1 Wednesday, 21 February 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.13 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Registrar, good morning to you. Call the
7 case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much. All the accused are present.
11 Defence teams are all here. Witness is present, too. Mr. McCloskey is
12 present for the Prosecution, and for the Defence the forensic expert,
13 Mr. Dunjic is also present.
14 Professor, good morning to you.
15 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Just for the record, I would like to explain why we
17 are starting a quarter of an hour late. That's because we are informed
18 that this morning the -- some members of the Defence teams, I don't know
19 exactly who, made it known that they intended to make use of some
20 documents, which so happened the witness did not -- was not carrying with
21 him when he had arrived here. So we allowed him time to go back to his
22 hotel and bring them over, which I understand you did.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. I thank you, Professor.
25 So Mr. McCloskey, he's all yours.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: And Mr. President, I had finished up under the 92
2 bis system, and so ready for the Defence.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I understood, okay. You don't have any further
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, no further questions.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So who is going first? Ms. Condon.
7 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I can indicate
8 that was my request for Professor Wright to provide his notes.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not relevant. Whoever's request it was, it's a
10 legitimate request which had to be met.
11 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 WITNESS: RICHARD WRIGHT [Resumed]
13 Cross-examination by Ms. Condon:
14 Q. Professor Wright, can I just ask when was the first time you were
15 engaged by the Tribunal to engage in the -- in the digging at the sites?
16 A. At which site?
17 Q. Which was the first site?
18 A. What was the first site, it was at Brcko, and we started work, if
19 my memory serves me correctly, in April 1997.
20 Q. That's not a grave that relates to this case.
21 A. No.
22 Q. In relation to this particular case?
23 A. In relation to this particular case, the first site that we went
24 to was what I called the Red Dam, and that was in April 1998.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, prior to you attending at the site and engaging
1 in the dig, what information or briefing had you received, if at all, from
2 any investigator attached to the Tribunal?
3 A. Yes. I was told that this was believed to be a place of
4 execution, and that bodies had been buried in a grave in the front of the
5 dam, in the rocky platform in front of the dam, and that this grave was
6 undisturbed at the time when other primary graves were exhumed and the
7 bodies taken away.
8 We started excavations there and very soon concluded that it had
9 been disturbed, and that it was a primary grave that had been robbed,
10 there were body parts left, but that was all. And I told the -- the
11 investigators that I disagreed with the proposal that this was an
12 undisturbed primary grave, and they then went and got more aerial images
13 from the people who provided them with aerial images and found that one
14 had been missed, not I think by the investigators, but by the suppliers of
15 the images that showed that it had in October been -- been robbed. So
16 that was the first job I did.
17 Q. All right. Now, the source of that original information, was that
18 from Mr. Ruez, the chief investigator?
19 A. Very much from Mr. Ruez, yes.
20 Q. Was he actually present on this first dig at Red Dam?
21 A. Certainly for part of the time, but I can't remember how often.
22 He wasn't there the whole time.
23 Q. Okay. Can I just take you back a little bit to what you said in
24 an answer is that to clarify that initially it was conveyed to you that
25 this was an undisturbed primary grave, is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And that was based upon the information that had been gleaned in
3 the -- through the aerial imagery, as you understand it, is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then as a consequence of your assessment at the actual site,
6 you deemed that to be incorrect?
7 A. As a consequence of our actual excavation, yes.
8 Q. The excavation, yes. Is it possible at all to make that
9 assessment without having engaged in the exhumation? Is it ever possible
10 to make that -- I'll make my question a little more clear. Is it ever
11 possible to make that assessment about a grave being a secondary grave
12 without engaging in a full exhumation?
13 A. Well, can I point out this was a primary grave.
14 Q. Mm-hmm.
15 A. Whether it has been robbed or not, it may be possible to do that
16 by examining the surface after scraping, whether it's been robbed or not,
17 But it wasn't ever thought to be a secondary grave. It's a primary grave.
18 I would say I would feel uncomfortable of making that assessment without
19 examining the soil itself.
20 Q. All right. So to clarify, what the initial assessment was an
21 undisturbed primary grave; and as a result of your exhumation, it went to
22 being a disturbed primary grave. Is that correct?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Okay. Now, given what you were -- well, can I ask you this: That
25 information that Mr. Ruez gave you as to the dam being a site of alleged
1 or mass grave in relation to executions, was that information given to you
2 prior to your arrival at the site that you engaged in as an archaeologist?
3 A. Yes. I think some information was given to me by the
4 investigators at each site, yes.
5 Q. Is it fair to say then that prior to your arrival at each site, it
6 was crystal clear in your mind that each time you were exhuming these
7 graves that you were uncovering victims of mass executions? Is that fair?
8 A. No. It's not fair to say it was crystal clear in my mind. I
9 regarded myself as a detached investigator in these matters, but I had
10 some information given to me. In at least one instance, I also -- yes, I
11 disagreed with the investigators as to the origin; for instance, Cancari
12 Road 3, a secondary grave, I was told it came from one of the known
13 execution sites and primary graves, and I said there must be another.
14 Because of the contents of this grave, there must be another execution
15 site or primary grave, which had not been found. It later was found.
16 So I was not a pawn of the investigators, but I needed their
17 advice to take me to the sites so I could prepare myself from the point of
18 view of equipment and personnel for the sort of thing they expected to
20 Q. Professor, I didn't mean to infer that you were somehow a pawn of
21 the investigators here, but what I am suggesting or perhaps asking you is
22 that in those graves where you found victims that weren't either
23 blindfolded or ligatures?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did it ever occur in your mind that the victims that you were
1 uncovering may have sustained death as a result of conflict or combat?
2 Did that ever come to the fore in your mind?
3 A. I was thinking of all sorts of possibilities for these graves,
4 that they might for instance date from the 1992 war and so on. We were
5 always on the look-out for evidence that would test the propositions that
6 had been put to me. I would not have been, I think, able to detect, with
7 the knowledge I have, what you called combat casualties. I don't know how
8 I, in my observations, would recognise that. That was the morgue's job to
9 determine the cause and manner of death.
10 Q. All right. You just indicated then about dating the grave sites.
11 Was there a method employed at any of the sites that you were responsible
12 for of dating the graves?
13 A. No. It wouldn't technically be possible using the ordinary
14 methods available to archaeology. The only way which, as I state in my
15 reports, I list artefacts that were found in the grave, and many of those
16 do provide links to Srebrenica, including news print from Dutch newspapers
17 and the IDs which were subsequently examined in detail, but it was -- I --
18 had I seen evidence that was contrary to the advice of the investigators,
19 we would have called a halt and had a conference, and I never had to do
21 Q. All right. You indicated yesterday that your role generally was
22 to, as I understand it, and you will correct me if I've misinterpreted in
23 any way, but, first of all, it was to extract artefacts which may have of
24 assistance in identification of the victims. Is that correct?
25 A. The sequence of my responsibilities was to precisely locate the
1 grave, to excavate the grave, recover the bodies and put them into bags,
2 and recover artefacts and put them into bags, and then the whole lot went
3 down to the morgue for examination.
4 But we formed, as it were, some contingency observations on the
5 material, particularly on documents, because once reexposed to the
6 atmosphere, they can start to decay; so we took photographs, but we were
7 not studying them. My job was to get the bodies into the chiller vans and
8 then they went down to the morgue with the documentation.
9 Q. All right. Now, I want to take you to the -- I've just been
10 suggested, Doctor -- Professor that we both slow down just for the benefit
11 of the interpreters.
12 A. Yes, certainly.
13 Q. In relation to that role of artefact extraction, was there some
14 check list or method that was employed at each of the sites in terms of
15 what was deemed to be significant and what was not?
16 A. I think it's true to say that in the case of what I call the
17 Srebrenica sites, all the artefacts were collected, and that would have
18 included clothing, documents. The exception to this was the Cancari 3
19 site, where there were hundreds of thousands of pieces of broken glass and
20 we just not collect them. We collected a sample. In general every
21 artefact was, and logged, its location within the site surveyed, entered
22 into the logs with a sequence number, and then packed away and sent down
23 to the morgue. And that was the responsibility of the scene of crime
24 officer to maintain custody of this material.
25 Q. Can I take you to -- now, you provided, as I have photocopies of
1 what seems to be two books of your working notes at the sites?
2 A. Yes. These are -- these are my working notes. They're extracts
3 from four books --
4 Q. Right.
5 A. -- relating to the investigations --
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. -- and these are very much my personal notebooks.
8 Q. All right.
9 A. All the material went into the logs and that was systematically
10 recorded. These are observations.
11 Q. Observations.
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. Can I take you to I think, as I understand would appear in the
14 first notebook at page -- you've numbered the pages at the top, and I read
15 your writing as it seems to be page 68. Saturday 25 --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Yes, you have that there?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, can you just perhaps -- I found your writing -- I'm not --
20 difficult to read. But can you just assist me there, is that an entry
21 that does relate to assessment of items and identification of items?
22 A. Yeah. It relates to the dam site and it relates to isolated items
23 of clothing that were found in the refilling of the dam site.
24 Q. Right. And perhaps can you read out what exactly that entry says?
25 A. "Sorted cloth items into A, those that may aid identification
1 photographed, have been photographed, itemized, logged, and retained. B,
2 those that in our opinion would not aid in identification and have no
3 evidential value were returned to the grave and a photo of the returned --
4 return taken. All shoes being retained for cleaning up."
5 Q. Okay. Just in relation to that second observation, can you tell
6 me what criteria you adopted as to whether or not it would be relevant or
8 A. Yes. The criteria we generally use, and I think this was the only
9 case where we didn't retain everything in the clothing, but hand-knitted
10 sweaters, we would count as potentially identifiable items; but
11 factory-produced jeans would be at the other end of the scale, they
12 wouldn't -- without any names on them, they were unlikely to have been
13 related to an individual; but potentially hand-knitted sweaters and any
14 unusual jackets would have been thought to assist in identification.
15 Q. And can I take you to page 206 of the same book. Do you have that
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, this is in relation to which site?
19 A. CR 12. That is the Cancari Road 12 site, I think. I must have a
20 run back through.
21 Q. All right.
22 A. I will just need a moment to determine which site that refers to.
23 The number you gave me what was, please?
24 Q. 206.
25 A. 206. Yes. It's CR 03, Cancari Road 3.
1 Q. And you've indicated at the bottom of that notation that there
2 were was some clothing that was again deemed to not be relevant?
3 A. No, the -- just to check by reading the same page, I said,
4 "Clothes of an approximately eight-year-old and approximately 12-year-old
5 bones not associated," but they were not associated. Remember that site
6 is a town rubbish dump. That was the primary site they were thinking was
7 a town rubbish dump.
8 I would have to look in the logs to see whether the clothing was
9 retained, but I'm pretty certain it would have been. Not associated,
10 doesn't mean we threw it out. It means there were bones of a young
11 individual and there were some small clothes, but we couldn't actually say
12 that the bones and the clothes came from the same individual.
13 Q. All right. So decisions were made at the sites as to what was
14 considered relevant and what not. Is that fair to say?
15 A. Yes. It's fair to say that sometimes those decisions were made.
16 Q. All right. Now, I want to ask you about your opinion as to
17 whether certain sites could be interpreted as places of execution. All
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, you have been asked about this before in relation,
21 particularly in relation to Kozluk?
22 A. Not I think yesterday as a place of execution.
23 Q. No, but on prior -- in the Krstic trial, you were asked about
25 A. I'm sorry. We -- are we talking about Kozluk, are we?
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. Yes. No, I was. I'm sorry. I was thinking of another site.
3 Yes, I was indeed.
4 Q. Mm-hmm. Now, your -- perhaps I'll ask you what was the basis upon
5 which you made that assessment?
6 A. The basis was that we found in the heap of bodies, those that were
7 lying on the bottom, were in one case clutching a piece of vegetation that
8 had its roots in the ground, that there were bullets embedded in the
9 ground underneath some of the intact bodies that we uncovered, that at
10 Kozluk something like 41 per cent had ligatures still attached.
11 Fundamentally, it was that bullets were in the ground underneath these
12 individuals who were lying flat.
13 Q. And I assume that - perhaps you'll tell me otherwise - with the
14 majority of the remains that you were dealing with here were skeletal
15 or --
16 A. No. Not in Kozluk, no.
17 Q. All right. So there were some remains with soft tissue?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. They were patchily distributed; but in the centre of the mass of
21 bodies, oxygen doesn't get there and they putrefy very slowly; so on the
22 edges there are skeletons, in the middle there is a lot of flesh.
23 Q. Now, as I understand your evidence in Krstic, what you say is that
24 on the fringes of the mass, you seem to be more confident in your
25 assessment that those bodies had been shot where they lay; is that
2 A. Yes, it is, largely because they were lying on the ground, and we
3 were able to use a metal detectors and determine that there were rifle
4 bullets embedded in the soil underneath them.
5 Q. You have just indicated that those bodies -- I should say remains
6 that were on the fringe were skeletal remains. Is that correct?
7 A. Those that were right on the fringe, yes -- either that or they
8 were mummified tissue. In all cases I think, except one at Kozluk, there
9 was always some soft tissue there holding the bones together. But the --
10 the survival of soft tissue depends on being away from oxygen, and so
11 that's why the ones in the middle of the heap are well preserved. And the
12 ones on the bottom of those heaps, we were able to show had bullets
13 embedded in the ground underneath them.
14 Q. All right. May I just clarify this with you then. Is it your
15 evidence that as for the mass in the -- in the centre, the mass of bodies
16 in the centre, you cannot be as confident that they were shot where they
17 lay. Is that correct?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. And as for the -- I think your expression was on the remains on
20 the fringes you are 100 per cent confident or is it -- you -- that --
21 A. I think I would say, yes, I am 100 per cent confident that these
22 people were -- when you say on the fringes, there is some continuity on
23 the distribution. I would say that it never would have entered my head
24 that they had not been shot on the spot there, and we the evidence of
25 their being ligatured lying down and there were bullets underneath them.
1 Q. Mm-hmm. Just pardon me a moment, Professor. Now, there was --
2 you produced a diagram in relation to the distribution of bodies at
3 Kozluk, did you not?
4 A. Yes. I did in my report of 2000.
5 MS. CONDON: Could we perhaps have a look at P2177?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Counsel, please tell the exhibit number.
7 MS. CONDON: Sorry. P2177, as I have it.
8 Q. Yes. Now, is that -- is that -- does that reflect what we're
9 discussing in terms of the fringes and the mass?
10 A. It reflects one of the sites which we labeled KK3. There is just
11 along side, there is another, site KK2, where the execution evidence is
12 also there.
13 MS. CONDON: Okay. Well, perhaps if Madam Usher could assist the
14 Professor, Your Honour.
15 Q. Perhaps you could, with a marking, indicate, when we're being --
16 discussing what we define as the fringes, you could perhaps draw some
18 A. The area that struck me in particular and that we studied in
19 particular is this area here.
20 Q. Right.
21 A. Part of this we interpreted as robbed. I can't recall whether
22 these individuals in this area were -- had bullets underneath them, but
23 this area I was personally present and studied in detail that I have
25 Q. And there is less -- now, are you able -- you are not able
1 obviously to give any indication now as to whether or not they were
2 bodies, the remains on the fringes were blindfolded or ligatured?
3 A. I couldn't give that to you, but I would to go through the logs to
4 give you that answer. If we look at KK2, there I know that the percentage
5 of ligatured individuals, which I couldn't show you from my report if you
6 don't have it handy.
7 Q. Mm-hmm.
8 A. No, I couldn't -- at least one of the individuals in the upper
9 area here is -- is clutching a shrub that was growing on the bottom, at
10 the moment of death. The hand is tightly wrapped around it and that I
11 interpreted as somebody clutching a -- a shrub at the moment of death, and
12 I made -- gave some detail on that in my report, that particular
14 Q. Mm-hmm. Your -- in your opinion, though, your professional
15 opinion, the fact that there were -- that these remains were interpreted
16 by you as having been shot where they lay was not of itself an obstacle to
17 any conclusion that they had been shot in the course of conflict, was it?
18 Or combat?
19 A. I can't answer for all of them; but in the case of the one
20 particular one that I illustrated in my report, I think it would be
21 impossible to conclude that that person was shot in the course of combat,
22 unless the combat was taking place on that site.
23 Q. But again, pardon me, without being able to date, first of all --
24 and again I'm confining my comments to the remains where blindfold and
25 ligatures are not found. Without being able to, first of all, date the
1 remains and obviously date the presence of the bullets and the shell
2 casings, you can't exclude that fact which you just raised?
3 A. No, you're quite right. We're talking about Kozluk now. But in
4 general, it's really exceptional that an execution site to get evidence of
5 a death on the spot; and in most of the graves I was excavating, I
6 couldn't say how the bodies had got into the graves.
7 Q. Mm-hmm.
8 A. I agree with you. I did comment in several of my reports that
9 they had civilian clothing, but beyond that I could not determine how they
10 died. I could determine that they had been dug up and put somewhere else,
11 but you're quite right. It's not my field to determine whether people
12 died in combat or --
13 Q. Or executed?
14 A. -- or executed. But at this site, I am totally confident as I am
15 in grave L in Glogova.
16 Q. That's where the 12 people were bound together with ligatures, and
17 I won't ask you about that. All right. I want to ask you -- I don't need
19 MS. CONDON: Actually, I will seek to tender that diagram, Your
20 Honour, if I may?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: It will be inserted in the system right away, and we
22 will give it a number in due course when we come to the tendering process.
23 One moment.
24 MS. CONDON: Perhaps he should initial it.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Professor, could you please sign your name and give
1 it a date, please.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President. [Marks]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So we'll come to that later when we come to
4 the tendering of documents stage.
5 MS. CONDON:
6 Q. Professor, I want to ask you about the question of engaging in an
7 assessment of the age of any of these victims. Now, you -- is that
8 something you simply didn't involve yourself with on -- on this site, that
9 was a matter for the pathologist?
10 A. Can I ask you, do you mean the personal age of the individual at
11 death or how old the graves are.
12 Q. No the age of the individual at death?
13 A. No. I didn't engage myself with that, except once as -- as in the
14 case of that notebook entry about Cancari 3, I have anthropological
15 knowledge. I wouldn't put myself forward as an expert but I made a note
16 of that in my notebook, but that is a casual note off to at the side. The
17 work is done at the morgue.
18 Q. Again, I'm going to ask you about this term of using a minimum
19 number of persons. You're familiar with that in terms of an assessment?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Yes. You yourself didn't engage in that calculation --
22 A. No.
23 Q. -- in relation to any of your sites. Were you, though, told at
24 any stage by an anthropologist what the minimum number of persons was for
25 each site?
1 A. Yes. And in my -- in my report on the field work of 1998, I
2 mention the figures that I had been given by the morgue, and they were
3 part of my report, as I gave.
4 Q. Mm-hmm. Who -- can I ask you who the source of that information
6 A. I can't remember offhand.
7 Q. You can't.
8 A. No.
9 Q. That's all right. Now, you did, however, engage in a mathematical
10 calculation in relation to some unexhumed graves; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. All right. Now, perhaps if you can assist the Trial Chamber in
13 that -- in that regard.
14 A. May I refer to my --
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. -- notes on that part.
17 Q. Certainly.
18 A. You would like me to explain how I arrived at a number?
19 Q. This is the number of 2.571, first of all, perhaps if you could --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- explain that process which is --
22 A. Yes. Well, the -- the argument that I put in my report runs like
23 this, that we exhumed, totally exhumed seven secondary graves.
24 Q. Perhaps -- I will just stop you. We better identify which ones
25 those were.
1 A. Yes. They were CR 3, CR 12, HZ03, HZ05, HZ04, LP02, and ZJ05.
2 And the -- based on the morgue estimate of the number of individuals, that
3 total 857.
4 Q. Mm-hmm.
5 A. We then tested at the surface to be sure that they were secondary
6 graves; other graves that appeared on the same aerial imagery that we used
7 and there were 21 of those that had multiple body parts, but which we did
8 not exhume. On the assumption that they were at the same size, as the one
9 we had already dug, which were themselves so similar to each other, I took
10 an average of the number of individuals in the seven that we had dug,
11 which was 122.4 in each grave, and I multiplied that up; and on the
12 assumption that the other graves were typical of the ones we had dug, I
13 came up with the possibility of there being -- a best estimate being
14 2571 -- 2571 for the probed but unexcavated graves.
15 Then I added to those the actual number of bodies from the seven
16 excavated graves which was 857, an estimate from the Red Dam of the
17 minimum number of individuals, which I also got from the morgue, of 46.
18 So I thought that the 1998 field season had probably accounted for some
19 3.474 individuals, assuming my assumptions were correct.
20 Q. All right. Now, this process in relation to the 21 assumed -- so
21 the 21 graves that you used for the calculation, first of all, they are
22 assumed to be secondary graves. Is that correct?
23 A. They're assumed to be secondary graves on the bases of the aerial
24 imagery. They appeared at the same time as the one we exhumed.
25 Q. All right. But you yourself have commented or noted that there
1 are certain limitations on the use aerial imagery, is there not? In terms
2 of locating individual sites?
3 A. No, we -- you must -- I didn't make it plain. These probed
4 graves, we all located them as graves, but we just didn't excavate them.
5 And we saw there were multiple body parts at the top, and we left them
7 Q. Okay. But I'll get to the probing process in a moment. But just
8 on the aerial imagery, generally what do you say about the reliability of
9 aerial imagery reflecting accurately whether or not a grave is a secondary
10 grave or not?
11 A. No, the aerial imagery doesn't do that.
12 Q. No?
13 A. It's only in the context of when those photographs were taken.
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. So once, having identified the areas in terms of the
17 21 graves, what was the -- was the first process that you engaged in the
19 A. Yes. The -- the probing means that the backhoe -- sorry, I should
20 say the excavator, which has a bucket with no teeth on it, scrapes the
21 surface of the ground to find the edge of the grave; and then gradually a
22 shallow trench is put in until we find that we find there are at least two
23 individuals in the grave. That was all that we did, so as not to disturb
24 the grave any further.
25 Q. Mm-hmm. So, first of all, as -- how do you -- how do you
1 establish the perimeter of the grave?
2 A. It shows as a cut; that is, the filling of the grave is different
3 in its colour, it is mottled. It's different in its colour from the
4 natural soil into which it's dug. That's the fundamental way in which you
5 detect a hole in the ground without disturbing what's underneath.
6 Q. Is that different or that distinctive colour, is that the
7 green/blue soil that occurs at the top which indicates decomposition of
8 bodies? Is that correct?
9 A. It can be. But essentially in the type of soils that occur in
10 Bosnia, you have a brown humic horizon near the top of the natural soil,
11 and then you get down at about a metre to two metres down to a white-ish
12 soil. So when you dig a grave, you bring up the material from below, and
13 it gets mixed with the humus. You refill the hole, but the refilling of
14 the hole is mottled with this white-ish soils from below and the darker
15 soils from above.
16 If the bodies are also very close to the surface, then you will
17 get that greenish effect. But you can detect a grave, even though the
18 bodies are two metres down.
19 Q. All right. Let me ask you this. On these occasions if you
20 identified the body parts at -- I assume relatively close to the surface,
21 is that correct?
22 A. I think they were in all -- in all instances close to the surface,
24 Q. All right. Okay. Can that process ever be deceptive in terms of
25 the appearance of the soil, that if the grave has been dug up and emptied,
1 the body -- there are simply no bodies in there any more, and the soil
2 will still have that appearance?
3 A. No, we don't stop -- that would happen, but we did not stop
4 working until we had located at least two individuals within the grave.
5 Q. All right. But let's say for argument's sake that at the
6 superficial surface there are two individuals, but two metres down, as
7 you -- which you did not --
8 A. Didn't have to go far.
9 Q. You didn't have to go that far, but you couldn't be obviously 100
10 per cent confident that there were no bodies beyond the two individuals
11 that you found at the top?
12 A. No, absolutely not.
13 Q. No. Which is what I am getting at.
14 A. Yes, and I wrote those assumptions in my account.
15 Q. So in terms of these 21 graves, how many were you probing per --
16 can you -- as I read your report, it seemed like you would engage in this
17 probing process on say three graves per day at one stage. Is that
19 A. I can't remember. We tended to do it in -- in batches, because we
20 had to go out with a special team --
21 Q. Mm-hmm.
22 A. -- so we did batches of it.
23 Q. Mm-hmm.
24 A. I wouldn't say it was every three days, no.
25 Q. Mm-hmm.
1 A. We would go out for a day or two and try to complete as much
2 probing as possible.
3 Q. In that day?
4 A. In that day, yeah.
5 Q. What did you -- what did you mean -- I'm reading from an article
6 that you wrote. This is fairly recently, 2005, The Archaeology of Mass
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. At page 147 of that article, you've described the process of
10 probing and say that "probing may be necessary in several areas since not
11 all mass graves contain an even coverage of bodies?"
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. If the soil is --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
15 MS. CONDON: Sorry.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Please slow down a little bit. For example, if you
17 look at page 21, lines 6 and 7, we missed -- or the interpreters missed
18 the witness's answer to your question, and also your next questions. So
19 we could first cover that territory and then take either my advise to you
20 to slow down. Your question was: "You didn't have to go that far, but
21 you couldn't be obviously 100 per cent confident that there were no bodies
22 beyond the two individuals at the top." And his answer was: "No,
23 absolutely not." And then you said,-- which is missing here: "I was
24 precisely coming to that," and I'm filling in these lapses --
25 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: -- these blanks, actually. And he said: "Yes, and
2 I wrote those assumptions in my account." But please slow down so that we
3 don't have repetition of this. Thank you.
4 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Just -- this is -- I think I was at the point of where you are
6 indicating about probing may be ineffective if the soil was stoney, is
7 that not the case here?
8 A. [No audible response]
9 Q. And there you say, "Systematic probing is blindly destructive, and
10 I may justify this, if information is urgently required for working out
11 the logistics of forthcoming work." This probing of 21 graves in this
12 period of time, that wasn't systematic probing at all?
13 A. I'm not sure what I meant by systematic probing, but in general --
14 well, I think I meant you shouldn't engage in this unless you need to. We
15 wanted to know whether these other 21 graves that appeared on these
16 photographs contained bodies or not, and that was the purpose of the word.
17 Q. Perhaps I'll ask you this then: Whose decision was it -- or at
18 whose instruction were you asked to do the probing? Was it Mr. Ruez?
19 A. I wasn't operating under his instructions.
20 Q. No?
21 A. No, ever. But I would have discussed it with him, yes.
22 Q. Well, because he -- he's already given evidence in this Court, and
23 he -- what -- he -- his assessment of his role was that he said -- this is
24 at page 1548, where he says that his role was to identify the location?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Pin-point them?
2 A. Only in part.
3 Q. Yeah. Probe them?
4 A. No.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, Your Honour. If there is a statement
6 of the witness, I think we should just hear it or allow him to see it in
7 context as opposed to pick through it like that, if that's what indeed
8 she's doing.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think that's much important in this case. I
10 think she's reading the relevant part, and she can then put the question.
11 The whole purpose of her -- the exercise is to see whether there were
12 overlapping responsibilities between the witness and Mr. Ruez, but I think
13 the witness has already told you that --
14 MS. CONDON: Yes.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: -- wasn't taking instructions from him. Now, if
16 Mr. Ruez had any particular role in the digging process, perhaps you can
17 put the question to the witness. But it would be a more pertinent
18 question for Mr. Ruez himself when he returns. I think we can move
19 through this very quickly.
20 MS. CONDON: Yes.
21 Q. Perhaps just let me ask you this, Professor, that Mr. Ruez was
22 present at some of these 21 sites where you were engaged in the probing
23 process. Is that right?
24 A. I can't remember whether he was there when we were doing the
25 probing at all. I wouldn't have expected him to be. I mean it was
1 certainly not part of our protocol that he should be there.
2 Q. Mm-hmm?
3 A. And to tell you the truth, I can't remember whether he was there,
4 though I did note in my notebooks at times who was there when we did the
5 probing. But there was a very small team of experts who went out doing
6 the probing, and we were not dependent on having Mr. Ruez there.
7 Q. All right. Can I ask you this then: When the decision not to
8 exhume those graves, on what basis was that made?
9 A. Time and -- time and cost. We had run out of time by the end of
10 1998, and I wanted to get in each of the three roads; that is, the Cancari
11 Road, the Hodzici Road, and Liplje Road. I wanted to get a sample of
12 graves that were not -- that were well placed, evenly placed as possible
13 down that road.
14 I couldn't stick to that plan because some of the sites were
15 unsuitable for us to get our equipment into, but I think I had what I
16 would call a fair sample of the graves along each of the roads.
17 Q. Mm-hmm. Just going back to that figure, the 2.000 --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- 2.571 figure. Now, you would agree, wouldn't you, that there
20 are quite a number of assumptions that you have taken into account in
21 arriving at that figure?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Yeah. And I -- in -- first of all, the most fundamental
24 assumption is that there are in fact bodies under -- in the grave beyond
25 the two that you found at the surface?
1 A. Yes. The fundamental assumption is that on average those 21
2 graves on average will reflect the average for the other --
3 Q. Seven?
4 A. -- graves that we dug, yes.
5 Q. Of course that involves the fundamental assumption that they're
6 secondary graves and not primary graves?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Which we established at the outset, without a full exhumation you
9 can't be 100 per cent sure; that's correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. That in the course of providing that figure to -- perhaps I should
12 ask: Was that figure provided to Mr. Ruez originally or the Office of the
13 Prosecution or --
14 A. I did that -- I did those calculations while I was writing my
15 report after the field work had stopped.
16 Q. Okay. At your own instigation?
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause between question
18 and answer. Thank you.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Again, we have problems once more. Please
20 slow down and allow a short pause between question and answer. Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: Can you ask me that question again before I answer?
22 MS. CONDON:
23 Q. Yes, if I can remember it. I was asking you just in relation to
24 the calculations being at your own instigation, that figure.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And there is, of course, perhaps the most fundamental assumption
2 in that figure that the bodies that you are assuming were there met their
3 death in the course of an execution?
4 A. No. I -- I don't think that's a necessary assumption on my part.
5 My fundamental purpose is to see whether there are bodies in those graves,
6 and how many. I'm not quite sure I understand the drift of your question.
7 Q. All right. Well, there -- there's another figure which you've
8 added to that figure of 2.571, isn't there?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Yes. Because we get a total figure --
11 A. Two figures.
12 Q. And what's the total figure that you have?
13 A. Total figure is 3.474, and that includes this extrapolation of
14 2.571 and the actual counts of 857 from the seven excavated graves, and 46
15 from the Red Dam.
16 Q. All right. So perhaps what I'm -- I'll be more explicit,
17 Professor. What I'm getting is that when you provided the figure of 857,
18 was that with a view to presenting that as evidence of victims that have
19 been the subject of mass execution?
20 A. It's -- it's my duty to, I believe, find out how many bodies are
21 in each grave and to report the evidence, but I don't see that the
22 numbers, the numbers that are in the grave would be there regardless of
23 how the people met their death. And that was the duty of the morgue to
24 determine the manner and cause of death, though we obviously made
25 observations at times, under critical circumstances.
1 Q. If you were to be -- err on the side of caution and be the most
2 conservative as to what you could say about bodies that have been
3 uncovered, you would no doubt use only the 857 figure and the 46 from Red
4 Dam. Is that correct?
5 A. Obviously, because empirically, that's what I had. I should say
6 though that I have been in touch with ICMP, who have now excavated many of
7 these 21 graves. And I have asked them to let me know if there were any
8 that were seriously empty, and they have told me that they all have bodies
9 in them. And they are aware of my estimations, but I haven't personally
10 studied that. It's word of mouth from them.
11 Q. Right. You are not, as a result of that, in a position to adjust
12 that figure --
13 A. No.
14 Q. -- one way or the other?
15 A. I would have regarded it as my professional responsibility to draw
16 it to ICTY's attention if I was told that these graves were seriously
17 empty. I was told they were fair, average qualities by somebody with me
18 during the probing; that is, John Sterenberg of ICMP.
19 Q. Just one final issue that I want ask you about, Professor, and
20 that is the determination between a primary grave and a secondary grave?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You've been asked before whether or not it's possible what's
23 interpreted as a secondary grave is, in fact, primary grave into which
24 bodies have been bulldozed and, therefore, bones torn apart.
25 A. I have found a primary grave with those properties, yes, at
2 Q. Yes. And if, in terms of the assessment of whether or not it's a
3 primary grave or a secondary grave, you -- you found -- I mean the issue
4 still remains, doesn't it, in relation to Zeleni Jadar, what the relevant
5 primary grave is, is that correct?
6 A. The issue doesn't remain in my mind, no.
7 Q. Right. Well, in terms of the location of the primary grave,
9 A. No. I concluded, as in my response to Mr. McCloskey yesterday,
10 that I didn't have any doubt that the site of Glogova was the primary
11 grave for Zeleni Jadar.
12 Q. All right. Thank you for that. I misinterpreted your evidence in
13 that regard.
14 If you uncover a grave and the bodies are ostensibly or
15 substantially complete, does that tend itself towards a conclusion that
16 it's a primary grave?
17 A. Yes, there is definitely a correlation there.
18 Q. All right.
19 A. Mm-hmm.
20 Q. Because just -- and this again appeared in your notes. Pardon me.
21 This is in your second -- your second notebook that you provided, and at
22 page 124. Do you have that? It has ZJ05 at the top?
23 A. Yes, I have got that page.
24 Q. So we're talking about Zeleni Jadar, and do you see there at the
25 bottom that you do make the observation that bodies are relatively
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And then what's your further notation after that?
4 A. "But tumbled," as in secondary burial.
5 Q. Right. All right.
6 A. Meaning they're not lying flat, they're twisted around.
7 Q. But just in terms of, again, leaving this matter open for
8 interpretation, does -- does that initial assessment that the bodies are
9 complete, does that make it open to interpret that it was, in fact, a
10 primary grave?
11 A. Can I just -- to explain what -- the way my mind runs on these
12 things, imagine a heap of bodies that's been left out in the open for a
13 long time at the spot, and then it's bulldozed into the grave some weeks
14 later. The peri-ostial tissues that hold the bones together would
15 weakened and bodies will come apart, and therefore that would be a trap
16 for the unwary.
17 But the reason for evaluating a grave as a secondary grave is not
18 just the properties of the bodies, though they are correlated, it's also
19 the importation of foreign matter into the grave, artefacts and soil and
20 so on. But the state of the bodies on its own could lead to wrong
22 Q. You accept -- okay. And just -- let me put this to you, that if
23 you didn't have the extraneous matter, the artefacts, foreign soil, to
24 assist you in that assessment, and all you had was the state of the
25 bodies, that that could therefore be the main indicator as to whether or
1 not it was a primary or secondary grave?
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection to that. It is hypothetical. It is not
3 reflecting the facts of case and therefore not relevant.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: We fully agree with your object section, which is
5 sustained. Move to the next question, please. I think he's answered the
6 question in any case.
7 MS. CONDON: Your Honour, pardon me a moment.
8 Q. Thank you very much, Professor, I have no further questions.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Ms. Condon.
10 Who is going next? Madam Fauveau.
11 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, is it fair to say that part of your work was
13 to find evidence that were in the soil and that were associated with the
14 interred bodies?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is it fair to say that soil residues or other materials that could
17 be found on the bodies or on the clothing could reveal the place where the
18 victims were killed or at least where they were before they died?
19 A. Yes, particularly where they were buried before they were dug up
20 and taken to the place of secondary burial, because that will transport
21 the soil into which they were buried.
22 Q. Is it fair to say that with regard to the Glogova grave, you could
23 establish a correlation between the victims buried in that grave and the
24 Kravica warehouse precisely on account of some materials found in the
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Indeed, you went to the Kravica warehouse in order to check
3 whether this type of materials could be found there?
4 A. Yes, that was -- that was what we did.
5 Q. Did you carry out similar examinations? Did you try to verify
6 other locations where the victims could have been before they died? I'm
7 not just speaking in relation to Glogova, this could apply to any grave?
8 A. Yes. The question of getting an expert to examine soil and
9 vegetation arose in May 1998 at the Cancari Road site, that's Cancari 12.
10 And Dr. Tony Brown, who is an expert in forensic vegetation and soil
11 analysis, was -- was invited to come down to do just that, because it's
12 outside my area of expertise. I can say, Look, in my view this soil
13 should not be here in this secondary grave. But it's then handed over to
14 him as a forensic expert in this matter, and he has written -- he has
15 written reports for ICTY.
16 Q. The event you are speaking about has to do with the soil analysis
17 in a secondary grave with relation to the soil that would have been
18 brought from the primary grave. Is that so?
19 A. Yes, except that type of evidence of transfer of materials does
20 normally apply to, in our work, to the secondary graves. But in the case
21 of Glogova, we interpreted that as a primary grave, and Mr. Mike Hedley,
22 who was a British police officer and was at Glogova when we excavated it,
23 subsequently did a report on the material that I could only comment on it
24 in an informal way. And I believe that report is part of ICTY's evidence,
25 but I didn't take part in the writing of that report.
1 Q. Precisely. I'll try to be clearer in the way I'm going to
2 reformulate the question. Apart from Glogova where you could establish a
3 connection with the Kravica warehouse, with regard to other primary
4 graves, were you able to establish a connection with other sites or places
5 where people would have been previously detained? Do you know for
6 instance whether such examinations, soil analysis, were done in Bratunac,
7 where there was the Vuk Karadzic school?
8 A. No, I don't know. The only primary graves I was responsible for
9 were the -- the Red Dam, and we saw nothing there that would suggest that
10 sort of approach; and the -- the Kozluk site I excavated, that was a
11 primary site, and there I determined that they -- so far as I could see,
12 had been shot on the spot anyway. So the primary graves were not really
13 my responsibility. I didn't see many of them.
14 Q. I would like to speak about a hole other than a grave that you
15 found in Potocari. In your report of the 2nd of February, 1999 - for the
16 transcript, this is P665, page 16 - you stated that you had found this
17 hole in Potocari, but that you had not found any human remains. Is that
19 A. Yes, that's correct. It was a hole that had been refilled and the
20 soil didn't contain any human remains.
21 Q. However, what's written in your report, you saw -- you could see
22 that the clay was blueish/greenish, that the soil was of that colour,
23 which would show that this soil had been in contact with decomposing
24 bodies. Is that correct?
25 A. Yes. I didn't, I think in my report, say that the soil was like
1 that, but in the soil there were lumps of greenish clay, and that greenish
2 clay is of the type that forms around bodies. But I have to say it's not
3 just human bodies, around animal bodies, so it's not diagnostic of a human
4 burial site.
5 Q. Indeed. Well, you anticipated my next question. On the basis of
6 what you could see in the soil, you could not establish whether the
7 changes in colour were due to human or animal remains?
8 A. No. I regarded that as a totally unsatisfactory site from the
9 point of view of saying that it had anything to do with human remains.
10 That is my archaeological view.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau.
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Sorry, sir.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think there has been a shred of evidence
14 that would indicate that elements were dug up. Just be aware that we are
15 losing time on such questions.
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, Mr. President. I just
17 wanted to seek some clarification. I have no further questions.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Fauveau.
19 Who is next? Who would like to go next? Yes, Mr. Ostojic. You
20 had indicated about 45 minutes. Do you stick to that?
21 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. You require more or less.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: No, less.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: So we will have a break in about nine minutes' time
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
1 Q. Professor, good morning.
2 A. Good morning.
3 Q. I'm going to ask you a couple of questions. I hope not to be
4 repetitive. I do not believe I will be. Sir, I would like to start by
5 asking to you give me the complete definition of the archaeological use of
6 the word "artefact"?
7 A. Yes. In the history of archaeology, archaeologists had to
8 distinguish between natural objects in the soil and humanly manufactured
9 and modified objects in the soil, and the latter were called artefacts so
10 that it covers the whole range of material, in the forensic case from
11 clothing to bullets to glass. It's -- it's anything made or modified by
13 Q. And other things like a personal identification cards or any
14 personal belongings on a person as well, correct?
15 A. That's an artefact; and as was recorded, they were all recorded
16 with an A in front of them on our logs.
17 Q. I saw that. Thank you. Let me understand the process. There
18 were essentially three experts, if you will, that participated in the
19 exhumation process involving Srebrenica; the archaeologists, which is your
20 field, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And then the anthropologist, correct?
23 A. No. There wasn't an anthropologist at -- at -- in the sites, who
24 was in the same way as myself the chief anthropologist. There were
25 anthropologists who were working under my direction.
1 Q. Well, okay. And we'll get to that specifically, but my question
2 is of the three areas of expertise, if you will, was yours, the
3 archaeologist, then there is the anthropologist, and then the pathologist,
5 A. No. The pathologist are not at the site, if you're talking about
6 the site.
7 Q. I'm talking about generally.
8 A. Oh, generally. Yes, then that's another matter. I am sorry.
9 Q. I am talking about generally involving the exhumation process
10 of --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. As Mr. Mrkic is rightly pointing out to you,
12 Mr. Ostojic, once more you are going too fast. Please slow down. It is
13 for your own benefit at the end of the day because you get a transcript
15 MR. OSTOJIC: I appreciate that, Your Honour. Thank you.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: So I need -- I think you need to go through it
17 again. His last recorded answer was: "No. The pathologist are not at
18 the site, if you're talking about the site." And then you said, "I'm
19 talking about generally." And he said, "Oh, generally. Yes, then that's
20 another matter." And we can continue from there now. So I think the
21 missing piece has been filled by myself and we can proceed.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay.
23 Q. So am I correct, those are the three areas of expertise?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you. Can you define for me if there was any overlap with
1 respect to the expertise of any of these three specific areas?
2 A. Do you mean whether some people worked -- yes. There is overlap.
3 For instance, I have expertise in anthropology, but I don't count myself
4 as an expert. Most of the archaeologists, I would say all of the
5 archaeologists working under my direction had knowledge of human
6 osteology. So there is overlap in expertise, yes.
7 Q. In connection with your report, did you utilise the expertise of
8 the other two expert areas that we discussed; namely, pathology and
10 A. I used the anthropology, as I explained in the previous answers,
11 to -- I used the anthropologists to determine the minimum number of
12 individuals and they did that in the morgue, but I don't recall feeding
13 back into my reports any information from the pathologists.
14 Q. Do you remember or if you can tell us if you ever worked with an
15 anthropologists called David Del Pino, a Chilean anthropologist?
16 A. I didn't think I have, no.
17 Q. You worked with Dr. Clark, correct?
18 A. When you say worked with, he was working in the morgue as the same
19 time as I was working at the sites, yes.
20 Q. Other than that, did you not coordinate your efforts between
21 Dr. Clark, the pathologist, while he was the chief pathologist?
22 A. Yes. Dr. Clark, on at least two occasions, came to the excavation
23 sites to see how we were working.
24 Q. So I understand the bigger picture here, you mentioned that you
25 were involved in digging, as I think you used, or exhuming two primary
1 grave sites, and can you tell us then how many secondary grave sites you
2 were involved in during the course of 1998 through 2001, which I believe
3 is the time period that you worked?
4 A. Well, in 1998, I examined two primary graves and seven secondary
5 graves. In 1999, for the purposes of this project, I examined Kozluk
6 which was a primary grave; in 2000, I examined Glogova. So those two
7 primary sites need to be added to the figures that I've already given you.
8 But as I've explained yesterday, I was doing a lot of other work for ICTY
9 as well.
10 Q. I understand that. I'm just trying to get a bigger picture. Just
11 tell me, was it four primary sites that you were involved in exhuming and
12 two secondary sites or what is the total number for each?
13 A. Yes. It would be four primary sites and seven secondary sites by
14 the time I finished in 2000.
15 Q. Okay. Now, is it fair to say, sir, that it is important with
16 respect to the artefacts that are found in these primary and secondary
17 sites that they are important evidentiary matters that should be retained?
18 A. Fundamentally, yes. The problem comes in applying that rule to
19 bodies that have been buried for example in town rubbish dumps because
20 then you are faced with thousands of artefacts that probably don't have
21 any relation to the manner and cause of death or identification. But in
22 general, where the task is manageable within the resources available, yes,
23 we would log all the artefacts.
24 Q. And you would attempt to do in a most thorough and complete
25 manner, correct?
1 A. The procedure was that as soon as an artefact was found the scene
2 of crime officer would allocate it a number in the log, it was handed to
3 him. After its location in the site had been surveyed by the three --
4 using three-dimensional coordinates. And then the scene of crime officer
5 takes custody of that object. That's the procedure.
6 Q. And who is the crime scene officer who was in charge and handled
7 that chain of custody for the primary and secondary graves that you were
9 A. They varied. Police from various police forces were provided to
10 me. But in 2000 I had the advantage of a scene of crime officer for the
11 whole season.
12 Q. And can you just briefly describe for me what the role of -- or
13 who is the forensic anthropologist who assisted you in 1998 and 1999?
14 A. Well, there were several forensic on the pathologists. Their
15 names are in the front of the book, but they were -- they were selected
16 because they had mixed capabilities in archaeology and anthropology at the
17 site. Down at the morgue I think that Mr. Jose-Pablo Baraybar was in
18 charge of the anthropology for the most of the time, but I wasn't down
20 Q. Given the importance of retaining and maintaining these artefacts,
21 would I be correct to say that it would be inappropriate or improper to do
22 a cursory review of such artefacts as opposed to a thorough and complete
24 A. Well, yes. I mean, the investigators were responsible for that
25 and I didn't see the type of review they did, but I would hope that they
1 did a thorough review, yes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic.
3 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Should we have a break. 25 minutes. Thank you.
5 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: So, Mr. Ostojic.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Professor, I'm going to try to cut to the chase a little bit in
10 the interests of time. Sir, with all due respect, I suggest to you that
11 based on your reports that your team, which include the scene of crime
12 officers, the anthropologists and archaeologists and all the
13 investigators, that in fact you did an inappropriate and improper review
14 of the artefacts.
15 A. I did a contingency review of the artefacts. I don't believe any
16 of the comments I made were improper and all of them assumed that further
17 study would be done by the investigators.
18 Q. I am suggesting, sir, that in fact, it was not done thoroughly and
19 it was not done completely, but it was actually done as a -- on a cursory
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection to the -- speaking of his review or the
22 investigative review, it's unclear.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Instead of ruling on the objection itself, perhaps
1 you can rephrase, Mr. Ostojic.
2 MR. OSTOJIC:
3 Q. You heard my learned friend's objection. I am interested in both,
4 both yours and the rest of the team, Professor. I am suggesting that both
5 your review and examination of those artefacts were inappropriate and
7 A. My review was incomplete, but I don't understand -- deny that it
8 was inappropriate.
9 Q. Now, how about the rest of the team, would you also agree with me
10 that that was incomplete?
11 A. The rest -- what do you mean by the rest of the team?
12 Q. Well, if you look at your report, you listed out who other members
13 of the team are: For example, staff members of the ICTY; for example, the
14 scene of crime officers that you mentioned, both from Britain and the
15 police forces; the contracted archaeologists and anthropologists that you
16 list, including I believe your wife, Sonja Wright, correct? She worked
17 with you on some of these?
18 A. Yes, she worked with me for many years.
19 Q. I understand. So listing all those 22 names, that's who I'm
20 referring to, that anybody who worked with the artefacts actually did an
21 incomplete job and merely did a cursory job of both the collection and the
22 examination of those artefacts. I'm correct, aren't I?
23 JUDGE AGIUS: You are presenting a compound question, because
24 "incomplete" is one way of projecting it, or proposing it; "cursory job"
25 is another. If you mean to say or to put to the witness that it is
1 incomplete because it was cursory, then please put the question in that
2 manner. If you -- if you want to put to the witness that it was both
3 incomplete and cursory, then you need to put it clearly so.
4 And, again, I think that we need to keep separate the stages that
5 Mr. McCloskey pointed out when I asked you to rephrase your question,
6 because the report is his, and not necessarily of the members of the team
7 that were working with him or under his direction. So I know for sure
8 that you are understanding what I mean.
9 MR. OSTOJIC: I think I --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need -- I'm not stopping you in any way.
11 I'm just asking you to be more articulate and to put precise questions to
12 the witness, because he's already said, for example, "I agree with you
13 that it was incomplete."
14 But if the suggestion is or was that it was incomplete because it
15 was a cursory, then I would suggest that we go back to the same question
16 and ask the professor to explain to us why he agrees with you that his
17 exercise was incomplete exercise or examination of the artefacts.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: And I'm not arguing with Mr. President or the Trial
19 Chamber, but I think the professor actually answered that right before the
20 break on page 39, when I asked him specifically on lines 13 through 15,
21 whether it would be inappropriate and improper to do a cursory review, and
22 his answer, which appears on line 16, he says, "Well yes," and then he
23 continues. I thought I established that already, but I will take the
24 question as Mr. President suggests.
25 May I proceed, Your Honour?
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
2 MR. OSTOJIC:
3 Q. Professor, you heard the exchange, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And can you comment on that? Was it incomplete because it was
7 A. When I said it was incomplete, it's incomplete because I know that
8 the investigators will be doing a thorough and complete job later. But I
9 wish to include in my report certain observations as I have made, and I
10 would not be using a word -- the word "incomplete" or I think even
11 "cursory" in a pejorative manner, maybe a statement of the detail which I
12 went into because I knew it was going to be followed up at the morgue.
13 Q. Well, did you ever obtain from these scene of crime officers or
14 from anyone this report which would indicate to us whether or not it may
15 or may not be complete, the collection and examination of the artefacts?
16 A. I haven't -- I haven't had such reports referred to me. I don't
17 know whether they were done or not.
18 Q. So as you sit here now, based on -- sorry, I thought they were
19 asking me to slow down. I apologise. So as you sit here now, sir, you
20 have never, to this date, based on any of the exhumations that you have
21 conducted, received a report from any scene of crime officer or ICTY
22 investigator to confirm your premises or your assumption, if you will,
23 that these artefacts and the examination of these artefacts would be done
24 in a thorough and complete manner. Is that accurate?
25 A. I have not been -- I was on a contract to carry out the
1 excavations and write a report on the excavations. I had not overall
2 responsibilities for the case as a whole.
3 Q. Let me ask you, because Mr. -- The Honourable Mr. President wanted
4 me to clarify this. Your report, and I have read it, the summary findings
5 uses the plural "we" when you wrote this report. And can you describe or
6 tell me who you meant when you said "we" in certain aspects of the report?
7 A. Well, you would have to specify what.
8 Q. Okay. Let's look at your summary findings, the very first report
9 from February 1999, I believe. Oh, I'm sorry, May 12th, 1999. Sorry. Do
10 you have that in front of you, possibly?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. We'll just take a look at page 2 there, and I think that's where
13 it starts with the summary findings in bold.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. The sixth paragraph below, do you see that, where you start
16 the sentence, "We"?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. Who are you referencing?
19 A. I think it's used in the collective sense of the team that we
20 were -- that I was working with a team.
21 Q. Right. And I think you list, in that very report on the very next
22 page, page 3 and page 4, who the members of the team were. You said that
23 there is an ICTY investigator, that there as both the Dutch and the
24 British scene of crime officers, there's the archaeologists and
25 anthropologists, 22 or so members; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So that is who you were referring to. This report is written on
3 behalf of those people as well?
4 A. Not written on behalf of them, but the "we" merely indicates that
5 I am not alone in doing the work.
6 Q. Now, let's read the sentence that starts with "we". It states, "We
7 carried out only a cursory examination of artefacts found in the graves."
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes, I see that.
10 Q. Tell me what you mean by that?
11 A. What I mean is that the artefacts such as the identification
12 documents, the writings, require analysis beyond that which we are capable
13 of; that's one thing. The second thing is that we did not do invasive
14 analysis of the bodies to see what might be inside inner pockets, so it
15 was cursory in the sense that we did not attempt to recover all the
16 artefacts. And for me to have claimed not -- for me not to have qualified
17 my statement on the artefacts would have been, I think, irresponsible.
18 Q. Let me ask you about whether or not before you were contracted by
19 the Office of the Prosecution to conduct these exhumations whether you
20 were familiar with criticisms of prior archaeologists or anthropologists
21 in conducting exhumations in connection with Srebrenica?
22 A. Only in a -- when I was interviewed at ICTY in 1997, it was made
23 plain to me that they -- they wanted, for the 1997 season, somebody with
24 extensive archaeological experience, and that is why they were selecting
1 Q. Were you ever informed, sir, that there was ever a problem at
2 least cited by not just one Chilean anthropologist, but other
3 anthropologists that there were directions given to the staff members
4 working in the exhumation process to discard clothing and to throw away
5 certain artefacts?
6 A. No, not those details, I was not told that.
7 Q. And to this day, sir, is your testimony that you are unaware of
8 such conduct?
9 A. I am of very vague word of mouth criticisms of -- of work in 1996
10 that some archaeological procedures were not -- not exact, and that ICTY
11 in 1997 decided to get a full-time archaeologist to conduct the
12 exhumations. But the details of what had worried ICTY, if indeed ICTY was
13 worried, no, they were not part of my briefing.
14 Q. Sir, you mention that from time to time during the process of
15 conducting these exhumations that you were informed by ICTY or Office of
16 the Prosecutor investigators as to the -- some factual back drop of some
17 various sites. Is that accurate?
18 A. I was informed what they believed the sites represented, yes.
19 Q. Did the ICTY investigator, and I think through my learned friend
20 from the Defence, you said you mentioned -- or she mentioned Mr. Jean-Rene
21 Ruez, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Specifically him and others, those that you may have been in
24 contact with, such as Dean Manning other others, did they ever inform you
25 as to why you did not find any military clothing in any of the graves that
1 you exhumed?
2 A. I don't know that I asked them. I don't remember that -- my --
3 there was my statement that -- my observations that we had not found
4 military clothing, but I don't remember having it explained to me as to
5 why we hadn't.
6 Q. Were you ever informed that the men that left Potocari in July of
7 1995 was a military column at all?
8 A. I -- I may have read that, but it was not a point of -- in
9 background, yes. But I don't remember it being -- I don't remember being
10 instructed on such matters, if you know what I mean. All sorts of
11 conversation goes on at the site and so on, but I was not formally -- I
12 was not formally told or instructed on these matters.
13 Q. Well, help me with this then: What is the significance of noting
14 what the type of clothing is on these graves that you have exhumed --
15 A. Oh --
16 Q. -- if not to suggest that they were civilians versus military?
17 A. Exactly, yes.
18 Q. So. If you are basing it, and the reason you're putting this
19 information is to do what, confirm if you will, that these were
20 non-military people?
21 A. It's -- it's to point out that I did not find any military
22 clothing, because I thought it was my duty to describe the -- the general
23 nature of what I was finding in my reports. But I was certainly -- I was
24 certainly away of the -- of the significance of my observations in the
25 context of what people believed military, non-military possibilities for
1 these graves.
2 Q. Well, would it impact your decision -- your opinion or any of your
3 reports if I would suggest to you that the Prosecutor has also identified
4 this column of men leaving Potocari going to Tuzla as being a military
6 A. I could not have told, apart from the fact that people were
7 wearing civilian clothing, what the background of these people was. It
8 wouldn't -- I don't see what it would impact. I made the statement that
9 there was no -- there were no items of military clothing observed by me,
10 but that the final decision on that would have to be made at the morgue
11 when things were cleaned up.
12 Q. Now, we discussed briefly these calculations that you made, I
13 think, in May of 1999, and I know that were -- and I think you responded
14 in a report once it was -- with all due respect, I think there was a
15 criticism raised with respect to your calculations being assertions as
16 opposed to assumptions, and I think you clarified that in a memo. Do you
17 remember that?
18 A. My -- my calculations are not assumptions, but the -- the
19 interpretation you place on the calculations require some assumptions.
20 Q. Okay. Now, and I think in -- that's the memo that you wrote to my
21 learned friend Peter McCloskey in November of 2000, correct? You're
22 familiar with that?
23 A. I don't remember that one, no.
24 Q. Do you have it with you, perhaps?
25 A. No, I don't have that one with me.
1 Q. Okay.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: It's -- I have the ERN number. It's -- just for the
3 record, I'll just place it on the -- 0106-2373 dated the 13th of November,
4 2000, to Peter McCloskey from Richard Wright.
5 Q. Professor, in part of this, and I'll quote what you say, "I agree
6 that the exact number can only be determined by actual exhumation. That
7 inferences require assumptions and I have not argued otherwise in my
9 Now, to date, sir, do you agree with that still today?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. To date, sir, do you know what the actual exhumation or, if you
12 will with all due respect, body count is from the exhumations?
13 A. From the exhumations that I was working with or all the
14 exhumations that have ever taken place?
15 Q. All of them that have ever taken place?
16 A. I have no idea.
17 Q. Did you ever seek to learn that information?
18 A. I sought to learn, as I explained to your colleague earlier, I
19 sought to learn from Mr. John Sterenberg of ICMP and I asked him to tell
20 me, when they excavated these secondary graves that are used in my
21 calculations, whether any of them would undermine the calculations that I
22 did, and he assured me that they didn't; in other words, they were fair,
23 average quality graves in terms of numbers of bodies.
24 Q. At the time that you made those calculations, correct?
25 A. No, this is this year, these year.
1 Q. Let me ask you this: Did you speak with Mr. Jean Ruez, and did
2 you give you his assessment as to the percentage of graves that were
3 exhumed to date?
4 A. Did I speak with him when?
5 Q. At any time since your reports.
6 A. I -- can you just rephrase what it is that would you like know
7 that I spoke about?
8 Q. First, I want to establish whether you did speak about that?
9 A. I have spoken to Mr. Ruez many times.
10 Q. When was the last time, for example?
11 A. The last time was in 2002 at a conference in Bournemouth.
12 Q. And for four or five years you haven't spoken to him at all?
13 A. Not since 2002, no.
14 Q. Do you know what his opinion was in 2002 as to the number of
15 graves that you were exhumed relating to Srebrenica?
16 A. No, I don't know that.
17 Q. Did he ever discuss with you that at that time it was his opinion
18 that 94, 95 per cent of the graves were exhumed?
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. That is a misstatements of facts.
20 This was not brought up when Mr. Ruez was here, and I think it's incumbent
21 on counsel when he has an issue to have at least cross-examined Mr. Ruez
22 on that point, though that's not the foundation of my objection.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: With all due respect --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, please respond.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: With all due respect, I actually did cross-examine
1 him and I read it yesterday, and it was Mr. Ruez who gave us those
2 percentages. It was based on his opinion, based on all the work that he
3 has done as the lead investigator, as he identified himself being.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: If you recall the answer that we heard was not the
5 percentage of exhumed but the percentage of identified, and that is a --
6 quite a bit -- big difference.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We do have an idea, but rather than risk relying on
9 our memory, or our respective memories, Mr. Ostojic, perhaps you could go
10 straight to chapter and verse and read out.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. It was on -- [Microphone not activated]
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Mr. President. On page 1731, and I'm reading
14 from yesterday's transcript which appears on page 42, starting on line 25
15 and proceeding on page 43 line 1 through approximately 12, and I state
16 in -- I read from page 1731 of Mr. Ruez's testimony.
17 "I was asked in 2003, line 3 and on. 'In 2003, isn't it correct
18 that was your opinion with respect to exhumations,'" and I'm stressing it,
19 obviously. "You said, 'We are now in 2003. Eight years after the events.
20 We have located probably 90 per cent of all these graves.'" .
21 Then I proceed, "'Do you remember giving this statement in the
22 Blagojevic case, page...'" and they didn't write it down, because I was
23 perhaps speaking fast, "'line'" blank through line 12.
24 Answer, but Mr. Ruez, again, they didn't say it, but I think it
25 was "Yes," but we can check that.
1 Question: "'Now we are even more removed'" from the dates .
2 "'Yes,'" answer.
3 "'What per cent does it increase or decrease that I can use?'"
4 "'Only one site has been found since 1993. It is a site located
5 in Potocari that was discovered by the team of Mr. Masovic. This is so
6 maybe we are now at 96 per cent.'".
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: It is hard to -- to gauge hearsay of a previous
9 statement, but Mr. Ruez appears to be talking about graves that were
10 located, located, and that another one had been located in Potocari. It's
11 a -- well, I won't get into anything besides that. He's talking about
12 locating graves, not -- not digging them up.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, Your Honour, he -- I appreciate that, and I
14 guess he could change his position from first I identifying bodies to
15 locating graves. I truly believe the evidence is quite clear, especially
16 given Dr. Clark's testimony yesterday as to the number of bodies and
17 looking at Professor Wright's testimony today in his report on what his
18 extrapolations were.
19 Putting that in context with Mr. Ruez, which is quite clear,
20 despite my learned friend's perhaps attempt to recreate what he said, I
21 think it's pretty obvious what it is. He says there are 96 per cent that
22 have been exhumed. Graves. Mr. Ruez mentions graves. He's not talking
23 about identification.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: I will strongly object to that.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. McCloskey, I interrupted you when you had
3 just said, "I will strongly object to that." Can you explain again your
4 objection, please.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: The statement that 96 per cent of the graves had
6 been exhumed, and that is nowhere in this record. It misstates the actual
7 reality of the day as we sit here, and that Mr. Ruez and anyone in this
8 field full knows well that there are many, many graves left unexhumed in
9 this -- in this case. And to suggest that the record suggests that 96 per
10 cent is -- is absurd.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic. Let's cut to --
12 MR. OSTOJIC: And we will, but I do strenuously object. Not
13 because -- I mean but these are comments -- if he wants to make an
14 argument, my learned friend, he can make one; and if he thinks he has a
15 basis for it, he can do so. I have to say this for the record and,
16 apologise, Mr. President. All they ever say is that we're wrong. All
17 they ever say is it's not true.
18 I would like him to show me where his report is to indicate and
19 which report specifically tells us how many graves reportedly are still
20 left that need to be exhumed. And I want him to tell us specifically,
21 when he has evidence like this, why they didn't withdraw draw such
22 evidence when it goes contrary to what Dr. Clark said given what he said
23 yesterday about the number of bodies and body parts that he actually
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think you need to rephrase or reput
1 your question, and I'm pretty sure that Professor Wright knows exactly
2 what you are talking about. And if he is in a position to answer your
3 question, he will do so; if not, we will move forward.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Professor, do you know what the percentage of the graves that
6 relate to Srebrenica, do you know how many have been exhumed?
7 A. No, I don't know.
8 Q. Okay. Did you ever ask the Prosecutor to provide you with that
10 A. No, I didn't ask the Prosecutor to provide me with that
11 information. The background of my work is that I stopped working for ICTY
12 in 2000. I've moved on to other jobs. I have written my reports. I
13 don't have an overarching responsibility to follow this material up, but I
14 have asked people to let me know if there are any matters relating to my
15 work, which are -- must be re-examined. They have not told me that.
16 Q. Can you tell me why the Office of the Prosecutor, if it's true
17 that there are other graves that need to be exhumed, do you know if
18 they've ever informed you who is conducting any of those exhumations
20 A. I do know that, because I've been in touch with Mr. John
21 Sterenberg, who was working with me all the four years I was in Bosnia,
22 and he is the field officer for ICMP. And he informs me periodically of
23 this work but on an informal bases and nothing alerted me to the
24 possibility that we had misled the ICTY.
25 Q. I'm not sure why you're continuously referencing misleading the
1 ICTY or anyone, but we can talk about that at some other time. My point is
2 this: Your friend that you keep in contact with, who is continuing these
3 exhumations, can you tell us based on your formal or informal
4 conversations with him, when was the last time an exhumation was conducted
5 on a grave relating to Srebrenica in 1995?
6 A. I'm confident that they were conducted right up to the autumn of
7 last year. They were --
8 Q. How many?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. Do you know prior to that how many, sir?
11 A. I don't know how many at all.
12 Q. Do you know how many graves were exhumed since you left the Office
13 of the Prosecution in your role as the chief archaeologist, sorry?
14 A. No, I couldn't answer that question. I -- I was not a part of the
15 system, as it were, after 2000.
16 Q. Okay. But you do agree with me, sir, though that the exact
17 number, when determining bodies and the number of bodies that were
18 recovered from graves that were exhumed, would you agree with me that that
19 body count, if you will, is best left for a pathologist like Dr. Clark,
20 who you worked with?
21 A. Well, the anthropologist and pathologist team, yes.
22 Q. And let me ask you this about the secondary and primary graves,
23 and you've helped me identify exactly that and the numbers that you've
24 looked at. And this is a little tricky, but I'm trying to get the
25 question right. I believe, from reading your reports, there was one
1 exhumation that you conducted on a secondary grave, and then you
2 determined subsequent to that exhumation that it related to another
3 primary grave. Is that correct?
4 A. I think, yes. I think you're referring to the relationship
5 between Zeleni Jadar 5 and the Glogova site.
6 Q. That's what I'm referring to, and thank you for clarifying that
7 it's Zeleni Jadar 5 and the Glogova site. Which Glogova site?
8 A. I worked on what was called Glogova 1. I did not see any of the
9 exhumations that took place at Glogova 2. They were conducted under
10 Mr. Baraybar.
11 Q. Did you, sir, at any time, during your experience with the
12 exhumation, conduct any other similar types of exhumations where you first
13 found the secondary grave site and then subsequent to that found the
14 primary grave site?
15 A. Yes, I did. The third site in Cancari Road had properties of
16 broken bottles, and the broken bottles suggested to me that there must
17 have been some industrial accident at a bottling factory. And that was
18 when I contacted ICTY to tell them that I believe there must be a primary
19 grave associated with the bottling factory at Kozluk, because that's what
20 the labels were telling us -- I mean, Kozluk was mentioned on the labels
21 we were finding.
22 Q. Those were glass bottles, right?
23 A. Yes. We found that -- the point is that the glass bottles were
24 broken but they still had the Crown seals on them; that's not what you
25 expect from discarded picnic rubbish. The labels were not stuck on the
1 bottles. So I thought there was a moment in the production process where
2 a large crate of bottles, that had been sealed but not labelled, had
3 broken and they had been dumped, and that the bodies were with that.
4 Q. Any others other than those two that you have just mentioned,
5 where you found first a secondary grave site and then subsequent to that
6 you found the primary grave site?
7 A. I don't think so, no.
8 Q. Now, just a follow-up question from page 47 today, lines 12
9 through 14 - and we're only saying that for the record, so I don't that
10 you will find it in front of you - we talked about the significance of
11 your observations in the context of what people believed were military or
12 non-military clothing. Can you tell me, as you sit here now, whether or
13 not your statements in your reports that you found no military clothing or
14 the converse, that you found only civilian clothing, can you tell me what
15 significance, if any, does it have in your reports?
16 A. That we had found no military clothing, we -- I included in my
17 1998 report and in my 1999 report. But in Glogova in my report, that's
18 there is mention of a possibility military jacket.
19 Q. Of one, and I think you found that the button was actually
20 commercially made, correct?
21 A. That's a different find.
22 Q. Different one?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Sorry.
25 A. I said the jacket was so dirty that it would have to be checked in
1 the morgue.
2 Q. What's the significance?
3 A. The significance is I am aware of the possibility...
4 Q. I apologise, Professor.
5 A. I am aware --
6 Q. Please continue.
7 A. -- of the general background of argument that are these soldiers
8 or are they civilians, but I mean you couldn't work in Bosnia without that
9 being -- hearing that discussed. I was impressed with the fact that I was
10 seeing people who had only civilian clothing on with that one exception.
11 Q. Are you familiar with military personnel wearing civilian
13 A. I have no idea about these things.
14 Q. Did you ever inquire of that fact?
15 A. No. I didn't inquire of that fact. I think I was told that some
16 of the people who -- some of the people changed into civilian clothing,
17 but these are talk that one hears and I didn't inquire into it, no.
18 Q. Okay. I think that's all the questions I have. Thank you,
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
21 The Nikolic team, you had indicated ten minutes.
22 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we will have no
23 questions for this witness. Thank you.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Madam Nikolic.
25 Mr. Lazarevic.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour. It's going to take literally
2 one or two minutes.
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Lazarevic:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Professor. I'm going to put a question
5 to you that relates exclusively to your methodological approach in your
6 work. When you were calculating the number of bodies in the graves and
7 this number, 2.571, that is the total number, you said that this was an
8 assumption. Is that correct?
9 A. There are assumptions underlying that number, yes.
10 Q. Yes. As a scientist can you please tell me if you agree that in
11 the scientific or methodological method, an assumption is a claim that
12 should be proved and it should not be something that is found in
13 conclusions in any case?
14 A. I agree that in the case of scientific method, it's pointless to
15 make assumptions that can't be tested. Now, I knew that the assumptions I
16 was making could be tested by further exhumation. And I, therefore, did
17 not regard it as scientifically irresponsible to do these calculations and
18 to set out the assumptions underlying them because, I knew that the
19 hypothesis I was putting forward could be tested.
20 Q. I agree with you entirely; but until there is confirmation, it
21 remains in the domain of an assumption, is that correct?
22 A. It remains perhaps in the domain of a hypothesis, yes, with
23 assumptions underlying it, but I am not suggesting -- I did not propose
24 that that is the number. I was saying that that would be the number if
25 certain assumptions were met of the similarity between the grave we dug
1 and the graves that remained undug.
2 Q. [In English] Thank you, sir. I have no further questions for you.
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Lazarevic. I have an indication that
5 the Gvero Defence team doesn't wish to cross-examine the witness. Can I
6 have an confirmation of that.
7 MR. JOSSE: You have that confirmation, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Josse. That leaves you, Mr. Haynes
9 or Mr. Sarapa. You indicated 15 minutes.
10 MR. HAYNES: I should comfortably finish within that time.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:
13 Q. Professor, I wonder whether you would consider a couple of
14 statements and see whether you agree with me. Forensic archaeology is
15 concerned with the understand of activities from the past and the
16 investigation of physical remains whether they are objects, corpses, or
18 A. I would agree with that general statement, yes.
19 Q. And forensic anthropology is the application of the science of
20 physical anthropology and human osteology in a legal setting?
21 A. Yes, that seems a good summary.
22 Q. Putting it simply, as an archaeologist, you look at what is in the
23 ground and how it got there; and an anthropologist looks at who's there,
24 what they are, and how many there are?
25 A. If I would say yes to that question, it would imply that I don't
1 believe there is a crossing between the practices of the two subjects.
2 But in the sense that one is acting as archaeologist, yes and one is
3 acting as an anthropologist, yes, and we had specialist in both fields.
4 Q. I commend your honesty, but are in fact an emeritus professor of
5 anthropology at Sydney University, aren't you?
6 A. Yes. And that is why I explained yesterday the confusion of
7 terminology, in that in this context anthropology was osteology. At
8 Sydney University, anthropology is -- was used in its old sense of
9 covering prehistoric archaeology, physical anthropology, and cultural
10 anthropology. And so there were two professors of anthropology, one of
11 them being myself for a time, and we had -- I had the responsibility to
12 deal with the archaeological side.
13 Q. I have only put these questions to you in case you feel
14 uncomfortable answering questions about anthropology, which I'm going to
15 ask you. I assume you feel comfortable answering questions about
17 A. I have practiced not in the context of this work, but in other
18 forensic cases, a consider amount of anthropology myself, so I should feel
19 comfortable, yes.
20 Q. Thank you very much. In order to determine the age, sex, race,
21 and minimum number of individuals in a grave, the standard technique
22 involves, where you can't complete a skeleton, looking at bone growth and
23 age-induced change, doesn't it?
24 A. Yes. It does, as well as dental eruption stage and the degree of
25 wear on the teeth. But -- if I add that into what you said, yes, I would
1 agree with you.
2 Q. And in your considerable experience, you presumably agree that any
3 assessment of the contents of the grave requires, as it were, a controlled
4 sample? I can put that better, if you don't understand it.
5 A. No, what I was going to say was that every grave we examined, we
6 were charged with removing all the individuals within the grave, so we
7 were not sampling.
8 Q. I didn't put that well. There are racial variations to bone
9 growth and age-induced change, aren't there?
10 A. Not very much. In -- most of the racial differences relate to the
11 cranial form; but in the post-cranial skeleton, there's not much different
12 between people all over the world.
13 Q. Well, I mean, just to quote an obvious example, you have just been
14 cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic, who is from America, and I am from the
15 United Kingdom, and would you agree that, as it were, a control sample of
16 Americans wouldn't be of much use in determining the age of those dug up
17 in Europe?
18 A. You mean age of death?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. I'm not sure that I would race into agreeing with you on that, no.
21 I would like to see local studies done, but the general principles that
22 are set out in anthropology text-books, except for certain aspects of
23 cranial variation, have always suggested to me a fairly uniform process of
24 growth in the human species.
25 Q. Very well. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on
1 that one.
2 It's also true, isn't it, that practicing as an anthropologist you
3 have to be very careful of the ethics of what you do? And in particular
4 in the removal of human remains from grave sites?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And, presumably, you would agree that, in the work that was
7 carried out in Bosnia, researchers should have obtained the informed
8 consent of any persons they intended to study?
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. The relevancy of this line.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Objection sustained. Move to the next question,
14 MR. HAYNES: There is no next question.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So that leaves us with the possibility
16 of a re-examination on your part, Mr. McCloskey.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, very briefly.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: A couple of points.
20 Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey:
21 Q. Professor, I want to take you back to the Kozluk grave very
22 briefly, and I would like to go to a couple of pages of your report, if
23 you could help us illustrate a point that you were making on
24 cross-examination. And it's 65 ter 665. It's page 27 of your report of
25 2nd February 2000, and we should get it up on the screen.
1 As it's coming up, let me ask you, you found that -- that site at
2 Kozluk roughly about the same time the investigators did. Is that
4 A. I found it before the investigators, but I went there with the
5 investigators. I found it because of the properties of Cancari 3, but
6 physically I went there with the investigators.
7 Q. And did you see any shell casings in the area of the -- of the
9 A. At Kozluk?
10 Q. At Kozluk, yes.
11 A. Yes, and they are mapped in my report.
12 Q. We talked about bullets you found in the grave underneath bodies.
13 Did those shell casings that you found relate to the -- to the bullets in
14 any way? Do you know if they were the same size or is that not something
15 that you were aware of?
16 A. It was not something that -- I knew that the material was going to
17 be handed over to a ballistics expert, but they didn't look as though --
18 they didn't look as though they didn't fit, if you know what I mean.
19 Q. Did the amount of shell casings lead you to come to any
20 conclusions or was it -- did it fit into your view-point of that grave at
22 A. Yes. It was not just the amount, but the distribution of the
23 shell casings. The shell casings were under the bodies in many instances.
24 They were everywhere, the shell casings. There were hundreds.
25 Q. Now, if you can look at this photograph, and do you recognise
1 where that is?
2 A. Yes. This is the Kozluk site, and it's what we called KK2. It
3 was a distribution of bodies just at the side of the one that we were
4 seeing illustrations of earlier in my testimony.
5 Q. Do you recall if any of those bodies appeared to have been shot in
7 A. These are the ones that I was referring to lying on a surface with
8 many bullets in the ground surface beneath them. I had a pen and I lost
9 it. Can I point? Does it show up?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Usher, please.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY:
12 Q. The usher will help you out with that.
13 A. Would it be possible to show parts of both photos, please?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. To slide it up the screen slightly.
16 Q. If we could see if we can get a bit of both in there.
17 A. Yes, that's enough. That's fine, thank you. No, the previous
18 size was better.
19 Q. I think more space.
20 A. Thank you. Okay. These are individuals that I concluded were --
21 were shot on the spot. They lay on this surface, and there were bullets
22 in the ground underneath them.
23 Q. Why don't you -- could you put an X by the individuals you're
24 referring to?
25 A. It's all these individuals, including some probably not included
1 slightly to the left.
2 Q. That's clear enough.
3 A. In fact, in the lower photograph, you can see all of them in a
4 slightly different angle. The green suit and then across to the left
5 there are some missing in the upper photograph, but it's a photograph of
6 the same distribution.
7 Q. Okay. And something I think we talked about very briefly about
8 yesterday, I asked you how you could tell from digging, excavating a
9 grave, whether something had been disturbed or not. Can you tell us about
10 those markings in the bottom of the -- the bottom picture?
11 A. When the -- when an excavator digs into clay, it compresses the
12 clay and the softer material that's put above doesn't obliterate the marks
13 of an excavator. And this is -- these are the marks of an excavator that
14 came later than the disposal of the remains, because it cuts across the
15 legs of an individual who is on the slope with the rest, and the leg is
16 gone. And we interpret this as the robbing of a grave area at Kozluk.
17 Q. Can you mark with an L where the leg is gone, if you can recognise
18 it from that picture?
19 A. Yes. There is a diagram in my report which shows this more
20 clearly, but it's in this area.
21 Q. All right. So these -- these scratches in the lower photograph,
22 those are not scratches your excavation made?
23 A. No.
24 Q. And the bodies that are in these photographs, is that the
25 precisely the way they were in when you found them?
1 A. Yes. They were underneath about up to a metre of soil, which had
2 been thrown in some manner on to that surface and covering the bodies.
3 Q. So you and your experts were able to take all the soil off and
4 leave that -- leave that just the way they were when they died --
5 A. That's what we did.
6 Q. -- in your view. Let's take a look at one more page, and that
7 is -- yeah, sorry. We need to have you sign this.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Before we proceed, if the witness could sign over
9 this document and date it, please.
10 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Excuse me. Your Honour, unless the Court finds it
12 significant, we do have the report. I think it,-- with all due respect,
13 may be outside the scope of the cross-examination, and my learned friend
14 did mention that he was referring to his direct yesterday in trying to
15 supplement it. And I understand that it's significance, and you know we
16 may want to look at it, but we do have those reports. If he wanted to
17 lead him with that evidence, he should have yesterday. I don't believe
18 that anybody touched on these pictures today, and it is strictly outside
19 the scope of the cross-examination.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: What is your response to that, Mr. McCloskey.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Ms. Condon cross-examined very seriously on Kozluk
22 on the question of whether or not the people had been shot at this place,
23 and as this Court knows, there is no survivor of that execution.
24 Therefore, I am just clarifying, with the evidence to back up, what his
25 conclusions were; that people did in fact were in fact shot there.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: We agree with you, Mr. McCloskey. You may proceed.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could now go to the last photograph, 65 ter
3 665. It's page 29 of the -- of the same report. There's two photographs.
4 Q. You mentioned in your -- I believe it was your cross-examination
5 that one of the reasons you based your opinion on people being shot there
6 was a person had grasped some -- some plants in the grave, and I wanted,
7 if you can, is this exhibit what you were talking about?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And looking at that lower photo, were you able to determine that
10 those plants actually had been rooted into the soil?
11 A. Yes. They were now dead, but they had been rooted into the soil.
12 They had been covered up of course by --
13 Q. Thank you --
14 A. [Indiscernible]
15 Q. Thank you, professor. I have nothing further.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I just want to make sure that we have the correct
17 reference for these two pictures. All right. Thank you.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could mark that again, thank you for --
19 before we close it.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I don't think there is a need to mark
21 it, actually because you just referred --
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's why I didn't mark it.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think we need to enter this into the record
24 or we'll have one page less.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I had meant earlier on to put a series of questions
2 to you, which however Mr. Haynes covered. There is only one thing that I
3 would like you to clarify for us, Professor. I have understood the
4 interrelationship that exists particularly in University Sydney, when it
5 comes to archaeology, anthropology, et cetera. What I would like you to
6 clarify is the following, especially since you said that in other
7 instances you also played a role -- or filled the role of an
8 anthropologist proper.
9 In this particular assignment that you had on behalf of the ICTY,
10 not just one but more than one, did you restrict your role to that of an
11 archaeologist proper, or did you also at times fill the role of an
12 anthropologist, too.
13 THE WITNESS: I never filled the role of an anthropologist in the
14 sense that I worked at the morgue, but I noticed some very clear
15 observations on bones, such as an immature individual, and I made a note
16 in my notebook. It is passed. The whole matter is passed to the morgue
17 for the anthropologists; nothing was left with me to determine.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Professor. We have come to the
19 end of your testimony. You will receive the assistance you require, and I
20 wish to thank you on behalf of the Tribunal, and also wish you a safe
21 journey back home.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment, Mr. Meek.
25 In relation to the tendering of documents, are there any documents
1 to be tendered or have they all been tendered before, pursuant to our
2 previous decision?
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Been -- Your Honour, Mr. President, they have been
4 tendered before, or they are already in evidence.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Except with the one that you have made use of now.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Which will be marked accordingly. Are there any
8 objections to its admission. I am referring to the two photos -- all
9 right. Thank you. Do any of the Defence teams wish to tender any
10 documents. I hear -- yes, Ms. Condon.
11 MS. CONDON: Your Honour.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: You made reference to several articles.
13 MS. CONDON: I put P 2177 to the professor and that was the
14 document that he marked with the red pen, so I would seek to tender that
15 document into evidence.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Is there any objection on your part,
17 Mr. McCloskey.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: No objection.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. It is so admitted. No further -- you
20 don't intend to tender the articles that you referred --
21 MS. CONDON: No, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: -- the witness to? All right.
23 Mr. Meek.
24 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, if it please the Court, I
25 have some business. I need to leave now. My client has approved that.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I thank you so much, Mr. Meek.
2 Now, next witness. Who will be handling the next witness?
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. Elderkin.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Elderkin.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Is here and ready to go.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
8 [The witness entered court]
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, if I could leave for one second, if
10 I could be right back.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, Mr. McCloskey.
12 Good morning, Dr. Lawrence, and welcome.
13 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: You are about to start giving evidence. Let's go
15 through the solemn declaration procedure.
16 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
17 whole truth and nothing but the truth.
18 WITNESS: CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Dr. Lawrence. Please make
20 yourself comfortable. Mr. Rupert Elderkin from the Office of the
21 Prosecutor will be examining you in chief. He will then be followed by
22 some or more of the -- some or all of the members of the Defence teams.
23 Mr. Elderkin.
24 MR. ELDERKIN: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning.
1 Examination by Mr. Elderkin.
2 Q. Could I start by asking you to say your name, please?
3 A. Christopher Hamilton Lawrence.
4 Q. And Dr. Lawrence, what is your profession?
5 A. I am a forensic pathologist.
6 Q. And where are you currently working?
7 A. I am the State Forensic Pathologist for Tazmania.
8 Q. Could you tell us briefly what you do day-to-day in that job?
9 A. As the state forensic pathologist, I am responsible for providing
10 the autopsy service for the coroner in Tazmania, that involves examining
11 deaths, trying to establish how the deaths occurred, examine the injuries,
12 and try and formulate opinions about the circumstances in which the death
14 Q. I understand that you have some training also in anthropology.
15 Could you describe the extent of that, please?
16 A. My principal training is in forensic pathology, but I have
17 attended a number of courses. I spent two years working in the United
18 States; and during that time, I attended two courses in forensic
19 anthropology. I've also attended a number of courses subsequently. I've
20 also performed examinations on skeletal remains in New South Wales, in
21 Bosnia, in Kosovo, and in East Timor.
22 Q. If I can turn now, Dr. Lawrence, just to your visit previously to
23 this Tribunal in the Krstic trial, and the work that you did in Bosnia.
24 Could you tell us very briefly about your position in Bosnia?
25 A. I was the chief forensic pathologist for the ICTY in 1998.
1 Q. And in that role what were your duties?
2 A. My duties were to coordinate the mortuary portion of the
3 investigation, exhumation, and autopsy process; to supervise and to
4 perform autopsies on the remains; to supervise the activities of the
5 anthropologists, the pathologists, and the other staff members at the
6 mortuary; and to formulate a report summarising the results of the -- the
7 autopsy procedure.
8 Q. And are the reports that you prepared following that work the
9 reports that you testified about in Krstic?
10 A. Yes, they are.
11 Q. Have you done any further work on these matters since the Krstic
13 A. No.
14 Q. Dr. Lawrence, as you know, because your reports are already
15 tendered in evidence, then I'm not going to ask you any further about the
16 contents of those -- those documents. I just, as a last question, I would
17 like to ask about the materials that you brought with you here today.
18 Could you tell me briefly what those are, please?
19 A. Yes. They consist of the eight reports from the individual
20 sites. They also include -- at the front of each of those reports is a
21 summary document. I have a -- a list of the summary documents, and I
22 also, at the time of the Krstic trial, prepared a summary document stating
23 the overall numbers based on the summary documents.
24 Q. Thank you, Dr. Lawrence. And please, for any future answer, if
25 you wish to refer to those documents, please do so, just please let us
2 A. Thank you.
3 MR. ELDERKIN: I have no further questions.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Elderkin.
5 Now, who is going first from the Defence teams? Mr. Lazarevic,
6 you had indicated about one hour.
7 MR. LAZAREVIC: And I think I will stick to this estimate.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead. We'll have a break in about 30
9 minutes' time.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Lazarevic:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Dr. Lawrence.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I notice that, Mr. Haynes, your client
13 hasn't been wearing the headphones or earphones throughout the entire
14 sitting. Is there a problem with them, or is it because he can follow the
15 proceedings just the same? You can consult with him.
16 MR. HAYNES: I'm going to check that.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Because if there is something that we ought to
18 address, we ought to know about it.
19 [Defence counsel confers with client]
20 MR. HAYNES: Your Honour, he has a difficulty with the headphones
21 directly on to his ears. I believe this is known to the court staff. It
22 wasn't to me previously, but he is able to hear them sufficiently with the
23 headphones draped around his neck.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. But if that creates any insurmountable
25 problems, then please tell us and we will find a remedy.
1 MR. HAYNES: That's very kind of you. Thank you very much.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic. I'm so sorry for having
3 interrupted you --
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: -- before you had even started. Go ahead.
6 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Dr. Lawrence, we received from the OTP your curriculum vitae, and
8 Mr. Elderkin covered some of that with you. You worked as the main
9 forensic pathologist from May to October, 1998 in Bosnia. Is that
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Could you please tell us how that came about for you to become
13 involved in the work of the OTP of the ICTY in Bosnia?
14 A. I was going to provide some assistance to the ICTY in 1997. Due
15 to unforeseen circumstances, there was no need for my work in 1997. In
16 early 1998, I was contacted by the ICTY, who were looking for a forensic
17 pathologist to work for them for six months. I was approached with a
18 number of other pathologists. We did a phone interview, and I was offered
19 the job.
20 Q. Thank you very much. So it was your initiative that led to your
22 A. Yes, to some degree.
23 Q. Thank you. After becoming appointed as pathologist in the
24 Prosecutor's office of the ICTY, I assume that you received some
25 briefings, that the Prosecutor's office provided some instructions to you
1 as to your duties, as well as to what you might expect in Bosnia and what
2 is expected of you there. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you tell us who provided that initial briefing to you as to
5 what had happened in Srebrenica in 1995 in the opinion of the OTP?
6 A. That's difficult to remember. I got information from many people,
7 and I honestly cannot remember who told me what, but I had spoken to
8 Graham Blewitt, John Ralston, members of the investigation team, Professor
9 Richard Wright. So I -- I received information from a large number of
11 Q. Thank you very much. Naturally, you cannot be expected to
12 remember every word that was uttered to you, and by whom. But could you
13 summarise the information that was provided to you in OTP -- by OTP as to
14 what was their impression about what had happened in Srebrenica in July of
15 1995? What did they tell you?
16 A. I -- I was told that a number of people had been killed, that they
17 had been buried, that the graves had been then re -- dug up, and that the
18 bodies had been reburied again.
19 Q. Thank you for this answer. So you were expected to prove, or
20 rather, to find evidence that what you just described to us happened
21 indeed in that way?
22 A. No. My job, as a forensic pathologist in this, along with
23 everything else I do, is to test the information that I have been given to
24 see if it is true. In the course of any investigation that I do, I am
25 given information, but it is my job to test that information to see if it
1 is correct.
2 Q. Thank you. When preparing to go out to work in the field, were
3 you perhaps told that in the territory of Srebrenica municipality, as well
4 as in neighbouring municipalities of Bratunac and Zvornik, in 1992 very
5 intense combat took place between the Serbian and Muslim forces, which is
6 to say that this happened some three years before the 1995 event -- sorry,
7 1995 events.
8 A. Yes. I -- I was aware there had been previous combat.
9 Q. Was your attention drawn to the fact that in doing your work, you
10 should bear in mind that some of the graves that you might come across
11 were created in 1992 or 1993? Were you told to pay particular attention
12 to that fact?
13 A. No.
14 Q. So you were never told by the Prosecution before going to Bosnia
15 that there existed certain mass graves in the territory of Zvornik and
16 Bratunac dating back to 1992. Did they have such information?
17 A. No. I don't recall being given -- told that specifically. I was
18 aware that there were graves there, though.
19 Q. When digging up those graves, you never tried to establish the
20 time of death; namely, whether the people buried there died in 1992, 1993,
21 or 1995? At least, I was unable to find this information in any of the
22 reports provided to us by the Prosecution.
23 A. I should point out that I wasn't doing the digging, that that was
24 carried on by Richard Wright and questions in regard to that should
25 probably be directed to him. But, yes, it is extremely difficult to
1 ascertain the time of death based on the normal techniques that a forensic
2 pathologist would use in those graves.
3 I do understand, however, that there were some items that were
4 recovered by other people in the graves, which suggested that at least in
5 some of the graves there was evidence that these -- these must have come
6 from -- a time later than -- sorry, 1992, 1993.
7 Q. Yes, I agree. Perhaps this question should have been addressed to
8 Mr. Wright. But from your point of view, as a forensic pathologist, would
9 that affect the autopsy report that you drafted, the fact that the body
10 you are analysing is the body of a person who died a couple of years
11 before 1995?
12 A. From the examination of the bodies alone, I could not ascertain
13 the time of death.
14 Q. Thank you very much. Before you went to Bosnia, as you were
15 receiving the briefing in the Prosecution, were you told that a large
16 column of Srebrenica Muslims, many of whom were armed, attempted to break
17 through in the territory under the control of the army of Republika
18 Srpska, leading to Tuzla, and that this column suffered great losses in
19 the course of that attempted break-through?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you very much. I studied the reports that you drafted
22 concerning the autopsies of bodies found in mass graves or in graves, and
23 I'd like now to turn to a fact that figures in many of those reports; for
24 example, report on remains at Liplje 2, you said that no weapons were
25 found on any bodies, no bodies were dressed in either military or police
1 uniform. When speaking of Zeleni Jadar 5, you said that no body had a
2 weapon it and that no body was in a police or military uniform. The same
3 statement can be found on your report on Cancari Road, 3.4, as well as in
4 all our other reports, except for the one about Kozluk.
5 Thus, can you tell me whether you received from the Prosecution
6 any instructions about you paying attention to any weapons or uniforms, or
7 did you consider yourself this fact to be of such importance that it
8 required that you mentioned it in your report?
9 A. I was not given instructions on how to write the reports. I did
10 tend to follow pattern of the reports done by pathologists from the
11 previous year. I was aware that one of the possible explanations for the
12 deaths was that they were in fact deaths in combat. And therefore, I did
13 consider it relevant to include the fact, as to whether or not I found
14 people in uniform and people who had weapons.
15 Q. So if I understood your answer correctly, you believe that finding
16 weapons in mass graves and finding bodies dressed in uniforms is important
17 in order to establish whether the deceased was a civilian or a military
19 A. It's one of the points of evidence which might answer that
21 Q. This is why it is included in your report, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. See here, before this Court, we have heard a number of testimonies
24 of survivors from Srebrenica, who said that they were members of the army
25 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but that they were never issued with uniforms.
1 Some of them said that they didn't even have any weapons. What I just
2 told you, this fact, were you ever told this by the Prosecution?
3 A. Not specifically, no.
4 Q. Thank you very much. Now I would like to put a couple of general
5 questions to you concerning what is termed as primary and secondary graves
6 in the reports. Can you explain to us on what basis do you draw a
7 distinction between a primary and a secondary grave?
8 A. I would not claim to be able to tell the difference between a
9 primary and secondary grave; that would have been information provided to
10 me by Richard Wright, who is the expert on that.
11 Q. However, since these terms are mentioned very frequently in these
12 documents, can you tell us what was your criterium when using these terms,
13 primary and secondary graves?
14 A. I -- as I say, I would rely on Richard Wright to make that
15 assessment. I am -- I did attend two of the grave sites, but I would not
16 claim expertise in being able to tell you which is a primary and which is
17 a secondary site.
18 Q. Thank you very much. [In English] Excuse me for a second.
19 [Defence counsel confer]
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. In the course of your research, I suppose that you established
22 also the number of bodies found in graves?
23 A. Again, and I don't want to be -- to sound to be evasive, that was
24 largely the job of the forensic anthropologist, Mr. Jose-Pablo Baraybar.
25 I did include those numbers in my report because I think it was impossible
1 to understand my report without that information. But the calculations in
2 that have been performed by Mr. Baraybar, and questions on that should be
3 directed to him.
4 Q. Thank you very much for telling me this. So if I understood you
5 well, your report does contain such information, but the source of that
6 information is not you, but rather Mr. Baraybar?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. Thank you very much. Now, would you please assist us with
9 establishing more specific time references as to when the exhumations were
10 done at these local sites, exhumations on which you worked. I will cover
11 this briefly and if I make any mistakes, would you please correct me.
12 So if I understood you well, the first of these autopsies
13 conducted by was in relation to the dam, and it was in July of 1998. That
14 was the first site where you worked, correct?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. Following that, based on the data that I have, in August of 1998
17 you worked on the Cancari Road, site number 12?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. And then thereafter in August and September of 1998, you worked on
20 site number 3 on Cancari Road?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now I would like to ask you to assist us with this: We have your
23 report on the bodies found near Kozluk in 1998. But since we never found
24 any time reference as to when this was done, could you assist us with that
25 to your best recollection?
1 A. I would need to refer to my notes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: You are entitled to do that.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you. My involvement in the site at Kozluk was
4 essentially one day. The data on that is included at the back of Cancari
5 Road 3. It does not include the date at which that examination was
6 performed. It was just one day, and it would have been after the
7 completion of CR 3 and probably during the examinations of the Hadzici
8 Road cases, but I cannot give you the specific date.
9 Q. Thank you very much. This does give us a closer time reference.
10 Following that, I can see that all other sites where you worked were the
11 sites covering in October of 1998; Hadzici 3, Zeleni Jadar 5, and Liplje
12 2. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And can you just tell me chronologically which one came first and
15 which one was the next one?
16 A. I -- as I recall, there were several. Hadzici road 3, 4, and 5
17 were done in parallel. At that stage, we had a larger number of teams
18 working up to nine teams; and from recollection, I think some of the
19 different sites were done at different times.
20 My recall, it was probably Hadzici 3 then 5 then 4, but I'm not
21 completely certain about that. I could refer to my notes, if it was -- if
22 it was important.
23 Q. It's not of major importance, but I wanted to see something else.
24 Zeleni Jadar and Liplje, did you work there before or after Hadzici?
25 A. After.
1 Q. Thank you. [In English] Your Honour, is it time for our usual
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly. We will have a 25-minute break, and then
4 we will continue.
5 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: [In English] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, I wanted to move to a different topic
10 now, compared to what we covered up to now. It generally relates to the
11 problems that you encountered during your autopsy work. What I would like
12 to do is cite a couple of things for you and see if you agree with that.
13 The first one is that, "In a normal situation a decision on
14 whether an injury was sustained while the person was alive or if it's a
15 post-mortem one is to a large agree based on the observation of
16 surrounding tissue and things that can be connected with that, such as
17 bruises, swellings, and bleeding.
18 "In a decomposed body in which tissue changes colour very quickly
19 and starts to break off, this becomes very difficult; and if the
20 post-mortem remains are already skeletonised, then it's impossible.
21 Before healing begins it will look just the same as a fracture weeks
22 before or after death. The existence of bruises is the only thing that
23 can differentiate between such injuries."
24 Do you agree with such an assessment?
25 A. Yes, in general.
1 Q. Yes, it was a general statement. I would like to make another
2 general statement.
3 "While we have incompletely decomposed bodies, it's practically to
4 be sure if any of the cited injuries were sustained while the person was
5 alive, and theoretically all the injuries could have been post-mortem
6 ones, even those which were quite evidently injuries from -- or wounds
7 from fire-arms."
8 Do you agree with this?
9 A. In rare cases there was still evidence of haemorrhage, but these
10 would be a very small number.
11 Q. Thank you. As a general example what I read to you is accurate,
12 isn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. All the reports that you drafted were drafted on the assumption
15 that a large majority of fire-arms wounds and other relevant wounds found
16 on the bodies were inflicted during -- while the persons were still alive
17 and were the cause of death. Is that correct?
18 A. Yes, that was my general assumption.
19 Q. Even without such an assumption, that the wounds were inflicted
20 when the persons were still alive and they were the cause of death, any
21 further analysis would be irrelevant or pointless, wouldn't it? Is that
23 A. Yes, it's very difficult to make any further assessment.
24 Q. Thank you very much. The reports that were presented to us, your
25 reports on the basis of them, I see that you did not attempt to establish
1 the locations where the persons whose autopsies you performed and that
2 were found in the graves actually lost their lives. All you focused on
3 was the cause of death. Is that correct?
4 A. I'm not quite sure I -- I completely understand what you're
5 getting at there.
6 Q. Perhaps, of course, I could put it in a different way. You did
7 not thus investigate or were able to learn when, how, and under which
8 circumstances the persons lost their lives. I am thinking of course of
9 the bodies that you performed autopsies on.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment before you answer, because that makes it
11 more compounded, for sure. I think you better go back to your previous
12 question, and I'll intervene here and then take over after me,
13 Mr. Lazarevic.
14 Your previous question was the following: "The reports that were
15 presented to us, your reports on the bases of them, I see that you did not
16 attempt to establish the locations where the persons whose autopsies you
17 performed that were found in the graves actually lost their live. All you
18 focused was the cause of death, is that correct?" So I will rephrase the
19 question first.
20 In your role as a forensic pathologist, did you at any time while
21 performing these autopsies attempt to establish the location where
22 these -- those persons came from, or were located?
23 THE WITNESS: At the time that they were killed?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
25 THE WITNESS: No.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Or at the time they were buried?
2 THE WITNESS: No. There were some injuries, for example, gun-shot
3 wounds going through the heart; gun-shot wounds in the brain; in a small
4 number of them there was clear evidence of haemorrhage, these would be
5 rapidly fatal. So it would be safe to assume that they died where they
6 were shot, but this is the vast minority of the cases.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: But you did not try to -- did not attempt to
8 establish the location, did you? And if not --
9 THE WITNESS: No, no.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: And if not, why didn't you? This is basically the
11 first question.
12 THE WITNESS: I think because the problems that have been alluded
13 to in ascertaining at what time the injuries occurred, as I say, in some
14 of the injuries which were clearly rapidly fatal, I think there is little
15 doubt that they occurred at the place at which they were shot.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And the second question that
17 Mr. Lazarevic put to you, which I described as compound, has one
18 particular or more than one particular issue that you need to address.
19 In your work did you try to establish how and under which
20 circumstances the persons lost their lives? Was that part of your work or
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay.
24 I think you can take it up from there. I tried to cover both
25 questions, singling out the various matters. Go ahead.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: [In English] By all means, Your Honour, and I'm
2 grateful for you to clarify this.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Going through your reports, I found different
4 data about how the bodies that you examined had gun-shot wounds and wounds
5 from the front, inflicted from the back and inflicted from the side and
6 those inflicted from above. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Based on this fact, can we conclude that the position of the
9 persons, which were shot at the time, as well as the position of persons
10 who shot at them were very different, that in that sense there is no
11 common denominator for all the bodies that were examined?
12 A. If you look at the figures in which we could tell whether they
13 were shot from -- in front or behind, in majority of the cases I could not
14 tell. It is therefore very difficult to make any prediction. Since most
15 of the cases one couldn't tell with certainty, I don't think we had enough
16 reliable data to ascertain that.
17 Q. That is precisely the answer to my question. We cannot have one
18 common conclusion for all the bodies in terms of their position, how they
19 were shot, from which position, from what distance, what weapon was used.
20 There can be no uniform conclusion?
21 A. Yes, there is too much -- there are too many variables there.
22 Q. Other than the gun-shot wounds, a certain number of bodies
23 featured traces of shrapnel, shrapnel wounds, as well as wounds that were
24 not either gun-shot wounds or wounds from an explosive device and so on,
25 and this also is contained in your report. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you very much. I would now like to move to another topic.
3 In your reports, I noticed on a couple of occasions that the term
4 "ligatures" was used. Can you please tell us what you specifically
5 understand that term to mean, the term "ligature" or "ligatures"?
6 A. In forensic pathology, the term "ligature" is usually applied to a
7 band which is applied around part of the body; for example, wrist
8 bindings, ankle bindings, or in some cases around the neck in the cases of
9 strangulation or hanging.
10 Q. Of course, a ligature can also be a piece of fabric that was torn
11 or ripped to the necessary width and length to use it for the required
12 purpose. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. We have heard the testimony before this Tribunal of a witness who
15 worked at the Srebrenica hospital in 1995. This witness said that at that
16 time in Srebrenica, there was a lack of medical equipment and supplies,;
17 and in July 1995, all kinds of things were used to dress wounds. Other
18 than bandages, strips of cloth were also used. I assume that you don't
19 know about this, do you?
20 A. No. There were some bodies that did actually have bandages on
21 them. However, the -- and, in fact, in one particular case one did have a
22 bandage and a wrist binding as well.
23 Q. I just wanted to ask you one more thing on this subject. Did the
24 Prosecution ever draw your attention to the fact that throughout the war
25 in Bosnia different units belonging both to the Serb Muslim and the Croat
1 side very frequently wore bands around their arms as recognition signs
2 during their actions? Were you ever told this?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Can you rule out the possibility that these improvised bandages
5 and these bands that were worn were actually what you found in the
6 autopsies in the mass graves?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. On what basis?
9 A. On some of the bodies, the ligatures were clearly wrapped around
10 both of the wrist -- of the wrists, and they were still held in position.
11 In some of the cases, the arms were clearly secured behind the body. I
12 have little doubt, in fact, no doubt that they were wrist bindings and not
13 some form of insignia.
14 Q. But in some locations such strips of fabrics were found that were
15 not specifically connected to any body; they were found outside of that.
16 Do you know anything about that?
17 A. Yes. I agree that there were some -- and I have included in my
18 report those that I thought were definitely wrist bindings and that's that
19 could have been. The point I need to make is that there were tremendous
20 similarities between the ones which were secure on the wrists and the ones
21 that were found in the grave, which would lead me to conclude that they
22 probably were ligatures.
23 But I agree, in the absence of clear evidence that they were
24 around the wrists, you could not be certain of that.
25 Q. Thank you very much for your answer. In your reports, you treated
1 separately whole bodies and body parts that were found in the graves that
2 were autopsied, and the body parts that were found were treated in your
3 reports as an actual person. Do you recall that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I would now like to put to you a hypothetical question; and since
6 you are an expert, I believe that you will be able to answer it. If an
7 arm belonging to a person was found in a secondary grave and in a
8 completely different secondary grave the other arm was found belonging to
9 the same person, in your reports, this would appear to be two persons or
10 two bodies that were found. Is that correct?
11 A. Not exactly. I have given you figures on causes of death for the
12 complete bodies and then for the incomplete bodies. I think the
13 information on the complete bodies is fairly reliable, but it's obviously
14 extremely difficult in an incomplete body to conclude whether or not there
15 were one person killed or two people killed. It just wasn't possible.
16 I -- if we had been able to match every one of the bodies, it may have
17 been possible.
18 The reason I have included both information on the whole bodies
19 and the body parts is, I think, in particularly some of the more disrupted
20 graves such as Liplje, it -- it would be hard to get any useful
21 information. I also needed to indicate, I think, how many gun-shot wounds
22 we had. But I agree, it -- it is very difficult unless you can completely
23 reunite all of the body parts to interpret exactly what the results on the
24 body parts means in terms of an actual cause of death.
25 Q. Thank you. In order to have the complete picture practically, you
1 would need to do a DNA analysis of each body part found in order to
2 establish whether it belonged to the same person; for example, a tooth, a
3 part of a skull, a part of a hand?
4 A. Yes. And given the mixtures of bodies, I think we had up to --
5 sometimes up to 14 individuals in a body bag, I think the process would be
6 extremely difficult.
7 Q. Did I understand your answer correctly, according to your best
8 recollection, that kind of comparison and that kind of analysis was
9 actually never carried out?
10 A. We were always attempting to match bodies, and in some cases it
11 would be because of clothing or because of an abnormality, we were able to
12 do so, but that's a very small number. And at that stage we did not have
13 the amount of DNA evidence available, which would have allowed you to do
15 Q. Thank you very much. I have a couple of questions left.
16 When I looked at an object from a sketch that I found, this is
17 Prosecution Exhibit P638, I noticed that the conclusion of the entire
18 forensic team was that the mass grave in Zeleni Jadar actually constituted
19 a secondary grave compared to Glogova 2. Is that the conclusion that you
20 drew as a team?
21 A. I'm -- I wasn't the person primarily tasked with doing that.
22 Again, that would come down to Richard Wright. But I certainly believe
23 that the remains that we saw in Zeleni Jadar probably relate to the
24 warehouse at Kravica.
25 Q. Just one more question on that subject. According to your
1 findings relating to locality 5 in Zeleni Jadar, according to the
2 assessments or the estimates that a grave contained at least 150 bodies;
3 is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That number of at least 150 is relatively indefinite in the sense
6 that you did not give us any range. When you said at least 150, can that
7 also mean 160 or perhaps 200?
8 A. As I think I've already pointed out to you, the minimum number of
9 individuals was calculated by Mr. Baraybar, and that question should
10 properly be put to him.
11 Q. Thank you very much. I'm also going to do that. I'm going to
12 take your advice.
13 I have just one more question strictly relating to your area of
14 expertise. On the basis of changes on a body, can it be definitely
15 established whether a body was exhumed from a primary or a secondary
16 grave? Only on the basis of changes on the actual body?
17 A. I think that depends on what's present. If you find some injuries
18 in particular sites, you might suspect that it indicates a secondary
19 grave, but it depends on the period between burial and recovery. It in
20 general was possible to pick some of the injuries that had occurred during
21 the last exhumation, but it was difficult to pick the differences between
22 the primary and secondary sites just purely without knowing the further
24 Again, I would routinely not be performing that examination, that
25 would be rightfully what Richard Wright's job would have been.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Doctor. I have no
2 further questions for you. Thank you, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much, Mr. Lazarevic.
4 Who is going next? Madam Fauveau. You had indicated 10 minutes.
5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. But I think I
6 need less than that.
7 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
8 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, you drafted many reports on the autopsies
9 you performed on the exhumed bodies in various sites that were allegedly
10 connected with the events in Srebrenica. Is it fair to say that in each
11 report part of the reports was devoted to the procedure, the method
12 utilised for the autopsy, and prior to the autopsy?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In each of your reports, you stated that the clothes had been
15 removed and then washed. Is that so?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. As to the bodies themselves, they were washed before they were
19 A. They were photographed, undressed, examined, and then washed, yes.
20 Q. Before the clothing was washed, before the bodies were washed, the
21 traces or residues, be it soil or vegetation, was it collected on the
22 bodies and on the clothes?
23 A. No. My understanding is that the soil samples were taken at the
24 site. The problem being that by the time they had been transported and --
25 there could have been contamination, so those soil samples, as a general
1 rule, should have been taken at the site.
2 Q. You say that there could have been contaminated during transport.
3 Does this mean that indeed the transportation from the exhumation site to
4 the mortuary was not done according to the rules?
5 A. No. I -- I believe it was done as well as it could be done, but
6 these were bodies that were quite badly decomposed. They were bodies that
7 were quite badly broken up. From my experience of examining bodies in the
8 grave and then in the mortuary, there was some movement of material. It
9 was inevitable, I think, given the state of the bodies.
10 Q. Would you agree that traces of vegetation, grass, or other
11 substances that could be found on bodies or clothing can indeed identify
12 the place, the location where the people were killed?
13 A. Yes. And I believe in Zeleni Jadar there was in fact some hay,
14 which I believe was also identified at Kravica.
15 Q. Would you agree to say that if somebody had been detained before
16 they were killed, similar traces can show where the person was detained?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you very much. No further questions.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Fauveau.
20 Who's next? Ms. Nikolic.
21 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, thank you, Your
23 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Lawrence, just a few
25 questions to follow up on the questions put by my colleague. It remained
1 unclear to me what method you used and how you established the minimum
2 number of persons at one site, which is a category featuring in all of
3 your reports?
4 A. Again, I need to reiterate that it was not my responsibility to
5 ascertain the minimum number of individuals. That was performed by the
6 chief anthropologist. I have included the data because it makes
7 meaningful the other data. It wasn't intended to state that it was my
9 Q. In your report, you specifically dealt at dam and Liplje 2 sites,
10 you dealt with primary and secondary graves. Did you compare the minimum
11 number, or rather the body parts in these two sites, and did you try to
12 arrive at a composite number, to reconcile the numbers?
13 A. I -- I am not qualified to answer that question. You need to ask
14 Mr. Baraybar.
15 Q. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Ms. Nikolic.
17 I have on the list remaining the Popovic team, the Pandurevic
18 team, and the Beara team. The Beara team asking for 45 minutes.
19 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, I would like to clarify some of the
23 answers you gave to my colleague, Mr. Lazarevic. It has to do with the
24 burial, or rather with the weapons that would in a way imply that the
25 victims in a grave were victims of an armed conflict. Could you please
1 clarify whether in the course of your work you had similar situations
2 where a victim of an armed conflict, or to be more precise, a participant
3 to an armed conflict, is buried with his or her weapon?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Thank you. Given that you answered a question of Mr. Lazarevic
6 saying that before you went to the location, before you started working on
7 this, you received certain instructions from the Prosecution, or rather
8 from the investigators, could you tell us whether anybody informed you
9 that there is such a custom in Bosnia and Herzegovina that a victim of an
10 armed conflict is buried with a weapon?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Perhaps I was a bit imprecise. I said a victim of an armed
13 conflict, and I wanted to say a participant of an armed conflict. I'm
14 referring to a soldier who was killed.
15 A. The answer is still no.
16 Q. Can you then tell me why did you consider this to be a potential
17 indicator as to whether this was a participant in an armed conflict or a
18 victim whose cause of death could have been somewhat different?
19 A. Because I thought it would -- it was one criteria that might
20 specify between them. I didn't say it was necessarily a good criteria,
21 but it is a criteria.
22 Q. Does this mean that this criterium was selected by you in this
23 particular case, or is this a criterium that you used previously in your
24 other work?
25 A. I think, from memory, the criterium was used by my predecessor,
1 and I think that's why I included the information.
2 Q. Would you please tell me who was your predecessor?
3 A. Bill -- Dr. Bill Hunt.
4 Q. Is this the accurate spelling of the name, as it reads in the
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did he also perform autopsies in Bosnia? Do you know about that?
8 A. Yes, he was the chief pathologist in 1997.
9 Q. So if I understood you well, he was the one who introduced the
10 method. He was the one who introduced the criterium which was then used
11 in research, analysis, identification of a victim?
12 A. Yes, I think so.
13 Q. Thank you. I wanted to put another question to you, which has to
14 do with ligatures. You already discussed this with Mr. Lazarevic, but I
15 need another clarification.
16 You said that in certain graves there were pieces of fabric which
17 resembled ligatures, but were not tied around ankles or body parts of
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I apologise. Did you attempt to obtain information as to whether
21 such as fabric was used for some other purpose, perhaps?
22 A. I'm not sure I understand what -- what you mean.
23 Q. I will try to explain. You will have heard that a number of
24 Muslim soldiers, members of Muslim forces, did not have uniforms, correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, I'm not sure whether you were also informed that in order to
2 have some sort of a distinction, they wore some arm bands on their
3 clothing, since they did not have any uniform. Did you hear of this fact?
4 A. No.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: The question has been asked and answered already,
6 Mr. Zivanovic.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's all. I will not have any
8 further questions.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
10 That leaves us with Mr. Haynes and Mr. Ostojic. I'm asking
11 Mr. Haynes, first, because if you really need 45 minutes, I would rather
12 suggest that you take one whole stretch rather than have it in parts.
13 Mr. Haynes.
14 MR. HAYNES: I don't presently have any questions.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. So let's start with you,
16 Mr. Ostojic.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Nicholls, are you here for any particular
22 MR. NICHOLLS: I was getting a little bored upstairs. No. I have
23 the next witness, and I always have the fear that I'm suddenly going to be
24 watching the monitor and hearing no questions, no questions, they've
25 answered by my colleagues. That's why I rushed down.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I hope that doesn't amount to anxiety neurosis, but
2 anyway let's start with Mr. Ostojic.
3 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. To put you at ease, I
4 don't have 45 minutes and I hope to conclude in a few minutes.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to stop in seven minutes' time.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
7 Q. Doctor, earlier this afternoon, when you were asked by my learned
8 friend Mr. Lazarevic, on page 78 and 79, he asked you just so we can put
9 in context, "Do you believe that finding weapons in mass grave and finding
10 bodies dressed in uniforms is important in order to establish whether the
11 deceased was a civilian or a military serviceman." And you answer, which
12 appears on line 4 of page 79, is, "It's one of points of evidence which
13 might answer that question."
14 Do you remember that generally?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What other points might help us answer that question?
17 A. I -- I think the circumstances -- I find it difficult to believe
18 that people who are blindfolded and have their hands tied behind their
19 backs are probably combatants at the time that they are in fact killed. I
20 guess the other things are the general patterns of injuries that you
21 expect to see. In modern combat, one would normally expect to see a lot
22 of the casualties come from shrapnel, explosive devices.
23 It verifies from conflict to conflict, but you would expect the
24 majority of people to have shrapnel injuries in a conflict, not gun-shot
25 wounds, so the high -- the high number of gun-shot wounds would be odd in
1 those circumstances.
2 The other thing that, frankly, I found odd was that, and this
3 applies in forensic pathology generally, when you found that somebody has
4 gone to some effort to conceal the body, particularly to bury them and
5 rebury them, it's usually an indication that they're trying conceal a
6 death. And I don't understand why someone would go to so much trouble if
7 these were just armed conflict deaths.
8 Q. Any other reasons that might help us answer that?
9 A. No. I think those are the ones that come to mind.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, in your report, sir, I noticed you had a section
11 captioned "range of fire." Can you tell me what you mean by that?
12 A. Yes. In dealing with gun-shot wounds, traditionally, the forensic
13 pathologist is supposed to make some form of assessment as to whether the
14 gun was held in contact with the body, within a metre of the body, or at a
15 greater distance than that.
16 And the way you tell is by the presence of gunpowder residue
17 around the wound. In this case, I think I saw one case which might have
18 indicated some gunpowder residue; but I think given the state of
19 decomposition, it would have been almost impossible to ascertain the range
20 of fire.
21 Q. In parts of your report, you also identify, I think, or define
22 decomposition by another term, which I think it's --
23 A. Disarticulation.
24 Q. Disarticulation, that's it. Are those synonymous words?
25 A. No. A body can be skeletonised but still in continuity so that
1 the arms are attached, the neck is attached, the head is attached.
2 Disarticulation refers to the separation of the limbs. So in a fully
3 fleshed body, you could, for example, see separation of the upper part of
4 the torso and the lower part of the torso, as the body was rolled through
5 the grave. Now, that would be disarticulated but still relatively
6 reserved. The two are slightly different concepts.
7 Q. In the context of range of fire, was it impossible to determine
8 what the range of fire was because of the decomposition and the
9 skeletonisation of the body?
10 A. Yes, I think it was extremely hard to. I -- I guess it's possible
11 to do testing on the clothing; but given the degree of contamination, I
12 suspect that it probably would have been difficult.
13 Q. In your reports, you actually when you mention range of fire, and
14 I think you don't in all of them, but I'll defer to you on that. On most,
15 when you mention range of fire, you say that the assessment is not only
16 difficult but impossible?
17 A. Yes, I think largely it is.
18 Q. Now, with respect to -- and again I'm not familiar with the
19 process of washing the corpse, but what happens to the bullet fragments or
20 the shrapnel that remains near or around the body?
21 A. In some cases, if it was easily retrievable, that would have
22 occurred during the process of fluoroscopy so that you could locate
23 exactly where it was. In some cases, you would wash the external portion
24 to see if you could find the bullet holes and then perform a dissection.
25 Sometimes it became necessary to go back to fluoroscopy to recover the
1 bullet fragment if it couldn't be recovered.
2 Q. We talked -- you mentioned a little bit about disarticulation. I
3 want to understand it. When a corpse is decomposed or skeletonised, does
4 it render the fact or does it reasonably conclude that parts of that
5 skeleton will dissociate itself with other parts of the body, if you will?
6 A. Yes. Once it gets do complete skeletonisation, you will get
7 fairly rapid disarticulation, but there are some cases where ligaments
8 decompose slower so you get basic retention of the position of the body.
9 In the skeletonised bodies that I normally deal with that have been
10 buried, they will be decomposed but not disarticulated because the bodies
11 have been disturbed.
12 Q. Now, in the autopsies that you performed, I think 888, is it,
14 A. Those were the -- that's --
15 Q. Under your direction?
16 A. Yes. That's the total number of individuals I think were present.
17 Q. What per cent were skeletonised?
18 A. That varied from site to site. At the dam, almost all of them; at
19 Hadzici road, I think almost 80, 90 per cent were fully fleshed.
20 Q. Did you ever do analysis for all the sites that you have actually
21 done autopsies for?
22 A. I have figures for them. Liplje and the dam were the most
24 Q. Does that mean skeletonised? Not to interrupt you, because you
25 did make a distinction? I just wanted you to clarify that.
1 A. Yes. They were both disarticulated and decomposed. And Hadzici
2 road 5 was the best, both in terms of articulation, but also in terms of
3 lack of decomposition.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic, we have to stop here.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: Then Your Honour, just so -- if I could may. I
6 won't have the doctor come back unless someone else has questions. I'm
7 pretty much done, Your Honour. Just if that's okay.
8 Thank you, Doctor.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Do you have any re-examination in which
10 case it will be left for tomorrow.
11 MR. ELDERKIN: No, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Dr. Lawrence, we're finished with your testimony,
13 and I wish to thank Mr. Ostojic for his pragmatic approach. We thank you
14 for having come over to give testimony and we wish you a safe journey back
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of
19 February, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.