you can see both old and new
18 fractures. When you apply diascopy, which is a similar technique, but the
19 image is less sharp, it's nearly impossible to see any old fractures.
20 Diascopy is a different kind of technique. It is usually applied when you
21 need to get an overall picture of the whole body, usually in search of
22 small metal objects, possibly lodged inside the body. So, yes, and you
23 have a regular X-ray you might see that, if you use the other technique,
24 diascopy, it's virtually impossible.
25 Q. When I say old and new, what would normally be considered an old
2 A. One that's already healed. The bone has grown back, and because
3 of this there is a tumescence that you might see in an X-ray image. This
4 tumescence is what leads you believe there was a fracture in that spot.
5 Q. You have received -- you received certain documents you mentioned
6 some projectiles. Have you ever received any reports, have you ever
7 received any documents about the sort of bullets and projectiles that were
8 found in terms of calibre, number, size, type of weapon, that sort of
10 A. I've never received any of those. I did point out at the outset
11 that we were only given the sections that have to do with identification.
12 Afterwards we received the cause of death section too, but not in relation
13 to such information as you have just specified.
14 Q. I want to go back to Exhibit 452 [Realtime transcript read in
15 error "542"], it should be still on the screen. Not 542, 452. The table
16 that you compiled. This is the column that I was interested in, bandages
17 and wounds. You have explained about that already. You say that you
18 entered information into this table based on the reports that you received
19 at the time, and based on everything that was established during the
20 autopsies, such as the existence of bandages?
21 A. Yes, that's true.
22 Q. Well, there we go. Just a minute. We need to confer about the
23 transcript, Your Honours.
24 [Defence counsel confer]
25 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation].
1 Q. Can you please look at Ovcara number 48? 48. The name is Mihajlo
2 Zera, right?
3 A. Yes, that's right.
4 Q. Under bandages, wounds, we see the word "yes" is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. This means that based on information from the autopsy report you
7 established that bandages were found on this person, right?
8 A. Yes. Either that or wounds. One or the other.
9 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we please have
10 Exhibit 462, page 212, placed on our screens. Thank you. 212 of Ovcara
11 1, number 48. That's not it.
12 [Defence counsel confer]
13 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] The next page. ERN 0055-9941.
14 That is the page. We're back to Ovcara 1.
15 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, while we're waiting,
16 while we're waiting for my colleague to get what he has asked for, I would
17 like to say something about page 81 of the transcript. The witness's
18 answer, lines 7 through 10. The witness spoke about the documents he
19 received. My learned friend asked him about projectiles and the witness
20 said he received documents, autopsy reports, I suppose, in relation to
21 only issues of identification, but later on he received the cause of death
22 details too. The transcript, however, reflects that he got a section from
23 the autopsy report, that is in reference to details referring to the cause
24 of death. I think that is a misinterpretation. Maybe the witness could
25 clarify this for us. I mean whether he received a section of the autopsy
1 report in relation to the cause of death or a separate document at a later
2 stage in relation to the cause of death for all the bodies that were
3 found. I think that's probably a misinterpretation.
4 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Thank you, Mr. Vasic.
5 Mr. Bulatovic, could you please clarify that with the witness.
6 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll do my best, Your Honour, to
7 clarify this confusion, if it's a matter of poor interpretation. I asked
8 Mr. Strinovic in relation to any projectiles or bullets that were found.
9 Q. Did you ever receive any findings as to the number of the
10 projectile, the calibre, the type of weapon that was used to fire them, or
11 the barrel type, since I suppose different kinds of barrels were being
12 used through which these projectiles were fired. Answer that first,
13 please, and then I'll ask you further questions in clarification?
14 A. The answer is, no, never.
15 Q. In relation to the cause of death, can you please repeat what you
16 got from whom and when. If you received anything at all, needless to say?
17 A. As far as I remember, we only received a list containing the cause
18 of death details but not the reports in their entirety.
19 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe this clarifies the
20 issue, Your Honour.
21 Q. Let us now go back to our previous question, Mr. Strinovic. This
22 is a part of an autopsy report.
23 A. Can we just zoom in a little? I'm having trouble seeing what it
25 Q. The very end of the -- the bottom of the page.
1 Sir, can you look at the last two sentences, what does it say?
2 Can you read that for us, please?
3 A. It reads: "Record of injuries preceding fatal injuries." And it
4 reads "none."
5 Q. Can we please turn the next page now, page 42.
6 Do you see this page?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. Do you see the part relating to therapy, what does it say?
9 A. No signs of therapy.
10 Q. A while ago when we looked at bandages and wounds, it said
11 bandages or wounds. Now, if my understanding is correct, there is no
12 signed of that anywhere in the record, right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can you then explain how it came about that an entry was made to
15 the effect that there was something based on the document that you were
16 using and yet the document shows nothing at all?
17 A. I'm really hard put to do this. If you let me look at page 1 in
18 its entirety, page 2, rather, perhaps I could say about it.
19 Q. Well, in that case, can we please bring back page 41, the previous
20 page. I'm just using the last two digits, I'm talking about 0055-99941
21 [as interpreted]?
22 A. Can we scroll down a little, please? Further down. Yes, based on
23 this there appear to be no signs of injuries or bandages. I really don't
24 know how this came about.
25 Q. When we started discussing this subject a while ago about bandages
1 and wounds, we said that there were cases where there were bandages yet no
2 injuries or plaster-casts without injuries. We have some evidence about
3 why this was done, and we'll be using that later on. What I want to know
4 is this: If there is a bandage, if there is a plaster-cast, which is
5 probably part of some medical therapy, and all of this because there is an
6 injury, after an autopsy is performed can an old injury be seen, be
7 established, and can the cause for this sort of therapy be established?
8 A. That depends on the condition of the body. How advanced the
9 changes were to the body. If we're talking about wounds, this depends on
10 the degree of preservation of bones and soft tissue. If there is none of
11 that, even once a bandage has been removed, you still won't know. If
12 there is a bone injury, and once a was or a bandage is removed, one should
13 be able to see traces of an injury there, and this would indicate what the
14 original reason was for placing a bandage or a plaster-cast there.
15 Q. Given a situation like that, there is a bandage, there is a
16 plaster-cast, you have an autopsy, these are removed, the soft tissue is
17 gone underneath. Would this be clearly indicated in an autopsy report, no
18 tissue, therefore it is impossible to ascertain whether there was an
19 injury or not?
20 A. I would have expected that, and that's what an expert should
21 record. No tissue, therefore no cause for bandage or cast.
22 Q. What if the report says that an examination has been carried out
23 and no injury has been found underneath the cast, there is no visible
24 injury to the soft tissue or the bone. Does that mean that the soft
25 tissue was there, but whoever performed the autopsy found no traces of an
1 injury, the assumption being if he had found anything he would have
2 recorded it?
3 A. I would tend to agree with that conclusion.
4 Q. I would not like to further tire you with this, but there are 41
5 different reports. If you'd like me to, we can do a blow-by-blow analysis
6 and go into each and every one of these to see whether they tally with
7 what we have just agreed on. There is a bandage, there is a plaster-cast,
8 an examination has been carried out by a variety of international experts.
9 It has been unequivocally ascertained that there was no injury underneath
10 to the soft tissue or the bone. Mr. Strinovic, can we then agree that in
11 at least 41 different cases, and that's what I'm talking about right now,
12 the situation that was found was this: There was a bandage and a
13 plaster-cast that were applied although there was no obvious medical
14 reason for that to be done?
15 A. I don't know the exact figure. I didn't look at it like that, but
16 in theory I do agree with you, by all means.
17 Q. Just another question, Mr. Strinovic. Something I've asked you
18 before, and you partially answered this. I have a different reason for
19 asking this question now. You used reports or parts of autopsy reports,
20 later you had these reports on the cause of death, which you received.
21 When you were using these, were you not, in fact, convinced that in
22 keeping with what you told us, you monitored the procedure, and you
23 believed the procedure to have been carried out in a perfectly
24 professional way, and there was nothing to cause you any misgivings about
25 the accuracy of those reports and the way information was recorded?
1 A. Yes. I monitored the procedure; it took over two months. I
2 monitored the work of the experts there, and there was nothing to cause me
3 any misgivings about the professional standards of their work.
4 Q. Just a minute, Your Honours, there is something that I need to
5 confer with my learned friend about.
6 [Defence counsel confer]
7 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. So much for the bandages. Let me ask you something else. What
9 about how old the injuries were, was it possible to ascertain that during
10 an autopsy, be it soft tissue or bone? I have asked you about that, but I
11 don't think it was quite clear.
12 A. If there is an injury to the bone, you can tell how old it is. So
13 this is normally recorded, old or fresh. When you have an autopsy you do
14 see this normally, and that sort of information is recorded as a rule.
15 Q. Have you looked at all the reports for all the autopsies?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Have you looked at the type of injuries, the types of injuries
18 that were recorded in these just over 200 cases?
19 A. If we're talking about injuries that had nothing to do with the
20 cause of death, in that case your answer is yes.
21 Q. Can you tell me this: Can you tell me the various types of
22 injuries that had nothing do, that were unrelated to the cause of death,
23 the type and degree of those injuries as well as what the injuries were
25 A. I can't say off the cuff like this, there were plenty of those.
1 Again you would need to have a table or a special report which would make
2 it possible for me to specify what the injuries were. The ones that had
3 to do with wounds, but not necessarily with the cause of death. The long
4 and the short of it is I can't say off the bat.
5 Q. Did you have any sort of information while identifying these
6 bodies, you were monitoring these autopsies performed by foreign medical
7 experts. Did you, or indeed did they have any medical files where
8 admission or discharge from the Vukovar Hospital were recorded? Did you
9 have the admission and discharge sheets?
10 A. Now that you've asked me this, this was one of the main problems,
11 one of the crucial problems when identifying bodies for us. The fact that
12 most of the documentation was not available to us. Case histories,
13 X-rays, things that would normally have been found in a hospital. But
14 these weren't available to us. We did not have the hospital's original
15 files. We did have other documents relating to old injuries in some cases
16 which proved helpful when identifying a given body. But the kind of files
17 that you are referring to, this would have been extremely useful, this
18 would have been even necessary, unfortunately we weren't given those at
19 the time.
20 Q. Based on your recollection, can you tell me if these injuries,
21 those not related to the cause of death, but those that were recorded in
22 the reports, would these injuries have required long-term medical
23 treatment or long-term hospital treatment?
24 A. I can't say definitely, but there were all kinds of injuries,
25 amputations, injuries requiring surgery. Were I to go any further than
1 this, I would need to go back to the original sources or to the reports.
2 Q. Thank you very much Your Honours. I have no further questions for
3 this witness.
4 Mr. Strinovic thank you very much for your answers.
5 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this concludes my
7 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Bulatovic.
8 Mr. Smith.
9 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honours. I just have a few questions.
10 Re-examination by Mr. Smith:
11 Q. Thank you, Doctor, I think you will be leaving us today, which I
12 think will probably be quite pleasing for you.
13 Doctor, perhaps I would like to show you an autopsy report which
14 we have been discussing and the one I would ask to be called up would be
15 Exhibit 462, and it's in relation to Ovcara victim number 48, please. And
16 it's at e-court page 213. Thank you.
17 Q. Doctor, when we look at this report on Ovcara 48, you mentioned to
18 my learned friend that there was no evidence of recent injuries or
19 hospitalisation. Do you remember that?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. If we look at the top of the report we can see that there was an
22 old fracture on the upper third of the left tibia. And if you can just
23 remind us, what is the tibia, which bone is that in layman's terms?
24 A. Yes, this is an old fracture. It's the shin bone. We have the
25 tibia fibula, that's one bone, and that's the thicker bone on the inside
1 of the shin, it actually runs from the whole length of the lower leg, from
2 your knee down to your foot.
3 Q. And in relation to the list that your office produced as to the
4 main identifying features of the individuals, in relation to Ovcara victim
5 48, you stated that bandages and wounds were -- bandages or wounds were
6 located on this person's body. Would this old injury account for that
7 notation in the chart, or is it simply a mistake? If you can't say, just
9 A. If you look at the table, if you look at the columns, the
10 categories, there is nothing else that looks like this. Therefore, an old
11 injury, an old wound might be taken into account. For that reason,
12 because the only category you have there is bandages and wounds, you could
13 take into account an old injury like that, and that would be the reason
14 behind this entry.
15 Q. Thank you. If we can now look at Exhibit 457, please. This is at
16 tab 4 in your folder. And it relates to the general statistics in
17 relation to the cause of death from the information that you were given.
18 But more particularly I would like to refer you to the notation as to how
19 many of the people of 200 exhumed were previously wounded. Now, in that
20 chart you list 88 -- or is it 86 people that were previously wounded. Do
21 you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, if I can just refer you to Dr. Milewski's report, and perhaps
24 I'll read it out, just so that we can speed things up a little. And this
25 is Exhibit 381, and the ERN number is 0294-2944.
1 In her report she states that in relation to part C, evidence of
2 medical therapeutics, 55 per cent of the 200 individuals are described as
3 having evidence of hospitalisation in the form of hospital clothing,
4 evidence of treatment with or without underlying observable injury, or a
5 combination of the above. Based on Dr. Milewski's conclusion, that would
6 mean that 110 of the 200 people that were exhumed from Ovcara had some
7 sort of evidence of hospitalisation, whether it be an injury or not. Now,
8 if I can refer you back to the figure that you have in your chart of 88
9 previously wounded, obviously that's a different figure to that of
10 Dr. Milewski. However, in Dr. Milewski's report she talks about other
11 evidence of hospitalisation other than woundings.
12 My question for you is, in relation to the 88 previously wounded
13 figure that you determined, of that 88, would that include only evidence
14 of individuals having bandages or some other hospitalisation, evidence
15 without -- without including injuries? That's a long question, but if you
16 can answer that.
17 A. When we spoke about the injured persons at Ovcara we received that
18 kind of information from the reports. The reports indicated the existence
19 of any injuries or previous treatment, medical treatment of those
20 injuries. When this was ascertained at an autopsy, then it would be
21 clearly stated that a given injury was not the cause of death, and had
22 been treated. Those are the injuries under 86. We see that the lady
23 doctor provided a slightly different figure.
24 Now again we have this problem related to which criteria we decide
25 to adopt, about whether someone was a patient of the hospital or not.
1 Somebody might be wearing their pyjamas, for all I know, with no injuries
2 at all, but he might be considered a patient. So this is another
3 category, and I find that perfectly understandable, that in cases like
4 this and also when assessing who was a patient and who wasn't, who was
5 injured and who wasn't, there might be discrepancies precisely for this
6 reason because the criteria applied is slightly different. Everyone tends
7 to have a different view of what it means to be a hospital patient. All
8 those wearing pyjamas, do they all qualify as patients? Or do you need
9 something else to be considered a hospital patient, something over and
10 above your pyjamas, so to speak.
11 Q. And so just to conclude on this point, what criteria did you use
12 to come up with the figure of 88 previously wounded individuals?
13 A. As far as I can remember, we aimed at persons who had indications
14 of injuries, something that indicated that indeed it was a wounded person,
15 and not just another patient in his pyjamas.
16 Q. Would that exclude individuals that were exhumed that only had
17 bandages or casts, but no other evidence of a wounding or an injury? Does
18 that exclude that group or does it include that group?
19 A. I think the cases with bandages and casts were put inside the
20 wounding or the wounded category.
21 Q. And so that's included in the figure of your 88; is that correct?
22 A. Yes, I believe it to be so.
23 Q. But in any event, would the final determination be obtained from
24 the autopsy reports themselves?
25 A. Yes, of course. We could go through the documentation, and again
1 try to establish the criteria to determine the precise numbers of those
2 with bone injuries or injuries to some other parts of the body and so on
3 and so forth.
4 Q. Thank you. And now if we can look at Exhibit 453 [sic]. Now,
5 this is the chart that's at your tab 2, I believe. And this relates to
6 the exhibit that was prepared by the Office of the Prosecutor in
7 conjunction with the material that your office provided us in relation to
8 positive identifications and dates of birth. If I can turn your mind to
9 page 6 where we were discussing with my learned friend Ovcara victim
10 number 88, Vladislav Oreski. Now, in the missing persons report that was
11 in relation to this individual that was shown to you, the date of birth
12 was, as appears, the 12th of April, 1950. And also if we look at the date
13 of birth for Mr. Oreski here in column number 4, the date of birth is also
14 the 12th of April, 1950. Do you see that?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. And that that date has come from the exhibit that was tendered
17 through you in the Milosevic case in 2003, which we've tendered here
18 today, or yesterday. Do you agree?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Therefore, in relation to the date of birth that appears in the
21 annex of the indictment, 1967, or the year of birth, which is different to
22 that of 1950, on the documents that you have got, which date of birth or
23 year of birth would you say was more correct?
24 A. I believe the more correct one is the 12th of April, 1950.
25 Q. So in that sense it's an administrative error in relation to the
1 annex. Would you conclude that?
2 A. Yes, I would.
3 MR. SMITH: Your Honours, I have no further questions.
4 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
5 Mr. Strinovic, you will be pleased to hear that this brings your
6 evidence to an end. We thank you for your assistance, and you are now
7 free to go and pursue your personal activities.
8 Before we rise we have a matter of housekeeping to deal with. The
9 court officer has brought to my attention we still need exhibit numbers
10 for those items that we didn't put on the record yesterday, so we will
11 have to go through the process of reading them all into the record.
12 Can you please proceed?
13 JUDGE THELIN: Excuse me, before we do that, the last exhibit by
14 Mr. Smith, it seemed to me we were talking about Exhibit 461, were we not?
15 MR. SMITH: That was my -- my case manager told me that is as
16 well, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE THELIN: I think the record reflected something else but
19 MR. SMITH: Thank you.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The exhibits tendered yesterday
21 will have the following numbers: 65 ter number 880 will be Exhibit 474.
22 65 ter number 882 will be Exhibit 475. 65 ter number 883 will be Exhibit
23 476. 65 ter number 884 will be Exhibit 477. 65 ter number 885 will be
24 Exhibit 478. 65 ter number 886 will be Exhibit 479. 65 ter number 887
25 will be Exhibit 480. 65 ter number 888 will be Exhibit 481. 65 ter
1 number 889 will be Exhibit 482. 65 ter number 890 will be Exhibit 483.
2 65 ter number 891 will be Exhibit 484. 65 ter number 892 will be Exhibit
3 485. 65 ter number 893 will be Exhibit 486. 65 ter number 894 will be
4 Exhibit 487. 65 ter number 895 will be Exhibit 488. 65 ter number 896
5 will be Exhibit 489. 65 ter number 897 will be Exhibit 490. 65 ter
6 number 898 will be Exhibit 491. 65 ter number 899 will be Exhibit 492.
7 65 ter number 900 will be Exhibit 493. 65 ter number 901 will be Exhibit
8 494. 65 ter number 902 will be Exhibit 495. 65 ter number 903 will be
9 Exhibit 496. 65 ter number 904 will be Exhibit 497. 65 ter number 905
10 will be Exhibit 498. 65 ter number 906 will be Exhibit 499. 65 ter
11 number 907 will be Exhibit 500. 65 ter number 908 will be Exhibit 501.
12 65 ter number 909 will be Exhibit 502. 65 ter number 910 will be Exhibit
13 503. 65 ter number 911 will be Exhibit 504. 65 ter number 912 will be
14 Exhibit 505. 65 ter number 913 will be Exhibit 506. 65 ter number 914
15 will be Exhibit 507. 65 ter number 915 will be Exhibit 508. 65 ter
16 number 916 will be Exhibit 509. 65 ter number 917 will be Exhibit 510.
17 65 ter number 918 will be Exhibit 511. 65 ter number 919 will be Exhibit
18 512. 65 ter number 920 will be Exhibit 513. 65 ter number 921 will be
19 Exhibit 514. 65 ter number 922 will be Exhibit 515. 65 ter number 923
20 will be Exhibit 516. 65 ter number 924 will be Exhibit 517. And there is
21 another 65 ter number, 881, that will be Exhibit Number 518.
22 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Thank you very much for that.
23 Mr. Smith. Do we have another witness for today?
24 MR. SMITH: No, Your Honour. We have a witness for tomorrow.
25 It's Florence Hartmann. The court had ordered that 15 days pass prior to
1 the last translation been given to the Defence before we'd be able to call
2 her, but they've kindly agreed to be prepared to cross-examine this
3 witness tomorrow. So I would ask that we call Florence Hartmann tomorrow,
4 and we'll be ready to do that.
5 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Thank you very much.
6 We will adjourn for the day and tomorrow start at 9.30.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.10 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 25th day of May,
9 2006, at 9.30 a.m.