1 Thursday, 10 January 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: I won't ask Madam Registrar to call the case since she
6 has a very bad throat. And welcome back, Ms. Fleming, and Happy New Year
7 to you.
8 Before we start, we have several questions about that third
9 autopsy report. Yesterday, we go through all the transcript, and we found
10 very few bases for we have to accept those autopsy report. The only place
11 we found is on the page 4.414, during the examination by Mr. Scott to
12 Witness CC. The question asked is like this: "Did you hear around the
13 time that a prisoner at Dobrkovici school had been killed or did someone
14 tell you that? " We believe that it is hearsay evidence, and that
15 foundation is not that sound.
16 Another thing, that the name "Krilic" is mentioned, but I don't
17 know which Krilic it is. I hope the Prosecutor could provide us with more
18 information in this direction so that we could make the proper decisions
19 in this respect.
20 This morning, we will go with this witness with the other two
21 reports. And during the break, no matter at 11.00 or during the lunch
22 break, we hope the Prosecutor could do some research in this aspect.
23 Otherwise, we'll refuse to accept that autopsy report because this has to
24 be based on a sound foundation, and there has to be a close connection
25 with the incidents charged in the indictment.
1 Yes, Mr. Stringer.
2 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. And yes, I will consult
3 with my colleagues on the team. And if there's any additional information
4 that we can provide in respect of the Krilic matter, we will do so.
5 I did want to add very briefly, if -- and to perhaps suggest that
6 I may have misunderstood, yesterday at least, the status in respect of
7 this report because it had been submitted and accepted by the Trial
8 Chamber and already -- it had been my understanding, already admitted into
9 evidence pursuant to the Trial Chamber's decision. In the decision, the
10 Trial Chamber had found that the statements of the expert as contained in
11 the report were relevant, and so -- it was my impression, I guess, that
12 the Trial Chamber had already made some type of finding in respect to the
13 relevance and the admissibility of the report; that's not to say, as Judge
14 Clark suggested yesterday, that the Trial Chamber can't consider relevancy
15 or even reconsider relevancy at any time during the proceedings.
16 So I think all of us agree that this is not central to the charges
17 in this case. The Prosecutor continues to assert that the evidence is
18 relevant, but it's certainly not central, and we will consult during the
19 next break and we will provide the Trial Chamber with any additional
20 information. Or, if in fact there is nothing more to add than what the
21 Trial Chamber found in its search of the record, then we may very well
22 propose to just move forward without testimony on that particular report.
23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
24 Could Mr. Usher bring in the witness, please.
25 [The witness entered court]
1 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, Witness.
2 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
3 JUDGE LIU: Please remember that you are still under the oath.
4 THE WITNESS: Fine.
5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr. Stringer.
6 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 WITNESS: HAMZA ZUJO [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Examined by Mr. Stringer: [Continued]
10 Q. Dr. Zujo, good morning.
11 A. Good morning.
12 Q. When we had reached the end of proceedings yesterday, you had just
13 finished describing injuries to the body that was subsequently identified
14 as that of Nenad Harmandic, particularly injuries to the shoulder blade
15 and clavicle of Mr. Harmandic. Do you recall that testimony?
16 A. I remember.
17 Q. You had also mentioned a fracture of he lower jawbone of Mr.
18 Harmandic, and I wanted to ask you if you could describe that particular
19 injury in greater detail as well as whatever light you can shed on how --
20 the features of that injury and how it relates to the other injuries which
21 you found on this body.
22 A. In the autopsy, we found a fracture of the lower jaw between the
23 teeth number 3 and 4. It was an isolated fracture of the lower jaw on the
24 left-hand side. And such injury would have been consistent with a swing,
25 with having been sustained by a swing of a blunt mechanical instrument.
1 Q. And finally, Dr. Zujo, yesterday you mentioned, I believe, an
2 injury to the left cheekbone, and also I understand from your report that
3 the injury to the cheekbone is -- or perhaps you found to be related to
4 additional injuries and damage to the upper jaw of Nenad Harmandic; and I
5 would ask you at this time to describe and inform the Trial Chamber your
6 findings in respect of those injuries to the cheekbone and upper jaw.
7 A. As far as the left cheekbone is concerned, during the autopsy, we
8 found a part of it missing. It was round in shape, which led us to
9 believe that it could have been caused by a bullet fired from a firearm.
10 And also, the state of the upper jaw, we were unable to determine the
11 state of teeth because of the heavy damage, which meant that the
12 projectile must have affected the upper jaw, causing multiple fractures in
14 Q. During the course of the autopsy, were you able to locate or to
15 find the bullet which caused this particular injury?
16 A. This was an injury in which the bullet went through the body and
17 exited, so we did not find the bullet with the remains.
18 Q. Now, Dr. Zujo, you have described for us a variety of injuries
19 found in the body of Nenad Harmandic. In the report that you submitted to
20 the Trial Chamber, in paragraph 10 on page 6, you described a number of
21 these injuries, primarily the fractures, as being caused by a combination
22 of multiple blows from a blunt object. You described these as non-specific
23 injuries. You then went on in paragraph 10 to characterise the injury to
24 the left cheekbone caused by a bullet entry as being the specific cause of
25 death. And I wanted to ask you if you could just elaborate on that for us
1 just a little bit, the non-specific injuries versus the specific cause of
3 A. As far as the injuries on the bones themselves are concerned, the
4 injuries to the left shoulder blade, the collarbone, the pelvic bones, the
5 right ulna and fibula, they were all inflicted with blunt mechanical
6 object and they are all non-specific in character; whereas, the specific
7 injury was the one in the left cheek bone which was caused by a bullet
8 from a firearm. And in the conclusion which we reached, we established
9 that the cause of death was due to the head injuries.
10 Q. Dr. Zujo, were you able to make any findings in respect of the
11 timing; that is to say, whether the non-specific injuries that you've
12 described occurred before or possibly after the specific injury which
13 resulted in the death of Nenad Harmandic?
14 A. As far as the order of injuries is concerned, I am unable to make
15 any determination. However, all the injuries which we found during the
16 autopsy were injuries sustained while the person was alive and I cannot
17 say more about the actual time of death.
18 Q. Dr. Zujo, finally, in your statement submitted to the Trial
19 Chamber, in paragraph 11, you stated that, in summary, Nenad Harmandic was
20 first severely beaten and then shot to death. Does that remain your
21 finding today as to the death of Nenad Harmandic?
22 A. Am I saying that the actual cause of death was what I have stated,
23 and that all those injuries were inflicted while the victim was still
25 Q. Thank you. Dr. Zujo, now I would like to move on to the second of
1 the autopsy reports that is a part of your statement to the Trial Chamber,
2 which relates to your -- the exhumation -- I'm sorry, let me back up. I'm
3 not at all finished with the first of these.
4 I need to ask you additional questions about Nenad Harmandic,
5 particularly if you could inform the Trial Chamber how the body which you
6 examined in the autopsy was subsequently identified as that of Nenad
7 Harmandic. And perhaps I could ask you to inform us if there are general
8 procedures or practices that apply in these situations, and then to bring
9 that down to specific factors which led to the conclusion, in this case,
10 that this particular body was that of Nenad Harmandic.
11 A. Before we start the autopsy, we establish contact with the next of
12 kin, and we receive from the next of kin certain information which will
13 help us in the process of identification, such as what he was wearing
14 before he died, then the height, the age, the state of teeth, whether he
15 had any wounds or injuries of the bones which he had sustained previously,
16 so that we could -- so that we could focus on that during the autopsy,
17 finding certain scar tissue.
18 After we start the autopsy, we first conduct a full description of
19 the body; that is, all the clothing found on the remains, including
20 colours and textures. Then the length of the remains, such as the
21 skeletal remains, and then the length of the femur. And on the basis of
22 that, we established the height of the victim, then the age of the victim
23 based on certain bones in the skull. Then we determine the sex of the
24 victim, and then look for more specific scar tissue, if there is such a
1 Then we photograph all the items in detail and -- because in this
2 case, we only had skeletal remains, so we could not conduct a
3 dactyloscopy, we contact the family, and compare what the family had told
4 us and all the items that we have found. And only after we have conducted
5 this comparison, we let family members come in for the direct
7 Q. Dr. Zujo, then, in reference to some of the more general physical
8 characteristics of this skeletonised body which you examined, in terms of
9 size, age, et cetera, did you find those characteristics to be consistent
10 with information that you had received from members of the Harmandic
12 A. We found that the height of the body was 182 to 183 centimetres;
13 however, we had other parameters that we had and compared with the actual
14 height of 182, 183 centimetres, and we concluded that we could add 2 to 5
15 centimetres as a margin of error, and that is a standard one in the
17 Q. Dr. Zujo, in your report, you make reference to a specific factor,
18 that is, a prior bullet wound, self-inflicted bullet wound to the left
19 thigh, in which a 6.35 millimetre, I believe, bullet had been lodged in
20 the left leg of Mr. Harmandic. Was that a factor in the identification of
21 this body?
22 A. During the autopsy, we found a bullet, 6.35 millimetre, in the
23 thigh -- left thighbone area.
24 Q. And --
25 A. Right thighbone area.
1 Q. Right thighbone. Apologise. Was this finding consistent with
2 information that had been provided by the family about a previously -- a
3 previous injury to Nenad Harmandic?
4 A. We received this information that he had this injury in the right
5 thighbone -- thigh area, and this also information was consistent with our
6 own findings.
7 Q. And finally, as indicated in your report, a final identification
8 was made by the son of Nenad Harmandic. He viewed the body and was able
9 to make a positive identification. Could I ask you to tell the Trial
10 Chamber about that, and specifically, the conditions under which a family
11 member or potential family member may be allowed to view a body in order
12 to attempt to make an identification.
13 A. As I have already stated, everything we described - the clothing,
14 the height, and then the bullet found in the right leg, and especially a
15 belt with a buckle that was very characteristic - the son identified the
16 remains as those of his father.
17 Q. Thank you, Dr. Zujo. I think now we're ready to move on to the
18 next of your autopsy reports.
19 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, these are the attachments to Dr.
20 Zujo's 94 bis statement, which are marked F, G, and H. F being the
21 English version, G being the French version, and H being the original
22 language B/C/S version.
23 Q. Dr. Zujo, I would like to direct your attention to your report of
24 the exhumation and autopsy in respect of a body that was subsequently
25 identified as that of Aziz Colakovic. Do you have that in front of you?
1 A. I do.
2 Q. And as was the case with the previous report that related to Nenad
3 Harmandic, is this a report that was made by you and Dr. Dobraca and
4 submitted to the high court in Mostar?
5 A. The report that you have in front of you was signed by Dr. Dobraca
6 and myself because we jointly conducted the autopsy.
7 Q. And then was this report subsequently made part of the proceedings
8 in the courts in Mostar?
9 A. This report was sent to the cantonal of the court in Mostar, to
10 the investigative magistrate who had requested the exhumation.
11 Q. Dr. Zujo, the exhumation which resulted in your examination of
12 this body, can you tell us the date of that exhumation and where the
13 exhumation occurred?
14 A. The exhumation took place on the 7 May, 1998, and it was conducted
15 at the Sarica Harem I, which is a local cemetery.
16 Q. Are you able to tell us whether this body was exhumed from a
17 single grave or from a mass grave?
18 A. It was a single grave.
19 Q. Were other bodies exhumed from other single graves at the same
20 location at that time?
21 A. On that day, we conducted multiple exhumations, first at the
22 Sarica Harem, and then in other locations.
23 Q. I see from your report that this particular body was exhumed from
24 a grave marked as NN number 96. Is that the number that was associated
25 with this body during the course of the exhumation and autopsy? Or should
1 I say, perhaps, that it was working number 01?
2 A. Every grave is designated with a number, and as I explained
3 yesterday, from the time of access, when we reach the spot, we put a
4 number. And that corpse was number 96. And until it is buried, that
5 number is used, and the body, when it is buried, of course, bears that
6 number as well.
7 Q. Now, in the report which you made and submitted initially to the
8 high court in Mostar, the cantonal court, there is an indication that this
9 body had previously been delivered in March of 1994 by the HVO in Mostar,
10 along with an additional number of bodies, approximately 72 in total. Are
11 you in a position to tell us anything about the transfer of bodies from
12 the HVO in March of 1994?
13 A. The information that we received and recorded in the official
14 minutes and report we obtained from the investigating Judge. And what was
15 important for us was to see that an abduction had not been conducted on
16 those bodies previously, which would make this a repeated autopsy. And
17 that is why we say that on the 29th of March, there was an exchange - 1994
18 - that these corpses were exchanged. That's why it says so.
19 Q. Now, the record -- the English record indicates that you were
20 concerned or you wanted to see that an abduction had not been conducted on
21 these bodies previously. And I just want to clarify if that's the correct
22 word, "abduction," is that the word you are intending to use?
23 THE INTERPRETER: "Autopsy," interpreter's note.
24 A. Whether the autopsy took place before, immediately after the
25 exchange, whether an autopsy was performed on those corpses then, and
1 after our own exhumation, it would be a repeated autopsy, re-autopsy,
2 which means that we would look for the records and minutes and reports
3 that were made earlier so that we could use them when we repeated the
5 MR. STRINGER:
6 Q. If you can say, and I don't know if you can, is it correct for us
7 to assume, then, that this body had been buried at this location at the
8 Sarica Harem cemetery since approximately March of 1994, when it had been
9 delivered by the HVO?
10 A. I cannot specify the time. All I can say is that the body was
11 interred in a PVC bag, and that the body was completely skeletonised. And
12 this tells us that the body had been exposed under an optimum temperature
13 and optimum humidity so that the fatty tissues had turned into what we
14 call soapy substance, and that is why we use this term "saponified." They
15 are conservative changes, as we call them, where saponification takes
16 place. Where there is a lot of air, we call it mummification, so they are
17 the changes that a corpse undergoes due to the surrounding conditions.
18 Q. Dr. Zujo, I just want to make sure that we are clear on that
19 because initially the English word we were given for the condition of the
20 body was that it was "completely skeletonised," and then subsequently we
21 were given the word "saponification." Now earlier, you described the body
22 of Nenad Harmandic as having been "skeletonised" and I just want to make
23 sure that we have got it correct in the transcript.
24 The body that was subsequently identified as that of Aziz
25 Colakovic, was it skeletonised or was there, as you have indicated, I
1 believe, saponification?
2 A. The number was 96, I believe. The ordinal number was 96.
3 Colakovic Aziz, born in 1968.
4 Q. The body of Aziz Colakovic, in your report, you say that you found
5 a condition of post-mortem changes expressed in complete saponification of
6 the body.
7 A. Yes, that's right.
8 Q. This is different than skeletonisation?
9 A. Yes, that's right. With a skeletonised corpse, the skin, the
10 muscles, and all the internal organs have disappeared, disintegrated,
11 which means that all that remains of the body is the skeleton, or rather,
12 the bones. Whereas saponification, the skin muscles and internal organs
13 change to a white mass and a soapy substance, it looks like soap, and
14 that's why we call it --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Sopification or saponification, the interpreter
16 is not sure.
17 A. -- and that is the difference between the skeletonised state of a
18 body and the saponification state of a body.
19 THE INTERPRETER: With the white soapy substance, interpreter's
21 MR. STRINGER:
22 Q. Dr. Zujo, let me ask you first: Were you able to determine
23 whether, in fact, there had been a prior autopsy on this body?
24 A. No.
25 Q. In going over your report, can you tell us, please, your finding
1 -- tell us, please, first, the condition of the body in terms of the
2 clothing and other general information which may have assisted
3 subsequently in the identification of this body.
4 A. As far as clothing is concerned, on the dead body we found the
5 sweat suit top and the combination of the colour was grey, blue-green,
6 grey. There was also a cream-coloured V-necked T-shirt, a leather belt
7 with a round buckle, blue jeans with a metal label, and the manufacturer
8 was Unicon I, that was the brand. It had white wool socks and green
9 Speedo swimming trunks. As to the footwear, there was just the remains of
10 the toe of a shoe. No other items were found.
11 Q. Were you able to determine approximately the age of this person at
12 the time of death?
13 A. About 25 years old.
14 Q. Dr. Zujo, could you tell us, please, what injuries, if any, you
15 found and if you were able to determine the cause of death of this
16 person. What was the cause of death?
17 A. The injuries that we found when we performed the autopsy on the
18 body, we found a fracture of the 8th rib on the right side of the thoracic
19 cage, and a fracture of the right ulna in the lower third of its length.
20 As for the mechanisms or what caused the injuries, we stated that
21 parts of shells or shrapnels or bullets were the cause.
22 Q. Did you recover any bullet or shrapnel from this body during the
23 course of the autopsy?
24 A. We did not find either a bullet or shrapnel during the autopsy.
25 Q. Does that suggest, then, that the bullet or shrapnel would have
1 passed completely through the body?
2 A. Yes, precisely so, an entrance/exit wound.
3 Q. How is it that you can determine that these fractures would have
4 been caused by something like a bullet or piece of shrapnel as opposed to
5 other fractures, say, those on the body of Nenad Harmandic which you
6 characterised as having been caused by a blunt mechanical object? What
7 are the different features in these fractures that would enable you to
8 make this particular kind of finding?
9 A. They are types of fractures. So the difference between the first
10 body and the second body is that we found that the bone had been blasted,
11 a limited blast to the bone, both in the region of the ulna and in the rib
12 cage region. And that corresponded to parts of a shell or a projectile or
14 Q. And in your opinion, can you shed any light on the relative
15 position of the body, particularly the position of the ulna in respect of
16 the rib cage at the time of impact? As we were dealing with a fracture of
17 the right rib cage and right ulna, which means all on the same side, the
18 right-hand side, within the area of the hand, tells us that part of the
19 projectile or a shrapnel was done by one impact or one entrance/exit wound
20 because the hand is mobile, you can place your hand in this kind of
21 position. And it would have taken in all that.
22 Q. So are you saying, then, that the hand apparently had been placed
23 close to the chest so that the single impact caused the same fracture to
24 both the ulna and the rib, or do I misunderstand?
25 A. The hand needn't be right up to the body, but it would be at a
1 height of the 8th rib, whether it was closer to the body or further away
2 from the body, we cannot say. But the ulna of the right hand was at the
3 level of the 8th rib on the right-hand side. And this is the position. I
4 can demonstrate by doing this movement [Indicating].
5 Q. And then I take it from your report that the fractures themselves
6 would not have been the specific cause of death; rather, the specific
7 of death would have been the internal bleeding and external bleeding
8 caused by the bullet or the shrapnel which had caused those fractures?
9 A. We state in our conclusion that the cause of death was violent,
10 violent death through internal and external bleeding.
11 Q. Dr. Zujo, can you tell the Trial Chamber, please, how, then, it
12 was determined that this body was, in fact, the body of Aziz Colakovic?
13 A. The procedure was the same as with the previous body. What we did
14 was to contact the family members, and we learned from them what the
15 person was wearing before he died, how old he was, how tall he was. And
16 it was on the basis of all those indices and all our own findings - the
17 external description of the corpse and the clothing and what we learned
18 from his brother Salko - we identified him as being Aziz Colakovic, who
19 was born in 1968.
20 Q. So in other words, as was the case with Nenad Harmandic, a member
21 of the family came and viewed the body and was able to make an
22 identification, based on the various factors which you've mentioned?
23 A. Yes. But before he came -- he was brought into the room, the
24 procedure was the same. We took down all this information, all the facts,
25 and when we had ascertained the height, the state of the teeth, and all
1 the other parameters used for reaching an identification, only then did we
2 ask Salko into the room to identify the body of the deceased.
3 Q. So you made an initial, I guess tentative, finding, based on the
4 information provided by the family and the information which you obtained
5 during the course of the examination, that there was a sufficient link to
6 justify bringing in a potential family member?
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, could I just have one moment,
9 please. I believe I'm --
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.
11 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I have finished my line of
12 questioning as to these two reports, and perhaps -- I'm not going to move
13 ahead until the Trial Chamber has resolved the additional report.
14 JUDGE LIU: Could we proceed with the cross-examination on those
15 two reports, and later on, if you decided that you will furnish us with
16 more information as to the third report, then we will come back to your
17 direct examination.
18 MR. STRINGER: That's fine, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE LIU: Any cross-examination? Mr. Par, please.
20 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Cross-examined by Mr. Par:
22 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Before I start my cross-examination, I
23 would like to have a document handed round which I will probably be using,
24 so may I ask the usher's assistance to provide the parties with a copy,
25 the Prosecution and the Trial Chamber. And I shall provide the witness
1 with the English version. This should be D2/24, the number, according to
2 my calculations and records.
3 THE REGISTRAR: This is Exhibit Number D2/25.
4 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 Q. Dr. Zujo, you will have time to read through this and the Croatian
6 version. There won't be any problems, I'll give you enough time and
7 explain what it is about. But let me start off by introducing myself. My
8 name is Jelimir Par, attorney and Defence counsel for the accused Vinko
9 Martinovic. We are going to discuss your testimony here today.
10 To begin with, I omitted to see whether you had stated that you
11 were a specialist in pathology, and forensic pathology in particular,
12 within the framework of your field of expertise. Does that include those
13 two areas?
14 A. I'm a pure specialist in forensic medicine.
15 Q. With respect to the exhumation of the corpse which you identified
16 as Nenad Harmandic, I am going to ask you several questions, so we're
17 going to focus on that particular exhumation.
18 Could you begin by telling me what this looked like in practice?
19 What was the team that conducted the exhumation? What were the team
20 members, who was the team leader, and that kind of thing, when you
21 conducted the exhumation? Could you enlighten me as to that, please.
22 A. The Institute for Forensic Medicine received an order from the
23 investigating Judge of the cantonal district of the court in Mostar, and
24 the number was 399/ -- no 39/98, I apologise. 39/98 was the number, and
25 the composition of the team was Dr. Dobraca, Dr. Zujo, and the assistants.
1 We went to Mostar -- because we live in Sarajevo. We travelled to Mostar,
2 and we had to wait for the investigating Judge, Munevera Rahimic, and
3 Sabina Beganovic -- no, let me put myself right. Maksumic Halil was the
4 Judge's name. And the crime technicians of the cantonal MUP and
5 international representatives as well, they were on site; and the
6 commission for the recovery of displaced persons as well, missing persons.
7 Q. Now, who led your team? Was it you yourself or Dobraca or was
8 there no team leader?
9 A. There was no team leader. It was a joint team, which means that
10 the team went to Liska Park, the whole group, and they were personally
11 present when the bodies were dug up and exhumed, the transportation of the
12 bodies to Sutina and joint -- a joint effort during the autopsy.
13 Q. Now, who performs the actual autopsy; you, Dobraca, the two of you
14 together? Could you tell us what this looks like in practice; what is the
16 A. I know that I personally, I myself, conducted the autopsy. He
17 took notes. He stood by the table, the autopsy table, and took down
18 notes. So it was me, together with an assistant. I had the necessary
19 clothes on and conducted the autopsy.
20 Q. The Harmandic case, that is the one I'd like to focus on now. As
21 far as I understood, it wasn't a autopsy in the classical sense of the
22 word because there was in fact no body, it was just the skeleton. So you
23 examined the skeleton. Am I right in understanding that?
24 A. But that is an autopsy. Exhumation means to exhume the body, that
25 is, to take out the body. Inhume means to inter the body. And an autopsy
1 is an autopsy because we had a corpse. We had the object of our forensic
2 investigations, whether it is the entire body or just the skeleton, but
3 the term "autopsy" applies to both.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, you have to control your pace of asking
5 questions. Since you and the witness are speaking the same language, you
6 really give a difficult time to the interpreters, and we all rely on the
7 interpretation of what you said.
8 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I will do so. Thank
10 Q. I'm not troubled by the terminological problem of "autopsy," but
11 in practical terms, is it an examination of the bones or do you examine
12 other things as well?
13 A. As far as the autopsy is concerned, we have an external and
14 internal examination. The external examination involves the description
15 of the clothing and an examination of all the items found. All that is a
16 component part of the autopsy process itself. Then we go on to the
17 internal examination, where we conduct various measurements and examine
18 the bones if you're only dealing with a skeleton.
19 Q. So, you do nothing with the use of a scalpel, if I can put it that
20 way? In the Harmandic case, we see nothing but the bones and the external
21 examination. Do I understand you correctly? And please pause between my
22 question and your answer. Thank you.
23 A. When you exhume a body, you will always find the remnants of
24 putrefication on the bone. And the muscles and all that have
25 disintegrated, but it cloys to the bones themselves. But it is putrefied
1 particles, and you have to use a scalpel to clean the bone from these
2 additional material.
3 Q. So everything begins with the exhumation, and you, as a team,
4 attended the exhumation.
5 My next question is the following: When you take the bones out,
6 do you make a note of the position of the bones, do you measure their
7 length, or do you just place them, as in this case, in a blanket or a
8 piece of cloth or whatever? Could you explain that process to me. What
9 do you do when you actually dig up a grave? How do you record what you
10 find; the position of the bones, the measurements and so on? Could you
11 explain that to me, please.
12 A. I said that we were personally present when the digging up took
13 place. That is to say, when the soil, when the earth was dug up and we
14 reached the corpse. The corpse, in this particular case, was surrounded
15 by a blanket, so we photographed the blanket because we hadn't got to the
16 corpse yet. And we used the same markings that were up above ground. So
17 we photograph what we find when the earth is dug up, while the body is
18 still in the grave, so you can see the position of the corpse, how the
19 corpse was buried. If we are dealing with a skeleton and the bones, the
20 position they are in; the position of the hands, whether they are tied or
21 not and details of that kind, whether the corpse is clothed.
22 But nothing is touched. You photograph the position with the
23 blanket, and then you place the corpse, with the blanket, in the special
24 bag used for corpses, and we write down the number and the number of the
25 body. This body is then sent up to the mortuary.
1 Q. If I understood you correctly, you take no measurements at that
2 time; only photographs are taken.
3 A. Nothing in the grave itself.
4 Q. And the investigative magistrate was also present during the
5 exhumation, and what was her job there? And please, mind the pauses.
6 A. The investigative magistrate, she - in this case - takes note of
7 those who attend the exhumation, then the location where the exhumation is
8 to take place is described, and when the body is exhumed, a description is
9 made of how it was found, what it was wrapped in, in this case. And then
10 the technicians measure the depth and width of the actual grave, and
11 that's about it.
12 Q. Were -- was the family present at the exhumation?
13 A. I wouldn't be able to answer that question because there were a
14 number of members of various families around.
15 Q. Is it a common practice to have such presence?
16 A. We allow this. During the autopsy in certain cases, when we
17 already know who is in question, and if they want to view this, if they
18 want to attend it, we allow them.
19 Q. Tell me, who interviewed the family members -- the members of the
20 Harmandic family about the effects that could have been found there?
21 A. It was the crime technicians from the MUP who conducted it. And
22 one of us always contacts these families.
23 Q. Can you explain a little bit more about this, these interviews?
24 There are various families, various members who are interested in this.
25 So the crime technicians get certain information, but let's say you have a
1 set of bones in this case. How do you know how to relate -- correlate it
2 to a certain family who provided certain information? Can you again
3 describe it in greater detail, if you can, how you do that in practical
5 A. Forensic medicine, that is, we come there as experts, which means
6 that the commission for the missing persons had received certain
7 information and forwarded this information to the public Prosecutor in the
8 cantonal court in Mostar, and then the Prosecutor pass it on to the Judge,
9 to the magistrate, and so it went. Now, whether we alone would be
10 involved in this, I don't know about that.
11 Q. What am I in fact really specifically interested in, it's this:
12 When you conduct an autopsy, do you try to establish that this was really
13 Nenad Harmandic, or you establish certain information, and then correlate
14 this information with some other information that you have so that you see
15 that it is actually the person in question? In this specific case, in the
16 process of identification of these skeletal remains, did you already --
17 were you already in possession of this information? In other words, were
18 you trying to confirm that these remains were really the remains of Nenad
19 Harmandic, based on the information which you had previously received?
20 A. Our task is to assist the families in identification, that is, to
21 assist them, and I said just a moment ago how we do that. That is,
22 through the description of the personal items, the height, and certain
23 specific information. In other words, we only assist in identification;
24 we are not going to suggest -- we will not try to say no, this is the
25 person. In other words, we provide assistance in identification.
1 Q. Very well. I think I understood it, the gist of it. But my
2 question in fact was, as the person who performs autopsies, after you've
3 performed one, you said -- you say afterwards, this is a person who may be
4 about 45 years of age, maybe about 182, 83 centimetres tall, has a bullet,
5 and then, based on that information, you say, do we have something that
6 matches our findings? Can you answer me that, please?
7 A. Before any regular autopsy of a fresh body - because we do
8 autopsies daily - we have to take into account the circumstances that
9 surround this case. What does that mean? We have to see the time, the
10 manner of ensuring, the circumstances under which the person died. And in
11 this case, when you talk about identification, for me, a very important
12 detail, as I said yesterday, and I pointed out that I've conducted a lot
13 of autopsies, it is -- we've done a lot of identification based on scar
14 tissue. Let's say he had a fracture of the upper elbow bone, and through
15 identifying the scar tissue, we can assist families in such cases.
16 Q. So in the course of these autopsies that were conducted in
17 Sarajevo, there were bodies that were not identified. Did you take DNA
18 samples of those bodies?
19 A. The practice is either at the institute, and during the
20 examinations, when the -- an identification was made by the family, we
21 don't take DNA samples. However, where we have John or Jane Does, we
22 always take DNA samples. We take samples from the thigh bone, from a
23 tooth, and we have various standards. Some ask that a piece of -- that
24 the DNA be taken either from the thigh bone, in some other standards it is
25 from the teeth, so we take both.
1 Q. Regarding the injuries which you said were found on the body
2 identified as Harmandic's, you said that these injuries were sustained
3 during his life, such as the right thigh injury. Now, how can you
4 establish, on the basis of a bone, that it was sustained during life,
5 while the person was alive or after the person had died?
6 A. As far as fractures of bones are concerned, it is something as we
7 -- you can see it by simply eye-balling it, as we say it in our trade.
8 There are certain vital responses so that you can immediately say this was
9 sustained while the person was alive and this was sustained after a person
10 had died.
11 Q. So in forensic medicines, this is not something that is in
13 A. No.
14 Q. Now, regarding the age, establishing the age, today you mentioned
15 that this is done on the basis of seams or something between bones. What
16 kind of a method is this?
17 A. As far as the seams are concerned, the seams of the skull, it is
18 clear when the ossification occurs, at what age. At the age of 70, these
19 seams completely disappear. We also use pubic bones, or pelvic bones, and
20 we look at the bumps. Also the collarbone or the thoracic cage bones,
21 that is, ribs, are also examined.
22 Q. Now, what is -- is this an exact method? To what degree of
23 exactitude can this be determined?
24 A. The margin of error is five years, plus/minus, except with small
25 children. But for adults, the margin of error is plus/minus five years.
1 Q. I heard of a method through carbon analysis. Do you use that?
2 A. No, we don't use that. It is not something that we do.
3 Q. Exact -- with other injuries which you enumerated there, you said
4 that you identified some entrance/exit wounds of the face. Were you able
5 to identify the entrance wound and the exit wound so that you would be
6 able to determine the direction that the bullet came from? This is in
7 general; you need not go to the specific case.
8 A. I'm just trying to find the page. In this case, we established
9 that it was the left cheekbone. It is this bone here [Indicating], which
10 is separated out, and it is connected with the nose bone, and then with
11 the temporal lobe. It is a bone that is between the two sets of bones.
12 What we found was we found a round hole which would correspond to the
13 entrance wound made by the projectile.
14 Q. In these findings, you also mention that a bullet 6.35 millimetre
15 calibre was found. Can you recall, where exactly was that discovered?
16 A. We said that it was found in the area of right thigh. I cannot
17 tell you exactly whether this was the lower third, the upper third or
18 where, because it was difficult to establish that because this putrid
19 material was there, and we were unable to establish -- to pinpoint the --
20 Q. Was this found in the bone or in the tissue?
21 A. It was found in the material that would correspond to the soft
23 Q. Was it attached to the bone?
24 A. Yes, it was next to the bone.
25 Q. But you could not determine exactly where it was; upper third,
1 lower, or where?
2 A. In this case, we did not determine it because we had this
3 putrefied material. We did not establish whether it was from the front,
4 from the back; it was all in this material that was enveloping the bone.
5 Q. Do you know where this bullet is now, where it is kept?
6 A. Everything we find, including projectiles and all the items, are
7 taken into custody by the crime technicians.
8 Q. So on the basis of all this, exhumations and whatever was done,
9 this should all be somewhere in Mostar, including the bullet and
10 everything else?
11 A. As far as the clothing is concerned, the clothing is taken and
12 reburied with the body. But if we have something that is very specific,
13 such as bullets, shrapnel, or some kind of nooses or things like that,
14 that is kept. But the clothing is buried with the body, and often times,
15 the family will take certain objects, such as a watch or a wallet, and
16 they take it with them.
17 Q. We mentioned here a leather belt with a buckle, a bullet, some
18 remains of jeans. Would belt and buckle also be at the MUP with the crime
19 lab or not?
20 A. As far as the belt is concerned, often times the family will
21 request certain items of clothing as mementos. I cannot tell you whether
22 in this case the family asked for the belt.
23 Q. My colleague reminded me, and I'll take you back to this bullet in
24 the finding of Dr. Dobraca on page 4, it says that the bullet itself was
25 found with the remains, but I cannot say in which position next to the
1 body. This is now a little bit at odds with what you said.
2 A. It says the right thigh. This is our autopsy report, but I think
3 I gave you the answer because when you asked a moment ago in which area of
4 thigh, I told you that we could not establish that exactly.
5 Q. Do you have this blue folder here? It's under E, for you, Tab E,
6 page 4, that is in B/C/S. And it says, the bullet found -- this is Dr.
7 Dobraca's finding. It says that it was found next to the body, but where
8 it was --
9 A. Well, that is consistent with what I have said, whether it was
10 on the side. You see, if it's here, on the outside, I cannot say exactly
11 because it was found in this putrefied material.
12 Q. What I'm particularly interested in is it says here it was found
13 near the body.
14 This is what I wanted to point out, that in Dobraca's finding,
15 that the bullet found with the remains was in the location near the body,
16 which was not specific.
17 A. Yes, I also said that I cannot say exactly where it was.
18 Q. Can you please tell me, when you write these reports, who writes
19 it? Does Dr. Dobraca write it or you write them?
20 A. This is our joint report.
21 Q. I understand that the report is joint, but in actuality, who sat
22 down and wrote it up?
23 A. The investigating magistrate will call us to the court, and we
24 will dictate the finding.
25 Q. We also have a statement by Dr. Dobraca given to this Tribunal
1 which contains a finding on an exhumation with his conclusions and
2 everything. Is that also your joint statement or just his?
3 A. It's joint.
4 Q. Can you tell me, where is Dr. Dobraca now?
5 A. In Sarajevo.
6 Q. I see, in Sarajevo. Does he continue to work as an expert and
7 conduct these -- draft these reports?
8 A. Yes, he does.
9 Q. Is he sick now or does he have any health problems?
10 A. Not that I know of. He comes to work.
11 Q. Is there a reason why Dr. Dobraca, who was slated to come here
12 originally before this Tribunal, is there a reason why he couldn't come,
13 why this substitution took place?
14 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Stringer.
15 MR. STRINGER: I object to the question on the grounds of
16 relevancy. The witness has been qualified as an expert. He has testified
17 as the expert witness as to these issues. It's irrelevant as to why his
18 colleague who authored these reports with him is not here in his place.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Par. You may skip the question. We believe
20 that is irrelevant to this witness.
21 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't get the
22 interpretation, so I was unable to fully understand what my learned friend
23 had said, but I understood what your ruling was so I'm going to move on.
24 However, I believe that it is relevant for our Defence why Dr.
25 Dobraca did not appear here. In fact, I can tell the Trial Chamber and
1 see whether I will be allowed to pursue this. Dr. Dobraca --
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer.
3 MR. STRINGER: I would object to this practice as well.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, what you are going to say has nothing
5 to do with this witness.
6 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this witness and Dr.
7 Dobraca work as a team and jointly sign findings, including the findings
8 that we have here. And they both stand by their findings. I have certain
9 information which I was going to put to Dr. Zujo which may point out to
10 possible reasons why Dr. Dobraca is not here. We received information
11 from the Prosecution that Dr. Dobraca could not attend due to some
12 illness. I am trying to verify this with this witness without trying to
13 put this witness in any kind of awkward position.
14 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, this witness may know or may not know
15 about the reason why the other doctor has not appeared before this
16 Tribunal. But it has nothing to do with the testifying of this witness at
17 all. You will have the full right to call that doctor. If he failed to
18 come, you may explain the reason for that in your case of Defence.
19 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I understand, Mr. President. However, I
20 believe that this witness is defending a finding of Dr. Dobraca. I want
21 to ask a question on the credibility of Dr. Dobraca as expert because we
22 believe that that is one of the reasons why he did not appear here. And I
23 wanted to ask this witness because this is their joint finding.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, it's time, you know, at this moment. Shall we
25 break, and later on we come back to this subject.
1 Mr. Usher, would you please bring the witness out first.
2 We'll resume at 11.30 a.m.
3 --- Recess taken at 11.01 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 11.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Par, would you inform the Chamber about your
6 reason of asking that question, in the absence of the witness first.
7 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour. The object of
8 my questioning, and to test the credibility of Dr. Dobraca, is based on,
9 if I can put it that way, an affair, an incident, which was public
10 knowledge linked to Dr. Dobraca's expertise during the war. In the press,
11 in a well-known daily, Slobodna Bosna, the 24th of September, 1998, that
12 is a Sarajevo daily, and also in another daily, called Slobodna Dalmacija,
13 of the 12th of September, 2000, an interview appeared by a certain Edin
14 Garaplija. Edin Garaplija was a former member of AID who worked in
15 Sarajevo. During the war -- rather, after the war, this man Edin
16 Garaplija was detained, and he was sentenced to a prison term in Sarajevo.
17 After he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, he began talking about
18 what had happened in Sarajevo during the war, how AID worked and similar
19 things. And among other things, he said that there were certain
20 liquidations of persons which were executed - I don't want to say by whom
21 - but that these liquidations were covered up by the fact that false
22 autopsies were performed. And he also claims that certain persons were
23 liquidated by injections that were administered. He states the name of a
24 man who conjured up these poisons for the needs of AID, and he claims that
25 Dr. Dobraca at that time was an -- conducted autopsies, and these
1 liquidations or these deaths were falsified in his reports and made to
2 look as if they were deaths by natural causes.
3 So this all came out as a series of interviews by this man called
4 Edin Garaplija and they appeared in the press. Furthermore, according to
5 information and facts that I have at my disposal, this man, Edin Garaplija
6 in order to clarify his case, contacted a specific court body which exists
7 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it is called the human rights centre for
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And in a case which, as far as I know was called
9 Garaplija versus the federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I have the
10 number of that trial - it is CH 98/934 - this man Garaplija stipulates --
11 sets out these facts about the false autopsies that were conducted.
12 I personally, therefore, was not able to have insight into these
13 court documents. I received the judgement in the -- of the case, but as it
14 was not contended, I personally have no personal knowledge of what the
15 court documents contain. But as far as the newspaper articles are
16 concerned, I can say at this point that, although I don't have the
17 newspapers themselves, I have excerpts from the internet with the facts as
18 to what was stated, and I remember following and reading about this affair
19 when it was -- when it appeared in the press.
20 Therefore, what I wanted to achieve today with my questioning of
21 this witness, of Dr. Zujo, was the following: I think - and I'm not going
22 to enter into the correctness of the allegations made by the man
23 Garaplija, I don't know whether that is true or not, but it was an affair
24 that was public knowledge, and it could have burdened -- placed a burden
25 on Dr. Dobraca and was perhaps a reason why he did not appear in court
2 I wanted to ascertain that, whether that was indeed the reason.
3 And I don't think that we can have a replacement for him and have Dr. Zujo
4 alone to cover this subject matter whereas the head of the team, the
5 institute, and Dobraca, quite obviously, does not wish to appear. So the
6 question of the credibility of Dr. Dobraca is what I wanted to test on the
7 basis of the information I have at my disposal. That is by way of
8 explanation, Your Honours. Thank you.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, what we are concerned in this trial is the
10 relevance of what you said to this very case. That means, to this autopsy
11 report. Are you challenging the credibility and authenticity of this
12 autopsy report?
13 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] It's like this, Your Honour: It is not
14 easy for me to say whether I question it, challenge it, or not. But the
15 general premise of our Defence case is the following, And it relates to
16 this matter: That different services, first and foremost, AID, were at
17 work here in order to prepare evidence, if I can put it that way. So
18 through that prism, we -- and spectrum, we are testing the ways and means
19 of the preparation of all this, and witnesses as well. In this particular
20 case, we challenge that the body is indeed the body of Mr. Harmandic. We
21 are trying to prove and show that the autopsy that was conducted and the
22 identification was not a proper one and that it was not Harmandic's body.
23 And through this process of discreditation of the physician conducting the
24 autopsy - and we have certain knowledge about this physician; that he was
25 working in the service or on orders from the AID - and that therefore,
1 according to that information, those autopsies, if I can say so, were
2 false. That is something that we would like to link up and -- in order to
3 challenge the report, to challenge the correctness of the report and to
4 challenge the fact that the corpse was indeed the corpse of Mr. Harmandic.
5 That is our position. Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE LIU: Let us hear the response from the other side. Mr.
8 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Your Honour, my first
9 remark, I think, comes from the very first sentence that counsel stated at
10 the beginning of his comments, which was they want to challenge the
11 credibility of Dr. Dobraca. Dr. Dobraca is not the witness in this case.
12 Dr. Zujo is the witness. And I think it's not helpful to attempt to
13 challenge the credibility of someone who is not a witness before the Trial
14 Chamber. That's number one.
15 We have one witness, Dr. Zujo. We have two autopsies; the autopsy
16 of what is submitted to be the body of Harmandic, and what is submitted to
17 be the body of Aziz Colakovic. Now, the witness, Dr. Zujo, as he has
18 testified, is a joint author of each of the autopsy reports which are a
19 part of the 94 bis statement. His signature appears on each of those, as
20 well as the signature of Dr. Dobraca, but he is a joint author, and I
21 think it's clear that before the Trial Chamber he has affirmed and adopted
22 those reports as his own. Those are the reports themselves.
23 Among the other attachments to the 94 bis statement is the OTP
24 witness statement of Dr. Dobraca marked as Exhibit D, the English version;
25 Exhibit E, the version in B/C/S. Now -- and we can ask the witness about
1 this on the face of the document, the witness statement. The Court will
2 find that Dr. Zujo was present during this interview. And I believe that,
3 if asked, the witness would also say that his signature or his initials
4 appear on the witness statement. So I think that the witness has also
5 signed and adopted this witness statement jointly with Dr. Dobraca. We
6 could pursue that with the witness if it's deemed to be necessary.
7 Finally, we have the 94 bis statement itself, signed in October of
8 last year by the witness, Dr. Zujo. He is the witness. And it's for
9 those reasons that we believe it's not useful or it doesn't shed any light
10 on his testimony to attempt to impeach someone who is not the witness.
11 Secondly, as I mentioned, there are two autopsies. If it's the
12 Defence assertion that either of these two autopsies was, as counsel -- to
13 use counsel's phrase, a false autopsy, we would have no objection to the
14 Defence putting that to the witness, challenging these autopsies on the
15 grounds or the assertion that this autopsy or the Colakovic autopsy was in
16 fact a false autopsy or that these people in fact died or were liquidated
17 by the Bosnian secret service. If they want to confine their inquires
18 along those lines to the two autopsies that were tendered to the Trial
19 Chamber, there won't be objections from the Prosecution as to that line.
20 But the line that they apparently want to go down is to impeach someone
21 who is not a witness with allegations regarding autopsies which are not in
22 this case.
23 And so it's -- and let me add, in my final comment, and I listened
24 carefully to counsel's remarks, we have yet to hear any assertion that Dr.
25 Zujo's credibility is being challenged by the Defence.
1 Thank you, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence of Mladen
4 Naletilic, as we are dealing with points 1 and 2 up until 5, counts 1 to
5 5, has to do with Mladen Naletilic. I didn't want to put forth my own
6 opinions but I see that I have to now. I didn't respond to my learned
7 colleague yesterday although the comment I made was quite clear. Your
8 Honours, we are dealing with a classic lack of understanding of the
9 system. My colleague Mr. Par and the rest of the Defence counsel from the
10 territories of the former Yugoslavia lived in a system in which, when we
11 are talking about forensic medicine, there is the head of pathology, the
12 head of forensic medicine, and then we have their subordinate, subordinate
13 physicians. No autopsy report, regardless of whether they were done by
14 the subordinates, could have left the institute without the signature of
15 the head of the service; and if the head of the service conducted the
16 autopsy - Your Honours, this is the truth - it is the practice
17 that we all know; Mr. Seric was a Judge for 20 years, we have all been
18 attorneys for over 20 years, and we listen to these distinguished expert
19 witnesses every day in our courtrooms. We know our court practice. And
20 what Mr. Par just said was perhaps not well explained because of the
21 difference of the systems.
22 If Mr. Dobraca was the head of the team, then the autopsy report
23 is his and not Dr. Zujo's. Dr. Zujo could only have signed the autopsy
24 report as a second signature, but it is not his autopsy report; it is the
25 autopsy report of Dr. Dobraca. I don't know if I have been able to
1 explain the system as it stood and as it functioned and the way in which
2 our experts work.
3 But if you find that necessary, then the Defence counsel will
4 bring in those same forensic experts to explain the situation and the
5 differences in system. So if the witness isn't here, I cannot disqualify
6 him. Perhaps that is possible; perhaps not. This is my first encounter
7 with the system. We are not challenging the credibility of Dr. Zujo at
8 all, and that is why Dr. Dobraca was not brought by the Prosecution
9 because he would have been discredited because there is too much public
10 information and data from the human rights court in Bosnia and
11 Herzegovina, I even think the investigations of this particular Tribunal
12 and this particular Prosecution and OTP because it was an organisation
13 which was called Sheva [phoen] which is the subject of this investigation,
14 the investigations of this Tribunal, and Dr. Dobraca was the one who
15 masked the real cusses of death.
16 So I don't know, Your Honours, if I have been able to explain the
17 situation to you sufficiently, but I wanted to assist my colleague in his
18 explanations, why Mr. Par, my learned colleague, and myself, consider that
19 we were perfectly right and in order to present our views as we have done.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stringer, you have to be very concise,
22 because this kind of debate is going on for a long time.
23 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President. Simply to respond to one
24 assertion made by my learned friend Mr. Krsnik; the Prosecution did not
25 fail to bring Dr. Dobraca for the reasons which have just been asserted.
1 Footnote one of the 94 bis statement states that the Prosecutor had
2 originally intended to call Dr. Dobraca, which was the case, but that the
3 Prosecutor is informed that, due to health problems Dr. Dobraca is not
4 able to testify. That's all we know, Mr. President. The rest of all
5 these assertions, I don't know anything about them, but the reason, as far
6 as the Prosecution is concerned, as to why Dr. Dobraca is not here is as
7 we have stated in the 94 bis statement, due to health problems that we
8 were informed of.
9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Just one sentence, with your
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, this Trial Chamber believes that you
12 have the full right to challenge the credibility and authenticity of those
13 autopsy reports. You could ask any questions to this witness to that
14 direction. But we also notice that Dr. Dobraca is not a witness of this
15 case. We also notice that those reports are signed by two doctors, and
16 Dr. Zujo is one of the authors of those reports. He should be responsible
17 for whatever is said in those reports. So we kindly ask you to skip the
18 questions concerning with Dr. Dobraca in this respect. And at a later
19 stage, maybe in the case of the Defence in the future, you have the full
20 right to bring over your expert witness to attack the evidence presented
21 today by the Prosecution. It is so decided.
22 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have
23 understood your instructions, and I will proceed accordingly.
24 I have just one question: If I should decide -- or rather, if we
25 should decide, as the Defence team, in the course of the Defence case to
1 call Dr. Dobraca and he refuses to come, can we ask the Trial Chamber's
2 assistance and the Trial Chamber could call the witness as a court
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, I'm not quite sure whether the witness will be
5 called as a court witness or not, but I can assure you that the Chamber
6 will do its best to help you, even issuing some orders in this respect.
7 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 Yes, Mr. Stringer.
10 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, just before the witness comes back
11 in, I can inform the Trial Chamber of our position as to Mustafa Krilic.
12 We reviewed the record during the break. We found reference to Professor
13 Krilic in two witnesses. However, we think that in light of a number of
14 factors, including the shortness of time remaining in our case, the fact
15 that the evidence regarding Krilic is not central to the allegations in
16 the case, we are ready, Mr. President, to proceed without taking testimony
17 regarding the autopsy report of Professor Krilic.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much for your cooperation.
19 Mr. Usher, would you please bring in the witness, please.
20 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Par, before we bring in the witness, we may not
21 have made it perfectly clear to you what you should do -- just take the
22 witness out for a moment.
23 And you may not have understood: When this witness comes back,
24 obviously you will conduct your cross-examination in whatever way you
25 elect, but you should put specifically to this witness the contents and
1 the findings of the experts' report that you handed up to him. And
2 obviously, you can ask him specific questions, because it wouldn't be fair
3 not to put those questions to him and only put them later on in the
4 Defence case. So I mean, some of the findings are obviously something
5 that needs to be teased out and parsed by expert witnesses, so just in
6 case you misunderstood, you must put the findings of your expert to this
7 particular expert.
8 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] That was the intention of my
9 cross-examination, yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Par. You may proceed.
11 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Q. Mr. Zujo, the Court has made a ruling in the meantime, and I will
13 not be asking you questions regarding Dr. Dobraca that I asked you a
14 moment ago. We're going to focus on something else, but before we go on
15 to another area, I should like to ascertain whether you are the
16 cosignatory of all these findings that Dr. Dobraca made, all the ones that
17 we have before us and that were sent to us by the Prosecution. Were you
18 the cosignator with Dr. Dobraca, including the statement made by him to
19 the Office of the Prosecutor? Do you sign them as being your own as well?
20 Are you the cosignatory?
21 A. These are all our joint findings, and I signed all of them.
22 Q. Including the statement given to the Tribunal? This is what I
23 have in mind, what I'm talking about. It is the statement of Ilijas
24 Dobraca to the Tribunal, which contains facts about exhumations, the
25 conclusion, the opinions, findings.
1 A. Yes, you have my signature at the bottom.
2 Q. Thank you. So you assert that, do you?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. That completes that area of questioning.
5 Let's move on. I don't know if you have received a copy in
6 Croatian -- or rather, the Bosnian language?
7 A. Yes, I have.
8 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I should like to ask the usher to
9 provide Mr. Zujo a copy of the document, and I shall, of course, give him
10 time to look through it and tell him what it is about.
11 Q. Before you begin, let me just tell you what the document is. The
12 Defence of Vinko Martinovic, with the aim of preparing this
13 cross-examination, provided your findings and Dr. Dobraca's findings to
14 Dr. Professor Josip Skavic. Do you know who Dr. Josip Skavic is?
15 A. He is professor of the faculty of medicine in Zagreb.
16 Q. Yes, and a leading expert in forensic medicine and the area you
17 delve in, so you know that he is an authority in the that particular
18 field. Is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. We have asked Dr. Skavic to give his opinion, to state his
21 opinion. The document contains several pages. Would you read through it,
22 and then I would like to ask you some questions about it. Thank you.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
24 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] The interpreters have asked for the
1 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I think that I have provided them with a
2 copy, but if not, I have additional copies. I have copies in English, and
3 this is in Bosnian. Would the usher please assist me in providing them
4 with a copy. Thank you.
5 Q. Let me draw your attention to the section entitled "Opinion."
6 That was on page 3 of the Bosnian/Croatian version. The first element or
7 factor that Dr. Skavic considered was the height of this body which is
8 purported to be the one of Harmandic. It was not clear how the expert
9 calculated the assumed height of the body. Today, you gave us your
10 explanation, but he gave his own calculation, taking into account your
11 measurements, and he came with the height of 185.08 centimetres. You
12 arrived at a slightly different measurement. How do you explain this
13 discrepancy, the difference between these two measurements?
14 A. You see, we took parameters. I read what Dr. Skavic said. We
15 took the parameters, which included the diameter of the skull, which is
16 taken from here to here [Indicating]. In some cases, the skull is sawed
17 off, and then you take the measurement of the diameter.
18 Q. What does that mean?
19 A. If a person is built proportionately, then the proportion of the
20 diameter in millimetres will correspond to the height of the body in
21 centimetres. Here we found the diameters to be 180 millimetres, which
22 would correspond to 180 centimetres of body height.
23 That was one parameters. The other parameter was the femur or the
24 thighbone, and we found that that shaft was 50 centimetres long. Then we
25 take this number, which is then multiplied by a factor 3.66, and you get a
1 value which would be approximately 183 to 185.
2 We also measured the humerus or the upper arm bone, and we found
3 it to be 36 centimetres long. That is then multiplied by the factor of
4 5.06, and you get a value of the length.
5 All these measurements have a margin of error of several
6 centimetres, so we took a median value and we said that the length of the
7 body was 182 to 85 centimetres, which allowed us a possibility to add the
8 margin of 2 to 5 centimetres, which is standard in the literature.
9 Q. Are these plus/minus margins or do you add on that value?
10 A. No, you add it on.
11 Q. So it's only a plus value?
12 A. Yes, if you deal with skeletal remains, it's only a plus, an
14 Q. Very well. In the case of Harmandic and in the case of Aziz
15 Colakovic, if you can refer to your blue file folder, as I noted it in the
16 Harmandic case, the thigh bone was 50?
17 A. 52. It is 52.
18 Q. Let me see what it says here. I think it was 50. It was 50, and
19 Colakovic 52.
20 A. That's correct. Colakovic was 52.
21 Q. Let's go to Colakovic first. Colakovic is 52, and then the upper
22 arm bone 37. And in Harmandic's case, 50, the thigh bone, and 36 the
23 upper arm bone. However, their heights are different. In Colakovic's
24 case, it is 187 to 190; and in Harmandic's case, the height established
25 was 182 to 83.
1 My question to you is I see these small differences, 2 to 3
2 centimetres in length of the bones, and the total height of the person, it
3 would seem that Harmandic would appear to be taller even though his bones
4 are a bit shorter. Did I misunderstand you or is there an inconsistency
5 in your finding?
6 A. I think that the error is in your interpretation. In Harmandic's
7 case, the length -- that is, the diameter of the skull is 180. That is
8 the diameter of the skull. The thigh bone is 50, and the upper arm, 36.
9 And in Colakovic's case, the diameter of the skull is 170; the
10 thigh bone 52, and the upper arm bone, 37. What I'm trying to say, when I
11 spoke earlier that there are people who have large heads, proportionately
12 to their bodies, and vice versa; small head, longer bodies. So when we
13 calculate it, in Aziz Colakovic's case, the length of his body was over
14 185 centimetres. It is approaching 190. Because it states that the thigh
15 bone, if it is 50, then it translates into 185 centimetres length of the
16 full body.
17 Q. So his thigh bone, it was 52.
18 A. Yes, and that corresponds to 190.
19 Q. So your answer is that the same method was used, and your
20 mathematics brings those consistent results?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, taking into account professor Skavic's findings, this finding
23 of 185.08 centimetres, is that also an acceptable calculation to you? Do
24 you agree with this or do you think that Skavic miscalculated and that
25 your calculation is correct?
1 A. From what I could see, Professor Skavic used the same tables, and
2 there's no deviation in his case. So that it would be the length, because
3 here, he says the thigh bone of 50, and if we take the factor 3.66, which
4 is typical for male, that's what we could see. Other authorities Zecevic,
5 Pejakovic, and others, they all use the same tables.
6 Q. In other words, you agree, more or less, about the height?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Considering the fact that Harmandic's son stated that his father
9 was 190 centimetres tall, Dr. Skavic said that this calculation was
10 absolutely uncertain. Do you agree with that conclusion, based on that
11 factor alone?
12 A. We have no other factors.
13 Q. Excuse me, perhaps the word "factor" created confusion. When I
14 said factors, I was thinking more like clothing and other items or things.
15 But is it acceptable to you what Dr. Skavic concluded? He said that the
16 identification, based on the height as calculated in this way, is
17 absolutely not conclusive. Do you agree with that?
18 A. There are no other methods. If we have skeleton alone, this is
19 the only method we have available. The diameter of the skull, the length
20 of the thighbone, of the upper arm bone, those are the only things we can
22 Q. I'm sorry for interrupting you, but I think that it was again my
23 mistake in not being clear enough. Let me try to do it again. The
24 difference between the 196 centimetres as given by Harmandic's son and
25 your calculation of -- that is, 185.08 centimetres that Skavic found, that
1 is a total of 11 centimetres difference. That is a difference too large
2 to provide a clear standard for identification. In your opinion, is this
3 the case, that on the basis of these factors, such identification cannot
4 be made to appear conclusive?
5 A. We could only use these parameters, which means the measurements
6 and then the calculation, in order to come up with a certain height. When
7 I said that the margin of error may be 5 centimetres, and because we are
8 only dealing with a skeleton, we can add another 5 centimetres. I saw
9 that some other experts who work for the Tribunal allow for a wider
10 margin. For instance, I had an opportunity to see reports in which larger
11 margins were used.
12 But let me give you detail: A person who is 30 years of age
13 starts losing his height each year, on average, 0.06 centimetres. So if
14 somebody says that somebody was 186 centimetres tall, if this person is
15 actually 185, that is the same.
16 Q. Well, they could have said 198. But does this tell us that it is
17 not a certain way of measuring, that the difference is too big, the
18 difference of 10 or 11 centimetres would point to two different persons?
19 Can we agree that only if we take into account the height as a factor,
20 that it is uncertain?
21 A. We have no other method.
22 Q. We all agreed that the method is acceptable, but I have still not
23 received an answer. Let's take a practical example. We have an autopsy
24 and a member of family says, This is -- the man was 186 centimetres tall,
25 and you say, My measurements show 185. Can we say that a person who is --
12 19 blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
1 who, according to your measurements, is 186 can also be perhaps 196? Can
2 we stretch it to 10 centimetres difference --
3 A. We have 5 centimetres.
4 Q. -- which we can add?
5 A. I added it up front. With that addition, we still have a margin
6 of 10 or 11.
7 Q. I am not trying to torment you here with this, but I am asking
8 you, if we only take the height as the method, as a factor, is it a method
9 that can establish the identity with full certainty?
10 A. On the basis of height alone, no.
11 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Par, forgive me for interrupting you but I think
12 it's crucial that we need your assistance at this stage -- or I do anyway.
13 Your challenge to the findings of this autopsy report are based on the
14 report of the expert from Zagreb that you very kindly furnished us with.
15 And his view appears to be based, as indeed is your cross-examination, on
16 Mr. Harmandic's son stating that his father had a certain height. Where
17 do we as Judges find this information? You see, we are continuing on this
18 very interesting fact, but we don't have this information. Where did you
19 get this information from? And where did your professor in Zagreb get the
20 information from?
21 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Excuse me, are you referring to the
22 information that Harmandic's son provided as the height of his father?
23 JUDGE CLARK: Yes, that's the information you're referring -- you
24 see, we don't have that, and where would we find it?
25 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Dr. Zujo can confirm that piece of
1 information. If I understood Dr. Zujo, this is information furnished by
2 the family at the time of exhumation because they expect to find their
3 loved ones there, and the expert asked what was the height of this
4 person. And in this particular case, the height indicated was 196. This
5 was noted down by the expert, and then during the autopsy, this was taken
6 into account on the basis of information provided by Harmandic's son.
7 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
8 JUDGE LIU: I'm afraid we did not get translation from French.
9 THE REGISTRAR: We hear it on number 5, not 4.
10 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
11 JUDGE CLARK: Judge Clark can hear perfectly, anyway, on channel
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're not on channel 4.
14 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
15 JUDGE LIU: We still didn't get the interpretation. There is some
16 technical problem with the channels.
17 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We can hear you on...
19 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear me now? The interpreter is asking
20 if you can hear the English interpretation. Right, good, so we can do it
21 now. Channel 4. Judge Diarra, please go ahead.
22 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Mr. Par, I was telling you that
23 Professor Josip was referring to some documents, and he based his opinions
24 on those documents in order to make his analysis or his report. Those
25 documents are not annexed to his report, which basically does not help us
1 to understand this report very much. Thank you.
2 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] This is our omission. These are the
3 same documents that are being used today. These were Prosecution
4 documents, that is, the autopsy reports, and these are the same documents
5 that are in front of you. These are the same documents that were used by
6 Professor Skavic. He had no other documents in use.
7 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Par, but we don't have -- unless I'm being
8 particularly obtuse, we don't have any documents that refer to information
9 which Dr. Zujo received from the family in relation to this man's height.
10 That's what we're intrigued by. Where do you -- you haven't even elicited
11 in cross-examination or furnished a document which says that Dr. Zujo
12 received this information that the son said that his father was 196
13 centimetres. Am I right in that?
14 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] That is correct. I received that
15 information from Dr. Zujo. So perhaps I should ask Dr. Zujo this, because
16 he and Dr. Dobraca wrote that. This is information that they had received
17 before the autopsy, because they were told that -- they were given this
18 information from the family members. Perhaps we should give Dr. Zujo an
19 opportunity to talk about this.
20 Q. Dr. Zujo, you heard the exchange. I think that you are the most
21 competent person to give us an answer to this question. How do we have
22 the initial height of Nenad Harmandic as being 196 high? How did we
23 arrive at that?
24 A. I have in front of me the autopsy reports, and that height was not
25 recorded in the report. However, when you canvass the family, when you
1 say -- they say something like, "He was tall," but they will never tell us
2 he was -- he had 196. They will say he was over 190 tall. But I have the
3 autopsy report in front of me. I did not find that detail that it was
5 Q. Dr. Zujo, well, you calculated based on that information. I did
6 not give that information to Dr. Skavic arbitrarily.
10 JUDGE CLARK: You see, the report from Professor Skavic suggests
11 in its body that, when the professor was preparing his report, that he
12 [redacted]. But there's no suggestions --
13 the point I'm making -- that this professor had -- [redacted]
14 [redacted] in relation to the height when he was
15 preparing the report. That's the problem I have. I was wondering if you
16 could help me with that. Perhaps if we asked this witness what
17 information was he given prior to autopsy, and did he record it anywhere.
18 JUDGE LIU: Maybe that is not the right time, but I have to point
19 out, concerning with the report from Dr. Skavic, that is the document you
20 furnished to us, we have some doubts about this report because its lack of
21 corroboration from other sources.
22 First, if you are going to tender this document into evidence, we
23 need the letters addressed to this doctor by Mr. Seric.
24 Secondly, all those enclosed information in the documents; and
25 thirdly, [redacted],
1 [redacted], we need all those documents so that we could work
2 along it. Maybe that's the subject we will come across with the issue of
3 tendering of those documents into evidence.
4 You may proceed, Mr. Par.
5 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I understand, Mr. President. We'll deal
6 with that when the time comes. Let me go back to Judge Clark's question,
7 and I think she clarified some points which I omitted to mention. I have
8 here, I'm holding in my hand, and we can place it on the ELMO, perhaps,
9 the statement by Nenad Harmandic which we received from the Prosecution.
10 Nenad Harmandic [as interpreted] will be here in a few days' time, Predrag
11 Harmandic, the son, and he speaks about the height of the body. And on the
12 last page, he says that the body of his father was 196 centimetres tall.
13 We could place that on the ELMO, this portion, and then we can
14 have a look at it.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer.
16 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, could we go into private session for
17 one quick moment.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll go to the private session, please.
19 [Private session]
13 Page 7706 – redacted – private session
5 [Open session]
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we are in the open session. You may proceed,
7 Mr. Par.
8 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Zujo, let us move on, and according to Professor Skavic's
10 opinions, we now come to the section in which he speaks about the factor
11 of identification on the basis of clothing, clothing as a factor of
12 identification. And he states -- and he, like you, as you know, during
13 the war in Croatia, over a period of ten years, he conducted thousands of
14 identifications in the same way. And he says that that is one of the
15 methods used, the methods of identification, that is, clothing.
16 But he says that his experience in his ten-year experience of the
17 victims of the war for the homeland is that very often persons would
18 exchange clothing so that, quite frequently, clothing identifying one
19 person would be found on the body of another person, or several people, so
20 that he considers that identification along those lines would not be sure
21 enough, because experience tells him that clothing is not a very certain
22 indicator of identification.
23 What has been your experience in that area?
24 A. That first -- it is the first element of identification. Now,
25 what does that mean? Usually, close family members tell us what the
1 person was wearing. But the professor states very correctly that this
2 cannot serve us at all times, nor do we have always something specific
3 like the belt in this case. And the belt was specific for purposes of
4 identification. But we have no other methods, so these are our initial
5 methods, the first method. We describe the clothing, and then we consult
6 the family members to see if those items of clothing correspond to the
7 clothing mentioned by the family members. So that is what I have to say
8 on the subject of clothing.
9 Q. Now, you mentioned the belt as specified by the family members.
10 In this courtroom, we heard testimony from a witness -- we don't want to
11 disclose his identity, but he testified on the 26th of September, 2001.
12 He was Witness U, and he spoke about the Harmandic case, and he said that
13 in the Heliodrom where they were detained, that the belts were
14 confiscated. We heard this from other witnesses later on, whether they
15 were confiscated from everybody or from only certain persons, this
16 particular witness did state that the belts were taken away from the
17 detainees. And we asked this particular witness that and he allegedly saw
18 Harmandic on the day he disappeared, and we asked him how Harmandic was
19 dressed, and this is what he said: He said that Harmandic was wearing
20 short white pants and a white T-shirt with short sleeves. So this
21 testimony testifies to different clothing worn by Harmandic if we compare
22 it to the clothing on the basis of which his body was identified.
23 Now, had you had that piece of information at the time, would you
24 still have -- would your identification have taken a different road? Would
25 you have done some DNA analysis or something similar?
1 A. I think you understood me quite correctly when I said that the
2 role of me in identifying a corpse was to assist the family. I never said
3 that I would suggest to the family or to take a different road where I
4 could do something negative. It is always my task to assist family
5 members in the process of identification.
6 Q. Yes, thank you, I understand. So you don't say this is it; you
7 don't claim that this is how things stand but you try and combine what you
8 hear from them and what you tell them for them to be able to accept all
9 this as part of what they already know. Am I right in saying that?
10 A. Yes, you're quite right.
11 Q. My question for you now is, do you take into account a specific
12 psychological state which quite certainly appears in cases where persons
13 are missing, where family members spend years looking for their nearest
14 and dearest, and when they are not at rest, and then when we wish to find
15 the body so that they could give their family member a proper funeral and
16 put it behind them, and that they are prone, in one way or another, to
17 accept what you tell them, especially in identification cases of this kind
18 where we have no body but just the bones, that they are very willing to
19 confirm something to end this personal drama of theirs. Have you come
20 across cases of that kind and in the course of your practice, did you have
21 cases in which there were repeated autopsies or something of that kind?
22 Could you give us your views and experience on the subject. Thank you.
23 A. I spoke about the methods of identification earlier on, and I
24 stated first and foremost that we undertake a description first.
25 First of all, we describe what we find, all the external traits
1 and internal traits during the autopsy. Everything is described and
2 photographed, so these are assistant auxiliary methods, photography and so
3 on. When I have completed all that, I tell the family, having asked them
4 what the -- their family member was wearing, I say I have found such and
5 such, does that coincide? Does it correspond to what you know? Height
6 and so on. And only then do I take the family members into the autopsy
7 room for them to be able to see for themselves the state of the body and
8 that a corpse exists.
9 So that is the final stage, the disclosure of the corpse. Now,
10 why is that the final stage? It is precisely because of the
11 psychological state that the family members are in, because they are
12 family members who are not medically trained. They have had no contact
13 previously, perhaps, with corpses, dead bodies. And as soon as they enter
14 the autopsy room, they usually break out into tears. I have to prepare
15 the family members before they enter the autopsy room to prepare them to
16 view the body. So that is the final stage and final method of
18 Q. Final, but decisive, is that right? If they say, yes, it is, and
19 if it comes out with what you know, that is all right, that is the end of
20 it. Is that right?
21 A. Before they enter the autopsy room, unless all the details
22 correspond to what they have said and what I have found, then I say to
23 them, This does not correspond, our findings do not correspond to the body
24 of your family member; and in that case, there's no need for them to go
25 into the autopsy room.
1 Q. Yes, Doctor, that is clear to me. But these are situations --
2 border situations; they can be, but needn't be. We are talking about a
3 skeleton, that's all we have. What is decisive then? Is the final say of
4 the family members decisive? That's how I understand it. So it is not
5 on the basis of an analysis, which would take into consideration all the
6 different factors. So there is always a certain measure of uncertainty,
7 is that right, in which the family members have the definite say?
8 A. I told you how the team conducting an exhumation is composed. You
9 don't only have the forensic expert; you have the crime technicians and
10 crime police, you have the investigating Judge, you have the Prosecutor.
11 They are all present so that all the family members must talk to all the
12 members of the team, because the investigating Judge has the final say in
13 the exhumation process.
14 Q. Yes, Doctor, I understand what you're telling me. I understand it
15 all. But what I want to ascertain here is that the bones that you
16 identified, employing the method that you employed, as being the body of
17 Nenad Harmandic, I say that on the basis of what we are analyzing - the
18 clothing factor, the height factor, the location of the bullet factor -
19 all those factors cannot tell us with absolute certainty whether they are
20 Harmandic's bones. It is only a DNA analysis which could tell us with top
21 -- a top measure of certainty whether they are or not. All the rest is a
22 combination of factors, combination of scientific facts, the family
23 members and the need to find the body of that particular man. So my
24 question to you is the following: In your opinion, is this a 100 percent
25 proof identification, or can you not have 100 percent certainty unless you
1 carry out a DNA analysis? That is all I am asking you. That is what I am
2 trying to arrive at.
3 A. A DNA analysis is the foolproof method, the surest and most
4 conclusive method, and we carry out DNA analyses. But when it is an
5 unknown person, and yes, the DNA method is the best, most foolproof
7 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, what do you have to say to the
8 findings by Professor Skavic? Is that absolutely acceptable? Do you have
9 any comments to make? Can you say that Skavic was wrong in this section
10 of his analysis or, according to what he had at his disposal, would you
11 say that the analysis was acceptable? What is your view on this report?
12 Do you find it acceptable or not?
13 A. I have read the findings made by the professor. I cannot state my
14 views as to its acceptability or not. That is up to the Trial Chamber to
15 judge. I have read it. I think that it does not deviate in any way from
16 the findings because he mostly bases his analysis on lengths, and he
17 cannot conjure up other formulas but the formulas that I have here. They
18 are formulas which are well known in the world today. There are no other
19 formulas for calculating the length of a corpse on the basis of lengths of
20 the bones. So if he added 1 centimetre and so on, this margin is
21 acceptable. I have said that the margin could even be 5 centimetres, as
22 high as 5 centimetres, so you don't need any further opinions on my part.
23 Q. So it does not deviate from your scientific views from what you
24 did. Can I take you to have said that?
25 A. I have said that I do not wish to give my opinion any further than
1 what I have said.
2 Q. Thank you, Dr. Zujo. I have no further questions.
3 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have completed my
5 JUDGE LIU: Any cross-examination? Yes, Mr. Meek.
6 Cross-examined by Mr. Meek:
7 Q. Good morning, Dr. Zujo. My name is Chris Meek, and I'm one of the
8 counsel for Mr. Mladen Naletilic. I just have a few questions.
9 A little bit confused on the exhumation process. You indicated, I
10 believe, that at the actual cemetery where the body is exhumed, that there
11 are many crime technicians, policemen, examining Judge, and a Prosecutor
12 present besides you and the other doctor. Correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And are the family members questioned and spoken to by the
15 different individuals - such as the Prosecutor, the Judge, the police -
16 prior to or after the body is actually exhumed?
17 A. Before exhumation, they have the facts; that is to say, there is
18 the commission for searching for missing persons. They have their files.
19 And those files include all the details about the missing person.
20 Q. Then the actual body that is exhumed is still in the ground when
21 all these questions are asked to the family. Is that correct?
22 A. Before the body is exhumed, that is to say, the commission for
23 searching for missing persons receives information, and then the
24 commission sends them on to the Prosecution of the cantonal or district
25 court, and the Prosecutor forwards them to the investigating Judge. The
1 investigating Judge issues an order whereby the exhumation is to be
2 conducted. And we, as the Institute for Forensic Medicine in Sarajevo,
3 receive that order from the Judge, and the full team goes out to the
4 exhumation site on a given date and day and time.
5 Q. You mentioned in your testimony this morning that your
6 measurements are based on a proportionality of a person's body. Is that
8 A. When the bodies are fresh, we measure the length from head to toe.
9 But if we're only dealing with a skeleton, then we use parameters of the
10 kind that I have already described; the diameter of the head, the upper
11 leg, and so on.
12 Q. Did you receive any information from the family of Mr. Harmandic
13 that he was built proportionally?
14 A. I can't remember. I really can't say.
15 Q. You also indicated in your testimony that every person -- I
16 believe, and I want you to correct me if I am wrong -- that every person,
17 after they turn 30 years of age, begins to lose height at an average of
18 .06 centimetres a year. Was that your statement?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. And is that for every one of us; you, me, and everybody in this
21 courtroom and in this world?
22 A. All people.
23 Q. And you -- your specialty is forensic medicine, but you're also a
24 medical doctor. Correct?
25 A. I graduated from the faculty of medicine first, and later on, my
1 specialist training was forensic medicine as a pure specialty.
2 Q. Would you agree with me that every human being has a certain
3 amount of a growth hormone, and that some people lack that growth hormone?
4 A. Yes. It is considered that the thymus gland, which is located
5 here [Indicating], takes part in growth. And from age 16 upwards, it
6 ceases. The thymus becomes fatty tissue and disappears after age 16.
7 During an autopsy, if I find just a little -- I find just a portion of
8 that fatty tissue. Now, if after age 16, it is retained, that means that
9 we have a disturbance in growth and everything else because they are
10 internal secretion glands. It is the endogenous system of the body.
11 Q. I take it with these skeletal remains, you didn't have that
12 opportunity in this case. Is that correct?
13 A. No, because we only discovered the skeleton, which means that the
14 muscles and all the bodily organs had decayed, and all that was left was
15 around the bone but it was all decayed matter.
16 Q. Would you agree with me, Doctor, that some people who have an
17 excess of the growth hormone can continue to grow, even after they are 30
18 years old or even after they are 40 years old?
19 A. You are talking about the hyperthymesis, and that is the director
20 of all internal secretion glands, and the hyperthymesis -- if the full
21 section of the hyperthymesis flourishes due to an excess of tissue and
22 there are tumors, then we have acromegalia of the jaw and hands,
23 the extremities. You have had occasion to see people with large,
24 elongated jaws. That is what we call acromegalia, or this enlargement of
25 the extremities, the fingers. But this is a result of disorder of the
1 hyperthymesis. And usually adenoma, which are tumors in the hyperthymesis
2 area and the foresection of the hyperthymesis, so in those cases, that can
3 be found.
4 Q. If I understand your testimony correctly, Doctor, you didn't have
5 a lower jaw to examine in this case, did you?
6 A. Yes, there was the lower jaw in our findings, and the teeth of the
7 lower jaw. But not the upper teeth. We were not able to see the upper
8 teeth in the upper jaw because the upper jaw was fractured. There were
9 multiple fractures. But yes, we did have a lower jaw.
10 Q. In regards to the exhumation and autopsy of Aziz Colakovic, I want
11 you to go straight to your conclusion, if you will. It starts with: "The
12 injuries to the rib and ulna were most likely the result..." Do you see
13 that paragraph, Doctor?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Would you agree with me that, from your autopsy on this body, that
16 you could not -- could not establish within a reasonable medical certainty
17 the cause of death but that you basically concluded that it was "most
18 likely" or "most probably," but not within a reasonable medical certainty?
19 A. The injuries that we found with Aziz Colakovic were a fracture of
20 the 8th rib and a fracture of the ulna, right ulna. And we said that
21 these were injuries inflicted by a part of a shell, or a projectile from a
22 firearm. We based this upon the fact that the injuries were limited, and
23 they were characteristic of injuries inflicted with this type of weapon.
24 As far as the rest is concerned, bleeding existed, and we said most
25 probably that this bleeding was the direct cause of death.
1 Q. Which are you talking about; are you talking about a bullet or are
2 you talking about shrapnel or are you talking about a fragmentation? What
3 is it exactly? Can you tell us within a reasonable medical certainty?
4 A. We said in our findings that most probably they were
5 fragmentations of bombs or shells or a bullet fired from a firearm, so we
6 weren't able to say 100 percent as to the exact portion.
7 MR. MEEK: Your Honours, I see it's 1.00. Thank you very much. I
8 have maybe a question or two after lunch is all.
9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Usher, would you please bring the doctor out of
10 the room first.
11 We'll resume at 2.30 this afternoon.
12 --- Luncheon recess taken at 13.01 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.30 p.m.
2 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Meek, please continue.
3 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
4 Q. Good afternoon, Doctor. How are you?
5 A. Good afternoon. Thank you, I'm well.
6 Q. I only have a few more questions. I would like you to clear up
7 the bullet that you claim that you found in this bag, the body bag.
8 That's where you found it. Correct?
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer?
10 MR. STRINGER: I hesitate to interject, but I think it would be
11 useful to know whether, in light of the last remark from counsel, whether
12 the Defence for Naletilic disputes the fact that the bullet was found with
13 the body. I think there has been debate about the location and its
14 significance, but the last remark was that -- indicated to me that counsel
15 is disputing whether the bullet was found at all. And if that's the case,
16 I think that he should put it to the witness.
17 JUDGE LIU: I believe there's some follow-up questions put forward
18 by Mr. Meek later on. You may proceed, Mr. Meek.
19 MR. MEEK: For my learned colleague, I will rephrase the question.
20 Q. Doctor, you testified you that found a bullet with this body or
21 near this body of Harmandic. Correct?
22 A. During the autopsy, we found a projectile, calibre 6.35, in the
23 area of the right thigh, and I think that that is in the report.
24 Q. Can you tell us, if you know, where is this projectile or bullet
1 A. I said that crime technicians of the police also worked there.
2 Any bullet, shrapnel, and such, as a rule, they take, and they -- they
3 take with them for expertise with the police. And so this is in the
4 cantonal police in Mostar. Let me just add that the bullet was also
5 photographed, and the photo album is an integral part of the report.
6 Q. And Doctor, you understand that we've only been provided with the
7 report of your autopsy findings and the report of your colleague that you
8 initialled -- no, I take that...
9 Let me ask this question, Doctor: You indicated that the police
10 officers and investigators would talk to the family first to determine
11 what they could -- what information they could give the police and
12 officials in regards to items of clothing, for example. Is this correct?
13 A. I have already pointed out the method of identification. That
14 means that the starting point was the commission for missing persons, and
15 then the police got involved, and then the court.
16 Q. Would you know whether or not the police would have had or
17 generated a report of any statements made by the family members regarding
18 what types of things to look for to identify their loved one?
19 A. I don't have such information because that is a police matter.
20 Q. Would it be a fair statement, Doctor, that you cannot express an
21 opinion as to the time of death in Mr. Harmandic's case, or this body that
22 you claim to be Harmandic?
23 A. I could not say anything about the time of death.
24 Q. Well, in your report, which you have in front of you, under Tab --
25 at least in English, it's Tab A. It would be Tab C in your language. At
1 the very end, under the "Opinion" -- do you find that yet, Doctor? You
2 also indicate in that: "The state of post-mortem changes found as a result
3 of a lengthy process which took place while the body was buried in the
4 ground and may correspond to the time that elapsed from the moment the
5 event occurred and to the description of the alleged events."
6 My question to you, Doctor, is by your last answer, you do not
7 agree with that opinion?
8 A. I agree with this opinion, the opinion that we have offered here
9 in writing.
10 Q. Then would you tell me, what was the time and date of death?
11 A. I would not be able to express any opinion as to the date and
12 time, and the reason for it because I did not have all the elements to
13 establish things that I would have been able to establish if I had a fresh
14 body. That is, on the basis of bones alone, I can say that they were not
15 older than ten years, which means that it's consistent with the period of
16 when the war first started and the time of the autopsy.
17 Q. So in your best judgment, can you express an opinion as to the
18 year of the date of the death, even?
19 A. As far as the year is concerned and the time elapsed, you first
20 have to ask yourself, where was this body buried, why skeletonisation
21 ensued, why the body decomposed; whereas you have other bodies which were
22 buried in -- at a similar time but they underwent the process of
23 saponification, which means that they were in different conditions with a
24 different type of humidity; whereas you had some bodies which were exposed
25 to such conditions that the decomposition follows very quickly, that is,
1 of the soft tissue and the internal organs, and so we are only left with
2 the skeleton.
3 Q. You would agree with me, Doctor, that you cannot give or form any
4 opinion and express that opinion as to the location of this body at the
5 time of death, can you?
6 A. I can give you an answer to that because I was personally present
7 at the exhumation. I saw the structure of the soil. I saw the depth at
8 which the body was interred, and I can say that the structure of the soil
9 was such that it led to very quick decomposition of the soft tissues so
10 that we were only left with skeletal remains.
11 Q. Doctor, let me try to rephrase the question. Perhaps you didn't
12 understand. Do you have an opinion as to where the body was at the time
13 of death, the location at the time of the death?
14 JUDGE CLARK: [No microphone]
15 A. I wouldn't be able to answer that.
16 MR. MEEK: Thank you. I understand, Judge.
17 Thank you very much, Doctor. I wish you a good trip back.
18 JUDGE LIU: Any re-examination, Mr. Stringer?
19 MR. STRINGER: Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
20 Re-examined by Mr. Stringer:
21 Q. Dr. Zujo, you were asked about the location and availability of a
22 number of the articles that were found with or on the body; the bullet,
23 the belt buckle, articles of clothing. Would an accused be able to make a
24 request, either to your offices or to the local authorities, should they
25 want to gain access to any of those items?
1 A. They would first -- we would first have to check with the crime
2 technical service of the cantonal police in Mostar. But everything else,
3 all other articles are typically buried with the remains, unless the
4 family specifically requests certain items which they would like to take
5 home with them, in which case we allow that.
6 Q. You were asked about the procedure, if you will, in terms of the
7 family coming to view a body. And I wanted just to ask you again about
8 that. Does the family decide what body they will view, or who has the
9 authority to authorize a family to come look at a body, and under what
10 conditions are such viewings approved?
11 A. Because the investigative magistrate and the public Prosecutor
12 control the entire process of exhumation and autopsy, it is to them that
13 we give the entire file, all the information, including the ones gathered
14 by the crime technicians. And it is only after that that the family is
15 allowed to enter the room where the remains are in order to view the body
16 and identify it.
17 Q. But does that take place only after it's determined that the
18 information provided by the family sufficiently matches the results of the
19 examination, then, to justify taking that next step?
20 A. After the investigating magistrate and the commission provide all
21 the information, and then we add the information regarding the height, the
22 age, and any specific features, we turn this all over to the Prosecutor.
23 And on the basis of all this information and information received from the
24 family, it is only after all that is gathered that the family members are
25 allowed to enter the room.
1 Q. You were asked about the possibility of DNA testing in this case.
2 And I should just simply ask you, was DNA testing a possibility? Were
3 known DNA samples of Nenad Harmandic available to you such that you could
4 have compared those with DNA from the body?
5 A. During the autopsy, and after the completed autopsy, we turned
6 over all the information and the identification was carried out and it was
7 established that the deceased person was Nenad Harmandic. So that we did
8 not take samples of bone for DNA analysis. In cases where the family says
9 that this is -- this indeed are the remains of the person that they were
10 looking for, then we don't take DNA samples for analysis.
11 Q. At the time of the identification, are you saying, then, that
12 there was sufficient confidence that the identification was correct that
13 it was felt unnecessary to proceed with the DNA testing?
14 A. In this specific case, there was no doubt regarding the
15 identification, and this is why the body was released to the family for
17 Q. Dr. Zujo, I would like to direct you to the letter opinion that
18 was provided to you by my learned colleague Mr. Par during his
19 cross-examination. This is the opinion of Dr. Josip Skavic. Do you have
20 that in front of you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I wanted to compare this opinion and the methods used to those
23 found in the examination and methods that you applied. First of all, it
24 appeared to me that Dr. Skavic applied the same method in respect of
25 calculations of body height based on the length of the femur and the
1 length of the humerus. Is that correct?
2 A. Dr. Skavic used here, that is, he rounded off, as far as the femur
3 is concerned; he put the figure of 185. That is correct, 185 is correct
4 because the femur was 50 centimetres long. And if you calculate, as I
5 stated previously, based on the tables, that the length of the body would
6 be the length of the femur multiplied with 3.66 for males, which would
7 translate into 185, even though Professor Skavic went a bit higher as far
8 as the calculation is concerned. But that would be about 185.08.
9 Q. I'm asking perhaps just a bit more general terms, the
10 methodologies used. He relied in part on the length of the femur; you did
11 the same something. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, however, it's beginning to sound to me as though the factor
14 that has been used, based on the femur length, is perhaps different. You
15 have been applying a factor of 3.66 whereas, as indicated in his letter,
16 Dr. Skavic has used a factor of 3.76. And perhaps I should ask you
17 whether that's a material difference or is a difference which can be
18 reconciled with the factor that you've applied?
19 A. It can be reconciled with the factor because the deviation is not
20 big in terms of the formula itself which is used for calculation.
21 Q. So in any event, do I understand correctly that in respect of the
22 bone length, the femur, the humerus, that's a methodology which is
23 consistent with the methodology used by you; so that you basically agree
24 with each other on that point?
25 A. You see, I have a table in front of me, and I said for males, the
1 factor is 3.66 for the femur. And for females, 3.71. That is for
2 females. And for males, 3.66.
3 Q. Now, I noticed that you applied an additional criterion based on
4 the diameter of the skull, and that does not appear to have been
5 considered by Dr. Skavic. And so my question to you, Doctor, is whether
6 Dr. Skavic's failure to consider the diameter of the skull would affect
7 his findings in any way, or whether it may, again, be something that could
8 nevertheless result in consistency with your own findings?
9 A. With skeletonised bodies, the number of factors used -- and in our
10 case, we had a skull available, so this is something that has to be taken
11 into account, because if you compare the proportions of the skull and
12 compare it to the proportion of the body, the diameter of the skull in
13 millimetres should be equivalent to the height of a person in centimetres.
14 But because we had other bones available as well, we took both the femur
15 and humerus in order -- and we took their diameters as well in order to
16 get as accurate data. And if I looked at Doctor Skavic's report, he did
17 not take -- he did not consider the diameter of the skull which we had
19 Q. And in your opinion, does his failure to make that calculation
20 affect or, if you will, undermine his calculations in any way?
21 A. It is an omission, because he should have entered that figure
22 because, in any autopsy, we do that measurement, and that measurement is
23 made part of any autopsy report.
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr Par.
25 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I don't know if Mr. Stringer is going to
1 continue this line of questioning, but I think that the witness did not
2 answer the question. He did not answer as to how that would affect these
3 calculations. But I am not sure if I have interrupted Mr. Stringer.
4 MR. STRINGER: I could rephrase the question, Mr. President, or we
5 could reread the last question to the witness. I thought the witness had
6 answered the question.
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, you may ask the last part of the question again.
8 MR. STRINGER:
9 Q. The failure to consider skull diameter, I take it from what you're
10 saying, is a fairly standard factor which one would expect to find in an
11 autopsy of this nature when one has the bones available. Is that correct?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Are you surprised that Dr. Skavic did not consider that or that he
14 did not make that calculation in this opinion?
15 A. In any event, he should have done that.
16 Q. His failure to have considered skull diameter, does that undermine
17 his ultimate findings in respect of body height?
18 A. The sum of these measurements - the measurements of the skull, of
19 the femur, of the humerus - would all provide a picture, and that would
20 allow him to reach a conclusion which he would reach at the end of his
22 Q. Dr. Zujo, in any event, Dr. Skavic arrives at an assumed height of
23 185.08 centimetres. Now, would it be normally accepted that there would
24 be some standard deviation plus or minus from that figure?
25 A. Previously I have stated that you can add 5 centimetres, that is
1 add, plus 5 centimetres to the skeletonised bodies. And I have also seen
2 in certain cases that more than 5 were added, but you can certainly add
4 Q. Now, I would like to take you to your statement that was provided
5 to the Judges, on page 4, in which you stated that: "We determined the
6 length of the skeleton to be 182 to 183 centimetres. This calculation has
7 a margin of error of plus or minus 2 centimetres."
8 Dr. Zujo, this is -- I'm taking this from -- if you like, I could
9 put that document in front of you, if you'd like.
10 A. I have it, thank you.
11 Q. So first of all, now you've mentioned a deviation of 5, and you
12 say you've seen a deviation that's even greater than 5. The deviation in
13 your report is 2, so can we conclude from that that you were being a bit
14 conservative in the estimate than that appears in your findings in respect
15 of Nenad Harmandic?
16 A. We found during the autopsy that the diameter of the skull was
17 180; the thigh 50, and the other measurements. But as you say, we were
18 critical, so we took 182 to 183 centimetres. Had we just taken the femur,
19 which was 50 centimetres in length and the factor 3.66 for men - and I
20 underline for males, and for women it is 3.71 - then that would be 185.
21 If we were just to take the femur and added 5 more centimetres, that would
22 make it 190, taking just the femur.
23 Q. Now -- and in fact when we were talking about 182 to 183
24 centimetres, we're talking about the length -- I should say, we have yet
25 to add an additional 5 centimetres?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Which is what is done, then, to reach the height of the individual
3 as a living person. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes, you're quite right. When we added the head and the femur and
5 the humerus -- for example, the humerus, 36, would correspond to 182; the
6 femur, 185; the skull diameter, 180. So we took a mean value and said 182
7 to 183 in our report. That is an average. We didn't look at just one
8 independent detail such as the skull diameter or the femur or the humerus.
9 Q. Then by your calculations, that would bring the height of this
10 person as a living human being to 187 to 188 centimetres?
11 A. Yes, at all events, you could say that, yes.
12 Q. Dr. Skavic having arrived at very close to 186 centimetres, so is
13 it correct to say that, again, your final calculations are quite
14 consistent with those of Dr. Skavic?
15 JUDGE LIU: Would you please be quiet.
16 I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Stringer. Would you please re-ask
17 your question.
18 MR. STRINGER:
19 Q. Dr. Zujo, Dr. Skavic's figures come very close to 186 centimetres;
20 his final calculation was 185.08. Yours come in, then -- yours come in,
21 then, at 187 to 188. From a medical point of view, is the difference
22 between your final number and Dr. Skavic's final number significant from,
23 I guess, a medical or forensic perspective?
24 A. Dr. Skavic just took 3.76 for the femur, and I took 3.66.
25 Therefore, it's a negligible difference, or rather, not a very big one.
1 He moved towards a female, because .71 is for females, and as I said, for
2 men, it is 3.66.
3 Q. Can you offer an opinion as to why Dr. Skavic applied the factor
4 of 3.76?
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Par.
6 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have an objection to
7 all these questions with respect to the calculations of Mr. Skavic because
8 this expert witness said that it was unacceptable because not everything
9 was taken into account that he considered should have been. So if he does
10 not accept it, he cannot, on the basis of Dr. Skavic's calculations, add,
11 subtract centimetres and so on. I think it would be better for the
12 witness to speak about his own findings as we don't have Mr. Skavic here.
13 So that is the gist of my objection, thank you.
14 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that the last couple questions are
15 quite good. You presented this report, and now it's the turn for this
16 witness to comment on this report. But I don't think the last question is
17 good because you asked this witness to offer an opinion as to why Dr.
18 Skavic applied the factor of 3.76. I don't think it's a good question
19 because this witness could only testify for himself rather than for
20 another doctor.
21 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I'll try and ask it, perhaps, in a
22 different way.
23 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Stringer, can I just say something. From
24 reading the reports of the Professor Skavic and Professor Zujo here, it is
25 shouting out at me that both professors used different calculations
1 because one professor used a calculation to work out the body of the
2 skeleton, the height of the skeleton, to which he then added on 5
3 centimetres to bring him to his live height, and the other professor
4 ignored the height of the skeleton and he only dealt with the live
5 height. And obviously you have to come to different -- use different
6 calculations. I mean, it's perfectly obvious from the reports that the
7 professor from Zagreb doesn't attempt to arrive at a measurement of the
8 skeleton, but he says that he is ascertaining what the height of the body
9 is when he is living, the living person. And your expert here is dealing
10 with a dead person -- I'm sorry, the skeleton, and then he adds on 5
11 centimetres. So the question really you have to direct to this professor,
12 in my opinion, is that if he were to apply the same calculations, would
13 they be valid calculations at estimating the live height of this person?
14 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Dr. Zujo, you heard Judge Clark's comments. There have been two
16 approaches taken; one is to calculate the size of the skeleton and then to
17 add length to bring this to a living person. That was your approach. And
18 Dr. Skavic's method was to go straight to the calculation resulting in the
19 size of the living person.
20 Are both methodologies equally acceptable in your profession, and
21 if so, does that explain the different factors that were utilized by you
22 and Dr. Skavic as applied to the length of femur?
23 A. As far as the factors for the femur are concerned, I took the
24 factor of 3.66 whereas Dr. Skavic took the factor of 3.76, .76. These
25 parameters were found in literature. I haven't thought them up; they come
1 from literature. They are tables that are recognised and contained in all
2 textbooks for identification. However, this figure of 3.76, I don't quite
3 know what it is because for females it is 3.71, should be .71, and for
4 males 3.66. I applied the 3.66 formula. So on the basis of that formula,
5 my calculations were that the length of the femur was approximately 100 --
6 or rather, the length or height of the body was 185 centimetres or
8 Q. Dr. Skavic uses a factor of 3.76, applies that to the length of
9 the femur in order to determine the height of the -- the height of the
10 body, the living body. You've done it differently, I believe. You've
11 applied a factor of 3.66 to the length of the femur in order to calculate
12 the length of the skeleton.
13 A. This is the case if the individual is proportionately built. What
14 do we mean when we say "proportionately"? It means that all the organs
15 and bones are proportionately constructed, built. But we have, of course,
16 individuals who are, from the waist up, higher, they are longer, compared
17 to the femur and the legs. But that is precisely why we took these
18 parameters. We took the head, we took the upper arm, we took the femur,
19 and arrived at, if I can call it, a mean value for us to be able to
20 determine the length of that particular body.
21 Q. The method that you applied is one that's used for a proportional
22 body. Is that what you're saying?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. Does that mean that the method used by Dr. Skavic is one that
25 would be used in the case of a disproportionate body?
1 A. No, he also used the same method just like the one we used, but he
2 took a higher factor for the femur compared to our own factor which we
3 recorded in the report, in the autopsy report.
4 Q. And it's my understanding, then, that you are not -- you can't
5 explain where his factor of 3.76 came from.
6 A. No, I can't.
7 Q. Dr. Zujo, Dr. Skavic also did not challenge your consideration of
8 other aspects, such as the footwear, the clothing, other items found with
9 or on the body at the time of the exhumation. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes, although he says that the methods were not good ones. But I
11 should like to know what the other options are if they are not clothes,
12 height, age, and so on, what methods those would be. And of course,
13 ultimately, the particle for DNA analysis. So all this is within the
14 frameworks of identification. They are the basic input elements for us to
15 be able to come up with something and tell the family members about the
17 Q. You described, in your cross-examination, matter that remained
18 around the bones, putrefied matter that was found around the bones of the
19 body, together with articles of clothing, such as the remains of blue
20 jeans. Are you able to say or give us an idea, any greater idea of the
21 location of the 6.35 calibre bullet in relation to the jeans or any of the
22 putrefied matter, specifically whether the bullet was inside or outside
23 the trousers at the time of the examination?
24 A. The body was wrapped in a military -- in an army blanket, and it
25 was -- the body was lying on its back, which means that all the soft
1 tissues were decayed and around the skeleton, so that we found the
2 projectile in the region or at the level of the right upper leg, so in
3 this putrefied matter.
4 Q. The finding of this bullet, how significant was that in the
5 greater -- among the other factors that led to the identification?
6 A. It was an indicator on the basis of what the family had told us,
7 on the basis of what we found. So this was yet one more detail in the
8 identification process.
9 Q. During my learned friend's cross-examination, you were asked a
10 great deal about the height calculations and he on a couple of occasions
11 asked you, I think, to speak to that issue in isolation. The
12 identification process, is it one in which all of these factors are
13 considered in isolation, or are they all put together?
14 A. Those factors in the identification process are a conglomerate of
15 details for us to be able to arrive at a conclusion that we can then tell
16 the family.
17 Q. In the last paragraph of his opinion letter, Dr. Skavic states:
18 "It ought to be stated that there is a number of elements in
19 identification of the dead body of unknown person under the working number
20 05 which cast a serious doubt over the conclusion that it was the dead
21 body of Nenad Harmandic and that all doubts could only be resolved by
22 exhumation and application of the method of DNA identification." Dr.
23 Skavic's opinion that these elements cast serious doubt over the
24 identification, do you share that view, Dr. Zujo?
25 A. I do not share that view, the view expressed in the last paragraph
1 because it is our task to assist the families, that we put all the pieces
2 of the jigsaw puzzle together and that identification has taken place, and
3 that is why we did not take particles for DNA analysis.
4 Q. Can you tell us, Dr. Zujo, your own opinion as to the quality of
5 the identification of the body that has been identified as Nenad
6 Harmandic? What is your own level of confidence in that identification?
7 A. I am certain that I have provided all the data and that the data
8 has been set forth in the identification file for recognition and
10 Q. Are you confident that the body identified as that of Nenad
11 Harmandic is, in fact, the body of Nenad Harmandic?
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. The answer was inaudible.
13 A. According to all the information and facts that I received, and
14 according to the comparisons, what I compared, the information that I got
15 from the family, I would say that everything goes to show that we are
16 dealing with Nenad Harmandic when we compare the two.
17 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Doctor. No further questions, Mr.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Par.
20 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I'm not sure that the last answer given
21 by Dr. Zujo has been introduced into the transcript. I think what he said
22 was, "I cannot answer that question."
23 THE INTERPRETER: We did not hear that part of the answer.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stringer, would you please make that clear
25 for us. What's the answer of this witness to your last question?
1 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President.
2 Q. Dr. Zujo, they missed part of your answer. So I'll just simply
3 reread my question to you and ask you to answer again.
4 Are you confident that the body identified as that of Nenad
5 Harmandic is in fact the body of Nenad Harmandic?
6 A. I cannot answer that question. I cannot answer the question.
7 Q. A moment ago, the answer that I got was that, based on the
8 information and facts that you received, and according to the comparisons,
9 the information you got from the family, you would say that everything
10 goes to show that we are dealing with Nenad Harmandic when we compare the
12 A. That is correct. But for me to claim that that is that corpse, on
13 the basis of all the details that I was given by the family and the
14 details that I found, that would correspond to the fact that the body was
15 that of Nenad Harmandic.
16 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. No further questions.
17 JUDGE LIU: Any questions from Judges? Yes, Judge Clark.
18 Questioned by the Court:
19 JUDGE CLARK: Doctor, from your evidence, as I understand it, your
20 role was primarily to assist the families to identify their missing
21 relatives. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes, that is correct.
23 JUDGE CLARK: Did your attendance at the interment place, the
24 exhumation, and the autopsy have a dual role in that you were also
25 investigating the cause of death?
1 A. Yes.
2 JUDGE CLARK: And would you say that the primary task which was
3 being undertaken that day was to assist the relatives or to pursue a
4 criminal investigation, or was it a bit of both? And I want you to think
5 carefully about that, the criminal investigation element of the
7 A. Yes, I have understood your question. Exhumation and autopsy we
8 conducted following an order from the court, the cantonal court in Mostar.
9 That means that it was not the family which asked but it was the court
10 which demanded an autopsy, and it was following the order from the court
11 that we conducted the exhumation and autopsy process.
12 JUDGE CLARK: Do I understand from that that the order from the
13 court related to a criminal investigation, and at the same time that that
14 was going on, the commission for displaced persons took advantage of the
15 exhumation to see if they could identify this person?
16 A. The first was the court's business and the criminal proceedings.
17 Now, the order of how the commission went and moved vis-a-vis the court,
18 whether they had the information as to where that person was buried, I
19 really don't know. I can't say. Because we were brought to the spot, to
20 the Liska Park cemetery, we were shown the location, and that's where we
21 started the exhumation. As to the details, I don't know.
22 JUDGE CLARK: I'm sorry if I'm labouring this, Doctor, but can we
23 take it because you acted on foot of a court order that there was actually
24 a criminal investigation being conducted? Is that a presumption we can
25 make because of the court order and the presence of the police?
1 A. Yes.
2 JUDGE CLARK: When you were brought to that location, can you tell
3 the Court, for our assistance, what was the -- what were the physical
4 features of the ground? Was it ground on which grass was growing? Did it
5 have any appearance of having been disturbed? Was it in pristine
6 condition? What was the condition of the area from which this body was
8 A. The body was buried near a fence in the cemetery, and on that
9 particular day, we conducted the exhumation of newborn babies who had died
10 in hospital and we exhumed parts of bodies, and we were brought to the
11 spot and shown where the exhumation was to be conducted. There was no
12 soil. There was a sort of hole, I don't know the exact depth, but it
13 means that some digging had been done there beforehand, and when we
14 started digging further, we came across the body.
15 JUDGE CLARK: So are you saying, Doctor, that when you arrived
16 there, that there had been some excavations already in the area of where
17 this body was removed?
18 A. Not fresh ones.
19 JUDGE CLARK: Was there grass over the site from which the body
20 was removed?
21 A. No, just some leaves. At the bottom of this hole, there were some
22 dry leaves. That was all.
23 JUDGE CLARK: Was the body at any great depth under the soil?
24 A. Not deep, no.
25 JUDGE CLARK: Were photographs taken of the exhumation?
1 A. Everything.
2 JUDGE CLARK: Everything was photographed. So if I understand you
3 correctly, this body was removed untouched, insofar as you could, in its
4 army blanket?
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE CLARK: Was it -- I think you said it was put into a special
8 A. The digging up, when we dug up the earth, we came across a body
9 wrapped in an army blanket. A photograph -- photographs were taken of the
10 body. One photograph was taken with the blanket over it; another when we
11 uncovered the body, under our supervision. And then the body, together
12 with the blanket, was taken out. And when we had taken all this out, we
13 photographed it again on the surface. And we then placed everything into
14 the body bags. And on the bag was written the court number that we had,
15 the date, and the number of the body itself. This was closed up, and the
16 body was then transferred to the mortuary.
17 JUDGE CLARK: At what stage, Doctor, did you first become aware of
18 the presence of a bullet? Was it at the site where the photographs were
19 taken at the burial site, or was it in the autopsy room?
20 A. I couldn't give you a precise answer to that question now.
21 JUDGE CLARK: I think you said that you carried out this autopsy
22 personally and your colleague kept notes. Would it be your custom to keep
23 personal notes yourself?
24 A. When we conduct exhumations, we create a schedule and we say I'll
25 work in a room today, and he's, for instance, going to take all the notes,
1 to draft a record. And I put on gloves and my smock and I am not able to
2 really do the writing myself.
3 JUDGE CLARK: If -- I know you've conducted very many autopsies,
4 Doctor, but can you actually remember this bullet?
5 A. I cannot at this time, indeed. I, indeed, have done a lot of
6 exhumations, but this one I just cannot recall.
7 JUDGE CLARK: You're very frank. Thank you, Doctor. I would
8 expect that after this remove and the number of autopsies.
9 I know that you're not a ballistics expert, but the measurements
10 which we have been given in the report of the 3.65 millimetres, I believe,
11 bullet, are those your measurements or did you take them from a ballistics
13 A. These were our measurements. We have the instrument; and when we
14 find a bullet, we measure it, and we say this is what it is. And the
15 ballistics expert is the one who has the final word because he provides
16 his own finding.
17 JUDGE CLARK: Because you're a forensic expert, obviously you've
18 come across very many different types of projectiles, and I suppose you've
19 become familiar with their sizes. Is there anything significant in the
20 size of that particular bullet, 3.65? Do you know what kind of a firearm
21 it would come from?
22 A. As far as firearms are concerned, I cannot say. But the calibre
23 of the projectile I can talk about on the basis of measurements, but both
24 the pistol and the automatic rifle used the same ammunition so I will
25 never venture to say that this was fired from a pistol. I can say it is
1 that calibre bullet, but if both a pistol and an automatic rifle are able
2 to use the same ammunition, I am not going to venture and say which type
3 of firearm it was fired from.
4 JUDGE CLARK: I wouldn't ask you that. But can you say that the
5 particular projectile that you found, the 3.65 bullet, was capable of
6 being fired from a pistol?
7 A. Of course it can.
8 JUDGE CLARK: Now, I've looked at the report, and it has been a
9 subject of great debate in relation to your assessment of height and the
10 alternative expert, the Defence expert's assessment of height. Do you see
11 the point that I was making before is that if I take your figures where
12 you arrive at 182 or 183 centimetres, plus or minus 2, which is the margin
13 for error, plus a minimum of 5 centimetres - you said you've seen less --
14 greater additions than that - you say you arrive at an approximate height
15 of the person when living, whereas the professor from Zagreb ignores the
16 -- or appears to ignore the estimate of the skeleton and goes straight
17 for the living height. So there's 5 centimetres between you on your
18 maximum height and his average.
19 If we accept that the information of 196 centimetres was
20 absolutely accurate, even if you take away the diminution in height with
21 the years which, in my assessment, is less than 1 centimetre between 30
22 and age 45, even if you look at that, you come down to 195 centimetres.
23 Is a 5 to 10 centimetre disparity in height significant enough to reject
24 an identification of this body as being that of a man who had a height of
25 196 centimetres when alive?
1 A. From our finding where we say 182 to 183, and Professor Skavic
2 said 185, and I provided my reasons, Professor Skavic took the femur, he
3 took a different parameter for his calculation. Had I only taken the
4 femur alone, I would have said 185. Even if I took 3.66 factor, that
5 would have come up to 185. But 185 gives you another 5 centimetre margin,
6 which is 190. But we were modest here. When I say "modest," we took an
7 average. We took femur, humerus, and skull, and we came to a number of
8 182 to 183. I don't know where the figure 196 comes from.
9 JUDGE CLARK: Just suppose, Doctor, just suppose that in fact was
10 an accurate figure. Just suppose for argument's sake he had been measured
11 in the police academy the day before, and you come up with a maximum
12 height of 190 centimetres, is the 5 centimetre difference significant
13 enough to reject the identification?
14 A. You see, I work on identifications practically on a daily basis,
15 and I do it with a colleague who is also a forensic expert, and I can tell
16 you that she allows up to 10 centimetres of margin. And she, herself, is
17 a forensics expert. Her name is Eva Polinska. You may have even heard of
18 her. We have worked together in Visoko. That is where the Tribunal has
19 been working on some exhumations. The Tribunal has had an office there
20 and they have been working out of that office for a while.
21 But as I said, here I followed the literature to the letter. In
22 fact, I have it with me. I can tell you that I am allowed a margin of 2
23 to 5 centimetres on the bone alone.
24 JUDGE CLARK: Doctor, my understanding of these charts, and my
25 view is open to your expert opinion, is that the charts are a rule of
1 thumb and not an exact science. But there must come a stage -- my
2 question is, there must come a stage at which even in the area of inexact
3 science, that an identification of a body must be rejected on the basis of
4 height. What is the rule of thumb there? Is it 10 percent? Is the
5 deviation from the findings, permitted deviation within what parameters
6 before you reject?
7 Obviously, if this man came in as being 1 metre 65, you would
8 reject the identification as saying it's not scientifically possible for a
9 man of 1 metre 90 to measure as a skeleton of 1 metre 65. So what I'm
10 trying to find out is at height would this man have to be before you
11 reject the identification on the basis of height alone?
12 A. You put the question brilliantly. I work on identification every
13 day. I have such cases that -- where you have documents, you find
14 complete documentation on the body so the parameters are 100 percent
15 accurate. But that would be drastically different. For instance, I found
16 some cases where they had a metal plate in the femur, and I find that.
17 And yet, the height does not agree with the height that I calculated,
18 which means you have a deviation.
19 JUDGE CLARK: So from all that, can we take it that height is only
20 one factor that you consider but it can't be a concluding factor.
21 Now, can I ask you about proportion. This man had the remains of
22 a moccasin on one of his feet. And the size of the moccasin was visible,
23 and it was size 45. Is that -- is there a rule of thumb in relation to
24 the size of feet relative to height and length of femur? A rule of thumb,
25 obviously not a science, a scientific exactitude.
1 A. In my findings, I did not -- that is, I did not base it on the
2 size of feet. His size is 45, which corresponds to tall persons, but on
3 the basis of footwear alone, I never did that. I never estimated the
4 height on that basis, except you can just estimate that it would be a
5 taller person in question.
6 JUDGE CLARK: It has been pointed out to me, Doctor, that when I
7 asked you about the relative or the relationship between feet size and
8 height, and whether it was a rule of thumb or a matter of scientific
9 exactitude, that you didn't in fact answer. I can infer what you are
10 saying from your answer but it was pointed to me that you didn't say yes
11 or no. Is it a rule of thumb or is it more scientific, the relationship
12 between foot size and height?
13 A. There is no scientific principle of that kind at all.
14 JUDGE CLARK: When you talked about the remnants or remains of
15 clothes, the second expert's report refers to a letter or a statement
16 which describes the fabric as being 10 centimetres long. Is that the
17 extent of what you found on this body, just a little fragment of jeans?
18 A. What Dr. Skavic wrote there, that it's a 10 centimetre fabric, I
19 was surprised at this piece of information because we only said the
20 remnants of blue jeans fabric, we did not give any measurements, so I
21 don't know where this 10 centimetres comes from.
22 JUDGE CLARK: Now, this is important, Doctor. I don't know if you
23 can recall it but obviously there are photographs. When we are talking
24 about fragments of clothes on this unfortunate skeleton, are we talking
25 about a recognizable pair of trousers or just scraps of material?
1 A. It is what we found on the body, and we found remnants of blue
2 jeans. In other words, this was the type of clothing that we found, and
3 this was what was important for us. We found remnants of a pair of blue
4 jeans. But I don't know how Dr. Skavic found this 10 centimetre patch.
5 JUDGE CLARK: When the bullet was taken from the area of the body
6 during the autopsy, would you follow the procedure of picking it up with a
7 forceps and dropping it into a small evidence bag and sealing it until
8 further examination?
9 A. We follow the principle that we don't use a forceps. What we --
10 we do it by hand in order not to damage the bullet. You can point at the
11 bullet with forceps when you are taking a photograph. And we do that
12 precisely because of the ballistics expertise that is to follow.
13 JUDGE CLARK: Doctor, the reason I asked you that is because I
14 understood you to say that there was material adhering, decomposing tissue
15 adhering to this bullet, or that it was encapsulated.
16 A. No, I said that this decomposed tissue, the -- was around the
17 bones, and that is where the bullet was, too. We did not need to use a
18 scalpel. You could separate it with your bare hands, that is, with gloved
20 JUDGE CLARK: The reason I ask you all that, Doctor, is I was
21 wondering if it was possible that there might be some material for DNA
22 available without having to exhume the body. That's the reason I asked
23 you that. I was hoping that you were going to say that you removed some
24 of the tissue with the scalpel, but you've answered otherwise; it came out
25 quite freely.
1 A. Yes.
2 JUDGE CLARK: My final question is, did anybody consider or give
3 you any information in relation to Mr. Harmandic's dental records? I
4 shouldn't say Mr. Harmandic; the person on whose body you were carrying
5 out the autopsy.
6 A. During the autopsy, we were unable to carry out identification of
7 the upper jaw because of multiple fractures in it. But in the lower jaw,
8 the right side, the three molars, and on the left side, teeth 3 to 8 were
9 missing. But we were able to have an identification whereas we were
10 unable to do so as regards the upper jaw.
11 JUDGE CLARK: Can you say that to me again. You were able to
12 carry out -- did you compare your findings with records?
13 A. We were unable to because the state of teeth in the upper jaw,
14 both the left and right side, we were unable to carry out identification
15 due to multiple fractures. But in the lower jaw, we were able to
16 determine the state of the teeth on the left and right side.
17 JUDGE CLARK: You see, the transcript here says we were able to
18 have an identification of the lower jaw. So you were able to -- when I
19 say "identification," that is to make comparison with known dental
20 records. Did that happen?
21 A. No, we did not because we had to have had his dental records in
22 order to be able to compare but we were unable to access those records.
23 JUDGE CLARK: It's coming up to 4.00, and we are under strict time
24 constraints, so I'll just confer for a moment with the President.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, it's almost 4.00. I'm afraid we have to keep
2 this witness here for another day.
3 Mr. Usher, would you please show the witness out of the room
5 I have to remind you that tomorrow we only have a half day, and
6 there's some other arrangements for this courtroom for the afternoon
7 sitting. So we only sit until 1.00.
8 We'll resume at 9.30 tomorrow morning.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
10 3.59 p.m., to be reconvened on
11 Friday, the 11th day of January, 2002,
12 at 9.30 a.m.