1 Tuesday, 20 February 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Registrar, good morning to you. Could you
6 call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam.
10 All the accused are present. Defence teams are full -- full house
11 today; full force, too. Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Thayer,
12 Mr. Elderkin.
13 Before we get the witness in, yesterday we heard your submissions,
14 your very learned and constructive, I must say, submissions on the
15 Prosecution fourth motion for leave to amend 65 ter exhibit list, which we
16 have given due consideration to in our deliberations. And as indicated
17 yesterday, we will handing down our decision on this first, and I think
18 then on the remaining two documents from the list of documents that the
19 Prosecution sought to tender in relation to Witness 145 and the two
20 documents that the Gvero Defence team also sought to tender, we postponed
21 our decision until later.
22 So our decision is as follows: First of all, we wish to state
23 that we are guided by our previous decisions on the way such motions
24 should be handled, dealt with. We also wish to enjoin you to exercise the
25 utmost diligence. This will apply not only to the Prosecution, but also
1 to the Defence, because ultimately your case will come up and you will
2 encounter, experience shows you will encounter, the same problem. We will
3 enjoin you all to exercise the utmost diligence and to resort to such
4 motions only when this is essential for a proper administration of
6 We have considered the various submissions. We come to the
7 conclusion that in as far as the one-page montage of four photos obtained
8 from PW-105, PW-105 with unidentified caretakers close to the time of the
9 individual's discharge, no cause has been -- no good cause has been shown,
10 and therefore we are not granting the Prosecution motion for that document
11 to be included in the 65 ter document list.
12 As regards the document being a wound photographs, wound
13 photographs, for the time being we are coming to the conclusion that what
14 is put forward as a good cause by the Prosecution may, at the end of the
15 day, not be proven right. So we are, for the time being, saying that at
16 present no good cause has been shown and therefore the permission to
17 include this -- these photos in -- in the 65 ter list is being withheld,
18 pending further deliberation and determination of the same request, if in
19 the course of cross-examination of that particular witness the need for
20 use of these photographs becomes obvious and evident.
21 The rest -- as regards the rest of the documents related to both
22 Witness 105 and the intercepts related to Witness PW-145, the Trial
23 Chamber is of -- comes to the conclusion that sufficient good cause has
24 been shown and therefore Prosecution is being given authorisation to
25 include them in the 65 ter list.
1 We come now to the two Prosecution lists, two Prosecution
2 documents; namely, the one behind tab 2 and the one behind tab 3. That is
3 English ERN 0320-1098, being an intercept dated 19th [sic] July, and the
4 second one 0320-1099 being also an intercept dated 12th [sic] July; and
5 also the one at tab 10, namely, ERN number 0320-1130. These are being all
6 marked for identification purposes. And as regards the intercepts behind
7 tab 2 and 3, the first two, this decision is being taken after -- also
8 after due consideration of the additional submission by the Gvero Defence
10 Then there is six transcripts from tapes TOO 6580, extract 535 and
11 transcript from the same tape, extract 536, these being 65 ter numbers
12 6D14 and 6D15 respectively. Again, these two are being entered into the
13 records and marked for identification purposes pending the final decision
14 on transcripts.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: As regards -- to complete the picture, as regards
17 the two documents behind tab 2 and tab 3 to which I referred earlier on,
18 the exception, the plea, or the objection raised by the Gvero Defence team
19 had, at its basis, an allegation that they are not a faithful reflection
20 of the original intercept. This is a matter that will ultimately be
21 reserved to our final deliberation stage. So for that particular reason
22 that for the time being these are entered and marked for identification
23 purposes. All right. I think we can safely proceed with the witness.
24 Yes, Mr. Thayer, sorry.
25 MR. THAYER: Good morning, Mr. President. I just want --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: You could avoid standing behind --
2 MR. THAYER: I just wanted to make one correction for the record
3 at page 3, line 3, there is a reference to tab 2, the first intercept,
4 being the 19th of July and that in fact is the 11th of July. I know
5 things are confusing enough, and I just wanted to clarify that.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I hadn't noticed that because I wasn't watching
7 everything at the same time, but I thank you for that correction.
8 So, Mr. McCloskey.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. Good morning. Just a brief
10 point. Mr. Stojanovic and I spoke this morning about a point he was
11 making in cross-examination, and we thought it would be helpful to offer
12 you a stipulation and we can bring it in writing. But that is on the
13 intercept 1158A and B, which is a 14 July intercept at 0910 hours. There
14 is a mention of a MUP person named Mane, you may recall the
15 cross-examination. It's -- it is our stipulation that that is not Mane
16 that you may recall from the film, whose name is actually Mendeljejev
17 Djuric from the MUP, and it's the Prosecution's position that that is Mane
18 Djuric, the deputy commander in the CSB Zvornik. Mr. Stojanovic, I
19 believe he agrees with me on that point, and we can put this in writing if
20 you like. These will be important points as we get down the road.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think you can follow that path. At the same
22 time, please do take into account that it would be a bilateral sort of
23 stipulation with Mr. Stojanovic, not with the others, so perhaps other
24 Defence teams may rally and agree to that stipulation as well. But it's
25 not an invitation, it's just thinking aloud that I am doing that for the
1 time being.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, good morning, Dr. Clark. Welcome back.
4 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We will try to get going straight away.
6 Mr. Elderkin.
7 WITNESS: JOHN CLARK [Resumed]
8 MR. ELDERKIN: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
10 Examination by Mr. Elderkin: [Continued]
11 Q. Good morning, Dr. Clark. Yesterday, I took you through some basic
12 background about your profession and your work in Bosnia. And I'd like to
13 ask just a few more questions now, starting with asking, do you recall
14 testifying here in the Krstic trial?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. And prior to that trial, you prepared a report on the work done in
17 the 1998 season. Have you subsequently prepared any further reports?
18 A. There was a 1999 season that I based on.
19 Q. I beg your pardon.
20 A. Since then I have produced reports for 2000 and 2001 seasons.
21 Q. Could you tell us, please, briefly what were the findings of those
23 A. In -- I'm not sure what kind of detail you want them, but they
24 were --
25 Q. A very general overview in terms of the general nature of the
1 persons found in those graves that were examined in those seasons?
2 A. Well, there were a lot of similarities to the cases presented in
3 the Krstic trial. These were all men of wide age range; some with
4 disabilities, a number had blindfolds and ligatures on them. The vast
5 majority had been -- died as a result of gunshot injuries. And like in
6 the other cases, a number we -- in a number of cases, we were unable to
7 come to a conclusion of the cause of death and we had to leave that as
9 In one specific site, in Glogova, we found a considerable number
10 of men who had died as a result of blast injuries, so from an explosion
11 rather than bullets; but really apart from that, there was a good
12 similarity in the cases.
13 Q. And looking at the group --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Elderkin. Just for the record,
15 present in the courtroom during the testimony of Dr. Clark is Dr. Dunjic,
16 who is forensic expert assigned to -- of the Defence teams.
17 Yes, sorry for the interruption. Please go ahead.
18 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. Looking at the overall group of victims, did you come to any
20 findings as to whether they could have been killed in combat?
21 A. Depends what you define as combat. If you are suggesting that
22 this was a fully equipped army of fighting men, men of fighting age, with
23 military uniforms and weapons, no there was no evidence of that
24 whatsoever. We found no -- no men with any military clothing at all.
25 None of them had any weapons and only occasionally we found some bullets
1 with the bodies in pockets.
2 I suspect you're not really suggesting that, however. If you are
3 taking it down a stage and suggesting that these were a group of men of
4 fighting age, not a formed army, who did have weapons, well, I can't
5 completely exclude that. Because a substantial number were of what we so
6 call fighting age and could have had weapons and could have been killed in
7 a conflict.
8 However, you have to take into account that a large number of men
9 did not fall into that category. We had young men; particularly, we had a
10 lot of elderly people. We had a number who had physical disabilities,
11 which would prevent them from being able to be effectively in a fighting
12 situation. We also have to take into account that in three graves, at
13 least, there were substantial numbers of men with blindfolds and
14 ligatures. That was particularly in Kozluk and Lazete; and to a lesser
15 extent in the Glogova grave, there were 12 men there were ligatures. So
16 that goes against a fighting unit.
17 Thirdly, I think you've got to take into account that, as much as
18 we could determine, most of the -- the majority of shots killing these men
19 came from behind, which is not perhaps what you would expect in a
20 face-to-face conflict situation. And a substantial number of men were
21 killed by a single shot to the back of the head.
22 And I think the fourth consideration is that in any conflict you
23 will get a lot of wounded men, not all men will be killed. There will be
24 substantial numbers, and arguably more people wounded than killed. We
25 had -- with the occasional exception, there was no evidence of large
1 numbers of people who had been wounded before they died; people with
2 bandaged wounds or any other signs of previous injuries.
3 So really for all these reasons I felt, while I cannot completely
4 exclude that there may have been some conflict situation to some extent,
5 that an awful lot of men could not be accounted for in that way, a lot of
6 the deaths could not be accounted for in that way.
7 Q. Thank you. Lastly, I just -- I notice that you've brought with
8 you some papers today. Could you tell us briefly what those are?
9 A. Well, these are, first of all, my three reports from the seasons,
10 the overall chief pathologist report from 1999, 2000, 2001. I have also
11 the sort of working papers, which I used. I had all the post-mortem
12 reports compiled by all the pathologists, and I went through them and
13 extracted relevant information, which I've put on various working sheets
14 which I then, from them, used to make up the final reports. So that's the
15 bulk of the paperwork I have here.
16 Q. Thank you. If during any further questioning you need to refer to
17 any of those papers, please do so, and please let us know.
18 MR. ELDERKIN: Mr. President, Your Honours, I have no further
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much.
21 Yes, Ms. Condon.
22 Cross-examination by Ms. Condon:
23 Q. Dr. Clark, just in relation to your evidence yesterday about the
24 priority in terms of the role of the forensic pathologist being to
25 ascertain the cause of death, what were the limitations that you found in
1 regards your work in those autopsies because many of the remains were
3 A. Yes. There are a lot of limitations, and I've set them out in the
4 report. The main problem, these were bodies which had been dead for some
5 considerable time. The tissues had decomposed and a large number were
6 reduced to skeletons. As pathologists, when we are looking at why people
7 have died, we generally are looking at the sort tissues on the body, the
8 skin, and other materials beneath, looking for bruising and swelling and
9 other injuries.
10 That, of course, was virtually absent in a lot of these cases, so
11 we were reduced to our interpretation of any injuries to them as to the
12 damage to the skeleton. The skeleton will of course have remained. So
13 when we are looking for injuries, primarily, we're looking at injuries in
14 the skeleton.
15 Now -- so that was one thing. The -- trying to say whether an
16 injury to a skeleton, to a bone, occurred before death or just after death
17 is actually very difficult, if not at some stage impossible. Because the
18 bone, you will only see evidence that it's occurred in life once the
19 healing process starts in a bone and that usually takes at least a number
20 of days. So, theoretically, all the injuries in the bones that we saw, I
21 could not 100 per cent say they occurred in life; theoretically, they
22 could have occurred after death. So we have to bear that in mind.
23 Secondly, we had to accept that in this situation with lots of
24 bodies put into a grave one on top of the other, often hundreds of bodies
25 piled on top of each other and perhaps moved around afterwards and lorries
1 going over the graves afterwards, that it was likely that some injuries
2 would be caused after death; broken ribs, fractures of the face, perhaps
3 of the pelvis. And we had to accept that and in a lot of the bodies we
4 noted these; and where we did see these injuries, we accepted these as
5 post-mortem injuries.
6 So, anyway, what I'm trying to say, there is a difficulty in
7 establishing from a skeleton injuries caused in life as opposed to
8 injuries caused after death. One of the other difficulties was just
9 because you have damage to bone doesn't necessarily mean that that's what
10 killed this person. People don't -- you don't die from an injury to a
11 bone; you die from the injuries to the tissues around about that, to the
12 heart or to the brain or whatever.
13 So we had to imply from particular damage to a bone that that
14 would also cause internal damage, which I think in some situations is not
15 unreasonable. Given that we were all pathologists used to practicing on
16 fresh bodies, if you like, day to day, we know what surrounds these
17 injuries, we know what effect they're going to have. So I think that was
18 a reasonable assumption.
19 Q. Thank you for that. Just in relation to the fact that you were
20 dealing with bones a lot of the time, in that regard did the role of the
21 anthropologist become perhaps more significant than it otherwise would be
22 in your -- in your usual, everyday work?
23 A. Oh, very much so. In our normal jurisdictions, we -- it's
24 uncommon to have an anthropologist working with us. The anthropologists
25 were very useful. They provided two roles; first of all, to assist in
1 trying to age the person from the skeleton.
2 Q. Mm-hmm.
3 A. But, secondly, in helping us interpret damage to bones saying sort
4 of agreement that yes, we think that is a genuine bullet injury or that
5 occurred after death or whatever. So it was a sort of consensual opinion,
6 and there was seldom much different.
7 Q. You have just answered my next question, which was that in
8 circumstances where there may be some conflict between the two of you as
9 to what was the appropriate cause of death, would it be the pathologist's
10 opinion that would be superior, if I can put it that way?
11 A. Yes, it would be. But I really cannot recall a situation in which
12 that -- that occurred.
13 Q. That there was that conflict?
14 A. Yes, there wasn't a conflict. If there was a conflict, we would
15 all get together, all the anthropologists and pathologists together, and
16 discuss it as you would do at any routine case. So there was certainly no
18 Q. All right. Can I ask you this, Doctor, the fact that you were
19 often dealing with skeletal remains, did that make it impossible to glean
20 or to have some indication as to how long the remains had been buried for?
21 A. Yes. I mean what we all learned from the exercise, we learned
22 that bodies decompose at different rates and in different conditions.
23 Sometimes we had, dealing with bodies which at had allegedly been in the
24 ground for five or six years and with a lot of tissue on them conversely,
25 some bodies perhaps only six months almost reduced to skeleton, so there
1 is a considerable variability. So it was difficult to give a precise
3 Q. Well, I'm not -- I'm not criticising you at all. From reviewing
4 each of your reports, there is no specific -- well, I'll rephrase that.
5 You don't address that particular question in any of your reports. You
6 agree with that?
7 A. Exactly.
8 Q. And can I ask, is that because prior to your involvement in these
9 autopsies, you had already received the information that these bodies, as
10 you just said, had allegedly been in the ground for five or six years; is
11 that fair?
12 A. That is fair, entirely fair, yes.
13 Q. Again, I'm not -- really you had an assumption --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- in your mind, prior to performing the autopsies that these were
16 remains that had been buried for five or six years?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So there was no independent assessment to undermine that
19 assumption, if you like?
20 A. No.
21 Q. No, okay. Did you -- in the same vein, did you receive, I
22 suppose, some briefing from an investigator involved with the ICTY,
23 Mr. Ruez, perhaps before you were involved in the autopsies?
24 A. Yes. Not usually specific though. I mean it was remarkably
25 little information fed to us, which is, in -- you could say is quite a
1 good thing. Apart --
2 Q. Perhaps we would say, the Defence probably would say that is a
3 good thing?
4 A. Well, pathologists would say as well. There is argument whether
5 we should be -- do a case sort of blind or with some information. I think
6 there is a happy medium. I think we probably reached this here, and
7 certainly we had little detailed information about the cases. Other than
8 to the extent that we were generally informed whether this was a primary
9 grave or whether this was a grave which had been disturbed, and that
10 explained why so many of the bodies were disrupted. Things like that.
11 But in terms of what weapons had been used, whether grenades had
12 been used or whatever, we were the main instigators of that information
13 from our findings.
14 Q. Is it fair to say that you were informed in a general sense as to
15 the perceived circumstances under which these victims had met their
17 A. Yes, I think that's fair.
18 Q. That's fair, okay. So it wasn't a case where you would come to it
19 with equally as open that these were potentially victims in a combat
20 situation, as equally as victims in alleged executions; is that fair?
21 A. Yes, that's fair.
22 Q. That it was more, in your mind, the balance weighed in favour of
23 the fact that these were people who had been the victims of an alleged
25 A. Yes, and --
1 Q. Yes?
2 A. -- the more we went on into the particular grave sites, then the
3 more we were emphasized in that notion.
4 Q. That it was confirmed?
5 A. Yes, by find ligatures and blindfolds an et cetera.
6 Q. All right. Now, we received your working notes, Doctor, and I
7 just want -- I have a quick question in relation to them. They are, as
8 you just indicated to the Prosecutor, they are summaries of all the
9 individual autopsy reports from each of the sites that you were involved
10 with, is that correct?
11 A. That I was in charge of, yes.
12 Q. Yes. And you, obviously, read all of the autopsy reports
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Yes, okay. Just -- are they autopsy reports that you at some
16 stage have provided to the Prosecution, or you can't answer that?
17 A. No. These were all the reports that each pathologist compiled
18 with the original notes. There are rough notes, as well. They were given
19 to the Tribunal. I had copies made of everything at the time, in the
20 mortuary, because I knew I was going to have to refer to them, and so I
21 have everything that they have.
22 Q. Okay. So copies of the actual autopsy reports themselves have
23 been given to the Tribunal?
24 A. Yes, the originals. The signed originals, they have.
25 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, just also in relation to the term that's
1 used in your reports, the minimum number of persons, which is, as I
2 understand it, that's more in the anthropologist's realm, is it not?
3 A. I'm not sure if I've used that term very much.
4 Q. Perhaps, I've misrepresented the situation there; perhaps you
5 haven't used it?
6 A. That wasn't my role to establish that. I could foresee so many
7 difficulties. My role was to interpret the injuries and causes of death.
8 And by worrying about minimum number of individuals, that was going to
9 cause problems, so I specifically confined my observations to just what we
10 could define as solid bodies or full bodies.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. So the numbers I have produced in anything, they are -- actually
13 the anthropologists should be able to give slightly higher numbers when
14 taking into account body parts.
15 Q. Mm-hmm?
16 A. But it's a difficult area and I felt the easiest thing was just to
17 ignore these additional cases and for the purposes of interpreting
18 injuries, to restrict myself to bodies.
19 Q. Mm-hmm. Can I ask you which anthropologists, if any, did you deal
20 with in relation to the calculation of numbers?
21 A. The senior anthropologist when I was there in the first year was
22 Jose-Pablo Baraybar, who I believe is giving evidence; then we had an
23 American, Shella Morton [phoen] and Cheryl Kismartsik [phoen]; and
24 finally, the final year was Erin Kimmerle. So they were the sort of chief
25 anthropologists, if you like, and they were responsible for establishing
1 minimum numbers.
2 Q. If you feel you can, are you able to make any comment at all about
3 the reliability of the process of establishing minimum number of persons
4 from body parts or is that your realm?
5 A. I think -- nothing constructive to add to that. That's not really
6 my role.
7 Q. Okay. All right. Maybe I'll leave it there then.
8 Can I take you then to your first report, Doctor, that's the --
9 that's P575, Your Honour. You have a copy of that in front of you?
10 A. I have it, yes.
11 MS. CONDON: But perhaps if it could be shown on e-court, Your
12 Honour, that would assist.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly, Ms. Condon.
14 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Now, you have that there, Doctor?
16 A. This is the 1999, yes.
17 Q. Yes, okay. Now, just say from the outset, I don't propose to ask
18 you about any graves where blindfolds and ligatures were found. So you
19 can focus your mind on those ones where they weren't located. What I
20 would like to ask you about in respect of the 1999 report, okay. If we go
21 to page --
22 A. 13.
23 Q. 13, yes?
24 A. Nova Kasaba.
25 Q. Nova Kasaba. So just to make sure that it's unambiguous, that
1 this is a grave where there were -- now, what you've said at page 13 is
2 that clothing was present, none had blindfolds; and apart from one
3 possible, none had ligatures binding their wrists. Now, is that your
4 interpretation, that there was possibly one ligature, or is that
5 information you've received from somebody else?
6 A. That was our interpretation. I can't remember the details, but I
7 imagine it was probably a bit of cloth lying loosely with the body, which
8 we possibly interpreted that.
9 Q. All right. Then under injuries, you've got observations about the
10 bodies at NK04, and what I'm interested in particular is your observation
11 that the majority of the bodies in NK04, or perhaps -- no, I'm misreading
12 it. What you say is the majority of those that did not have gunshot
13 injuries were from NK04, which may or may not be of significance. Do you
14 see that?
15 A. Yeah. I'm -- I remember writing that, but I'm not sure if I can
16 find it again.
17 Q. Okay. It's still on page 13 under the heading "injuries."
18 A. Yes, I've got it.
19 Q. Now, I've got your -- and perhaps if you go to your working notes
20 from NK04, I don't know how easy it will be for you to locate them.
21 A. Very easy.
22 Q. Okay. Okay. You've got them? Is that got on the right-hand
23 side, NK04 B and BP?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. So if we go through your working notes for NK04, there are
1 a number, I count 16, unascertained causes of death out of 38 bodies?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. And that's where that observation comes from, that
4 there was a majority that didn't have gunshot injuries. Now --
5 A. Well, to be strictly fair, that's the cause of death.
6 Q. Mm-hmm.
7 A. Slightly different is the number with gunshot injuries --
8 Q. Mm-hmm.
9 A. -- because you can have a gunshot injury --
10 Q. That's not fatal.
11 A. -- that actually would be non-fatal. They are much the same, but
12 just for record that's what it is.
13 Q. Okay. Thank you. Is it the case that when you -- you had that
14 observation, that it may or may not be of significance, is that a matter
15 that it's open, what you are asked by the Prosecutor, it's open to
16 interpret those injuries as having been sustained in the course of combat
17 or conflict?
18 A. I'm not sure I follow that.
19 Q. Well, when you have the cause of death as unascertained?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Then it's open -- it may be a non-fatal. Is that your word?
22 A. It could be non-fatal.
23 Q. Could be non-fatal?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And, again, that is something that may well be consistent with it
1 having been inflicted in combat?
2 A. I see what you mean.
3 Q. You see what I mean?
4 A. Yes, it may be non-fatal. It would have to be -- I mean there
5 weren't many, if at all, who did have gunshot injuries in which I still
6 gave the cause of death as unascertained. I would have to go through them
7 but certainly not very many. In that case, we would have to be speaking
8 of gunshot injuries perhaps to soft tissues only. So yes, it is a
10 Q. Okay.
11 JUDGE KWON: Sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Condon, if you could tell
12 me how I can locate NK04 details.
13 MS. CONDON: Your Honour, these are working notes that have been
14 supplied to the Defence.
15 JUDGE KWON: Which we don't have.
16 MS. CONDON: Which the Court doesn't have. Perhaps the
17 Prosecution may well have copies.
18 JUDGE KWON: Okay. Please proceed.
19 MS. CONDON: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Or the alternative is we
20 could have a copy placed on the ELMO, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE KWON: That's okay. Next time if it is necessary.
22 MS. CONDON: Yes.
23 Q. Now, there is also just in relation to -- before we leave your
24 working notes for NK04, there is observations in the far right column
25 where -- do you see where you've written"shotgun pellets embedded in
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And then underneath that "possible blunt force trauma" for the
4 next case?
5 A. For the next case, yes.
6 Q. All right. Now, I will return to the shotgun pellets in the
7 skull, that's something I want to ask you about a little bit later.
8 Now, in relation to NK04, which is another grave, you also make
9 the observation that "the average number of bullet injuries there was
10 3.2." That's at the bottom of page 13. Do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, again, as I understand the general consensus, the -- in
13 conflict or in combat, it's usually a higher number of shots per
14 individual. Is that correct? That's what you expect to find?
15 A. I'm not sure I know the exact basis of that. You could argue that
16 yes, there would be larger numbers of shots, yes.
17 Q. Right, okay. Well, I think in the Krstic trial you were asked
18 similar questions by the Prosecutor, and you -- you indicated that the
19 research does indicate that you -- you would usually find a larger number
20 of shots per person in battle, whether non-fatal or not?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So, in NK08, not NK04, you made the observation that there is an
23 average of 3.2.
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. Is that again something that you would put into the assessment of
1 whether or not you would exclude the victims in that grave as having been
2 as a result of conflict?
3 A. It might be. On the other hand, the difference between the two is
4 actually quite small, and the number of cases we're dealing with is pretty
5 small as well, so I'm not sure how statistically significant all that is.
6 Q. All right. If I can take you now to page 14, so if you go over
7 the page, and under the heading "weapons used." Now, if I can just make
8 this general observation about all three of your reports, Doctor: It's
9 correct to say, isn't it, that your assessment is that the majority of the
10 gunshot injuries are as the result of high velocity weapons; is that
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. However, under the heading "weapons used," here in the second
14 paragraph, you do make the observation that a handgun may have been used
15 in one case because of the limited degree of damage to the bones?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And then you say "either that or the bullet had passed through
18 something else beforehand such that it's lost its energy?"
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Does that indicate to you or is it open to interpret that as a
21 result of there being a considerable distance between the shooter and the
23 A. That would be not -- a third possibility.
24 Q. Yeah?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You accept that?
2 A. It would have to be quite a long distance, though.
3 Q. But that's again when we transpose that into a warfare, conflict,
4 combat situation, that of itself would not be extraordinary?
5 A. No.
6 Q. You agree with that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Ms. Condon, please come closer to the
11 MS. CONDON: Okay. Thank you.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Can the microphone be raised?
13 MS. CONDON: Your Honour, it's a short one. I think Mr. Meek and
14 I have the same problem.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
16 MS. CONDON:
17 Q. All right. Now, I'm going to jump around a little bit, Doctor,
18 and I now want to take you to an observation you made in your third
19 report, which is page 2446, so this is the 2001 season. Do you have it,
20 page 2446? And at page 4, paragraph 2, this is an observation you have
21 made in all of your reports, but it relates to the difficulty in
22 distinguishing between a gunshot wound or a shrapnel wound. You see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you -- well, perhaps can you assist the Trial Chamber, what is
25 that difficulty and how did it apply here?
1 A. The high velocity bullet hitting a bone will cause a lot of
2 fragmentation of bone, so will a bit of shrapnel. In the ideal situation,
3 we can tell the difference because we see a nice round hole from a bullet,
4 and the fractures radiating from it. Similarly, in the shrapnel injury,
5 you find much more rugged edges to the defect without a nice central hole,
6 and, hopefully, there will be bits of shrapnel around the region.
7 So if we saw that, we were fairly confident in saying that one of
8 the other. There is a sort of grey area in between, however, in which
9 bullets don't cause classic damage to bones; and shrapnel injuries,
10 perhaps it's only one small bit which may begin to act like a bullet. So
11 there was a sort of -- sometimes -- we may well have gotten some of them
12 wrong. I admit that, but I don't think it's a huge number.
13 Q. All right.
14 A. And there was other -- sufficient other evidence in these bodies,
15 particularly with finding pieces of shrapnel, finding damage to adjacent
16 tissues. So you get a sort of regional, regional damage rather than say
17 specifically just a bullet going through the arm; and some evidence, some
18 evidence on the clothing, perhaps burning on the clothing. So putting all
19 these together, I think we got probably the majority of the interpretation
20 correct in shrapnel versus gun shot.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Dr. Clark, could you possibly be more
22 specific here when you say the majority or I don't think it's a huge
23 number. Is it -- is it possible to give us a more accurate picture by --
24 by percentages, by indicating percentages?
25 THE WITNESS: I don't think so.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Because the majority, if it's 51 as against 49,
2 it's --
3 THE WITNESS: I accept that. I would think it's in the 70 or 80s,
4 80 per cent, that sort of region.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
6 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Perhaps, we haven't really established this: In the context of
8 conflict or combat, are you able to say what is more common in terms of
9 injury? Is it shrapnel injury sustained as a result of shrapnel or is it
10 injuries sustained as a result of gunshot?
11 A. In typical war situations, major conflicts, it has been shown that
12 the greatest number of injuries are caused by explosions, so that would --
13 that would include shrapnel, yes, as opposed to gunshot injuries. That
14 has been shown in really every modern conflict and is a well-established
16 Q. All right.
17 A. As is the fact that you always get more, far more wounded people
18 than killed people. So these are two sort of basic principles which have
19 been established in major conflicts.
20 Q. Okay. Can I ask you this: If -- in a scenario which I suspect
21 you had regularly where there was no soft tissue to give --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- obviously a more reliable indication, and all you had was the
24 bone itself?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And it was ambiguous, as I'm sure it often is in your --
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. -- profession as to which of the two it was --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- gunshot, shrapnel, would you tend to adopt the conclusion it
6 was gunshot? Would you favour that conclusion?
7 A. I think we would. I think we did, yes.
8 Q. All right.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And is that because of what I asked you right at the
11 beginning, just simply because in your mind that would be consistent with
12 what you were told about the execution scenario?
13 A. Yes. I mean on some bodies we had definite gunshot injuries and
14 definite shrapnel on the same body. I suppose we were working on the
15 principle that the largest number of injuries on these bodies were gunshot
16 injuries. So we tended to favour --
17 Q. That general --
18 A. -- what was the commonest as opposed to what was least common.
19 Q. Okay. Can I ask you about just generally trauma to the bone? Is
20 it -- is it fair to say there's -- there's -- relevant here, there's three
21 types of trauma that we could talk about. There's blunt trauma?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. There's sharp trauma?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And there's projectile -- trauma sustained as a result of a
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Obviously, in that term projectile, we're including bullets and
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Of course. Now, I want to ask you about the difficulties that you
7 have observed in distinguishing whether or not bone trauma is a result of
8 blunt trauma or projectile trauma. That's -- that's correct, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And, again, can you assist the Trial Chamber, where is the
11 difficulty in that distinction and how did it apply here?
12 A. Again, we will have an ideal situation in which a gunshot injury
13 will produce a hole, a defect.
14 Q. I am listening, I'm sorry. I was just saying something to my
16 A. The ideal situation, again, pretty easy; the gunshot injury will
17 cause a hole in the bone with fractures around about. A blunt force
18 trauma will tend to produce just a line, a fracture, not on the surface,
19 but just a line without actually producing an internal defect. The
20 difficulty did come, for instance, on fractures of the skull, which they
21 were of a shape and situation which we often see in our normal practice as
22 caused by blunt force, somebody being struck on the head or falling.
23 They occur on typical sites and that's what we're used to seeing,
24 and I would interpret that as blunt force trauma. You could argue that
25 this could be caused by perhaps a bullet striking lesser energy at an odd
1 angle and could conceivably produce a fracture like that. So that is a
2 possibility. But just from my general pathology experience, because we
3 see far more blunt trauma than gunshot injury in normal practice, I
4 interpreted them as blunt force trauma.
5 Q. Okay. But here you had the double -- the added obstacle, I should
6 say, of assessing whether or not it's --
7 A. Post-mortem, yes.
8 Q. Isn't it?
9 A. Yes, indeed.
10 Q. And let me ask you this: Is it possible for a bone to fracture
11 without actually being touched by the projectile? Can that happen?
12 A. I -- I don't think it does. I think it's extremely rare.
13 Q. Right, okay.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. But it technically can happen; it can go through the soft tissue?
16 A. It can go through soft tissues, but my understanding, and I read
17 about this recently, it's very unusual for a bone to fracture from a
18 bullet going through soft tissue.
19 Q. Without the bullet actually touching the bone?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. If that's an extremely rare scenario, I wouldn't ask you about
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. All right. I will show you some photos then, and we will just --
25 perhaps I'll ask for your interpretation as to these.
1 MS. CONDON: Perhaps if we could have a look at P -- no, actually.
2 P0214, if we could have that up. Nothing? I have the 65 ter number as
3 P597. The P number on the exhibit list I have is P0214. That's not it.
4 MR. ELDERKIN: I see it's P02149 on the list I have.
5 MS. CONDON: Sorry. There is a 9, sorry. My mistake. Thank you.
6 My mistake. Thank you, Mr. Elderkin.
7 Q. You have that in front of you. Now, this is a injury that you
8 described as damage to the bone caused by a blunt instrument. Sorry, well
9 that's the description I have of it on the exhibit list. You accept that
10 as a description you are responsible for, Doctor?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Can I ask you this: Is it also open to interpret that
13 injury to the bone as the sort of injury you would see sustained by a
15 A. It could be. I mean I do remember -- because these cases were
16 quite unusual.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. And when we did see something like this --
19 Q. Not to interrupt you, but we should establish this is from
21 A. Glogova, yes.
22 Q. Glogova number 5. Go ahead.
23 A. And we usually got together, the anthropologists, plural, and the
24 pathologists and would discuss this in some detail. Now, I agree this
25 could be a shrapnel injury, but we must have taken the view that this was
1 most likely blunt force trauma, I think possibly on the basis we
2 presumably found no shrapnel at all on the body. And we felt this fitted
3 the best interpretation.
4 Q. All right. But you would accept, would you not, that --
5 A. I couldn't exclude that being --
6 Q. No?
7 A. -- shrapnel.
8 Q. No. Because in the same way that even if you don't find the
9 bullet in the body or the shrapnel in the body, that of course is not
10 conclusive as to whether or not that --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- that has been in fact the cause of the injury.
13 A. I think because we were seeing such large numbers of cases that
14 after a while you got a feeling that this is slightly different, and
15 that's why we probably interpreted that as that.
16 Q. Can I show you P02134. Perhaps we should, for the record, this is
17 from Kozluk grave; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, again, perhaps if you can just indicate to the Trial Chamber,
20 that rather neat, round hole on the right, that's obviously what is
21 interpreted as the bullet hole. Is that correct?
22 A. That's right, yes. Sorry.
23 Q. Now, if I could just -- then there is the fracturing that occurs
24 from --
25 A. Yeah, the bullet hole is at number 1.
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. Just below the letter 1.
3 Q. All right.
4 A. And the fracture lines are going forward and also downwards where
5 the white material is just below.
6 Q. Mm-hmm. Perhaps just to the left there is an irregular -- do you
7 see that?
8 A. I see that, yes.
9 Q. Now, again, given that it's an irregular fracture, it's an
10 irregular hole, in fact, is that the sort of injury that you can exclude
11 as having been sustained as a result of a shrapnel injury?
12 A. I think it's -- it would be very unlikely if it was shrapnel
13 injury, it would be assuming that two projectiles hit the skull exactly at
14 the same time.
15 Q. Mm-hmm.
16 A. Because when one hits it, the rest -- all the bones around about
17 are going to be shattered. I think what we've got here, that this is just
18 a small portion of the fracture, which we have not been able to recover.
19 I think you've got to bear in mind that this skull originally was in
20 fragments. This has been stuck together by glue, so this is the end
21 result reconstructed. And we will -- small bits of bone will fall out.
22 So don't believe for a moment that that skull has stayed completely
23 intact. It has been in multiple bits. The anthropologists have glued it
24 together and have identified this nice, round hole, and with fracture
25 lines running from it. I don't think that is a shrapnel injury.
1 Q. All right. Just in relation to what I asked you before about the
2 assessment as -- of the majority of the injuries having been sustained as
3 of high-velocity rifles, now, is that information that you were given
4 by -- as a result of a ballistics experts or is that something that you
5 assessed yourselves?
6 A. We assessed ourselves on the bases of the nature of the
7 fracturing, the extreme amount of damage with the central hole and
8 radiating fractures and a huge exit and, secondly, on the finding of
9 typical high velocity bullets in the bodies.
10 Q. But again, another quite -- or no, I will withdraw that. Another
11 limitation that you faced yourself in the interpretation of those injuries
12 was that you were simply not in a position, were you, to assess the
13 distance at which the target had been from the shooter. Is that correct?
14 A. That's correct, we couldn't assess that, no.
15 Q. Whether short range, long-range, simply impossible?
16 A. Absolutely, yes.
17 Q. All right. Now, I -- I now want to take you back to your 1999
18 report, and ask you about Konjevic Polje. That's at page 17, please. Do
19 you have that in front of you, Doctor?
20 A. Yes, I do. Yes.
21 Q. And I'll just go through, summarise the findings in relation to
22 this grave. No blindfolds or ligatures, correct?
23 A. Yes, correct.
24 Q. Clothing present on everyone, and as you indicated at the outset,
25 no traditional military clothing as you could ascertain?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Yeah. There was one female victim, which is obviously unusual?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. There was a makeshift stretcher in the grave. There was no --
5 the -- sorry. The average number of shots were three per person?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And there were some non-gunshot injuries which included a
8 fractured skull and fractures of some arm bones and ribs. Now, in
9 relation to all of those factors, are you in a position to exclude the
10 possibility that the victims in that grave died in combat?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. And I just want to ask you very quickly about -- I said
13 from the outset I wouldn't ask you about anything where blindfolds and
14 ligatures had been found, but I'm going to go back on that. Just quickly
15 at page 21 of your 1999 report where you make some observations about
16 Glogova, and you make the observation that there had been -- you say that
17 the paragraph beginning, "Injuries to the trunk."
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And then you go on to say that there had been shots to the head,
20 to the back of the head, and fired from behind perhaps with the victim
21 standing upright or kneeling down. Now, it's fair to say, isn't it, that
22 you are speculating there?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Yeah, okay.
25 A. Yes. But it was a common -- a common feature amongst these --
1 these cases.
2 Q. All right.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Where you found what could be described as a random pattern of
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Which I think is in fact words you used in your report, again,
8 would a random pattern of firing be more consistent with conflict or
10 A. That could be one conclusion. There could be other conclusions.
11 Q. Yeah.
12 A. It's open.
13 Q. Yeah.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right. Now, just finally, I want to take you back to your
16 2001 report. Okay. So this is -- okay. Now, again, if we focus on the
17 findings in relation to Ravnice, Ravnice was not a grave as such, was it?
18 A. No. This was bodies found on an embankment, a steep slope.
19 Q. And not buried?
20 A. Not buried.
21 Q. And just your findings there. You indicated that again clothing
22 was still present; again, you make the observation none of it military in
23 the traditional sense of the term, you mean that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. A uniform?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Yeah.
3 JUDGE KWON: Page number, please.
4 MS. CONDON: Sorry, Your Honour. That's page 6. That's the
5 second-last paragraph on page 6.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
7 MS. CONDON:
8 Q. And you indicated that none of the clothing showed any signs of
9 burning. Do you see that there?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, with shrapnel or grenade injuries, is it often a secondary
12 consequence of that that you do have burning?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Yes. But again the absence of that is not conclusive of the fact
15 that they are not injuries sustained as a result of shrapnel; is it, it
16 may or may not?
17 A. That -- yes. Yes, it doesn't completely exclude it. You could
18 get a shrapnel injury to the head and there is no clothing, yes.
19 Q. And you did find a person who had some pistol bullets in his
20 jacket pocket?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And the state of the decomposition of the bodies, now were you
23 able to determine how long these bodies had been exposed to the elements
25 A. Not in any detail, but normal practice would say at least -- at
1 least probably a year or two years.
2 Q. All right. Okay. Though fully skeletonised?
3 A. Fully skeletonised, yes.
4 Q. Mm-hmm. And in terms of -- I appreciate the difficulty with
5 making the commitment to whether or not something is pre- or post-mortem
6 damage, given the state?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. But there would have been, no doubt, exposure to animals in that
10 A. There could have been. There wasn't a great deal -- I mean
11 animals normally cause specific types of damage to bones. You can see
12 nibbling marks. I think we saw that a few times but certainly not a
13 major -- a very frequent basis.
14 Q. Okay. Now, this was -- this was an area as well that you did make
15 the observation that the direction of shooting was suggestive of a random
16 pattern of firing, and that's an observation you make at page 7?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And in fact you said only ten of the 176 men died of a single shot
19 to the head?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Yes. So, again, bearing in mind the factors that we've gone
22 through in relation to the findings at Ravnice, you cannot exclude the
23 victims there having been injured or died as a result of combat, can you?
24 A. That's one interpretation.
25 Q. Yeah.
1 A. I'm sure there are other interpretation, yes.
2 Q. All right. And, finally, we go to Zeleni Jadar. It begins at
3 page 23 of your report, and you make the observation under clothing that
4 in several cases there was evidence of burning.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, in the reverse, that's something that you would -- you may
7 well expect to see as a result of shrapnel --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- damage?
10 A. In some of these bodies we did find what we interpreted as
11 shrapnel injuries, plus shrapnel.
12 Q. Itself?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were you able -- I'll take you to that specific finding. That's
15 at page 25, and you said the bulk of injuries were bullet injuries. There
16 were clear blast injuries in seven men?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Yeah. Again -- well, and can I ask you just in relation to those
19 two factors alone, that we've just observed, the blast injuries and the
20 clothing having been burnt, again, that would be -- those would be factors
21 that would weigh in favour of the possibility that these are victims that
22 have died in the course of conflict. Do you agree with that?
23 A. Again, that's one possibility, yes, but there are others as well.
24 Q. Mm-hmm. But it's open?
25 A. It's open.
1 Q. Open on the findings?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Yes, all right.
4 MS. CONDON: Just pardon me a moment, Your Honour.
5 [Defence counsel confer]
6 MS. CONDON: Thank you very much, Doctor. I have no further
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Ms. Condon, and I thank you, Dr. Clark.
9 According to the information that we have, the Borovcanin Defence
10 team would like to cross-examine this witness. Is that correct,
11 Mr. Lazarevic or Mr. Stojanovic?
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as all the teams of
13 the Defence agreed, we are not going to question this witness. We will be
14 questioning the next witness. So I would like to inform the Trial Chamber
15 that we do not have questions for this witness.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: And I also wish to confirm this with you, Madam
17 Fauveau, because you had indicated you required ten minutes.
18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Yes, I stick to
19 my ten minutes.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So go ahead. We will have a break at
22 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, yesterday, in page 86 of the transcript, you
24 stated that the purpose of your work was to identify wounds and to
25 establish causes of death. Is that so?
1 A. Yes, that was the prime function.
2 Q. And you added that you were trying to recuperate, to retrieve all
3 other evidence that could be found on the bodies?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is it fair to say that the analysis of residual earth that could
6 have been found in the bodies and their clothing could have shown where
7 the people were killed?
8 A. That -- that's a possibility. I -- I understood, however, that
9 any soil analysis of these cases was done at the grave site. There was a
10 soil analyst involved, and he was doing this at the grave site rather than
11 at the mortuary.
12 Q. And do you know whether, with regard to the bodies you examined,
13 whether such analysis was performed and whether there was a comparison of
14 the soil found in Potocari? Do you know whether this was done or not?
15 A. I don't know the details. I do know, and I met the soil analyst,
16 that he was able to link certain bodies with certain sites. I don't know
17 about Potocari specifically.
18 Q. And you do not know either anything about Bratunac? You never
19 heard that there was a soil analysis made in Bratunac?
20 A. No, I have no knowledge of that.
21 Q. In your report on season 2000, page 24 - this is Exhibit P598,
22 page 24 - you mentioned the grave in Glogova, and you said that most
23 bodies found in that grave would have been killed in the Kravica
25 A. I didn't say they were killed; I say they are alleged to have been
1 killed there. There is a difference there.
2 Q. Yes, thank you. That's right. I may not have been very accurate
3 in my question. Indeed, there was -- there were some analysis carried out
4 in the Kravica warehouse, weren't there?
5 A. Of -- I'm sorry, of -- analysis of?
6 Q. Let me reformulate my question. Is it fair to say that in the
7 Kravica warehouse some human residue, some human rests were found?
8 A. That's right. We -- two small pieces of bone were recovered and
9 pieces of tooth, and I examined these and established what they were.
10 Q. I'm interested in knowing whether similar analysis of human
11 remains were performed somewhere else in Kravica in the market, in the
12 supermarket in Kravica, or in any other place in Kravica?
13 A. I'm not aware -- certainly, I was never asked to examine any
14 tissue in the whole three years that I was there. I'm not aware that
15 other material was -- was discovered.
16 Q. Thank you very much, sir. No further questions.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I just want to confirm with the other Defence
18 teams that none of you would like to cross-examine this witness any
20 Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President, good morning. I would
22 like to ask some questions on a limited basis.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: You can start now and within six minutes we will
1 have a break.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
3 Q. Good morning, Dr. Clark.
4 A. Good morning.
5 Q. I have a couple of questions. I reviewed your reports, and I
6 wondered if you could help me clarify some issues. You stated in your
7 1999 report that there was a "varying criteria." Can you tell me sir what
8 you mean by that varying criteria?
9 A. This is in reference to...
10 Q. Proof of gunshot injury.
11 A. Yes. Sometimes, as I have explained earlier, this was very easy.
12 There is a classic hole; there was a bullet with the wound. That was
13 easy. Other times there was perhaps not a classic hole, but some bullet
14 residue, and we still established that as gunshot injury. On other
15 occasions the evidence was less convincing, but we took the view that this
16 most likely was a gunshot injury. Anything below that we excluded.
17 Q. And you reduced that to an opinion of being unascertained,
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, what is the varying levels of certainty that you applied in,
21 again, these proof of gunshot injuries analyses that you performed?
22 A. Well, really as I have said, I mean if it was a classic hole,
23 central hole with are radiating fractures, that was absolutely had to be a
24 gunshot injury. So we were very certain about that.
25 Q. Doctor, what I'm asking, to understand your report better, and if
1 you look at page 4, paragraph 3, you talk about the diagnosis of gunshot
2 damage was based on varying criteria on varying levels of certainty. Do
3 you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Just highlight for me what those levels of certainty are, in your
6 analysis as a pathologist?
7 A. The first one was, as I said, when there was a classic hole and
8 there was a bullet there; there was absolutely no problem with it, a
9 bullet fragments.
10 Q. What would we call that? A no problem level of certainty?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Next one?
13 A. The next one would be there was no bullet fragment as all, but
14 there was a very typical bullet fragment defect in the bone, and that
15 would be pretty certain as well. The third one was when we had
16 fracturing, not necessarily a classic bullet injury but with bullet
17 fragments around about, and we interpreted that as a bullet injury. Less
18 than that, if was an untypical form of fracture, and there was no bullet
19 fragments, then we said that that was not -- well, we didn't state that
20 that was a bullet injury. Some of them may well have been, but we did not
21 state that.
22 Q. All right. Now, did you, in your report, base your opinion on a
23 reasonable degree of pathological certainty and medical certainty?
24 A. Yes. I think you can see that we have erred a lot on the side of
25 doubt and caution.
1 Q. Just so I can understand the whole exhumation process and the
2 autopsies performed, how many -- I know you made a distinction between
3 bodies and I think today you even used the word solid or complete bodies.
4 But in your report, you refer to a distinction between bodies and parts of
5 bodies, correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Just describe that for me, again, so I appreciate it a little
9 A. We took as a body any remains which were what you would call a
10 person, that was -- in other words, the whole of the trunk, and the head,
11 but perhaps the legs were missing. But we took that as a -- as a person.
12 If it was a whole body with the trunk and the legs, but the head was
13 missing, we would still call that a body. If it was just a limb, a leg,
14 or just a chest, part of the chest, we would call that a body part.
15 Q. Out of those autopsies, how many autopsies did you and your team
16 perform in connection with all the bodies that were exhumed?
17 A. I think it's over 3.000, that's including the body parts. We --
18 the figure for bodies for the Srebrenica cases was about 1100.
19 Q. So at any point were there 7.000 or so exhumed?
20 A. No.
21 Q. At any point, sir, were there any -- from either the exhumations
22 conducted by the ICTY or the local Bosnian Commission for Tracing Missing
23 Persons, have they ever uncovered more than 7.000 bodies?
24 A. I don't know what has happened since 2001. Certainly, in the time
25 I was there, I think the total body figure, according to my reports, for
1 the Srebrenica sites was about 1100.
2 Q. Just in the minute or two, so I can understand, because we heard
3 some testimony from someone I think who was involved in your team,
4 Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez, it is my recollection - and I can cite the report for
5 counsel - that he says that 96 per cent of all the graves have been
6 exhumed. Would you agree or disagree with that?
7 A. I kind of --
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. This is a misstatement of any evidence
9 this Court has heard.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Agreed.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: I will cite the report.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: And cite it within a time frame, please.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: I will. The testimony is on September 15, 2006 on
14 page 1731, and I will just give a little preliminary before you answer
15 that question.
16 Q. I was asked in 2003, line 3, and on.
17 "In 2003, isn't it correct that was your opinion with respect to
18 exhumations you said, 'We are now in 2003. Eight years after the events.
19 We have located probably 90 per cent of all of these graves.'"
20 "Q. Do you remember giving that statement in the Blagojevic case,
21 page 729, lines 9 through 12?
22 "A. Yes, correct?
23 "Q. Now, we are even more removed, three years or more; correct?
24 "A. Yes.
25 "Q. What per cent does it increase or decrease that I can use?
1 "A. Only one site has been found since 1993. It is a site
2 located in Potocari that was discovered by the team of Mr. Masovic. This
3 is so maybe we are now at 96 per cent."
4 Line 14 he ends with that.
5 A. Well --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Wait one moment, Doctor.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: The objection stands. He is clearly talking
8 number about the number of graves found at that time of that testimony.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness has told you he can only confirm as
10 regards 2001, not beyond that. So there is no point in indicating to him
11 what other witnesses may -- may think or may believe amounts to -- is
12 further excavations or burial sites found after that. So please let's
13 move to the next question.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay.
15 Q. Sir, are you familiar with the demographer that's working with the
16 Office of the Prosecutor?
17 A. The, sorry, demographer?
18 Q. Yes?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Heleg Brunborg. If Heleg Brunbor, in his report, would state to
21 this Court that - and that is on page 3 of his report - "the total number
22 of victims not known. Exhumations conducted by the ICTY and the local
23 Bosnian Commission for Tracing Missing Persons have uncovered more than
24 7.000 bodies out of the (broadly defined) Srebrenica territory."
25 Is that perhaps, sir, with all due respect to Mr. Brunborg, an
2 A. I have no idea. All I can say the bodies I was involved with
3 have, as I've totaled them up, are 1100 bodies; including body parts,
4 perhaps up to 1500. I don't know. But what happened after that, I have
5 no idea at all. I have nothing do with the Bosnian Commission for Missing
6 Persons. I had nothing to do with locating or establishing grave sites.
7 Q. Let me ask you this before we take this next break. Did you, sir,
8 at any time state that there were 4.000 bodies that were exhumed and
9 autopsies conducted on them?
10 A. No. I don't know where that information would have come from.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. Shall we take the break now?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, do you have further questions.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thought so. So we will have a 25-minute break.
15 And then we'll finish with this witness. The next witness is a protected
16 one, so we will need time for making the necessary preparations. Thank
18 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Dr. Clark, just to follow up on a couple of points, and I
23 recognise that your reports were done in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Did you
24 obtain any information since leaving the ICTY, the Office of the
25 Prosecution, with respect to the number of exhumation that is were done or
1 any further autopsy that is were performed after you left?
2 A. I was aware that ICTY, the Tribunal had not conducted any further
3 investigations. But I am generally aware, being in contact with [unknown
4 name], that the Bosnian commission were reviewing sites, but I know
5 nothing of the details or numbers.
6 Q. Let me ask you, on page 44, right before the break, I asked you
7 the question if at any time you stated that there were 4.000 bodies that
8 were exhumed and autopsies conducted on them. And your answer on line 18
9 says, "No, I don't know where that information would have come from." And
10 let me ask you this: You never would have said that, why?
11 A. I -- because I physically haven't done 4.000 autopsies on the
12 Srebrenica cases.
13 Q. And because it's not true, correct? If you could have written
14 that, it would have been something you wouldn't do, and the reason you
15 wouldn't write 4.000 is simply because it's not true, correct?
16 A. I am aware that other people have done autopsies on other cases,
17 so the numbers -- it's not just my evidence; it's other people as well,
18 but I would be surprised if the number was 4.000.
19 Q. So was I. Do you write -- in your position as a pathologist and a
20 doctor, do you write in the medical literature at all?
21 A. Occasionally, yes.
22 Q. Okay. And did you ever write an article entitled, "Pathological
23 Investigation" in the War Crimes Pathological Investigation Review, I
24 guess or journal?
25 A. I think I know what you are speaking about. It is an
1 international text-book and that was two articles I was invited to
2 contribute to. So I suspect that you are going to tell me that I put the
3 4.000 figure there.
4 Q. Do you remember that you did?
5 A. I don't remember that, but all I would say to that is that I was
6 involved not just in the Srebrenica sites, of course, there were other
7 graves in Bosnia as well. And that may have been -- I think I may have
8 obtained some information from other sources and that was perhaps a round
10 Q. When I write I usually footnote if I obtain information from other
11 sources. Did you footnote that, that it this wasn't you yourself
12 conducted or did you cite that this was from other sources?
13 A. I didn't -- no, I didn't cite that, no.
14 Q. Let me quote --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Ostojic.
16 MR. ELDERKIN: Is it possible to have the witness read what is
17 claimed that he said, please?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Fair enough. Mr. Ostojic, can you be more specific.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: I will try, Your Honour.
20 Q. On page 365 of that article, which I see you have with you, on the
21 right-hand column, first full paragraph, because the paragraph carries
22 over from the left-hand column, it starts -- first let me establish that's
23 your article, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And this was written in 2005, correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. It says, "From the first sites explored in 1996 until the
3 end of 2001, some 4.000 to 5.000 bodies were exhumed, but there are many
4 graves still to be exhumed and probably still -- and probably many still
5 to be discovered."
6 Do you see that?
7 A. I haven't actually found that page yet, sorry.
8 Q. It's page 365. I don't think you --
9 A. Sorry.
10 Q. Left-hand column -- I mean right-hand column, first full
11 paragraph, because it carries over.
12 A. Yes, I see that.
13 Q. It starts with the words, "From the first sites explored in 1996
14 until the end of 2001, some 4.000 to 5.000 bodies were examined." Do you
15 see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Examined or exhumed? Because before in the
18 transcript at line 12, you are reported as saying exhumed.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: I may have misspoke, Your Honour. It is clearly
20 examined, but I think the doctor can clarify that.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is "examined." I must have gained that
22 information from -- from somewhere. I suspect I may have contacted the
23 Bosnian commission at some stage.
24 MR. OSTOJIC:
25 Q. Well, in your notes or your file or even your memory, do you
1 recall that at all?
2 A. I don't recall it, but I mean it says -- it says -- it's a
3 reasonably specific figure and I wouldn't have put a specific figure, had
4 I not had some bases for it. Bear in mind it's not just Srebrenica cases.
5 Q. Just pardon me a second.
6 [Defence counsel confer]
7 MR. OSTOJIC:
8 Q. I am being asked the following. I appreciate the Court's
9 indulgence and my learned colleagues. Just when we came back from the
10 break you said you don't have any of that information on page 45 the
11 Bosnian authorities. So I want you to reconcile it for me. Do you have
12 the information, don't you have the information, is this an exaggeration,
13 did you write it, didn't you write it?
14 A. Okay. Well, I have written this, I will accept that. These
15 figures must have come from some --
16 Q. Doctor, I hate to interrupt. Don't speculate. If you know tell
17 us; if you don't, tell us you don't?
18 A. I've got the figure down there, although I cannot remember the
19 specific source for that. It may have been a website, but I just don't
21 Q. Let's talk about your objectivity for a moment. Sir, we have
22 talked with my learned friend for the Defence of Mr. Popovic about the
23 limitations on the pathological evidence and you shared that; it's in your
24 report. Now, the contributions that pathological evidence are what?
25 What's your goal when you go in there?
1 A. It is to -- with a body, my goal is to establish that this is a
2 human body, it's to establish how much of the body is there, to identify
3 injuries and any illness on the body, to retrieve any evidence from the
4 body, which may be of further use.
5 Q. Okay. Is your goal ever to obtain evidence for a criminal
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Why is that?
9 A. Because I am -- it's my job as a forensic pathologist to obtain
10 evidence for a criminal conviction.
11 Q. Isn't -- thank you. Is it your job also as a forensic pathologist
12 to refute any evidence in order to obtain an acquittal or is it strictly
13 looking at it to obtain criminal convictions?
14 A. I obtain the evidence, and it's up to others to interpret from
15 that evidence.
16 Q. Let's look at page 367 of your article; same article, left-hand
17 column. You specifically state what the autopsy is being carried out for.
18 You see it, the lower portion, last paragraph on the left-hand column?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. It says, "As indicated at the start of this section, the autopsy
21 is being carried both to obtain evidence for a criminal conviction and to
22 try to establish the identity of the body." Do you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In fact, isn't it true, that in your job with the ICTY Office of
25 the Prosecution, your main focus was -- or the primary focus was the
1 former, to obtain criminal convictions, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you share with us, if you examined any evidence to refute any
4 of the theories that were shared to you by the investigators of the Office
5 of the Prosecutor?
6 A. They weren't actually put to me any particular theories.
7 Q. Okay. Do you have any information or knowledge that you, sir,
8 would conclude that there were allegedly 7.000 massacred in Srebrenica?
9 A. That is just -- that is general knowledge that I have. I haven't
10 refuted that at all.
11 Q. Well, what efforts have you made, sir, to establish that the
12 victims in Srebrenica, in July, may have been -- may have died as a result
13 of combat casualty?
14 A. I have tried to establish the information from the bodies as
15 openly and independently as possible, and it's for others to interpret
16 that. We've gone through that evidence.
17 Q. Let's turn to page 364 of your article, right-hand column. You
18 see where it starts with, "Former Yugoslavia"?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, you state there without any footnotes again in the medical
21 literature publication, "7.000 men were massacred at Srebrenica in 1995."
22 Do you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What's the bases of your opinion, Doctor?
25 A. That is information which is -- has been generally presented.
1 It's in -- it's information that the Tribunal has given to me at various
3 Q. Who at the Tribunal gave you that? I'm sorry to interrupt.
4 A. Having been around working in this area for three years here, it's
5 information which one just gathers from various people.
6 Q. Okay. So it's speculation, would that be fair to characterise it
7 as that? You have no proof of it, correct?
8 A. Not individually, I'm repeating what has been established
10 Q. I'm just talking to you about you individually, sir?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. I have no -- I have no idea how many -- how many bodies there are,
15 Q. Okay. Let me ask you this, if we can talk a little bit about --
16 we talked about body and body parts, and thank you for that. So I can
17 understand the difference between a decomposed body and a skeletonised
18 body, can you tell us the difference between the two?
19 A. A decomposed body is a body one which is not fresh and is starting
20 to disintegrate, and the end result of that is a skeleton.
21 Q. Is it fair that doing an autopsy as a pathologist, it's very
22 difficult, nearly impossible, to assess the cause of death on a decomposed
24 A. It's very difficult, yes.
25 Q. And is it also true that with a skeletonised body, it is virtually
1 impossible to determine the cause of death?
2 A. That's fair, yes.
3 Q. What's fair, it's in your report, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I'm just regurgitating to you what's in your report. My question
6 to you, sir, on the analysis you have done is can you tell me from the
7 1100 or 1500 autopsies you have conducted or your team, how many were
8 decomposed and how many were skeletonised?
9 A. All were decomposed.
10 Q. Okay. Because skeletonised includes the decomposed as well?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It's a subgroup of that, right?
13 A. Exactly, it's the end result of it. The actual number of
14 skeletonised, I can't give you the exact figure. It must have been
15 approaching 40 to 50 per cent.
16 Q. Okay. Is it true that the decomposed remains, it's virtually
17 impossible to be certain that any of the injuries found have necessarily
18 occurred in life or antemortem, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, when we talked about briefly this morning about shrapnel
21 injuries, you use it I think in your report as a synonym with
22 fragmentation, correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you ever do a percentage to determine how many of the bodies
25 you examined, sir, or body parts resulted from fragmentation or shrapnel
2 A. I don't have the figure at hand, but I could work it out. Out of
3 the whole 1100 case, it could be probably no more than 5 per cent.
4 Q. But Do you agree with me, sir, as a pathologist, that
5 fragmentation or shrapnel injuries can sometimes closely resemble those
6 caused by bullets?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: He's answered that already. He had several
9 questions put to him on that.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: I think it was more specific, but I will move on,
11 Your Honour. I just had one other question on this point.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Condon's cross-examination dealt with that
14 MR. OSTOJIC: I know that, Your Honour. I just -- they were
15 noting that I should slow down.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Go ahead.
17 MR. OSTOJIC:
18 Q. Not only that it closely resembles shrapnel and fragmentation
19 closely resemble injuries caused by bullets; but given that they were
20 decomposed bodies and skeletonised bodies, it makes it even more difficult
21 to make that assessment, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I want to talk a little bit about blast injuries. Can you tell me
24 what that is?
25 A. These are injuries that are -- it's a term used to describe
1 injuries caused by an exploding device.
2 Q. In the end result, I think we know, although with all due respect
3 to your medical background, a blast injury can result in loss of a limb,
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Or loss of a body part, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you, sir, at any time evaluate why some of the corpses, if I
9 could call them that, with all due respect, and some of the evidence that
10 you reviewed, that those missing body parts were a result of blast
12 A. Some of them may well have been, yes.
13 Q. Can you give me the percentage of how many?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Why not?
16 A. Well --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Please pause between question and answer. Thank
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic, and Dr. Clark, you are moving too
20 fast. Please allow -- you both speak the same language, or almost. So I
21 suggest you allow a pause, a short pause between question and answer.
22 Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: The figures are in my sheets, my working sheets. I
24 could work them out if required. But certainly some of the body parts did
25 have shrapnel damage on them, a small proportion.
1 MR. OSTOJIC:
2 Q. I'm not talking about the specific shrapnel damage on small
3 proportions. I'm talking about the autopsies you conducted on the actual
4 corpses, as you call the solid or full body corpses. I think you just
5 call it body, as opposed to body parts, just so we're on the same page.
6 Of those, how many were full corpses or full bodies and those that you
7 have examined or your team?
8 A. We examined approximately 1100 full bodies.
9 Q. Okay. But I thought that the you said that out of those 1100 full
10 bodies, there were some body parts missing, perhaps a limb or an arm or a
12 A. Yes, I've already explained. I think -- sorry.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think we need to go through this.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: I understand, but--
15 JUDGE AGIUS: He has explained that [indiscernible] or a body
16 without a head. He's gone through this already.
17 MR. OSTOJIC:
18 Q. Am I correct, sir, that the contributions of pathological evidence
19 is to confirm specific allegations but equally important to refute them?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Let me ask you, sir, you said on pages -- page 7, lines 5 through
22 7 today, during your direct, I believe, "A large number of men did not
23 fall in this category of being combat men." "We had young men," you say,
24 "particularly we had a lot of elderly people." Do you remember that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. What is your criteria for elderly people who cannot fight?
2 A. I would imagine the same as most people. I'm speaking that there
3 were a substantial number of people, let's say over the age of 65. Now,
4 that's not it say that somebody aged 65 cannot fire a gun.
5 Q. And I understand --
6 A. I'm not saying that.
7 Q. I just want to know what your criteria is for making that
9 A. I would say some of the people in their 70s, 80s, I would call
10 elderly, not the normal fighting man.
11 Q. Similarly, on page 7, lines 15 through 17, you stated that from
12 what you reviewed that the majority of shots killing some of these men
13 came from behind, which is perhaps not what you would expect in a
14 face-to-face conflict situation. Do you remember that testimony?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did you know or learn of any ambushes that were undertaken in July
17 of 1995 between the adverse parties?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Are you familiar with how an ambush works?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did any investigator or military consultant with the Office of the
22 Prosecutor advise you of what their estimate is of those killed during the
24 A. No.
25 Q. Do you think that might be significant in your analysis in
1 obtaining an objective opinion as to what the cause of death may be?
2 A. It could be, if it's put to me. If these scenarios are put to me,
3 it's my job to say, well, that is consistent or that's inconsistent.
4 Q. Okay. Well, let me put it to you. Let a say there was one ambush
5 in 1995, okay? Although there were more, let's just take the one. There
6 was an ambush of 100 people. Where would you expect the injuries to be
7 sustained from the people who were being ambushed?
8 A. What could you -- can I ask you what you mean by "an ambush."
9 Q. Well, there are soldiers that may be sitting in a ravine waiting
10 for a section or group of people to pass; and then to make a surprise
11 attack on them, once they have passed the actual direct line where they're
12 sitting or waiting for them?
13 A. So the implication would be that they are shot from behind.
14 Q. That's the way you assume, sir, then that's what you assume?
15 A. You said these are soldiers passing through, and after they've
16 passed through they have been ambushed. If that's the scenario, yes, you
17 would expect the bulk of shots from behind or from the side.
18 Q. And what if there was an ambush where they jumped in front of this
19 group of men - although you called them soldiers - this group of men, and
20 they started running, where do you think the injuries would be sustained
21 by these people who were running away from the soldiers who ambushed them?
22 A. Generally, you would expect them in -- shots to the back.
23 Q. Do you think that would be significant in your analysis to
24 determine whether or not these people, as you write in your article, were
25 killed as a result of a massacre or a result of combat action?
1 A. Well, I've -- I've provided the information. You are now
2 providing scenarios, and I am accepting your scenario. It's up to others
3 to, if they want, produce other scenarios.
4 Q. Okay. On page 22, line -- so let me -- before I go to that next
5 question. Is it fair to say if there were three ambushes, that would be
6 information that would you like to know to make a fair and more accurate
7 assessment of the material that you reviewed, analysed; would that be
9 A. That would be interesting. There is a limit to what I can comment
10 on. There is enormous variety of scenarios and possibilities, and I
11 cannot go through each one in turn. All I will do is provide the basic
12 information and let others question me on it, as you are doing.
13 Q. Thank you for that. Now, on page 22 today, line 17, you talked
14 about, "High velocity bullet" - line 17, if you are following - and that's
15 an inappropriate use of the term, is it not?
16 A. It's a -- it's a term of common usage.
17 Q. But you -- isn't it true that wound from assault rifles and the
18 like are often referred to as high velocity injuries but such terminology
19 is not entirely appropriate?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And where do you think I got that from?
22 A. Well, you can find that I wrote that article in 2005 and these
23 reports were written before that.
24 Q. Now, with respect to the information since your 2001 report, have
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, Mr. Ostojic, please slow down. Because we've
2 got your question missing, to which there is an answer, or a part of an
3 answer. So --
4 MR. OSTOJIC: I can repeat it.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think for the transcript we need to go
6 through it again. It's too fast, going too fast.
7 MR. OSTOJIC:
8 Q. And I think, Doctor, it's my fault. I apologise. I think I asked
9 you, "And where do you think I got that information?" It's not entirely
10 appropriate to use the term high velocity bullet.
11 A. You got it from my article, but I think you will find that the
12 high velocity injuries is a term used by a large number of people. Just
13 in the way shrapnel is to some extent an inappropriate term, but it's --
14 most people know what we mean by it.
15 Q. Thank you. Now, with respect to the information that you have
16 since your 2001 report, have you been given any other data or information
17 from other pathologists or anthropologists in connection with the events
18 in Srebrenica in 1995?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Now, you spoke a little bit earlier today about the wounded, and I
21 think that you said that the ratio or I think you mentioned that there
22 were fewer wounded men than dead, correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you would expect in a conflict or a war situation that there
25 would be a ratio of 3:1 from wounded to dead, correct?
1 A. Not necessarily 3:1, but higher than 1:1.
2 Q. Okay. Now, you stated in your report, and I think in your
3 testimony, that you didn't see it -- those wounded men in the hospitals in
4 and around Srebrenica. Is that correct?
5 A. I have no information that that occurred.
6 Q. Well, did you, as a pathologist, ask the Office of the Prosecutor
7 to try to obtain that information from the hospitals in Srebrenica?
8 A. No, I didn't. Not specifically.
9 Q. Did you know that a column was leaving Srebrenica and going
10 towards Tuzla?
11 A. I was aware of that.
12 Q. Okay. Do you know if any -- did they show you any video or
13 anything of men arriving at what they called the safe zone or the free
14 territory, showing that they were injured and they were carrying injured
16 A. No, I didn't see that.
17 Q. Did you procure from the Bosnian authorities, sir, any medical
18 documentation or information to confirm that there were fewer wounded than
19 dead as a result of the Srebrenica --
20 A. No.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, Mr. Ostojic, please slow down.
22 MR. OSTOJIC:
23 Q. Did you, sir, obtain or seek, excuse me, did you seek from the
24 Prosecutor at all to obtain such information from the Bosnian authorities?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Did you, sir, seek from the Prosecution or on your own information
2 from the ABiH military authorities to determine how many wounded men there
3 were as a result of this military column moving from Srebrenica to Tuzla?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Why not?
6 A. Well, the Prosecutors had my reports. They did not raise that
7 issue at all either with me. The -- if they had that information, then it
8 was up to them to raise that possibility.
9 Q. But you never sought it out. Why didn't you seek it out, sir?
10 A. It's not -- that wasn't actually -- I don't think it's actually
11 recorded in my reports about these. It's recorded in the testimony. I
12 was not asked to consider that.
13 Q. Okay. Would it have any impact on your analysis in your report at
15 A. If I was informed that there were thousands of injured parties,
16 yes, I would -- it wouldn't necessarily affect my report, what it stated
17 in the report. It might affect my questioning and answering.
18 Q. I think it would affect your report, with all due respect, and I'm
19 suggesting to you it would have affected it in that you wouldn't have
20 concluded, as you did in many of the cases that, they were from simple
21 bullet injuries not related to combat. I think that might be significant,
22 don't you?
23 A. With respect, my report is about bodies that I examined. It's not
24 about the whole conflict.
25 Q. I'm not suggesting the whole conflict, but of the bodies that you
2 A. Bodies I examined, we found a very small number with signs of
3 previous -- previous wounds; in other words, bandages around the limbs.
4 That was an extremely small number.
5 Q. Doctor, what other sources do you think we should look at to
6 determine the number of wounded men from the conflict in July of 1995 in
7 Srebrenica if we wanted to determine that, other than those that I just
8 referenced to you?
9 A. That would be a very good start. These sources, yes.
10 Q. Any others that come to mind?
11 A. Not to mind. The Red Cross may have some figures, ICRC.
12 Q. All right. I agree with you. What about the Bosnian authorities
13 and the insurance programmes that they have for injured veterans or
14 injured military people? Do you think that might help us in determining
15 where they were injured, where they were injured, et cetera?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Elderkin.
17 MR. ELDERKIN: Objection on the relevance of this question.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to respond to that before we decide,
20 Mr. Ostojic?
21 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't think it merits a response, with all due
22 response, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move to the next question, please.
24 MR. OSTOJIC:
25 Q. Sir, with the respect to category you identified as personal
1 belongings on the corpses, who was in charge of taking that inventory.
2 A. The pathologist removed the material from the body, took a rough
3 note of it, in general terms, and handed it to the scenes of crimes
4 officers who cleaned them, cleaned the items, and photographed them and
5 logged them carefully.
6 Q. Were there identification papers found on some of the corpse that
7 were recovered?
8 A. There were in a small number of cases.
9 Q. Did you make an inventory of that, sir?
10 A. Not in my report. That is -- will be -- there will be an
11 inventory from other sources.
12 Q. What source would that be?
13 A. There will be the scenes of crime documentation.
14 Q. But you, as the pathologist, did you go over those to determine
15 whether they were accurate and done reliably?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Why not?
18 A. Because that's not my particular role.
19 Q. So is there any significance to looking at the personal belongings
20 on the corpses?
21 A. Just as a general observation that we were looking for perhaps
22 things that they didn't have; any bullets or guns, et cetera.
23 Q. Were you ever provided with a copy of the Prosecution's military
24 consultant and his report?
25 A. No.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: That's all the questions I have, Your Honour. Thank
2 you. Thank you, Dr. Clark.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
4 I just want to confirm that Nikolic team, Gvero and Pandurevic
5 teams do not have cross-examination to put.
6 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is correct. We
7 have no questions.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Is there re-examination, Mr. Elderkin?
9 MR. ELDERKIN: Just on one point, if I may.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
11 Re-examination by Mr. Elderkin:
12 Q. Dr. Clark, on the subject of blast injuries, can you say what kind
13 of weapons blast injuries you came across are consistent with?
14 A. The commonest or really all of them looked like grenade injuries.
15 And that was on the basis of the material we found, the small portions of
16 metal and little rods, small rods which looked like the contents of a
18 MR. ELDERKIN: That's all I have.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
20 We don't have any further questions for you, Dr. Clark, which
21 means that your testimony ends here. I wish to thank you for having come
22 over to testify again on this trial. You will be escorted, and given all
23 the assistance you need and we wish you a safe journey back home.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, we come to documents. Mr. Elderkin.
2 MR. ELDERKIN: Mr. President, I understand that actually
3 everything on the list for Dr. Clark has already been admitted, and we
4 haven't got anything further to tender today.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. That is our position as well.
6 Defence teams. I start with you, Mr. Ostojic. On page 46, let's
7 go back; let me find back, page 46. When you referred the witness to the
8 War Crimes Pathological Investigation Review, do you intend to tender
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Not at this time, Your Honour, no.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. But perhaps you can at least give us an
12 indication of the date when this was issued.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: All I have the date as being 2005. I could get the
14 actual -- I have the article', it's marked. But I would happy, if the
15 Court wants it, you can have it into evidence.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm asking you in particular because throughout the
17 rest of the transcript, you seem to be referring the witness to page 346,
18 300, and it seems -- because an article of that length would become a book
19 in itself. So I take it it's the page of the review rather than the
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Correct. It is a journal that has pages, and it's a
22 five or seven-page article.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I just wanted to clarify.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: The only reason I didn't submit it because he
25 acknowledged it when confronted with it, so I didn't think -- unless the
1 Court needs it, I would be happy to get a clean copy and submit it.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: No. I just asked you whether you were tendering
3 because failing that, we needed this clarification. But if you could give
4 indications, please, as to the review itself, the edition, and the precise
5 name of the witness's article.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll provide the Court with that information.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: The title.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: I have the title now, if the Court would like.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, if you could --
10 MR. OSTOJIC: There is two. One is entitled, "War Injuries." The
11 other one is titled, "Pathological Evidence." Let me just make sure of
12 that. I'm sorry, "Pathological Investigation." Both appear in the same
13 journal, and they are two or three articles apart from each other. The
14 University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: You don't have the issue number.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: I was surprised it doesn't have the on the actual
17 articles as all.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: It would have it on the front page of the journal.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Sometimes they refer with the volume on the pages,
20 but it doesn't. I will provide that the Court, if necessary.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Any of the other Defence teams wishes to
22 tender any documents. None.
23 I think that's it. We can move to the next witness, who is a
24 protected witness, enjoying pseudonym and facial distortion.
25 Yes, Ms. Condon.
1 MS. CONDON: Your Honour, Dr. Dunjic is still in court. I wonder
2 if it would be suitable for him -- does the Court have a view whether he
3 should remain during the next witness or he should be absent.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think this witness is very interesting to
5 Mr. Dunjic.
6 MS. CONDON: If it is more appropriate for him to be absent.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we would leave it entirely in your hands.
8 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good afternoon, Your Honours. I'm sorry I kind
11 of walked up in the middle of Ms. Condon's request, and I guess it
12 concerns the Doctor remaining in the courtroom during the -- my concern is
13 obviously that the witness is a protected witness, and I don't know...
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, you are right. You are right. Yes. Okay.
15 Dr. Dunjic, I think -- thank you.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, sir.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: On behalf of the Trial Chamber, I welcome you to
20 this Tribunal. Madam Usher is going to give you the text of a solemn
21 declaration you are required to make that you will be testifying the
22 truth. Please go ahead. Read it out aloud.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
24 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
25 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-153
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please make yourself comfortable.
3 Mr. Vanderpuye will be putting some questions to you, and also referring
4 to a statement you made on the 18th of February, 2007. He will be then be
5 followed by some or all of the Defence teams in cross-examination.
6 Before you start testifying, I wanted to confirm to you that we
7 have granted you two protective measures; namely, the use of a pseudonym
8 instead of your real name, and also the use of facial distortion. I just
9 want to make sure that this is to your satisfaction.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
13 Honours, good morning, counsel.
14 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good morning, Witness. I would like to present
16 the witness with P02445 for the record.
17 Q. Sir, could you please take a look at that document, and without
18 telling us what's on it, could you confirm that you are the person named
19 in it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. While the Defence is looking at that document, let me
22 first explain to you just a couple of things. I'm going to ask you a
23 series of questions, and I'm going to ask you to try and keep your voice
24 up and allow a small pause between the question and answer to allow the
25 interpreters to do their jobs and make that information available to
1 everyone else. I have only a few questions to ask you, so I anticipate
2 the direct examination will be rather short.
3 First, do you recall having given a statement to the Office of the
4 Prosecutor which was signed and acknowledged on the 18th of February of
5 this year?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. Okay. And the statement that was given by you, is that a truthful
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Have you had an opportunity to read your statement before having
11 come to testify here today?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And did you read the statement in your native language?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And was that the language that you originally gave your statement
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And just for the record, can you tell us what language that is?
19 A. Bosnian.
20 Q. Having read your statement, are you satisfied that it is correct
21 and accurate?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And does the statement, as you read it, fairly and accurately
24 reflect what it is you actually said?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And does it fairly and accurately reflect what you would say, if
2 you were to be examined here today?
3 A. Could you please repeat your question?
4 Q. Does what's contained in the statement accurately reflect what you
5 would say, were you to be examined here today?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: At this time, Your Honours, I would offer the
8 statement P02447 into evidence.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have a very brief summary I would like to read
11 into the record, if I may.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would like to go into private session just for
14 the first two paragraphs.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session for a while.
16 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, we are in open session.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
6 "In 1993, the witness was assigned to the southern site of the
7 Anti-Electronic Warfare Unit, then known as EIPED, and he was assigned
8 there as an intercept operator. Upon his arrival to the southern site,
9 the witness received instructions concerning the operation of the
10 equipment from his commanding officer and began processing intercepted
11 communications in accordance with an established procedure, which entailed
12 taping intercepted communications, manually transcribing them into
13 notebooks, and submitting the handwritten transcriptions for typing and
15 "The witness remained in the ABiH army until he was demobilised
16 soon after the Dayton Peace Accords took effect."
17 That concludes my 92 ter summary. I have a few questions to put
18 to the witness.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE:
21 Q. Sir, can you tell us if you've an opportunity to review a packet
22 of 12 intercepts prior to testifying here today?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And in particular, did you review the handwritten material
25 contained in this packet?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And does that handwritten material reflect intercepted
3 communications that were taken down by you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And did you recognise the handwritten material as that of your
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, did you transcribe that material; that is, write the material
9 into a notebook, pursuant to your responsibilities and duties as an
10 operator assigned to the southern site of the Anti-Electronic Warfare
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And have you had an opportunity to review the original notebooks
14 containing these handwritten intercepts?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And are you satisfied that the copies of these handwritten
17 transcriptions conform -- the handwritten transcriptions contained in the
18 packet conform to the originals that are contained in the notebook?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Your Honours, I have no further questions at this
22 time. Thank you, Witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
24 Mr. Zivanovic.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic and witness, you both speak the same
2 language, so in order not to create problems for the interpreters that
3 have to translate to us in English and French, please allow a short pause
4 between question and answer.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good day.
8 A. Good day.
9 Q. Witness, I read your statement, and I saw that you said in the
10 statement that you worked in daily shifts of eight hours each with two
11 operators working at the same time. Can you please confirm that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You also said that you had at that time, at this place where you
14 worked, three sets of equipment. Can you confirm that also?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you please tell me, since you already mentioned in the
17 statement that you jotted down the conversations into a notebook, can you
18 please tell me when you were in the shift, when you were working, how many
19 notebooks did you have at your disposal?
20 A. I don't remember. It was a long time ago.
21 Q. Did you have your own separate notebook?
22 A. When I was in the shift, the notebook was in front of me.
23 Q. And when you finished the shift, did you take it with you or did
24 it stay there for the next person to make entries, the next operator?
25 A. Yes. It stayed there and the next operator entered the following
2 Q. When you were working in the shift, did you just have that one
3 notebook, as you said, or did you have several notebooks into which you
4 wrote down different conversations at the same time?
5 A. Just one notebook.
6 Q. Thank you. After the notebook was full, you handed it over to a
8 A. The superior officer would take the notebook after the
9 conversation was listened back and transcribed into the notebook, if it
10 was urgent; if not, it would stay for an hour, two or three, I don't know
11 for how long, and then the superior officer would do whatever he needed to
13 Q. When you say "after the entry," does that mean that the notebook
14 was taken so that the data could be entered into the computer?
15 A. It was my job to transcribe the conversation, to listen back to
16 it, and to write it down. The rest of the work was done by my superior.
17 Q. Thank you. When the notebook was completely filled, did you again
18 give the notebook to your superior?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. I would now like to ask you to look at the original
21 notebook where you did make an entry. That is 1268B.
22 Do you see this piece of paper? And I would like to draw your
23 attention to the conversation 255.850. That's the part that I would like
24 you to look at.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Can you please tell me if this is a conversation that you wrote
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I noticed that the entire conversation is written in capitals. Is
5 that how you wrote down all of your conversations?
6 A. We didn't receive any specific instructions about how we should
7 write, so we each wrote how we wished. There was no specific order as to
8 which sort of letters we should use.
9 Q. I didn't think that there was an order about how you should write,
10 but I'm just asking if it was your habit to write in block letters and if
11 they were always the same size, if that was your habit?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I'm asking you this because when you look at line 3 of this text,
14 there is a word "pop" there. "Pop left," and so on. Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I'm asking you that because in our language - I'm sorry. I need
17 to slow down a little bit - because in our language "pop" can mean priest,
18 but it can also be a nickname of a person. So I'm asking you this because
19 we cannot really tell from this text what this word refers to. I assume
20 that you didn't know either, you just wrote what you heard.
21 A. The word actually is "pop" has been sent, or that has gone to
22 "pop." This happened because the conversations were quite fast, and
23 that's why we wrote quite quickly.
24 Q. Perhaps you didn't understand. I was perhaps unclear. All I'm
25 interested in is this particular word "pop." You wrote down what you
1 heard without indicating specifically, and I assume you didn't know
2 whether this was a profession or a nickname?
3 A. I didn't know who was being referred to here.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 A. I wrote down what I heard.
6 Q. Thank you. Just one question relating to this same intercept,
7 this conversation. If you see here, it says in the line below the word --
8 the line begins, "Parcel, he told you to divide." So can you tell on the
9 basis of this, I cannot see what that word that he told you refers to. So
10 what my question is, is whether you faithfully wrote down what you heard?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. Thank you, because this is a little bit -- it's translated a
13 little bit differently, but that is not your problem and I'm not going to
14 bring that to your attention.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Slow down. You're moving too fast.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Just one more question. You mentioned the equipment that you had,
18 and you did specify that in your statement. Can you please tell me if you
19 know whether this was old or new equipment?
20 A. I don't know. I don't know if it was old or new.
21 Q. Thank you. And just one more thing. Do you know which antennas
22 you had? Since I see that you specified the kind of equipment that you
23 had, do you know what kind of antennas you also had?
24 A. I don't know, but my superiors do.
25 Q. And just one more answer to a question. Do you know if you had
1 your own separate antennas or you had joint antennas -- actually, no, no,
2 I'm sorry that cannot refer to you. I withdraw the question. No, no.
3 Thank you.
4 [In English] [Previous translation continues] ...
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I was just checking the time you have taken.
6 Yes, Defence team for Mr. Beara.
7 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Meek:
9 Q. Good afternoon, Witness. How are you?
10 A. Good afternoon. Fine.
11 Q. Is this the first time you've testified at this Tribunal or any
12 other Tribunal or court concerning your activities in the ABiH army
13 between 1993 and 1995?
14 A. The first time.
15 Q. And if I understand correctly, you met with representatives from
16 the Office of the Prosecutor on the 15th day of February, 2007. Is that
18 A. Could you please repeat the question?
19 Q. Okay. Today is the 20th of February, 2007. And is it correct
20 that you met with Mr. Vanderpuye, the Office of the Prosecutor, and
21 perhaps Dusan Janc, an interviewer, and several interpreters five days
22 ago, here in The Hague. Is that true?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. When did you meet, if at all, with representatives from the
25 Office of the Prosecutor, including Mr. Vanderpuye, who just questioned
1 you in direct examination?
2 A. Could you please clarify the question? When did we meet?
3 Q. When did you meet?
4 A. You mean the Prosecutor and I?
5 Q. Well, yes. Let's start there. That would be fine, sir.
6 A. On the 18th of February.
7 Q. And you don't recall meeting on the 15th day of February?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you meet with any person from the Office of the Prosecutor in
10 connection with your testimony and in preparation for your testimony on
11 the 15th day of February, which would have been last week?
12 A. No.
13 Q. May the witness be shown 65 ter number P2447, which is a witness
15 MR. MEEK: And in -- I don't have the number of the B/C/S but if
16 we could perhaps hand it to the witness. Excuse me, perhaps put it on the
17 ELMO. Do you have it? Could you blow that up, please? Briefly, and I
18 apologise for this, Madam Usher, could you switch back to the English
19 version real quickly, to the last page? And please don't broadcast it.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: I just wanted to make sure that the document
22 wasn't being broadcast and accordance with the Court's policy.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: The other thing is, I don't know if Mr. Meek --
25 this is an issue that I think can be clarify.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's not discuss it at this critical moment.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. That's no problem.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's hear what the witness has to say about this
4 and then you can intervene. Go ahead, Mr. Meek.
5 MR. MEEK:
6 Q. Do you see on the left of your screen on the bottom, a signature
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is that your signature, sir?
10 A. It is.
11 Q. There are three signatures there. Could you indicate for the
12 record which is yours, the top left, the middle that is a little lower, or
13 the one to the far right, sir?
14 A. Top left.
15 Q. Now, I would ask you to please look to the right-hand side of your
16 screen, that's the document in B/C/S. Do you see that, sir?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And about three quarters of the way down it says, "Date of
19 interviews: 15 and 18.2.2007." Do you see that, sir?
20 A. Yes. This interview was conducted on the telephone on the 15th.
21 Q. And who did you speak to over the telephone on the 15th, sir?
22 A. I wasn't here on the 15th.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Who -- the question is a simple one. Who did you
24 speak to on the phone on the 15th, or who spoke to you on the 15th on the
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if I may say it now.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, it's -- the question is directed who spoke to
3 you from the Office of the Prosecutor.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember the name exactly.
5 I know that Snjeska called and told me to prepare myself for the
6 interview, to give a statement.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: And then you were interviewed over the phone. Was
8 it a male voice that interviewed you or a female voice?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Female voice, and I could hear the
10 male voice in the background.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: And you don't know the name of this female who
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't want to speculate.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
15 MR. MEEK: Thank you.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you have the expansion now of the 15th and
17 18th. I think we can move ahead now.
18 MR. MEEK: I think I agree with you, Judge.
19 Q. One question, and IF you want to, Witness, tell me if you want to
20 go into private session, but you just stated that you know -- "I know that
21 Snjeska called me and told me to prepare myself." Who is Snjeska? Again,
22 if you need to go into private session to answer that, that's fine.
23 A. I don't know who she is.
24 Q. So can I take it that whoever Snjeska was, was from the Office of
25 the Prosecutor, to your knowledge?
1 A. I don't know where she's from.
2 Q. And sir, was that the --
3 A. I apologise. If I may, she said that they need me from the OTP,
4 they need me to give a statement.
5 Q. Was that the extent of the conversation or did this person,
6 Snjeska, talk to you in more detail about what you -- your statement or
7 testimony was going to be about?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek, I hate to interrupt you but let's move on.
9 He's told you already that he was then interviewed later but not by this
11 MR. MEEK:
12 Q. Earlier today, on page 76, you indicated -- or, excuse me, page
13 74, lines 19 to 20, Mr. Zivanovic asked you some questions, and you
14 indicated that if a conversation were urgent, one of your superiors or a
15 superior would take your notebook immediately and have that conversation
16 then typed. Was that your testimony, sir?
17 A. Yes, but I didn't do the typing.
18 Q. I understand that. Would it be the supervisor then that would
19 determine if a certain conversation were urgent, ask you to take that
20 notebook so he could type it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So then it's a fair statement that it wasn't you determining what
23 conversations might be urgent, correct?
24 A. We also assessed and informed the superiors. That was our duty.
25 And if a superior was present, that he would monitor our work; and then he
1 would decide whether something was urgent or not.
2 Q. And, sir, it's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but you
3 would tape record these conversations and then later you would listen to
4 the tape recording and write down what you believed you heard. Is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And in answer to my colleague's question on page 76 today, you
8 stated that the reason you sometimes wrote, I think, in all bold was
9 because the conversations were quite fast and that's why we had to write
10 quite fast or quite quickly. Do you remember that, sir?
11 A. I generally write in capital letters; and if there were some
12 mistakes, it was due the haste. Those who the reports were sent to were
13 the ones to decide on this.
14 Q. Witness, could you just clarify, if you've already recorded the
15 conversation and you are just listening to it, don't you have the ability
16 to stop the tape and restart it, stop it and restart it, so that you can
17 write it down in a slower fashion?
18 A. Yes, we could pause, and then we would rewind, listen to it again,
19 then pause; and then repeat the process until we wrote down everything
20 that was recorded.
21 Q. Thank you for that answer, but now how do you reconcile that with
22 your answer to Mr. Zivanovic that this happened because the conversations
23 were quite fast and that's why we wrote quite quickly?
24 A. I said when there was a lot of recorded material then the
25 handwriting was what it was. Sometimes the conversations were slow.
1 That's how it was.
2 Q. In your statement that you gave to the Prosecutor, under paragraph
3 3, when you talked about your procedure, you said, "We wrote the channel,
4 date, and time of the conversation and the participants if they had been
5 mentioned during the conversation." Do you recall that?
6 A. Could you please repeat?
7 Q. Referring to the witness statement, which would be 65 ter number
8 P2447, paragraph 3 of your own statement, Witness, when you were
9 discussing how the conversation was recorded to the tape and then
10 listening to the conversation again and writing the conversation in the
11 notebook you said, "The procedure was that we wrote the channel, date, and
12 time of conversation and participants if they had been mentioned during
13 the conversation."
14 Do you remember telling the OTP that?
15 A. The date I don't remember, and as for the rest, yes.
16 Q. Thank you, because I didn't notice any dates on any of your
17 handwritten intercepts that you allegedly wrote down.
18 Witness, you also -- or explain this to me: Did you initially
19 tell the Prosecutor's office here that you also signed the transcribed
20 conversation at the end of it?
21 A. Did I tell the Prosecutor? Is that what you're asking?
22 Q. Yes, sir, in your statement, in your initial statement, maybe on
23 the 15th over the telephone, perhaps? That you would always sign your
24 name at the end.
25 A. At that moment I said that we signed it, although I wasn't sure
1 because it's been a long time. And I wouldn't want to say something that
2 I don't remember and something that I'm not quite sure about.
3 Q. I can appreciate that, Mr. Witness. The tapes that you used were
4 sometimes new and sometimes you were reusing old tapes. Is that correct?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek, you've got about one minute left.
6 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Judge.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The tapes arrived, my superior
8 placed them, the empty ones.
9 MR. MEEK:
10 Q. So is your answer you always had new tapes or you just know if
11 they were new or you were reusing older tapes?
12 A. We didn't use the old tapes.
13 Q. So it's your testimony --
14 A. I apologise. We didn't use old tapes. The ones that already had
15 something recording -- recorded on them, we did not re-record; rather,
16 different tapes arrived. Now, whether they were new ones or had been used
17 before, I don't know that.
18 Q. Okay. Thank you. Just two more questions. Witness, it's true
19 that when you finished a notebook and it was filled in, it was handed over
20 to your supervisors and you assume that the corps command received them,
21 correct? That was an assumption on your part?
22 A. Assumption, yes.
23 Q. And you also had no idea of what happened to the actual tapes
24 after they were finished, other than you believe and assume that they were
25 forwarded to the headquarters. Isn't that true, sir?
1 A. I don't know where the tapes went afterwards.
2 MR. MEEK: I have no further questions. Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
4 Madam Nikolic.
5 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Just a few questions, Your Honours.
6 Thank you.
7 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.
9 A. Good afternoon.
10 Q. I do not want to go back to the topics covered by my colleagues,
11 but at the southern location, from the first day when you arrived there in
12 1993, with respect to all of the notes and transcription, you only used
13 the notebooks that were provided to you and you did that all the way until
14 the end of your stay?
15 A. Yes, the superior provided the notebooks.
16 Q. Did you ever transcribe intercepts to pieces of paper or small
17 pieces of paper that were later burned?
18 A. I didn't. Everything went into the notebook; everything that I
19 did went into the notebook. Now, what happened with them afterwards, I
20 don't know. Our superior took them, and I don't know what happened
22 Q. So the notebook, the entry into the notebook reflect what you
23 heard on UHER when you recorded a conversation?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And today, if we were to find tapes with these recordings, they
1 would be identical to what is written in the notebook, and you wouldn't
2 enter into the notebook anything that you didn't hear on the tape?
3 A. Nothing else was entered into the notebook except for the
4 conversation that was recorded, at least I didn't.
5 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Ms. Nikolic.
7 Mr. Stojanovic.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: We will have a break in about seven minutes' time.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, in addition to you and your unit at the
12 southern location, this is how we're going to refer to it in the future,
13 there was also another military unit stationed there. Are you aware of
15 A. In addition to us, can you please clarify your question?
16 Q. In addition to the unit to which you belonged in 1995 at that
17 southern location, was there another unit there who performed other
18 tasks -- which performed other tasks?
19 A. I don't remember.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: The way it's been translated at least - and I have
21 no doubt to - I have no reason to doubt that it is a correct translation -
22 would lead the witness to understand that you are asking him whether there
23 were more than one unit in the southern location.
24 While if I understood you correctly, your question was directed to
25 elicit from the witness information as to knowledge of another
1 installation or another location elsewhere and not in the same southern
2 location. Is that correct, Mr. Stojanovic, or not?
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct. And we have
4 already received answers from witnesses who spoke both about different
5 units performing different tasks and others --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop, stop. I'll just go --
7 Apart from the southern -- Witness.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Apart from the southern location where you were
10 posted, was there also another location at the north?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: And you were aware of it then? Don't mention the
13 name. But you were aware of the existence of this other location at the
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Stojanovic.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you for
18 assisting me, Your Honours.
19 Q. Now, Witness, I would like to ask you this: At the southern
20 location where you were in 1995, was there another facility there not used
21 by your unit?
22 A. I know about the facility used by my unit.
23 Q. All right. I will not be putting any further questions on this
24 topic any longer.
25 Another matter that I wish to ask you about. Was there a service
1 dealing with radio interference or radio jamming within your unit?
2 A. I don't know. I worked on intercepting and transcribing and
3 recording intercepts.
4 Q. In 1995, at any period during that year, did you or anybody else
5 in your unit maintain communication with the 28th Division in Srebrenica?
6 A. I didn't. I did the work I described; and what you're saying, I
7 have no idea about it.
8 Q. I'd like to ask you whether you are familiar with the term "Paket
10 A. I heard of that term.
11 Q. What does it denote?
12 A. That wasn't my job, so I didn't pay attention to that. I just
13 heard about it.
14 Q. Can you assist with this, do you know anything about this: In
15 July 1995, an indirect link was established between the 28th Division and
16 the 2nd Corps of the army of BH through the location where you were.
17 A. I don't know about that.
18 Q. And to conclude with this question, how often did you work in
19 eight-hour shifts, as you described earlier?
20 A. As a rule we worked in eight-hour shifts, depending on the
21 situation and on operations. Sometimes we worked longer. Eight hours was
22 a rule. Let me clarify. Sometimes there were more than two of us
23 working, and we would also sometimes work longer than eight hours.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since I will have
25 only just a couple of more questions, we can either stop now or I can go
1 and finish my cross-examination now.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: How long are your couple of more questions,
3 Mr. Stojanovic?
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will stick to
5 what we wrote down, so that's ten minutes in total. So I still have three
6 minutes left, I think, and I will be able to finish within that time.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's finish with your cross-examination now, and
8 then we have the break in three or four minutes' time. Thank you.
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Q. I understood you to say that you worked for eight hours, sometimes
11 longer than eight hours, so what I wanted you to tell me was how many days
12 in a row did your group, you, or your shift work and then after how many
13 days did you get some time off that you were able to spend outside of the
14 location where you worked?
15 A. Well, can I say it like this, can I reply openly to this question,
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't see why not.
18 What's your problem with answering it. We are hiding your face.
19 I don't see the problem.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can answer. It's like this:
21 For ten days, we worked at the location - this is my section, the section
22 that I was in - then we were replaced by the second or the other section,
23 which also worked for ten days, meaning that we spent ten days resting,
24 away from the location.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Looking at the list of the conversations given to us, which you
2 said were yours, they start on the 16th of July, 1995. Would I be correct
3 if I were to say that practically until the 16th of July you were not at
4 the southern location, but that you were away at that time, resting, on
6 A. I am saying what I remember. When I was working, when I was doing
7 that work, I do not recall the dates. Yes, it was a long time ago. I
8 worked and I confirmed that what I wrote down was my handwriting and that
9 I did that work. As for when we were on leave and when would were on
10 duty, that is something that I really cannot remember.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. Your
12 Honours, we have no further questions.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you for that. We can have the break. 25
14 minutes starting from now. Thank you.
15 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.
18 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, in your statement, you said that you marked
20 when you didn't know the name of the person speaking by an X or a Y. I
21 would like to know if it was an established procedure, or it was only the
22 way you would say that it was an unknown correspondent.
23 A. Yes, that was the established procedure when we were not sure who
24 the speakers in the conversation were.
25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown notebook
1 number 22 with number ERN 0080-4541. Could the page finishing with 4530
2 be shown to the witness, please.
3 Q. Sir, can you see the conversation, the first conversation on this
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Isn't it true --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Is it in front of the witness? Yes,
8 okay. All right. Go ahead.
9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Sir, can you see the first conversation, is it not true that the
11 participants are noted as 1 and 2?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is it true that certain of your colleagues did not follow the
14 established procedure?
15 A. I've told you what I remember; X, Y, question mark. It's
16 possible, but I'm not sure, and that's why I'm saying that I don't
17 remember that they could have been also marked with a 1 and a 2.
18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown page,
19 which it has the number 0080-4541.
20 Q. Seeing the conversation which has been taped at 1355, I would
21 first like to establish is it a conversation which you wrote down?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Seeing this page of the notebook, have you any way of establishing
24 the date of this conversation?
25 A. Can you please repeat your question?
1 Q. Seeing this conversation on this page of the copy, can you
2 establish the date? Do you have any means to establish the date of this
3 conversation, this intercept?
4 A. I don't know. There is no date.
5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be now shown page
6 which finishes by 4537.
7 Q. About the conversation of 9.45, is this an intercept which you
8 wrote down yourself?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Is it true that the date which is above has not been written by
12 A. I did not write down the date.
13 Q. You don't know who wrote it?
14 A. I don't remember.
15 Q. And you don't know or you don't remember when this date was
16 written down?
17 A. I didn't write it. I don't remember if we put the dates in or
18 not, and I don't know who wrote the date.
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown page
20 4514 [as interpreted], four last digits.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: What's the problem, usher? I imagine so, but I know
22 when I said it.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] 4614. It's my fault, I apologise.
24 Q. Sir, did you write down the conversation of 9.39? This intercept,
25 did you write it down?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Could you read the first sentence of this intercept?
3 A. "Hey, Krle [Realtime transcript read in error "Colonel"],
4 Milovanovic called me. His Puch has broken down. He has to send it for
5 repairs and says that you should send him transportation until it's
7 Q. Sir, it seems that there is a mistake in the translation, anyway
8 in the -- is it true that the first sentence starts by "Krle,
10 A. Krle. Not Karlo, Krle. K-r-l-e.
11 Q. So you can see "Krle, Milovanovic" [indiscernible], isn't it so?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You didn't speak of Colonel Milovanovic in this conversation, did
14 you? Sir, I want to be very specific; it's just for the first sentence.
15 A. Yes. What's the problem?
16 Q. There was a translation problem, and also a transcript problem. I
17 want to discuss it with you. You never mentioned Colonel Milovanovic in
18 this conversation, you just speak of Milovanovic, don't you?
19 A. I don't recall the conversation, but this is my handwriting. It
20 was a long time ago; I've forgotten.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Why don't you be more direct in your question,
22 Madam Fauveau.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would only like to
24 correct an error in translation on page 93, line 10, because indeed it's a
25 mistake in translation or in the transcript. I can't say. But maybe the
1 witness could once again read this sentence.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Witness, can I ask you please to read
3 again that first sentence of that transcript -- of that intercept? Read
4 it aloud, please.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Hey, Krle, Milovanovic called me.
6 His Puch has broken down. He has to send it for repairs and says that you
7 should send him transportation until it's fixed."
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that clarifies now the whole -- the whole
9 issue. The problem was translation issue during interpretation. That's
11 Your next question, Madam Fauveau.
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Is it true that during this conversation you only heard one of the
15 A. If two speakers are heard, then it's marked as two speakers in the
16 conversation, and they were heard. X is not known. And Krstic, from
17 practice actually from what we could hear, sometimes they would call him
19 Q. Sir, I am asking you this question, and answer me only if you know
20 the answer. Do you know who was this Krstic or Krle?
21 A. Well, I've forgotten who that was. It's been long since then. It
22 was a long time ago.
23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... the persons you have
24 indicated by X and Krstic, you noted something under Krstic. Could you
25 tell me what is written under the name Krstic?
1 A. It's illegible.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Give him the notebook itself. Let him look at the
3 notebook. Maybe it's clearer there.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's clear to me now.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And what is written beneath?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Not audible." "Inaudible." That
7 means that Krstic is inaudible.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Therefore, indeed, you did hear that only one participant to this
10 conversation was heard?
11 A. Can you please -- if X, it's one participant that was audible, who
12 could be heard.
13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpreter] Could the witness be shown notebook 104
14 with number 009873. Could the witness be shown page number 2, which
15 finishes by 1873, the digits 1873.
16 Q. Do you know who is the person you can read the name on this page?
17 A. No.
18 Q. And you don't know who wrote this name in the notebook, isn't it
20 A. No.
21 Q. And this person did not work with you?
22 A. The name is not familiar. The first and last name is not
24 Q. Sir, would you agree that all which is written -- handwritten on
25 this page is indeed a joke?
1 A. It's not up to me to speculate on something that I don't know.
2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I still have one last
3 question to ask, but could we go into closed session, please?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's go into private session.
5 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session. Mr. Josse or Mr. Krgovic,
1 do you have any questions.
2 MR. JOSSE: Despite what we'd originally said, Your Honour, we've
3 decided to ask no questions, Your Honour. Thank you.
4 MR. HAYNES: Similar position here, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Is there re-examination?
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry. Could you just bear with me one
7 moment, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course, Mr. Vanderpuye.
9 [Prosecution counsel confer]
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: We have no further questions. Thank you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So, Witness, that brings your testimony
12 to an end. We don't have any further questions for you. You're free to
13 go. Madam Usher will escort you, and you will receive the assistance you
14 require to return back home at the earliest. On behalf of the Tribunal, I
15 wish to thank you for having come over to give evidence and also wish you
16 a safe journey back home.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'd like to thank you too, Your
18 Honours, for inviting me here.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So, let's go through the documents now.
21 Mr. Vanderpuye.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think we -- well, the pseudonym sheet would
23 be -- okay. All right. Everybody has the Prosecution's exhibit to
24 tender. I would submit all of the items that are listed on this tender
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections from the Defence teams? We hear
2 none. So the first two of these documents, that's P02447 being the
3 witness statement, is admitted and to be kept under seal. The pseudonym
4 sheet, P02445, similarly admitted to be kept under seal. All the other
5 intercepts are being entered into the record and marked for
6 identification. The ones which are in bold characters will be kept under
7 seal until we finally decide on the destiny of these intercepts.
8 Any of the Defence teams wishes to tender any document?
9 Madam Fauveau?
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So I think we can close this chapter
12 here. Do you have Professor Wright?
13 In the meantime, for the record, the Defence forensic expert has
14 walked in again into the courtroom.
15 Yes, who will be handling Mr. Wright? Mr. McCloskey -- or
16 Professor Wright. Is he here? So let's bring him in. We can lift the
17 curtains, I think.
18 MR. JOSSE: I'll do that, Your Honour. Mr. McCloskey beat me to
19 it, Your Honour.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Are there interpreters behind that panel or not?
22 Are there interpreters behind that panel? Oh, no. Okay. All right.
23 Because that would make their lives -- I would be jumping.
24 Professor Wright, I welcome you to the Tribunal on behalf of my
25 colleagues. You are about to start giving evidence, of course we will not
1 finish today. Please go through the solemn declaration and we can then
2 start after that.
3 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
4 whole truth and nothing but the truth.
5 WITNESS: RICHARD WRIGHT
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Professor. Please make yourself
7 comfortable. You're familiar with the procedure, as I will pass you on in
8 the very capable hands of the lead counsel for the Prosecution; and then
9 you he will then be followed by the various Defence teams on
11 Mr. McCloskey.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Examination by Mr. McCloskey:
14 Q. Good afternoon, Professor Wright. Can you just begin by telling
15 us your full name for the record?
16 A. Yes, my name is Richard Vernon Stafford Wright.
17 Q. What's your profession?
18 A. I'm an archaeologist.
19 Q. As I explained to you, this would be a much shorter process than
20 your memories would have been of the Krstic trial. I won't be asking you
21 very many questions, but I will go over a few things in the next 15
22 minutes that we have left, just to give a -- for you to give a brief
23 background. Can you tell us, archaeology, what -- can you just briefly
24 describe what that is, especially in the context of the work you were
25 asked to do for the ICTY?
1 A. Yes. In the context of the type of forensic work I was asked to
2 do, the archaeologists are concerned with what's in the ground and the
3 evidence that's associated with bodies in the ground. The anthropologists
4 then study the bones themselves. My role therefore is to find graves, to
5 exhume the graves, and to retain associated evidence and records, and then
6 the bodies are handed over to the morgue for examination by
7 anthropologists and pathologists. Though in the excavations, I have
8 anthropologists with me.
9 Q. Can you tell us why is it that you would have anthropologists with
10 you in the excavations?
11 A. They were particularly useful in the graves where there were body
12 parts in -- in determining that a particular collection of bones had no
13 other bones associated with them, and to do that you have to have
14 knowledge of human anatomy.
15 Q. Was there an object to try to remove the -- these bones in some
16 sort of methodical way. I'm sorry, I cannot speak. But what was the
17 purpose of that?
18 A. Well, the purpose was to recover complete bodies, where the bodies
19 were complete, and the -- to separate out body parts when the bodies were
20 not complete and to send those down to the morgue with separate labels.
21 Q. All right. And aside from as you've described collecting the
22 evidence from the dig, the excavation, did you analyse what you saw and
23 what you worked with sometimes?
24 A. Yes. We didn't analyse the age and sex and cause and manner of
25 death of the individuals, but we certainly analysed the stratification
1 within the graves to see whether they'd been tampered with after primary
2 burial. We had to determine whether the graves were primary graves, that
3 is placed where people had been put after they'd been killed, or secondary
4 graves where they'd been dug up from the primary graves and reburied. So
5 some analysis was required there.
6 Q. Okay. Before I'll ask you to give one -- one example of -- of a
7 few graves and how -- what kind of conclusions or analysis you made. But
8 before we get to the actual graves for this case, can you give us a brief
9 background in what kind of experience you had in exhuming mass graves?
10 A. Yes. Well, at Sidney University, when I had the chair there, I
11 was a general archaeologist and I worked on Australian archaeology; and in
12 1990, I asked by the Australian government to join a team that went to the
13 Ukraine, and my responsibility there was to find three mass graves that
14 was alleged three Australian people had created, as it were in the Second
15 World War.
16 The first grave was at Serniki and contained 550 bodies, mainly
17 women and children, and my job was to uncover them for the pathologist to
18 examine, in situ in this case. I then resigned from my chair so that I
19 could go back to the Ukraine in 1991, and we discovered and exhumed two
20 more mass graves. I was given the title of emeritus professor and
21 remained not on the payroll as it were of Sidney University since then.
22 Q. Those Ukrainian mass graves were Jewish victims killed by the
24 A. Yes, I should correct that. They were killed by the Nazis in the
25 case of the Serniki grave; but the other two graves, they were killed by
1 Ukrainians acting on the orders of the German occupiers.
2 Q. What was your next experience with mass graves after that?
3 A. It was in early 1997, I was asked by ICTY to be their chief
4 archaeologist, and I went to the Brcko area in a case that was unrelated
5 to the present one, and we exhumated mass graves there. In the case of
6 what I call the Srebrenica graves, that started in 1998; but in 1999, I
7 reverted to graves that dated from 1992 in the northwest part of Bosnia
8 near Prijedor, and then to Croatia, where we worked on graves where Serbs
9 were victims; and then I came back on to the Srebrenica case at the end of
10 1999 for Kozluk and in 2000.
11 Q. All right. And you have written reports on your work and you have
12 testified in the Krstic case. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 Q. In fact, you've written a reports that postdated your Krstic
15 testimony; is that correct?
16 A. Yes. The excavations at Glogova post date Krstic testimony.
17 Q. In the time small we have, could you just give us an example, and
18 I will use Glogova, since you haven't spoken -- you haven't testified
19 about that. This Court has heard about graves at Glogova, Zeleni Jadar,
20 and they've heard about the Kravica warehouse. Can you just tell us a bit
21 about the -- your exhumations of Glogova and Zeleni Jadar, just briefly to
22 give us an idea of the kind of work and the kind of analysis that -- that
23 you did. And I don't intend for this to be the kind of in-depth that you
24 and I would have done in Krstic.
25 A. I understand. Yes. My involvement with the sites you have
1 mentioned started at the end of 1998 at Zeleni Jadar 5 in September and
2 October 1998, and we decided that the grave at Zeleni Jadar was a
3 secondary grave; that is, people had been reburied from some earlier place
4 of burial.
5 Q. How did you conclude that?
6 A. From the fact that many of the bodies were body parts, which is
7 typical of bodies that have been dug up and taken and reburied, bits fall
8 off; then we also found material in the grave that was not -- that it was
9 not possible to link with the area around the grave; for instance, we
10 found motor car parts, hay, those were the main things that struck us.
11 But even the small items like unripe apples were in the grave with the
12 bodies, and it was in the middle of a forest and therefore we interpreted
13 these as exotic objects that had been brought in there with the bodies.
14 Q. All right. And after Zeleni, did you do Glogova at some point?
15 A. Yes. I wrote my report and gave it to ICTY, which included the
16 Zeleni Jadar site in May 1999, in which I predicted some of the properties
17 of the primary grave, but it wasn't until 15, 16 months later; that is,
18 towards the ends of 2000, that I was asked to investigate a site that was
19 called Glogova 1. And when we went to the site, we could see that this
20 had indeed got bits of broken barbed wire of the sort that we'd found in
21 the grave, apple trees. And when we started excavating, it was in a
22 primary grave from which bodies had been taken away.
23 We found with the bodies that had been left in places, motor car
24 parts; hay; and pieces of cement, some broken pieces of cement, some
25 coloured purple, some were cream coloured; bits of plastic foam; and
1 door-frames; and a large joist of the sort that go above doors. These
2 were various parts; and when we put them altogether, they created
3 something which was visible to me when I went down to the Kravica
4 warehouse as having gone missing from there but repairs had been made.
5 Q. How did you happen to go to the Kravica because?
6 A. I was taken to the Kravica warehouse by ICTY investigators, but --
7 and I can -- I formed an opinion that the -- that these pieces of building
8 material could be seen at the Kravica warehouse, including the foam
9 insulation, pieces of broken cement had been broken off the Kravica
10 warehouse. But a scene of crime officer, Mr. Mike Hedley, was assigned to
11 write a report on the Kravica warehouse. But I had no doubt when I was
12 carrying out the excavations and when I looked at the Kravica warehouse,
13 that the graves in Glogova were of people who had somehow or rather got
14 mixed up with material from the warehouse.
15 So the sequence in my mind then was that bodies had been taken
16 from the warehouse, incorporated some of the material from the warehouse,
17 buried at Glogova, dug up and taken to -- at least some of them taken to
18 the site at Zeleni Jadar that we had excavated about 15 months earlier,
19 two years earlier.
20 Q. You had made a brief conclusion that Glogova was a primary grave.
21 Can you give us a bit more detail on how it was that you concluded from
22 your work that Glogova was a primary grave?
23 A. Yes. There were areas of the Glogova grave site, I'll call it,
24 general grave area, where the bodies were complete; and then there were
25 places where some machine had dug into that pile of bodies. And there was
1 a hole that had been refilled but the hole contained body parts, the
2 refill contained body parts, not complete bodies. And there were the
3 marks of the machine, the tooth marks of a machine on the bottom of what
4 we called these robbing areas.
5 So there were patches of complete bodies that the people had
6 missed, and they were the areas which had been from which bodies had been
7 taken away, new holes had been -- new holes had been dug, but they had --
8 did not contain complete bodies, they contained body parts.
9 Q. And I know that this is something we normally would have explained
10 with photographs of the dig and all, but how is that you can tell that
11 there is a hole has been dug and that there's marks in the ground and
12 these things that you are concluding, just by digging?
13 A. Well, it's not just by digging. It's by creating sections in the
14 soil so that you can see the original hole of the primary grave, and then
15 you can then see in the section another hole that's been cut into the
16 previous hole. That's fundamentally a stratigraphic observation that
17 archaeologists make to see where holes have been dug.
18 Q. Okay. Do you have any doubt in -- about Glogova regarding your
19 conclusions that you put forward in your report?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Okay. Well, I think at this point, Mr. President, Your Honours,
22 we're ready to turn Mr. -- Professor Wright over to the Defence and of
23 course we rely on his reports and his testimony.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can safely adjourn now, there is no point
25 in starting a cross-examination with one or two questions and then
1 postponing it all until tomorrow. So Professor, we will see you again
2 tomorrow morning at 9.00. And we will continue with your testimony and I
3 suppose you will be present too.
4 Thank you, and good afternoon to everyone.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 21st day of
7 February, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.