1 Wednesday, 25 June 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon, Madam Registrar. Could you call
6 the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
8 number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am. For the record, all the
10 accused are here. From the Defence teams I notice the absence of
11 Mr. Nikolic, of Ms. Nikolic, of Mr. Krgovic, Mr. Lazarevic and
12 Mr. Haynes.
13 Prosecution, I see Mr. McCloskey, Ms. Soljan, Mr. Mitchell.
14 All right. Let's start from here. We were advised that you
15 probably wouldn't be here today, Mr. Nikolic, due to the unfortunate
16 passing away of your father. It's a sad event, which unfortunately every
17 one of us has to pass through. I passed through that several years ago.
18 I know what it means. And therefore, on behalf of the Trial Chamber, I
19 wish to convey to you our deepest sympathies and our condolences not only
20 to you but to the rest of your family. Our heart is with you on such an
22 THE ACCUSED NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like
23 to thank you for expressing your sympathies.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: And if at any time during the sitting you wish to
25 leave us, please do so at any time.
1 Mr. Bourgon?
2 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
3 Mr. President, good afternoon, Judges. On behalf of my client, and he
4 has just expressed it himself, the expression of sympathy of the Trial
5 Chamber are very much appreciated. My colleague had the opportunity to
6 visit Drago Nikolic at the UNDU this morning and he has expressed both
7 the will and the intention to be here this afternoon, but as the Trial
8 Chamber has suggested, we will assess as the day progresses and I will
9 see him at the break and see what his condition is at that time.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: By all means, Mr. Bourgon.
11 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, this brings another related issue I
12 would like to inform the Trial Chamber of at this time is of course with
13 such an incident, it was initially our intention to immediately file for
14 a motion for provisional release of Drago Nikolic in order to attend the
15 funeral. However, we will not be doing so because after discussing the
16 matter with Mr. Nikolic, and of course in accordance with the Serbian
17 tradition, the memorial services has to take place 40 days after the
18 passing away, and we will be filing such a motion in the coming days once
19 we have all the information and of course bearing in mind that we will be
20 suggesting to the Trial Chamber that be he be provisionally released with
21 the strictest of conditions so that he can pay the last respects to his
22 father 40 days after the passing away. Thank you very much,
23 Mr. President.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
25 Any preliminaries?
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: We met this morning as we usually do, as you can
3 imagine we meet regularly outside court hours to discuss the several
4 issues relating to the trial, and we met this morning to take stock of
5 the situation as it obtains at present, and it seems to us that the way
6 we are going, we would finish with the Defence case for accused Popovic
7 towards or at the end of the coming week, and that's a conservative
8 estimate which basically means that at the same time, either towards or
9 at the end of next week, the next Defence case will need to start, and
10 that's why I'm looking at you now, Mr. Ostojic.
11 I also know that very rightly so, you have shown interest in this
12 already and are preparing actually to be able to start your case.
13 Without in any way diminishing the principle that the management of the
14 case is yours and yours alone, and we rather take the stance of doing our
15 best not to interfere; at the same time expecting the optimum from each
16 Defence lawyer as equally as from the Prosecution, we thought of making
17 some suggestions which would help organise the proceedings the best
18 possible, and that would be in your own interest and in the general
19 interest because we have a responsibility to manage the case.
20 I think you need to keep these days that I have mentioned in mind
21 and prepare accordingly, but running parallel to that, I think there is a
22 responsibility which I am sure you have already been thinking about of at
23 least indicating to the Prosecution the names of the first group of
24 witnesses that you intend to bring forward. I'm even informed that
25 you've been working on this, so what I am saying may be somewhat
1 redundant but please try to attend to do that.
2 Secondly, we are drafting our decision on your motion relating to
3 92 bis and 92 ter witnesses, and pending and in anticipation of that
4 decision which we will hand down soon, we are formally and orally
5 informing you to take it for granted that those 92 bis witnesses which
6 are mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Prosecution's response of the 9th of
7 June, and to whom the Prosecution has not objected, are going to be
8 admitted as Rule 92 bis witnesses. That is without cross-examination.
9 Which leave us with perhaps the most crucial issue, and believe
10 me, out of not only a sense of duty but also the respect that we have for
11 each and every one of you, we tried to understand as much as we could the
12 conclusions or the import of your last filing, but somehow we feel that
13 we can't see clear as to who is being renounced to and who isn't, what is
14 the exact position.
15 So we thought of trying to solve this in the simplest way
16 possible, namely that now that you know that a certain number of 92 bis
17 witnesses are going to be admitted as such, and more or less you can read
18 and understand your last filing better than we can from our point of
19 view, we would like you to file, by Monday, an updated 65 ter list of
20 witnesses that you intend to bring over. In the meantime, you would have
21 provided the Prosecution with a list of the first group of witnesses.
22 Do you wish to comment, Mr. Ostojic?
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. My comment
24 is we have actually provided to the Prosecution that first group of
25 witnesses I think a week or two ago, by e-mail. We are working with the
1 witness and protection unit to coordinate passports, visas. There are
2 some problems that we didn't anticipate such as the speed of the trial
3 thus far but I think we will be able to produce that first group and I
4 think we've identified 12 witnesses and we hope to call out of those 12
5 if everything goes well, eight in the first week and we also plan, as I
6 think I've indicated, at least orally to the Prosecutor, that we are
7 going to have the second week, the week of our experts, which will be
9 And I think in closer examination of our 65 ter list, without
10 getting into too much detail, we have withdrawn several witnesses based
11 on some of the suggestions made by the Court and our re-review of it. We
12 have also identified and we will be filing, as the Court instructed, by
13 Monday, some of them are joint witnesses so they really don't even fall
14 within the time frame that we requested but we did add that time just for
15 a matter of convenience, there is approximately seven what we've called
16 joint witnesses that several other accused have adopted or we've adopted
17 their witnesses, so the list is getting pared down. I think it's going
18 to reasonably, if the Court would like me to estimate, we think will take
19 approximately, from my best guesstimate in scheduling it, approximately
20 six weeks, no more than that. I think we are going to call approximately
21 35 or 40 witnesses in total. Again it depends on some of the objections
22 raised by the Prosecution. There are I think four that are in dispute
23 where they would like to at least bring them in for both direct and
24 cross-examination. I think we stated our position on that. I don't
25 think the Prosecution without going into the merits here now, have
1 reasonably raised that issue but that's where we stand on it. I will be
2 filing that as the Court instructed by Monday and --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please, thank you so much. That's very good
4 to hear. Basically as I said, our only problem is that reading through
5 all the material, it wasn't quite clear in our mind where we stand. So
6 now I think it's already clearer and by Monday, I think it should be
8 MR. OSTOJIC: I apologise if it wasn't clear --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: -- but we will certainly make it as clear as
11 possible by Monday.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic, that happens and we would have dealt
13 with you differently if we saw a shortcoming, which we didn't see. So
14 thank you.
15 We left yesterday with the documents that needed to be tendered.
16 Ms. Tapuskovic?
17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours,
18 and good afternoon, everybody in the courtroom.
19 Yes, we have attached our list and we would like to add to that
20 that one document, 1D1196 should be under seal. 1D1196. This is on the
21 first page of our list.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Any objections?
23 MS. SOLJAN: No, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections from the other co-accused? No?
25 There are no translation issues here, no? I leave it to the registrar.
1 MS. SOLJAN: From what we can see from our exhibit list Exhibit
2 1D1139 still has an outstanding translation.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, translation requested. Okay. So all these
4 will be admitted with the caveat that where there is no translation as
5 yet, that will be marked for identification in the interim period until
6 it is translated.
7 Okay. Next witness -- do you have any -- sorry. Yes.
8 MS. SOLJAN: Yes, Your Honours, we would like to tender into
9 evidence two documents. One is document P03471, which was shown to the
10 witness yesterday. And the other document we would like to offer into
11 evidence is the script that Mr. Kovacevic was reading from yesterday that
12 we obtained from him during the break and the 65 ter for that would be
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objection?
15 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We object to
16 the admission of this document because it is not relevant for the
17 witness's testimony at all. He was not reading from that document while
18 testifying. He just consulted his notes every now and then.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: To you wish to comment, Ms. Soljan?
20 MS. SOLJAN: Yes, Your Honours, I would very briefly. We do
21 believe that these notes, the script indeed, is relevant and probative
22 for the validity, for checking the quality, the substance and the
23 credibility of this witness's testimony. As an expert witness, we don't
24 believe that he should be referring to prompts or already pre-ready made
25 answers as he in fact was doing during the course of the testimony
1 yesterday. I do agree that there was one set of notes, figures, that
2 were purely figures and we are not asking for that to be admitted into
4 However, I can indicate at least one example in evidence where
5 there was -- from the script of about 13 pages there were questions and
6 then there would be an answer typed out in italics which in effect was
7 read word for word or verbatim by this witness. In our opinion, if this
8 is -- if the -- the Trial Chamber should see that these were pre-prepared
9 answers because the basic question is whether these are the views of an
10 objective expert or whether these are pre-prepared views that were
11 prompted by the Defence, and this is I think especially important in
12 light of the comment that the witness made in the course of his testimony
13 yesterday where he said that his primary goal here was not to derive or
14 prove that a certain list is good or not but to try to bring into dispute
15 the list produced by Brunborg and Urdal, so we would ask Your Honours to
16 consider that and take into account that there were pre-prepared answers
17 or at least prompt of answers that somebody who is an expert should
18 really not be referring to, especially when they are referring to the
19 ways in which his report was prepared, prompts about dates of underlying
20 source documents he was referring to, et cetera. Thank you, Your
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic, and that will be the end of
24 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yesterday, we did
25 suggest that the notes should be read out before the Trial Chamber
1 because we believe that there was no reason for these notes not to be
2 presented to everybody in the courtroom. The task of this witness in the
3 case was to assess Helge Brunborg's work and his findings. This is
4 exactly what he did. In his notes, there are reflections on what he read
5 out in Brunborg's findings. Again, I am kindly requesting you to allow
6 us to read out all that in front of everybody, if you're agreeable to
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Tapuskovic. Let's hear what Madam
9 Fauveau has to say.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Before you make a determination on
11 that point, Your Honour, I would like to say that as far as the Miletic
12 Defence were concerned, we were not aware of the contents of these notes.
13 These notes were given to the Prosecutor and not to the Defence.
14 Therefore if the Prosecutor intended to tender this document into
15 evidence, these notes should have been disclosed to the other Defence
16 teams yesterday or this morning.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse?
18 MR. JOSSE: Brief observation. Following on from that, I'm bound
19 to say I perhaps wasn't following yesterday's cross-examination as
20 closely as I should have done, but the rather bold assertion made by my
21 learned friend Ms. Soljan, was it put to the witness? Because otherwise
22 in our submission it's worthless unless the witness has had a chance to
23 deal with that fairly serious allegation that she has just made.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: There were some questions yesterday.
25 MR. JOSSE: Then I apologise.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: There were direct questions as precisely to the
2 fact that there were already written answers to certain questions, yes.
3 That was put to the witness yesterday and he answered it, yes.
4 I need to consult with my colleagues.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Bearing in mind the fact that some of these notes
7 were put to the witness yesterday and questions asked, but also bearing
8 in mind what both you, Madam Fauveau, and you, Madam Tapuskovic, have
9 raised equally, considered to be valid points, we are of course admitting
10 the page that you have indicated but we are also admitting it to form a
11 part of all of the whole. In other words, what we want in the records
12 are all the notes and not just that page. Okay? That would make it
13 easier for us to consider weight and also cover or make good for the
14 shortcoming that Madam Fauveau raised very rightly, in fact. And also
15 the point made by -- all right?
16 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, that's entirely clear and in fact when
17 I said I was going to be offering the script, I meant the entire 13
18 pages, not just the one example from page 4 that I was referring to.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Then we must have misunderstood you. All right.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE KWON: If you would give me the 65 ter number again?
22 JUDGE AGIUS: No, I don't think it has. I don't think it has
23 because this was --
24 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, it will be in by the end of the day as
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic?
2 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can the
3 Prosecution please tell us what documents that they take over from
4 witness Kovacevic when they spoke to him yesterday? We don't have that
5 list and we would kindly ask them to provide us with photocopies of what
6 they are tendering into evidence. We would like to know which papers did
7 they select among those that Mr. Kovacevic had on him during his
9 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I can show you the two documents that
10 we have from him. One is the 13-page list or script as I was referring
11 to and which we have asked to get admitted into evidence. The other one
12 is a one-pager that has numbers, figures, and we have no objections to
13 that nor do we intend to offer that into evidence. Those were the only
14 ones but you were -- in fact the counsel for the Defence was present when
15 we took over those notes, so they should have been aware, and the
16 registry took those and photocopied them.
17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] However, we would like to have
18 the photocopies of that in order to see what is being tendered into
20 MS. SOLJAN: [Previous translation continues] ...
21 JUDGE AGIUS: That can be arranged.
22 Mr. Zivanovic, if you wish to intervene?
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, Your Honours. First we would like to know
24 what documents they take from the witness.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what she said.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: What documents they selected to tender to the
2 evidence, it is very important for us what was criteria for selecting
3 documents they asked to tender right now. That's the point.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I didn't understand the last point.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: They took some documents from the witness. I
6 don't know what number of documents they took, what number of pages they
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but that has been explained.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: And what selection --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: That has been explained by Ms. Soljan already. She
11 told you that there were two types of documents. One is this document
12 consisting of notes contained in 13 pages, and the other one a page
13 containing some figures, which they don't intend to tender.
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: As far as I know, they took more than two
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know.
17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I am being -- we are being informed actually that
19 the papers were collected from the witness, not by the Prosecution but by
20 the registrar, and that the papers collected were those that have been
21 indicated by Ms. Soljan and not more.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: As far as I know they took all documents from
23 him, all documents he had in front of him.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what we are being told and that should
25 suffice. Yes, Mr. McCloskey? I see you standing.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: I was just going to say this was a registry
2 matter following your order and she is exactly correct.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: But we weren't here when the whole process was
4 taking place so we weren't in a position to know exactly what happened.
5 But that's it. Yes, Mr. Bourgon?
6 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like to
7 raise an issue related to the fact that these notes have just been
8 admitted into evidence and I just wonder whether this case is an isolated
9 case where the notes are being tendered into evidence because the
10 Prosecution has allegations that he was referring to them or is it a
11 matter that they are notes prepared by an expert witness? I would not
12 like to see that this would be a precedent whereby all notes produced by
13 an expert witness appearing before this Chamber would then become
14 disclosable material. It is very likely that an expert witness before
15 testifying will produce for himself a skeleton that he may or may not
16 refer to, and I don't see why this should become compellable material. I
17 would just like to seek the Court's guidance on this issue,
18 Mr. President, so we can best prepare for the upcoming expert witnesses.
19 Thank you, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I think each case will depend on its own merits and
21 we'll deal with each case if and when it arises and we can leave it at
22 that for the time being.
23 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: We have slightly revised our decision after
1 consultation. There is that other page that Ms. Soljan said was not
2 meant to be tendered. However, since the argument turned on basically
3 also the point as to what documents were obtained from the witness and
4 that page was also obtained from the witness and refers to numbers which,
5 as you may -- I'm sure you would have gathered is fundamental for the
6 witness's testimony, we would like that document to be included with the
7 other batch, that page to be included with the other batch, and they will
8 form together one exhibit, all right? Which will be given a 65 ter
9 number or an exhibit number later on and they of course need to be
10 translated because they are in the witness's original language which we
11 don't understand. Thank you.
12 Can we bring in the next witness, please?
13 Now, this witness is common to or a joint witness for four
14 Defence teams, that's you Mr. Zivanovic, you Mr. Ostojic, Mr. Nikolic --
15 Mr. Bourgon, and Mr. Gosnell.
16 Yes, Mr. Bourgon?
17 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, depending on the
18 examination-in-chief that will be conducted by my colleague, we do not
19 intend to ask any questions and we rely upon his examination-in-chief in
20 order to save time for the Court. Thank you, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And the same, I think, for the time
22 being is indicated by the Borovcanin Defence team for which I thank you.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Mr. Dunjic.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome to this Tribunal. You've been summoned
2 as an expert witness by no less than four of the accused. That's namely
3 accused Popovic, Beara, Nikolic and Borovcanin.
4 Before you start giving evidence, our rules require that you make
5 a solemn declaration to the effect that you will be speaking the truth in
6 the course of your testimony. Please read out the solemn declaration
7 aloud and that will be your solemn undertaking with us.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
9 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
10 WITNESS: DUSAN DUNJIC
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please make yourself
13 comfortable. Mr. Zivanovic, who will introduce himself, soon will be the
14 first to go. He will then be followed by others on -- with several
15 questions, and we will do our utmost to finish with your testimony the
16 earliest possible.
17 Mr. Zivanovic?
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
19 Examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Professor Dunjic. Although we
21 know each other, I will still introduce myself. My name is Zoran
22 Zivanovic, and I represent Vujadin Popovic in this case. First of all, I
23 would kindly ask you to tell me your name for the record.
24 A. My name is Dusan Dunjic.
25 Q. When were you born and where?
1 A. I was born in 1950 in Belgrade
2 Q. Could you please tell us something about your educational and
3 professional background?
4 A. I am a professor of forensic pathology at the school of medicine
5 in Belgrade
6 Q. What about your educational background and what about your
7 specialist training that you've done in the past?
8 A. I specialised in forensic medicine. Before that, I obtained my
9 master's degree and after that I got my Ph.D., all of which were in
10 forensic medicine and all that from the school of medicine in Belgrade
11 Q. And what about your professional background? What jobs have you
12 held and where?
13 A. Our primary task is to work at university, which means we educate
14 medical students, and my particular subject, forensic medicine, is part
15 of year five at the school of medicine in Belgrade. And within my
16 teaching activities as a professor, I also appear as a forensic
17 pathologist before all the courts in my country and in the surrounding
18 countries as well as here at the Tribunal.
19 As far as my experience is concerned, I apologise, I can say that
20 I do about 200 post-mortems a year independently or with my younger
21 assistants and that I have had 100 to 200 forensic opinions provided to
22 various courts about all sorts of lethal outcomes, violent or
24 In addition to that, I have been engaged as a special expert
25 within the field of forensic medicine in such case -- in the cases such
1 as Ovcara and Vukovar, and there I just observed the work of others. I
2 believe the gentleman's name was Mr. Haglund. I was also engaged by the
3 special court, the Special Prosecutor in Belgrade, in the case of the
4 murder of our Prime Minister, Zoran Djindjic and I was also engaged by
5 the Special Prosecutor in the cases of the so-called Zemun clan and that
6 is as far as my work for the special court is concerned.
7 However, as an expert or a member of expert teams I was also
8 involved in various research for providing my expert opinion as required
9 by the Yugoslav institute for the study of war crimes. I wouldn't be
10 able to give you the exact title of that institute but it is in Belgrade
11 And for that institution, I was engaged together with my team to examine
12 the detainees who had been released from the camps in Bosnia and Croatia
13 This was between 1996 and 1998.
14 In 1998, I was a member of the team of the forensic institute in
16 that had been excavated by the Lake Radonjic
17 Haradinaj case that was heard before this Tribunal, and on that case I
18 appeared as a witness on behalf of the Prosecution.
19 In addition to that, I have -- I was also engaged between
20 December 2000 and December 2003 while I was director of the institute for
21 forensic medicine, and as such I was engaged by the district court in
23 of the victims that were found in Batajnica. I also testified about that
24 before this Tribunal in the Milutinovic case, if I'm not mistaken, and
25 Milutinovic and others, I believe.
1 In professional terms, so far I have published a number of
2 professional papers, over 180 of them or even more than that in various
3 publications and magazines both in Serbia
4 number of books, and one of them appeared only recently. I authored that
5 with a group of authors. I have also authored a textbook which has had
6 three editions, and this textbook concerns the post-mortem of bodies and
7 this is the official textbook of the school of medicine in Belgrade
8 as such, is used by all the medical students.
9 I would also like to single out another book that I co-authored
10 with a colleague of mine, and this concerns the suicides among
11 adolescents. As far as I know, this is the only medical textbook that
12 has been translated from Serbian into Russian by the Russian academy of
13 arts and sciences.
14 I'm a member of various institutions, at the school of medicines,
15 I am a member of the committee on forensic medicine, I'm also a lecturer
16 and professor at the school of the European centre for peace and
17 development -- of the university for peace of the United Nations. And as
18 far as my work for the Tribunal is concerned here in The Hague, this
19 started in 1999. I prepared an expert opinion in the case of Dusko
20 Tadic, IT 91-1 of the Foca group, IT 96-23. I also provided an expert
21 opinion of the wounds of Zoran Vukovic in the same case, IT 96-23/1. I
22 came to examine Milan Simic on two occasions.
23 I was also engaged on the part of the Defence team in the Galic
24 case, IT-98-29. I was also engaged in the Plavsic Krajisnik case,
25 IT -00-39 and 40 by the Defence teams of the accused. I have been
1 engaged by the Defence of Vujadin Popovic in this case and I also
2 appeared as an expert in IT-04-84-1, as I've already told you.
3 As an expert witness, I have also been heard by the Prosecutor of
4 the Tribunal in the Racak case, because together with my colleagues from
6 engaged at Racak to work on the cases of deaths that happened during the
8 Q. Thank you. Let's just correct a minor error that concerns a
9 name. You said that you were Prosecution expert witness in the case
10 Haradinaj, if I understood you correctly?
11 A. Yes, yes, IT-04-84/1.
12 Q. Five Defence teams have asked for you to testify here so could
13 you please tell us and the Chamber --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Wait a moment, Mr. Zivanovic.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I must have missed one, then, Mr. Zivanovic.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I must have missed one. I have only got four.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Five Defence teams were concerned
20 when we requested that Mr. Dunjic testify. All the five accused who have
21 been accused of genocide requested that this witness testify.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: So it's Pandurevic is included then?
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Sarapa, do you confirm that? Because to my
1 knowledge, there are only four teams that have summoned him as a joint
2 expert witness. Yes, Mr. Sarapa?
3 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] We summoned the witness, we
4 participated in the agreements with the witness, and when he started
5 drafting his report -- he isn't on our 65 ter list, so in fact he is here
6 for the four Defence teams, although we participated in agreeing on his
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Let's move.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Professor, could you please tell me what the subject of your
11 expert report was to be? What did the Defence want to you do, in fact?
12 What did the Defence teams want you to testify about?
13 A. Mr. Zivanovic, I was asked by Mr. Ostojic, Peter Haynes,
14 Aleksandar Nikolic and yourself to do the following. In fact, you
15 assigned me a task. You referred to the documents you had been provided
16 with and you asked me to analyse these documents, the documents, some of
17 which I have brought here with me, although I have others, but I couldn't
18 bring them all, well, the documents on the whole concerned reports from
19 locations examined in the year 2000, 2001 and 2002.
20 Subsequently, I received certain other reports, two CDs in
21 English and the Serbian language. There were various records. Then I
22 was provided with another three CDs. I was given a certain period of
23 time to carry out an analysis and I analysed these collective reports
24 with regard to certain locations and they concerned particular years and
25 certain pathologists, the chief pathologist had already dealt with these
2 Having examined those documents, I understood that in the
3 collective reports, there were quite a few items that I as an expert in
4 forensic medicine had to check up on. In fact, I also had to perform an
5 analysis, and an analysis can be carried out only on the basis of
6 individual reports. Only on the basis of autopsy reports. Or records of
7 autopsies, in fact.
8 So I received a number of these CDs, with these records on them,
9 with these autopsy reports on them, and the last report that I was
10 provided with was on the 19th of April of this year, and if I'm not
11 mistaken, there were 8 DVDs and CDs, 8 DVDs with autopsies performed up
12 until the year 2008. Naturally, given the time I was allocated to
13 perform my analysis I could only select a certain number of cases and a
14 certain number of locations for more detailed analysis and then I could
15 compare these individual reports with the collective ones.
16 Last year I came here too and last year I insisted on a list of
17 all the autopsy reports together with the numbers of the autopsies,
18 linked to the various locations concerned. On the 22nd of February 2007
19 I was provided with a document that you were given, you forwarded this
20 document to me, that contained a list of 30 locations, and there were
21 3.281 autopsy reports listed or records.
22 Q. Let's just clarify something. You said that there were
23 collective reports you were provided with. Could you just tell me
24 something about the professional background of the experts who drafted
25 these reports?
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
2 MR. MITCHELL: Your Honour, we would just like to confirm what
3 document it was that the witness just referred to.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic or Mr. Dunjic straight away.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Dunjic, would you please provide the Prosecution with the
7 document for his examination?
8 A. The date of the document is the 22nd -- it was signed by Peter
9 McCloskey, senior -- this is the document.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: All the answers.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to end your examination-in-chief there,
12 Mr. Zivanovic?
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No, Your Honour. I must proceed.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Please proceed.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Could you please tell me something about the professional
17 background of the individuals who provided those collective reports?
18 Could you tell me about their professions?
19 A. Well, I'll answer that question in the following way. There are
20 collective reports drafted by the chief pathologists, by Mr. Clark, for
21 example, and then there were reports drafted by the investigator Dean
22 Manning, if I'm not mistaken. I think he's an investigator. I
23 mistakenly put the title "doctor" here. And then there were collective
24 reports drafted by an anthropologist who had been engaged to work at a
25 certain location. Then there were collective reports of other
1 investigators who worked at those locations. William Haglund, an
2 anthropologist, for example. And these are reports that I managed to
3 have a look at.
4 And given the different way of describing the problem dealt with,
5 and given the fact that there were various opinions that were expressed
6 as a result of analysing the locations, well, given all of that, I
7 thought that given the number of corpses discovered, it was necessary to
8 carry out a detailed analysis for each location analysed and it was
9 necessary to do this by consulting individual autopsies in order to
10 obtain a valid analysis of the collective reports and the individual
12 Q. Since you've been discussing these collective reports, are these
13 collective reports that were drafted by experts from the Tribunal or
14 rather than by Prosecution experts?
15 A. Well, yes, I assume that that is the case. I even listened to
16 Mr. Clark when he testified here.
17 Q. I'm saying this because you mentioned material that you were
18 subsequently provided with in April 2008. If you can remember this, can
19 you tell us which analysis is concerned and who carried it out, the same
20 experts or others?
21 A. Well, believe me, I had a look at those eight DVDs and at the end
22 of my analysis, I was very precise. One of the DVDs, there are eight of
23 them, one of the DVDs, the first one, for example, has ten folders and
24 each folder contains a number of files. And a huge quantity of
25 photographs. When I was preparing for this testimony, I printed out one
1 case or rather one file, and it consists of 22 pages. It's the smallest
3 And here you can see that this file concerns autopsies that were
4 performed in, let's say, Potocari, exhumation on the 25th of April 2006
5 And it was not possible for me to analyse any of these documents. I
6 could only prepare it physically, or rather bring it here so that I can
7 show it to you and tell you how many autopsies it concerned. This was
8 done under the supervision of the cantonal prosecution of the Tuzla
10 Q. That's what I wanted to ask you about. In fact --
11 A. I do apologise but as far as these eight DVDs are concerned,
12 well, I would need additional time to analyse all of this to become
13 familiar with the number of cases concerned but the forensic medical
14 aspect is a different matter.
15 Q. You told us that given the time allocated to you and given the
16 voluminous material, you weren't able to examine all the autopsy reports.
17 I would now like you to tell me the following: How did you select the
18 material that you examined, the material that, in fact, became part of
19 your report or rather the material that was analysed in your report?
20 A. First I analysed the document I was first provided with. It
21 related to Nova Kasaba and there was even a full translation of the
22 autopsy report, so that was a primary grave site, then. I thought it was
23 necessary to examine the characteristics of a secondary grave site.
24 Zeleni Jadar. And then I took Pilica as a primary site and a sample from
25 Pilica and a sample from Ravnice where corpses were found on the surface.
1 So the forensic part that I was interested in consisted of comparing the
2 autopsy findings and of analysing the changes to the corpses at such
3 various locations, because there was a possibility of the corpses having
4 various injuries.
5 So during this time period I tried to perform such an analysis to
6 see what the situation was at the primary site, at the secondary site, to
7 see what sort of injuries had been noted and to see what the situation
8 was with the bodies in Ravnice, in 2000 and 2001, because the bodies were
9 on the surface, and I tried to see what the description of the changes to
10 the bodies was like and to see whether it was consistent with the changes
11 to corpses at other locations.
12 Q. You mentioned the locations of Nova Kasaba, Zeleni Jadar,
13 Ravnice. Could you be more specific? Is it one grave site, are there
14 several grave sites? Let's start with Nova Kasaba?
15 A. Well, for example, Nova Kasaba has, well, there is Nova Kasaba 1,
16 2 and 3. This is how they have been designated, Nova Kasaba 1, Nova
17 Kasaba 2, and Nova Kasaba 3. But in these reports, there is Nova Kasaba
18 4. I have to point this out. And in the documents that I had, there is
19 a Nova Kasaba 4 and this only concerns one case. But later on when I had
20 a look at some other final reports, I saw that in Nova Kasaba 4, later
21 when other exhumations were performed I noticed that there were another
22 19 cases there. I haven't even had a look at those 19 cases. I couldn't
23 find them. And there is Nova Kasaba 6, 7 and 8, and there are a certain
24 number of cases at these sites. I have referred to the cases that I
25 could analyse.
1 Q. Since we are now dealing with Nova Kasaba, does this mean that
2 you analysed autopsy reports from Nova Kasaba 1, 2 and 3, 6, 7 and 8, but
3 not 4, apart from one corpse, one case?
4 A. Yes, one case.
5 Q. As far as the other grave site is concerned, the Zeleni Jadar
6 site, could you tell me something about that?
7 A. In this report -- just a minute. Well, there is Zeleni Jadar 5
8 and there is Zeleni Jadar -- just a minute, please.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
10 MR. MITCHELL: Can the witness tell us what he's referring to
11 again, please?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Dunjic, can you be more specific as to
13 what you're referring to, please?
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. In your report, can you see the pages that are concerned?
16 A. I'll tell you immediately. Nova Kasaba 1 -- do you need the ERN
18 Q. No, just the page.
19 A. Page 42. In the English version, 114. 114.
20 Q. No, that's an autopsy report or rather -- yes.
21 A. These are the autopsy reports I have referred to and the
22 documents appear later.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Let the witness do this on his own. What
24 Mr. Mitchell wanted to know is which document you were drawing from when
25 you started giving your answer a few minutes ago, Mr. Dunjic. Which
1 document were you referring to?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the transcript of Nova
3 Kasaba 1 autopsy reports.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
5 MR. MITCHELL: We are interested in the other document that the
6 witness has in front of him, just what that other document is.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would propose that the Prosecution see all
8 documents the witness has in front of him.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't see the need for going through all these
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can be my guest, sure.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Mitchell, was the witness referring to that
13 document before or not? Was the witness referring to that document when
14 he was answering the previous question or not?
15 MR. MITCHELL: Correct, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Which other document were you referring to
17 when you were giving your answer, Mr. Dunjic?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean now when I was talking
19 about Nova Kasaba or generally speaking?
20 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. Now.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation].
22 Q. Zeleni Jadar, I don't understand.
23 A. I don't understand. I was referring to the documents that I
24 analysed and based on those I prepared my report, my expert report. Here
25 you have it. This is my expert report and there is a description of what
1 is being analysed on each page and in that report, I quoted all the
2 analysed things, and the document from which I took everything is this
3 document, which means that I am using the documents that you yourself
4 submitted to me. This is Mr. Harmon's report about Nova Kasaba. There
5 is also a report of Mr. Haglund or whatever his name is, okay.
6 And then Jose Pablo Baraybar.
7 MR. MITCHELL: Your Honour, we would just like to confirm that
8 it's the witness's report in front of him. That's all we are asking.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he has already confirmed that, hasn't he?
10 Let's continue and then --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is it.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's continue, Mr. Dunjic. Yes, Mr. Zivanovic?
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When it comes to Zeleni Jadar 5,
15 there are some quoted reports with ERN numbers, and that's a document
16 here. From Ravnice there is also -- there are also quoted autopsy
17 reports. We shall see that through individual analysis. And there is
18 also an analysis of the location -- I apologise -- Pilica. Again, there
19 are documents that I used in preparing my report and in my written report
20 that you have been provided with, for each location I wrote the ERN
21 number under which the autopsy report has been recorded, and I quoted
22 parts of the autopsy report in order to allow you to follow what I'm
23 saying, in order for you to follow my words.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Very well, then. Mr. Dunjic, as far as I can see, on pages
1 starting with 42, you dealt with Nova Kasaba, and this goes from page 42
2 and if you can just bear with me --
3 A. 1, 2, 3 and then 4, that's one case. And then Nova Kasaba, 6, 7
4 and 8.
5 Q. And then it goes from 42 to 72 in B/C/S version?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I would kindly ask you to tell me this: You reviewed the autopsy
8 reports. Did you review all of them from this location or not?
9 A. For Nova Kasaba, I reviewed everything that I said, the whole of
10 Nova Kasaba 1, 2, 3, and one case at Nova Kasaba 4, and I also reviewed
11 everything at Nova Kasaba 6, 7 and 8.
12 Q. What would be your general impression, when you looked at the
13 autopsy reports from all of these locations, can you tell us from your
14 professional point of view, whether there are any -- or rather, whether
15 these reports were done according to the rules of the medical profession
16 or forensic profession?
17 A. If we are talking about autopsy reports and about their form?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Then we are talking about a very standard formula or, rather, a
20 standard form that contains a general part, the findings themselves, and
21 a conclusion. The procedure that is carried out and that has been
22 described in Mr. Clark's report describing the procedure that was applied
23 at all those locations, and Mr. Clark wrote this in his report for the
24 localities Kozluk, Nova Kasaba, Konjevic Polje and Glogova, ERN
25 00912281-305, the autopsy report, in factual terms, there is a
1 description of all the procedures that the autopsy teams carried out at
2 various locations.
3 The first procedure was the transport of the bodies from the
4 grave to the morgue, the work at the morgue, the post-mortem analysis,
5 the autopsy report or the report on all the autopsies performed. The
6 description of the methodology as was used to perform the exhumation, the
7 post-mortem and so on and so forth is something that I absolutely agree
8 with. This is exactly what our profession accepts all over the world,
9 and I don't have any objection to what was done and how it was done.
10 However, when I started to analyse, and I'm now looking at Nova
11 Kasaba, when I started to analyse the post-mortem report I could see that
12 its form represents the standard form. It has its heading describing the
13 clothes, the personal belongings and everything else and then there is
14 the external examination, the internal examination, dentist examination,
15 the traumatology findings, the evidence found, the cause of death and the
16 way how the person died. This is a very, very standard form, and I have
17 no objections whatsoever to the form of this report.
18 However, when you go into the report, and when you read what it
19 contains, and also when you see what the recommendation or the standard
20 is according to what Mr. Clark said, we will see that there is a huge
21 disproportion there. Namely when it comes to the description of
22 particular things and situations that were found around and on the body,
23 you can see that there is just a very short list of the things, if there
24 were any, but my major objection, and professional omission on the part
25 of the examiner, is the absence of a detailed description of all the
1 observed changes on the corpse, in the body and in arriving at certain
3 If you want me to provide you some details and provide a further
4 explanation, I can do that. Let me put it this way: The standard for
5 post-mortems requires that is everything that a pathologist observes
6 should be described in very great detail and this is something that
7 Mr. Clark confirms. Let me just try and find his statements and I'll
8 quote from it. Mr. Clark in his report ERN number 0300 5065 when
9 speaking about the transportation of the bodies from the grave to the
10 morgue, and when he talks about the way work is done in the morgue, says
11 amongst other things the following: "Once the body is taken out of the
12 fridge, the body is entered into several form, then the body is examined
13 fluoroscopically, the post-mortem analysis would consist of the following
14 things as needed," and he lists those things. Taken further removing the
15 clothes, removing the personal belongings, recording relevant findings,
16 the examination of the body including the findings of its integrity, the
17 state of preservation, identifying physical properties, and any natural
19 In this following paragraph he says a detailed description of
20 wounds both those ante-mortem as well as those that occurred post-mortem.
21 He himself wrote this and he stated that all the procedures were applied
22 and followed. A similar description of these procedures can be found in
23 all the reports of the chief pathologists who authored the final report,
24 the compiled report, and there is no objection there but let me now go to
25 something else. I would like to show you this.
1 The external examination of the bodies, Nova Kasaba 1, body
2 number 1, marked by number 1, that is to say. The clothes are described,
3 as well as the personal belongings which are practically non-existent.
4 There is no ID papers. The external examination of the body reveals the
5 following: Situation, this is a question mark, and you have to say what
6 situation you found. It says complete. I suppose that he's talking
7 about a completely preserved body.
8 Articulation, partial. This is absolutely an insufficient
9 description of the situation or the status of the joints. The only thing
10 that was given is an indication that the articulation is partial. What
11 does this mean? What does this mean to me as an expert? This is just a
12 statement that I cannot analyse, and why is it important? It is
13 important because one knows that if there is putrefaction and
14 decomposition of the soft tissue that were -- wherever the muscle mass is
15 less thick around joints, it will decompose slowly, and where it is
16 thicker, it will decompose not as fast.
17 When we analyse the articulation of the joints, we can also
18 estimate the time of death and the conditions under which the body was
19 found, which in this particular case, not only in this one but in all
20 such cases, this is very important. And now I'm comparing this actually
21 I should be able to compare this to the following statement: The degree
22 of preservation, putrefaction, partial skeletonisation, obviously for a
23 lay person this doesn't mean a thing. This is just a statement of facts.
24 However, for an expert in pathology, this is very important. When he
25 says putrefaction, I know there are several stages in the process of
1 putrefaction until the complete putrefaction of the soft tissues, also
2 known as skeletonisation. Again a question is raised what difference
3 does it make? And it makes a big difference because from the degree of
4 putrefaction to the degree of skeletonisation, there should be a certain
5 time that has to lapse. Several factors influence the putrefaction
6 process, the environment, the manner of death, the wounds, where it
7 was -- am I speaking too fast?
8 Q. As far as I can see, you're not speaking too fast. So far the
9 interpreters have not had any problems.
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would kindly ask the witness
11 to slow down in order to avoid future problems.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Definitely it's not your day, Mr. Zivanovic.
13 Mr. Dunjic, please do slow down. The interpreters were obviously
14 very patient and didn't want to interrupt you but you are speeding up a
15 little bit too much. Thank you.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I shall repeat. From the stage of
17 putrefaction, changes are based on the stage of putrefaction, we can
18 estimate the time of death. That's number 1. What external factors
19 contributed to the fact that some parts of the body putrefy faster and
20 the others putrefy slower?
21 The first thing that's important here is this: What was the
22 situation of the body before it was buried? And whether the putrefaction
23 changes that were stated occurred exclusively in the grave from which the
24 body was excavated. In order to be able to answer these questions, I
25 should have some feedback that has to be recorded in any post-mortem
1 report. And that's why I'm insisting and that's why I'm saying that this
2 description, and I've only taken the first example, this description is
3 absolutely insufficient and incomplete. It doesn't allow me to answer
4 your question, sir.
5 Let's move on and let's look at something else. Internal
6 examination. I apologise.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Mitchell?
8 MR. MITCHELL: Your Honour, can we please have question and
9 answer? There was one question a long time ago and the witness went some
10 way -- I think the original question was about the form of the autopsy
11 report and we went quite some way from that.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Which part of the transcript are you referring to?
13 Please. Because one characteristic of this witness is that his answers
14 sometimes take two or three pages. Are you referring to page 28 line 23?
15 MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Very well, Mr. Dunjic. Now I'm going to ask you to tell me this:
19 Since you have told us what should an autopsy report contain, and you
20 started giving us some examples of all this, I would now kindly ask you
21 to tell me this: What parts of the findings should be contained within
22 an autopsy report?
23 A. An autopsy report should contain the following findings. I
24 apologise. An autopsy report should contain everything noticed in the
25 general part that concerns the external examination, the internal
1 examination, everything that concerns the trauma findings, and finally
2 one should arrive at a conclusion on the cause of death. When I say that
3 this is what is necessary, it means that one has to have a detailed
4 description of what is, in fact, observed.
5 Q. So this means that an autopsy finding has to contain three
6 findings, internal, external and the traumatological findings with the
7 descriptions you have mentioned?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. We now are discussing Nova Kasaba. So tell me, in general terms,
10 whether these descriptions and the findings that relate to Nova Kasaba 1,
11 2, 3 and 4, have these descriptions been compiled in accordance with the
12 rules of forensic medicine? And if so -- well, can you tell us in which
13 cases the rules have been respected and which cases they haven't been
15 A. I will answer that question, but, Your Honours, first allow me to
16 fully answer the previous question which concerns the internal autopsy
17 report findings and traumatological findings.
18 Q. In that case I'll put that question to you, since I have to put
19 precise questions to you in order to obtain precise answers. With regard
20 to the internal findings, did you notice any deficiencies when it comes
21 to the autopsy findings from Nova Kasaba?
22 A. In the internal findings, the case of Nova Kasaba 1, 2 and 3,
23 well, the descriptions of the state of bodies observed are quite
24 inadequate. I'm referring to the descriptions of changes in the
25 putrefaction to the corpses that can be observed. This is important for
1 the following reasons. Changes in the putrefaction of corpses, in the
2 corpses, compared with the putrefaction changes to the external part of
3 the corpses and one then describes the organs that exist and the organs
4 that no longer exist because of putrefaction. So such findings have to
5 be it noted in order to assess the time of death and the conditions the
6 body was in up until the time of the autopsy. This is a rule. And then
7 you just come to your conclusions.
8 The second mistake or inconsistency with regard to what Mr. Clark
9 said is -- concerns the detailed description of the trauma report. In
10 the trauma report, in the vast majority of the cases concerned, it is
11 stated that the diagnosis is complete. One says gunshot wound to the
12 head. And in the findings, I cannot check this conclusion, or, rather,
13 this diagnosis because it's not a finding, it's a diagnosis. In order to
14 check this, I would have to have a detailed description. So this is why
15 there is inconsistency here, why there are deficiencies, and finally, as
16 part of this autopsy report, once all of this has been analysed, one
17 arrives at a conclusion that concerns the cause of death, and this has to
18 be noted.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: It's time for the break, Mr. Zivanovic, and
20 Mr. Dunjic. We will have a 25-minute break starting from now. Thank
22 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 4.16 p.m.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dunjic, I wanted to clarify something first.
2 It has to do with an answer of yours at page 21 of the transcript. You
3 mentioned a document, a letter of the 22nd of February 2007 signed by
4 Mr. Peter McCloskey. However, in the transcript, it was recorded as an
5 answer. Could we please put that on the ELMO and clarify it for the
6 Chamber? I don't know whether you are able to understand it because it's
7 in English but could you please tell us what it's about?
8 Is that the document that you talked about?
9 A. Yes, that's the one.
10 Q. I don't know whether it is sufficiently legible. You can move
11 the document up and down. My question is this: Did you receive this
12 together with the material we handed over to you in February 2007 when
13 you were here?
14 A. Yes. It happened when I was here in February last year, on the
15 last day, just before I departed.
16 Q. [Microphone not activated].
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry.
19 Q. [Interpretation] We left off while you were providing
20 explanations for the autopsy reports for Nova Kasaba 1, 2 and 3, as well
21 as the single case from the Nova Kasaba 4 file.
22 My question is this: Can you single out any of the findings that
23 would meet the criteria of forensic medicine and for which you could say
24 were compiled fully in accordance with the principles of the profession?
25 A. I carried out a brief analysis of the files, focusing myself on
1 the visual and internal examination. There are inconsistencies in both
2 approaches and descriptions. In a certain way, there are also
3 inconsistencies in terms of what had been agreed upon or what should have
4 accompanied the trauma findings, i.e. there were no detailed descriptions
5 of the injuries. I can mention a few examples.
6 Q. Please do so that we could identify them.
7 A. The first one, NKS 1.
8 Q. This is P624. It is Exhibit P624, in B/C/S page 145. In
9 English, 120.
10 A. 114.
11 Q. No, no, that's in your report. I'm talking about e-court.
12 A. Pilica.
13 Q. Excuse me, let me have a look. It's 621. I apologise.
14 You wanted to see the first example. In the English it is 120.
15 In the B/C/S 145.
16 A. Yes. Could you please go to page 2 immediately?
17 Q. Let us do that, please. It is page 146. Go to page 146 in the
18 B/C/S and 121 in the English version.
19 A. Yes. I will read out the trauma finding that we can see here and
20 I will offer my interpretation. Item 1, "Gunshot wound on the right
21 third rib proximally and distally, which corresponds to the holes in the
22 clothes. Item 2, gunshot wound on the left side, question mark, pelvis,
23 at the place of -- at the place at which the sacrum and iliac bone join.
24 The direction is practically vertically down. Item 3, wrists tied on the
25 back." That is the trauma finding.
1 Why does it not meet the standard requirements? First of all, it
2 does not correspond according to any or all of the criteria of the
3 profession of forensic medicine. It also does not correspond to what
4 Mr. Clark mentions in his summary, in his collective report, as per the
5 methodology. He stated there that detailed descriptions of wounds were
6 offered. However, we do not see that here.
7 Your Honours, when one says gunshot wound and then continues,
8 it's an assertion stating that that injury was killed by a bullet from a
9 firearm. That's a diagnosis. In order for the diagnosis to be of any
10 value for the Court or anyone else for that matter, it must have come out
11 of the trauma finding, which needs to be detailed. That means that we
12 have to have a description of the wound and a description of the injury.
13 It needs to contain all of the elements, size, edges, canals, remaining
14 tissues, any other substances in the canal itself, the exit point,
15 et cetera, et cetera.
16 Once a person writes all that down, a forensic expert, and we
17 will have an opportunity to see good descriptions, in that case, anyone
18 in my profession would be able to conclude that it was a gunshot wound.
19 If not, such as in this case, one needs to choose whether to believe it
20 or not and that is the insufficiency of this trauma finding.
21 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Zivanovic, are we looking at the correct English
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: 121.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: No. It doesn't seem to correspond. Yes,
25 Mr. Mitchell?
1 MR. MITCHELL: I think it's page 125, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Let's check.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, that's correct page number.
4 Q. [Interpretation] In how many cases, when discussing Nova Kasaba
5 1, 2, 3 and the single finding in file 4, did you come across incomplete
6 or inappropriate findings from the point of view of forensic medicine?
7 A. When analysing, and I've been through the Nova Kasaba files on
8 several occasions, I saw that in most of the descriptions of the internal
9 and trauma findings we only have the diagnoses and that there are some
10 descriptions of the internal findings which are partially correct. If
11 you're asking me about a particular example which would be a correct one,
12 then I can cite the example in which we have a more precise description,
13 and it is the very next example, NKS 1-2.
14 Q. It is page 129 in the English.
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the number of the
16 page in the B/C/S.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S, it is 148. In the
18 English 120 [as interpreted].
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's it. The next page.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Please let us have a look at
21 page 149.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is an example of a good
23 description of the trauma changes that have been noted. In item 1 of the
24 finding it says --
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Just a moment. I don't know whether we have the English page.
2 130. It should be 130.
3 Professor, please do continue.
4 A. I will read out the trauma finding. In item 1 it says gunshot
5 wound, the radius of which is 1 by 1 centimetre in the temporal occipital
6 region, and internal cone-like damage on the left side of the skull,
7 partially reaching the left part of the back of the head, as well as the
8 left temple and the area of the maxilla. Item 2, sequential fractures on
9 the right collar bone and the second right rib, from the back towards the
10 front side, without clear cone-like damage that would correspond to a
11 gunshot wound. 3, fracture of the left ribs, T-7 and T-8, as possible
12 exit points of the fractures mentioned in item 2.
13 What did I want to say about this example? In item 1 of the
14 trauma finding we have a relatively precise description of the damage
15 caused by the bullet, no discussion about that. Any forensic medical
16 professional could clearly interpret that.
17 In items 2 and 3, the person who carried out the autopsy did not
18 notice the clear cone-like damage which would be characteristic of a
19 passage of a projectile, and he or she described it as such. In item 3,
20 the person mentioned the fracture of the ribs T 7 and T 8 as the possible
21 exit wounds of the fractures mentioned in item 2. Neither on the ribs
22 nor the thorax there are no clear indications that is these injuries were
23 caused by a bullet. There is the trauma, however, but there were --
24 there was no indication that that is indeed what had happened.
25 I have to say about this trauma finding that it had been drafted
1 correctly, and from which one can conclude that this person sustained one
2 gunshot wound in the back of the skull. This is not in dispute and is
3 completely acceptable from the point of forensic medicine. However, the
4 other two traumas described on the other parts of the body cannot be
5 ascribed to any gunshot wounds. What follows from such a finding is a
6 wrong conclusion on the cause of death.
7 In the cause of death, which is two paragraphs below, we have
8 multiple gunshot wounds. However, in the findings, we have only one
9 gunshot wound which had been established beyond dispute. So that is the
10 inconsistency between what the person doing the autopsy saw and the
11 conclusion on the cause of death.
12 If I may, I really do have to offer a comment on the cause of
13 death. Not only in this case but generally speaking.
14 Q. That was to be my next question, the cause of death. I don't
15 know whether you have any comments to offer concerning the autopsy
16 findings you studied concerning Nova Kasaba 1, 2, 3 and the single case
17 of Nova Kasaba 4.
18 A. In all the cases referred to from Nova Kasaba, the cause of death
19 has been established. However, and I'll repeat this, well, first I have
20 to deal with the theoretical part of the matter. The cause of death
21 represents a certain situation, either a wound or something else that
22 results in death, if there is a wound to the head, if the head is injured
23 in any way or if there is some sort of a fatal illness that leads to
24 death, well, then this is the cause of death. But for a wound, for a
25 trauma of any kind, I'm not only referring to gunshot wounds, for a
1 trauma of any kind to be a cause of death, it's first necessary for the
2 person to be alive before dying, in other words. The wounds must have
3 provoked certain reactions in the individual concerned. A corpse is a
4 medical fact. Damage to the skull as a result of being hit by a
5 projectile is a medical fact. But for that medical fact to have meaning
6 for a Tribunal, it is necessary for this to be demonstrable and it must
7 be possible to check up on such claims.
8 For such a wound that is described as a wound to be considered as
9 a cause of death, an autopsy has to have a detailed description stating
10 that the wound was inflicted while the individual was still alive. If
11 there is no such evidence, and there is no such evidence when we have
12 putrefied corpses because these corpses have no soft tissue, well in such
13 cases there are only facts that have to be assessed on the basis of other
14 evidence collected by the Court and not by forensic expert. So it's my
15 job as a forensic expert to note that there had been changes as a result
16 of putrefaction and then to say, for example, that the corpse has changed
17 because of putrefaction. That's one of the items contained in the
19 Another item would be to mention quite specifically what the
20 findings were, when the autopsy was performed on putrefied body I should
21 state that I noticed that there was a gunshot wound. Item 3, for
22 example, if there are any other wounds or fractures, one should say that
23 there were fractures to the rib cage and so on and so forth that could
24 have been a result or were a result of injuries inflicted by a blunt
25 instrument, and that would be it. If I'm dealing with a putrefied body,
1 I cannot observe any wounds that would show that the individual was
2 wounded when still alive. In other words, for something to be a cause of
3 death it is necessary for this wound to have been inflicted when the
4 individual was still alive. If a gunshot wound caused death, you need to
5 demonstrate that the wound was inflicted while the individual was still
7 And this is how one can provide the Court with adequate evidence
8 and approach the matter in a professional way. That's all. On the basis
9 of a fairly good description, one arrived at a certain conclusion, and I
10 know why, because a number of documents have been compiled about this in
11 the report, stating how it was established that cause of death should be
12 described, certain wounds should be taken to have been inflicted
14 Q. I'll ask you about this later on. But now for another question.
15 I noticed that in the collective report 2, drafted by Dr. Haglund, and in
16 these other autopsy reports that we have had a look at, reference is made
17 to ligatures in the case of certain victims. So could you please tell me
18 whether you remember how many ligatures were noted in the collective
19 report drafted by Dr. Haglund? It's the same document, page 46 in the
20 B/C/S version, page 48 in the English version, if we consult the e-court
22 A. I've been looking at my report. It's easier for me to find my
23 bearings in this report.
24 Q. Just a minute for us so that we can find the pages.
25 A. 48 in the English version, 46 in Haglund's report.
1 Q. Just a minute. We found it in the B/C/S version. I'm not sure
2 whether we have found it in the English version.
3 A. I have it here, page 41.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
5 MR. MITCHELL: It might be page 52, Your Honour, I think this
6 conclusion is on a few different pages but that's the key one.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much, Mr. Mitchell. Could you verify
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Maybe 58.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Could you now answer the question as we have
14 found the page? I was asking you about ligatures. You saw the
15 conclusion in the collective report. Could you tell me what the
16 conclusion is?
17 A. Well, I'll quote. "27 out of 33, 81 per cent of the victims
18 found in Nova Kasaba had their hands tied up behind their backs. These
19 ligatures were taken, 25 of the ligatures were of wire, one was of rope
20 and the other was made of shoe laces."
21 Q. Yes. That's what I wanted to ask you about. We've read through
22 that. But could you now tell me, on the basis of the analysis of the
23 autopsy reports that you carried out, would you say that this conclusion,
24 item C, paragraph 2, is consistent with the autopsy reports that you
1 A. No.
2 Q. If not, why not?
3 A. Well, let me tell you. When I examined the autopsy records and
4 read through the reports, I found a total of six cases of individuals
5 whose hands had been tied behind their backs as described here in this
6 report. In addition, as far as the other cases are concerned, and the
7 total number of these cases amounts to 28, well, in these cases, they
8 didn't have any ligatures so 30 [as interpreted] minus 8 -- well, that's
9 25 cases of individuals who had their hands tied up.
10 Q. Did you say 30 or 33?
11 A. 33 cases.
12 Q. That was an error in the transcript.
13 A. Yes. Out of the 25 cases of individuals who were said to have
14 their hands tied, I said that in only six cases I found in the autopsy
15 reports statements to the effect that their hands had been tied up by
16 using wire. So not 27 cases but six cases. In the other cases, in 19
17 other cases -- well, I'll tell you something more about these cases with
18 your permission.
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. In one case, the individual had a wire outside the body. That's
21 number 2. Number 3, there were wire handcuffs on the joints. It doesn't
22 say whether the hands were tied up or where the hands were. All it says
23 is that there were wire handcuffs. And then wire handcuffs on the left
24 and right wrist. So it doesn't say where the hands were. And this is
25 why I'm saying why the reports are very superficial. You can't get a
1 clear vision.
2 Then it says wire ligatures on the hands attached in a bag,
3 attached. Then it says, wire handcuffs on the left and right wrist. And
4 then it says the same again. And then it says wire ligatures by the
5 body. Then wire ligatures no specific location. It just says wire
6 ligatures. It doesn't say whether they were taken off the hands or the
7 legs or whether they were by the body and so on. Then it says wire
8 ligatures around the hands, wire ligatures on the wrists. Shoe laces
9 were used to attach the wrist. Then it says part of the wire outside of
10 the bag for evidence. Then it says wire taken from the left wrist. Then
11 it says wrist tied with a wire. There was wire around the wrist. And
12 then wire ties. And then you can say -- see that it says something about
13 the ligature being around the waist. I can't really understand this.
14 Then wires around the left and right wrist. Wires taken off the left and
15 right wrist.
16 So I have now told you what it says for each autopsy report. So
17 out of the 25 ligatures that were found, not 27 but 25, only six cases
18 had their hands tied behind their backs. That's what it says in the
19 autopsy reports. So this conclusion, Haglund's conclusion, is erroneous.
20 Q. So you're referring to this conclusion --
21 A. The one I read through.
22 Q. Let me just conclude. Are you referring to the conclusion that
23 all the victims had their hands tied behind their backs?
24 A. To that conclusion, too, and to the conclusion on the number of
25 ligatures found at that site. Not 27 but 25, and also I have in mind the
1 conclusion on their hands tied behind their backs, so both conclusions
2 are not precise, not to say correct.
3 Q. As an expert, what does it mean if the report says that the
4 ligature was in a bag? Can you draw the conclusion that someone was tied
5 up with that ligature from such a statement?
6 A. This would mean that I would need other information to come to
7 such a conclusion. The person who put that in the bag should have
8 statement saying that it was taken off the body or found by the body,
9 because when we were performing exhumations, when you come across a body,
10 when you find a body, anything that is on the body, beneath the body or
11 by the body, any evidence found is put in a certain bag so that it can
12 subsequently be identified as, for example, something that was used to
13 tie the witness up with. Glass can be found by the body, for example,
14 that by a certain body. So I can't discuss whether this concerns a
15 specific body or whether it's just something that was collected as
16 evidence, evidence that was found by the body.
17 Q. You mentioned certain deficiencies when it comes to the external
18 findings. I'd like to ask you something else now. I noticed that in a
19 certain number of autopsy reports, or rather in all of them, there were
20 sketches of the corpses exhumed, and descriptions were given of the
21 wounds, there were photographs that were also attached, so I wanted to
22 ask you whether that fact might mean that the descriptions of the
23 external and internal findings and of the trauma findings don't
24 necessarily have to be complete because we have photographs too.
25 A. Both photos and sketches that may exist cannot replace or make up
1 for the insufficient description. The description has to be complete
2 because the sketches only document the description. Now, you can ask me
3 why can't they replace them.
4 Q. Precisely. This is what I was going to ask you.
5 A. I apologise. It seems that I'm putting questions to myself
6 because it only seemed logical that this calls for an explanation. If in
7 a photo you see a damage like I've described it, a damage that has even
8 been measured, that photo does not depict all the elements that I myself
9 noticed during examination, and as I notice them, I have to describe them
10 in the autopsy report so as to enable everybody who may read the report
11 later how I had arrived at the conclusion.
12 For example, there is a photo of damage to the skull, either
13 regular circular or irregular circular defect, and to all of us this
14 means this is a trauma to the head. However, the autopsy expert has to
15 describe the edges and the sides of the defect, the angle at which they
16 fall, because this is something that the photo cannot show. The contents
17 on the edges, for example, if you put your hands like that, you can see
18 this edge or the other edge, but the internal contents that reflect the
19 mechanism that inflicted the wound, for example if it is a projectile, it
20 leaves traces and you can prove that it was done by a projectile and so
21 on and so forth, and because of that reason, during my autopsy I describe
22 both the edges, the contents, the sides, I follow the channel, I describe
23 the way the channel curves, whether it's straight or whether it's curvy.
24 All these are elements pointing to evidence that will help me conclude
25 about the mechanism of woundings, the type of projectile, whether it was
1 blunt, whether it was sharp. This is the ABCs of our profession, and if
2 that is missing, a mere photo cannot be evidence. It can only serve as
3 something useful if it accompanies a complete description, and what we
4 see here is incomplete descriptions. We see nothing but mere statements
5 saying that this is it and you have to take it for the face value.
6 Q. And now can you tell me something else about your approach?
7 Would that be a standard that is applied only in our parts, i.e. in
10 A. I have to tell you that this is the standard of the profession
11 all over the world, not only in our parts. And in order to confirm what
12 I'm saying, I can give you an illustration.
13 I've worked with an expert team from Finland who were working in
14 Racak. They had their own team working for the Tribunal and they were
15 dealing with the cases, the 40 of them, that were found in Racak. I
16 don't know whether you remember Racak, which happened in 1999. I was one
17 of the experts. There were four of us who were working together, and
18 there were two experts from Russia
19 compiled autopsy reports and we applied a methodology which is customary
20 and adopted all over the world starting with the external findings,
21 taking photos and then a detailed description of what we observed. The
22 Finnish experts did that, the report exists, we did that, so this is a
23 customary standard.
24 There may be slight differences in the words we use to describe
25 things but what is described is well known. You have to describe the
1 edges, the direction, the channel, the contents and all those things.
2 The use of the words is not important. What needs to be described is
3 what matters.
4 Q. Thank you very much. I'd like to move on to the other autopsy
5 findings from Nova Kasaba. If I'm not mistaken we are talking about
6 numbers 6, 7 and 8.
7 A. Since I cannot provide much comment here, it is my duty as a
8 professional to say something before I answer your question.
9 I would like to provide a comment, however, on the report, the
10 same report by Mr. Haglund, in which he summarises all his pathological
11 analysis and provides an example. NKS 1-6.
12 Q. I apologise. I've already moved on to number 6, 7, 8. I will go
13 back to the conclusions about the Nova Kasaba site 1, 2, 3 and 4. I'm
14 now asking you about Nova Kasaba 6. I'm not asking you about the sixth
15 grave from the first site.
16 A. I apologise. My answer about these particular sites, 6, 7 and 8,
17 is that the descriptions of the wounds there are very correct, generally
18 speaking, in a majority of the cases. There are minor objections, but I
19 will accept that those were less experienced physicians who had used some
20 previous reports and established their diagnosis based on that, but in
21 general terms there is -- there are very correct descriptions of the
22 mortal remains.
23 Q. And now I would like to go back to the conclusions. What you've
24 been talking about and when you say that the descriptions are correct, do
25 you mean to say that they were done according to the rules of the
1 forensic profession?
2 A. For the largest part, I have to say that these three sites have
3 been described in much more precise terms than the previous sites. It is
4 a fact, and it is very obvious when you look at those descriptions and
6 Q. I don't know whether I've interrupted you but I would like to ask
7 you to go back to the conclusions that concern Nova Kasaba 1, 2, 3 and 4.
8 First of all, tell me this: What are the conclusions based on according
9 to the rules of profession? We are talking about autopsy reports and the
10 conclusions thereof.
11 A. A conclusion in an autopsy report has to represent an objective
12 judgement of what has been established by the findings. In other words,
13 a conclusion depends on the findings. If the findings change, the
14 conclusion will have to change accordingly and vice versa. What I'm
15 saying, a conclusion is an objective representation of what the findings,
16 both external and internal findings, have established. Which means if
17 there is a defect in the skull which has been described with all its
18 characteristics and which points to the fact that the defect was
19 inflicted by a projectile or a blunt object, then in the conclusion, this
20 has to be stated to the same effect.
21 In other words, the conclusion about the trauma examination has
22 to be done in that way. When it comes to the conclusion about the cause
23 of death, if that's what you are referring to, that conclusion, if the
24 corpses are putrefied, it mustn't say that the cause of death is a
25 gunshot wound because this cannot be proven by autopsy. You cannot prove
1 that a gunshot wound was inflicted upon the corpse that is now putrefied.
2 First you have to say that this is a corpse and then in the conclusion
3 you have to state all the wounds that were inflicted upon that body.
4 Once the Court collects all the other evidence and all the other elements
5 within the context of the two facts that the body is putrefied and that
6 there are gunshot wounds, it may conclude with more or less certainty
7 that that was indeed the cause of death.
8 In order for me to explain this, let me say what this means. The
9 gunshot wound which cannot be proven that it cannot be said that it was
10 inflicted during the life, it could have really been inflicted during the
11 life but it could have also been inflicted post-mortem, because it would
12 show the same characteristics in both cases, if the situation is examined
13 on a putrefied body. What I'm saying is that I accept that this is a
14 gunshot wound to the skull but I don't have any medical element to prove
15 that that wound was inflicted during the life.
16 And that's why I'm not allowed to conclude that this was indeed
17 the cause of death because that same person, for example, if it was shot
18 at while it was dying or after that, it could have also suffered from the
19 gunshot wounds of the chest, which is soft tissue, without affecting any
20 hard parts of the body. That person could have been poisoned. This
21 person's throat might have been slit. In other words, wherever there is
22 tissue which is now putrefied and where there could have been a wound
23 which can now -- which cannot be proven, we only can prove one gunshot
24 wound in the skull. That is why the cause of death is not something that
25 you can state for a fact.
1 You have to say this is a putrefied body and the autopsy only
2 cannot establish the cause of death. However, the autopsy report in its
3 conclusion has to state all the findings and there has to be a
4 segregation between the mechanism of wound infliction. For example, a
5 gunshot or a fracture of the arm that was inflicted by a blunt wound, so
6 in the future when somebody collects some other evidence, a question will
7 be raised and a question will be put to the expert, how do you know that
8 it was a blunt wound, do you know if they were inflicted before the wound
9 on the head or after the wound on the head?
10 That's why you have to be very cautious when establishing the
11 cause of death. And here it says that the cause of death is multiple
12 gunshot wounds and this almost points to the fact that the doctor who
13 performed the autopsy is absolutely sure that the wounds were inflicted
14 before death, which points to another conclusion, and that is that all
15 gunshot wounds are considered to be inflicted ante-mortem.
16 Q. When you say --
17 A. Peri-mortem, in other words, which means immediately before
19 Q. When you say this has been agreed, what do you mean when you say
20 this has been agreed, who has agreed upon that?
21 A. Let me answer based on the documents that you've provided to me.
22 I have it here. This is a report by Mr. Clark that we already discussed
23 here. I can give you the ERN number, 00912281-305. This is a joint
24 report for the sites in Kozluk, Nova Kasaba, Konjevic Polje and Glogova.
25 Q. Just a moment. Let me try and find this, and if need be we can
1 display it on the screen. P575. I apologise, could you please repeat
2 the number that you have just quoted from your document?
3 A. ERN 00912281-305. This is the document in the Serbian language.
4 Q. [In English] It is P575, second page. [Interpretation] Do you
5 see this on the screen?
6 A. Yes, I do. Just a moment. Let me say that we need to go to the
7 next paragraph, work in the morgue. You're looking at it now, a report
8 on autopsies. This is all part of the standard. Whatever he has
9 written, I can accept.
10 Q. Let's go back to my previous question. You said that you found
11 something in Dr. Clark's report.
12 A. Okay. I'm going back to that.
13 Q. Could you please tell us exactly the title of that paragraph?
14 A. Go to the next page, please. This is it. Thank you. Scroll
15 down a little, please. Move on, scroll down, please.
16 Q. Do you want us to go to the next page?
17 A. Just a moment, please. Bear with me.
18 Q. What page are you on?
19 A. Could you please scroll up a little? Very well. That's it.
20 The second paragraph. No, no, no, no, no. That's it. [In
21 English] Okay. Thank you. [Interpretation] This has brought about
22 difficulties in establishing whether a certain wound was inflicted before
23 death or after it. This was a realistic problem.
24 Q. Can you please read the last passage? I believe that's what you
25 had in mind?
1 A. Yes, I did but in order to arrive at that we have to say the
2 following first. This was a real problem because the fracture which
3 happens ante-mortem looks identical as the one inflicted post-mortem.
4 This is what Mr. Clark states. I know it and I fully accept it. But
5 after that, a reason is introduced when it is said this: "In all cases
6 with certain exceptions it is considered that every wound which points to
7 the damage --
8 THE INTERPRETER: This was too fast, the interpreter cannot
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Dunjic, you're going too fast. I think you
11 need to start again.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: You need to start again your answer to this
14 question or repeat what you've said in any case. And slowly, please, so
15 that the interpreters can catch up.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Sir, you should quote starting with the sentence, "In all cases
18 though there are certain exceptions." That's where you stopped.
19 A. Yes, I apologise. I'll quote: "In all these cases" I have to
20 read through the entire paragraph. I apologise. I'll read through the
21 entire paragraph. So starting with the second paragraph: "This involved
22 certain difficulties when it came to determining whether a certain wound
23 had been caused before death or after death. That was a very real
24 problem because a fracture that occurs ante-mortem, before death, is
25 identical to a fracture that occurs post-mortem, after death, provided it
1 has been caused in the same manner. Observing the damage to the soft
2 tissue in the vicinity, for example, observing bruises or bleeding is the
3 only way in which one can determine whether there is a difference. In
4 the case of decomposed bodies, this becomes exceptionally difficult. And
5 when only the skeletons remain, it's impossible.
6 Therefore, strictly speaking, it will never be possible to state,
7 for example, that a hole in the skull occurred before death and not after
8 death. And this also concerns other types of wounds, or any other types
9 of wounds in any other place on the body." So this is what I already
10 told you.
11 Now, let's move on. However, common sense should be used in this
12 equation, and to suggest that these men died in some mysterious way and
13 that they were then systematically shot at after they had died and that
14 some of them were shot at several times, well, such an explanation is not
15 credible. Therefore, in all of these cases, with certain exceptions, we
16 are of the opinion that any injury that caused damage or indicated damage
17 caused by a bullet, any such injury was caused while the individual was
18 alive, and therefore it was necessarily or potentially fatal.
19 So this is my answer. This is an assumption, that the wounds
20 were inflicted by firearms while the individuals concerned were alive and
21 therefore these wounds are the causes of death. These are the
22 assumptions we are dealing with, assumptions that have been accepted or
23 that are accepted by all pathologists.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: If I may, Professor Dunjic, so that I try to
25 understand better, if it had been you who were conducting these
1 post-mortems and trying to prepare reports on each post-mortem, in the
2 circumstances that are illustrated here, how would you have dealt with
4 In other words, let me present to you a scenario. A scenario
5 where you're told by investigators, we have information that several
6 individuals were killed, shot, and then buried, from there even
7 transported here or buried here and they have been exhumed now, and let's
8 say that all these bodies are either completely decomposed, there is no
9 soft tissue to let you establish whether the firearm wound is pre or post
10 death or it's completely -- it's a complete skeleton so you can never
11 really establish whether it was before or after, but you have this
12 information and you find them with their hands tied and all other
13 circumstances, how would you reach your conclusion as an experienced
14 pathologist? In other words, would you have written the same things as
15 we have and which you have just read out to us or would you have
16 presented them differently?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To be quite frank, Your Honour, I
18 must say that I've given much thought to this matter, as a professional,
19 as someone who has been involved in this field for a long time. What I
20 as an expert can tell this Tribunal concerns facts, transparent facts
21 that can be verified. And this is regardless of investigators' reports.
22 They compile their own reports. Anthropologists compile their own
23 reports. Forensic experts such as myself draft their own reports,
24 autopsy reports.
25 My job is to present you with certain facts. You have previous
1 information and so do I. People have been killed, firearms were used to
2 kill people. But I have to tell you whether there are any firearm
3 wounds, what kind of firearm wounds, I have to say where these people
4 were hit, which parts of their bodies were hit, but when I provide you
5 with this information I also have to demonstrate that this is the case.
6 I have to do this by using a report, not photographs, and it's only then
7 that these matters will have a certain validity.
8 I can then draft a report and say that all the individuals I
9 examined, five or ten individuals, at certain site, were in such and such
10 a state of decomposition and I can then say that they died during the
11 same period of time. That's one conclusion.
12 The second conclusion would be that we assessed that this
13 occurred at such and such a time. We will say that the period of time
14 concerns the time from which they died until the time at which the
15 autopsy was performed. I could say that certain individuals were hit by
16 bullets, that they have wounds that are consistent with bullet wounds.
17 You would ask me about the cases concerned and I would provide you with
18 the relevant information but I don't have this information here in
19 relation to Nova Kasaba.
20 So the report does have to have or rather contain all those
21 elements if it is to be a professional report. I cannot start assuming
22 that they were alive, or rather they were in fact alive, but I cannot
23 assume or speculate that they were shot at after death or before death,
24 so there has to be other evidence from other witnesses, and so on the
25 basis of that evidence that the Court should reach a conclusion.
1 We performed autopsies in Batajnica. There were about 800
2 putrefied bodies. For all of them we stated that the following was the
3 cause of death: I can just repeat this for you. Item 1, the corpse in
4 an advanced state of decomposition, impossible to establish the cause of
5 death. Then item 2, 3 or 4 of the conclusion we would give a detailed
6 description of all the wounds observed. And then the Court must use
7 other evidence, other testimony, in order to reach a conclusion. As a
8 pathologist, I can understand the assumptions that have been written down
9 here but I would have never have drafted such assumptions myself.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Dunjic.
11 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. I'd like to ask you something else about this answer. When you
14 draft your autopsy reports, when you give external findings, internal
15 findings, trauma findings and when you give your conclusions which should
16 be based on such analysis, when you do this, from the point of view of
17 forensic medicine, can you use statements given by witnesses or
18 investigators or by some of the parties, by the Prosecution, the Defence,
19 the accused? Can you take such statements into consideration when you
20 compile your autopsy report?
21 A. No, I can't. I am provided with information. For example I
22 perform an autopsy. I'm ordered to perform an autopsy by an
23 investigative court. I do the autopsy. I do this with the crime police.
24 We state where the corpse was discovered, what was found by the corpse.
25 This is the source of information for me. And this information should
1 guide me.
2 How should it guide me? Well in the following way. For example
3 if it is said that the corpse was found in the street or rather in a
4 forest, by a path, one needs to observe the characteristics of the corpse
5 in detail. And then I can assess the age of the corpse, the time of
6 death, and then I can move on. I can move on to internal and external
7 findings, and then move on until I reach a conclusion about the cause of
8 deaths. So this information is available. It's on the side.
9 But when performing the autopsy, first there is a phase that
10 precedes the autopsy and during that phase I receive information about
11 the health condition of the deceased on whom I have to perform an autopsy
12 or I receive such information subsequently. I receive such information
13 from close relatives of the person concerned, for example. And I can
14 only check up on this information when I compare this information to the
15 findings. They might say that the man was ill and I don't come to such a
16 conclusion. Such information provides me with certain guidelines. I pay
17 attention to such information.
18 But to be more specific with regard to how I proceeded, I have
19 information obtained from witnesses and from you. I have familiarised
20 myself with the case, I have information from witnesses, but I don't
21 assess a witness's statement in the same way as the Court does, for
22 example. Someone might tell me that someone was killed by firearms or
23 that a burst of fire was directed at a person or that someone stood on a
24 mine or some other explosive device was used to kill a person. This
25 information is very important for me in the context of the findings that
1 I will obtain in the course of the autopsy. So here, for example, I have
2 five corpses, and these corpses don't seem to have been killed as a
3 result of explosions but in other cases that's not the case. The autopsy
4 provides indirect confirmation of such findings.
5 But if this is to be useful to the Court, one has to have
6 documents that provide valid descriptions of what actually occurred and
7 then we can tie up the individual to the site, to the autopsy, and to
8 witness statements. We can link all these elements but up but the
9 witness statement cannot influence me, nor can the Prosecution statement
10 influence me or evidence of any other kind. So this just represents
11 other information that can serve as a guideline but the autopsy findings
12 are of paramount importance.
13 Q. Let me ask you something else. In the case of Nova Kasaba 1, 2
14 and 3 and the one case that relates to the fourth grave site, did you
15 find any inconsistencies between the conclusions and the findings, the
16 external and internal findings and the trauma findings?
17 A. Strictly speaking, and in accordance with the rules of the
18 profession, out of the 33 cases, there are almost 18 cases, 19, for which
19 you only have a diagnosis of the wound. You have a gunshot wound and no
20 detailed description. So this is the first inconsistency with the
21 findings. The findings are there but based on something that can't be
22 verified. However, there is an autopsy record, I think it concerns Nova
23 Kasaba 6, Nova Kasaba 1, number 6.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: This is same document, it is -- no, no, it is
25 previous document, document -- just a moment. 621, page -- B/C/S page
1 160 and English page 141.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think we'll go back -- I
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Just a minute. Let's see whether we have found the English page.
6 A. Yes, that's it.
7 Q. This is the B/C/S version.
8 We now have both versions up on the screen. So please go ahead
10 A. So trauma report, next page, please. Trauma report. Could you
11 scroll down please? Just a little more.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Microphone not activated] it should be next
13 page, just in English, yes. That's it.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Did you say the trauma report?
15 A. Yes, the trauma report and then the cause of death, and could you
16 just scroll down a little further in the B/C/S version? The manner of
17 death. The cause of death and then the manner of death. I think this is
18 a good example of what I have been testifying about. If you have a look
19 at the trauma finding, I'll read through it very slowly. I can say that
20 it's quite precise. "A single large area damaged to the left side of the
21 skull in the area of the lower jaw. Full stop. The destruction of part
22 of the left temple bone and part of the hollow eye area, le fort fracture
23 of the upper jaw, the first type, full stop. To the left side of the
24 crown, an elongated diagonal rectangular form of damage inflicted, the
25 dimension of which is one times three centimetres with sharp angles, no
1 indications of vital reaction." And then it says, post-mortem question
2 mark. So we have a fairly precise description here.
3 Cause of death, not established, it says.
4 And manner of death, homicide.
5 Can't confirm this.
6 We have post-mortem wounds and the conclusion is that it's
7 homicide. But the manner of -- the cause of death hasn't been
8 determined. I can't tell you what this is about. We have
9 inconsistencies here. There is a fairly precise description, but then we
10 have the cause of death, not established, that's fine. He didn't come to
11 a conclusion about the cause of death. But the wounds weren't explained
12 and he talks about the manner of death. Why do I take this as an
13 example? Well, because -- because of these problems.
14 Mr. Haglund, in the collective report that concerns this site,
15 and it's a report that I think we have already seen.
16 Q. You have the page in your findings. Could you tell us what page
17 is this?
18 A. 46 is Haglund's report and ERN is -- and it is English 48. The
19 summary of pathological analysis, that is page 42.
20 Q. Yes, that's 42. Can we look at the same document? In B/C/S, it
21 is 42. In English, it is 44. This is it.
22 Can you see this on the screen? And is this the part of the
23 pathological analysis that you were referring to?
24 A. Yes, this is the third paragraph. This is the comment.
25 Q. You're referring to 161?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The third paragraph. Let's just find the English version. I
3 apologise. We've got it. Considering that, can you please explain?
4 A. Could you please give me a moment to read it first?
5 Q. Would you like this to be enlarged on the screen?
6 A. I have it quoted in my report.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please not overlap?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Did you hear that, Mr. Zivanovic?
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: The interpreters have just invited you and
11 Mr. Dunjic not to overlap.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: So please allow a short pause between question and
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The third paragraph, it reads as
16 follows: "It seems that most individuals were shot in the head, most of
17 them in the back of the head, which inflicted injuries to the upper part
18 of the spinal cord. In all but one of the victims, there were enough
19 gunshot wounds to cause death. In five of the deaths which were caused
20 by a major head trauma, there were fewer pieces of evidence which would
21 point to gunshot wounds. However, in four of the cases, the probable
22 cause is a gunshot wound. One of the fatal head injuries, which is NKS
23 1-6, the case that I've quoted, was caused by the penetration of an
24 object such as a bayonet or by a blunt object. It seems that this group
25 is mostly composed of the victims who died of gunshot wounds inflicted
1 from a short distance. Also one may assume that there were contact
3 Q. Since I've asked you about this victim and --
4 A. NKS 1-6.
5 Q. Let us be aware of the interpreter's request not to overlap. The
6 question referred to the specific body, number 6 from grave number 1.
7 Could you then relate this conclusion to the previously provided autopsy
8 report that you have looked at and quoted from?
9 A. This is exactly what I've done. I've compared the post-mortem
10 report, the conclusion about the cause of death as it has been written,
11 and the statement by Mr. Haglund. And I've done this for this precise
12 reason, i.e. to illustrate the nature of the collective report, i.e. the
13 arbitrariness when he arrives at a conclusion that a wound was inflicted
14 by a bayonet because the described penetration, 1 by 3 centimetres, was
15 not described in all the detail, and to avoid any hair splitting, I would
16 still like to say that the description does not point to the fact that
17 the wound was inflicted by an object similar to a bayonet, and
18 especially -- and I emphasise especially -- bearing in mind that the
19 person who performed the autopsy stated, without any indicators of vital
20 reaction, that there was a post-mortem wound and here it is introduced as
21 a executive wound inflicted by a bayonet and so on and so forth. This is
22 hence an inconsistency.
23 The second thing that has been derived here as a conclusion is
24 the statement in the joint report, in the last sentence drafted by
25 Haglund, where he says that the group is mostly composed of the victims
1 who died as a result of gunshot wounds inflicted from a short distance
2 and one can also assume that there were contact wounds, and I would like
3 to explain that this implies that a rifle barrel was pressed against the
4 head or the body. And this is completely unfounded by the autopsy
5 reports. There is no foundation whatsoever for this statement. Because
6 they themselves say that they did not trace gunpowder that would point to
7 a short distance wound. I'm just trying to explain a trauma report as a
8 professional and I'm not able to confirm any of the things that Haglund
9 wrote in the joint report.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Shall we have a break, Your Honours?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's have a 25-minute break. Mr. Dunjic
12 seems to like the idea. So it's a well-deserved break, too. 25 minutes.
13 Before we break, where do we stand? Where have you arrived?
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I don't believe that I will finish today. Sorry.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not asking to you finish today. I just wanted
16 to have an idea where we stand. Are you halfway through? Are you more
17 advanced than that?
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I believe I am halfway.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, all right. Thank you.
20 --- Recess taken at 5.48 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 6.15 p.m.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon?
23 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Just quickly I would
24 just like to confirm that Mr. Nikolic is no longer in the courtroom. He
25 was fine at the first break. At the second break when I went to see him
1 he did not feel good. It's not physical, it's mental.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I can imagine.
3 MR. BOURGON: And he preferred to go back and I got the
4 assistance of the security officers for him to go back, and we signed
5 some kind of a waiver. I took the first thing that was available to me
6 to make it official. I don't anticipate that he will be absent tomorrow
7 but we will advise in the morning. Thank you, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much. And we are aware of the waiver
9 he that has signed.
10 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic?
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, let us try to summarise the
13 discussion about the mass grave 1/6. Could you please briefly tell us
14 again what the inconsistencies are between the trauma report, the cause
15 of death, the conclusion and the finding in the collective report?
16 A. The inconsistencies are obvious. If I may have a moment. It is
17 the following: On one hand, we have post-mortem injuries without vital
18 reactions with relatively precise descriptions; on the other hand, that
19 the cause of death is unascertained precisely because of that. However,
20 the conclusion is that it was murder. These two things don't tally. As
21 regards the comment entered by Mr. Haglund, as we can see, he firmly
22 asserts that the cause of death may have been caused by a blunt object or
23 a bayonet. This is all inconsistent.
24 Q. I would like to move to some other inconsistencies, if any, in
25 the conclusions concerning Nova Kasaba, the reports 1 and 2.
1 A. And 3.
2 Q. Excuse me, yes. We can have a look at Nova Kasaba 1/2. The
3 English is already on the screen. In the B/C/S it is page 148 of the
4 finding. You can follow it on the screen as well. It may be more
5 practical than referring to your report.
6 A. These are the originals.
7 Q. I know.
8 A. [In English] Scroll down, please. Okay. Yes, okay.
9 Q. [In English] That's fine. [Interpretation] Can you compare the
10 trauma report and the cause of death?
11 A. In the trauma report, which is relatively precise, it says in
12 item 1, Gunshot wound the diameter of which is 1 by 1 centimetre in the
13 temporal occipital region. And internal cone-like damage on the
14 left-hand side of the skull, partially going towards the left side of the
15 back of the skull as well as to the left temple and the area of the
16 maxilla. This is a relatively good description.
17 Item 2: Sequential fractures on the right collar bone and the
18 second right rib from the back towards the front side, without a clearly
19 pronounced cone-like damage that would correspond to a firearm wound.
20 Fractures on the left ribs, 7 and 8, as the possible exit wounds of the
21 fractures referred to in item 2. In items 2 and 3, we have a trauma
22 finding which is not convincing in terms of proving that a projectile
23 from a firearm caused the injuries. It exists as a possibility only.
24 We do have the trauma, though.
25 What is the inconsistency? Well, it's the cause of death,
1 because it is stated there that there were multiple gunshot wounds,
2 whereas we only have only one relatively precisely described wound in the
3 area of the skull. That is the inconsistency.
4 And I won't go into commenting the manner of death.
5 Q. Concerning the cases in the Nova Kasaba 2 file, in several
6 findings, I noticed the following, and the findings I refer to are 2/9,
7 12 and 13, and I'll have the precise e-court numbers after the question.
8 I noticed that as the cause in the conclusion, it is stated that the
9 injuries were caused by a high-velocity projectile.
10 Let us please have a look at that finding. It is 2/9. In the
11 B/C/S, it is page 191. In the English, it should be page 185.
12 A. [In English] Scroll down, please. Next page. And next page.
13 It's okay.
14 Q. One moment. We are still waiting for the English page.
15 This is the page. We can go ahead.
16 A. First, I have to read it out to see what the pathologist's
17 description of the injury was. "A great damage of the skull including
18 the left temporal bone, the left part of the frontal lobe, and the left
19 part of the back of the skull, the left part of the mandibula, and
20 break-up fractures corresponding to an injury caused by a firearm." In
21 the conclusion it says, "The wound to the head caused by a firearm."
22 When I say the conclusion, I mean the cause of death.
23 From this description, save for the damage to the skull and the
24 particular parts of the bones, I cannot conclude anything else. I cannot
25 conclude, first of all, that this was caused by a firearm projectile. It
1 is possible but the description is not there. Secondly, this type of
2 injury was -- could have been caused by a blunt instrument of any sort or
3 a large or small piece of shrapnel. And the third thing I cannot
4 conclude is whether there were any vital reactions that may have been the
5 cause of death, as I've explained previously.
6 That is to say, the description of the injury provided, if
7 compared to the relatively correct one from before, the NKS 1/6 case, it
8 becomes clear to what extent this degree is insufficient. We have no
9 description of the edges, sides or anything. Not even the lines of the
10 fractures, which can only partially point to an explosive tool used, such
11 as Mr. Haglund concluded when he talked about a small-calibre projectile
12 of high velocity, if you recall that question.
13 Q. I believe that has to do with the next finding, which is 2/12.
14 In the B/C/S it is page 202. Yes. And the English, it is 195. Could we
15 please go to -- two pages after this one in the B/C/S. That is to say,
16 page 204 in the B/C/S. This is 2-12. Yes, the trauma report. That's
18 A. The pathologist documents the trauma as follows: "Item 1 is
19 extreme fracture of the skull with fragmentation." We have the middle
20 bones of the face missing, save for one part of the maxilla. The cranial
21 part is preserved. However, the entire left temporal area is missing as
22 well as the back of the head. Item 2, the -- there is a fracture to the
24 Q. Could we please have a look at the cause of death, which is the
25 next page in the B/C/S?
1 A. [In English] No, no, no, no, scroll down, scroll down, next page,
2 uh-huh. Yes. [Interpretation] The cause of death, a head injury caused
3 by a projectile fired from a firearm at great speed. The manner of
4 death, murder.
5 Q. Since it is said here that the head injury was caused by a
6 projectile of high velocity, can you tell us, from the point of view of
7 forensic medicine, with such a description of the trauma, can it be
8 ascertained whether, indeed, there was a projectile of high velocity?
9 A. Based on the description provided that I read out, one cannot
10 conclude anything except for the fact that there were defects to the
11 skull and that some bones of the skull were missing, some parts of the
12 skull. That is the only conclusion one can arrive at.
13 As for the description itself, if I may have a moment, does not
14 point to the fact that some of the -- that the injuries were caused by a
15 projectile. There is no indication of it whatsoever. A projectile fired
16 from a rifle, for example, moves at great speed. I believe it is around
17 800 metres per second. At the point of impact with the body, the speed
18 is between 600 and 800 metres per second and it is a medium-high
19 velocity. Once such a projectile pierces the skull, it creates a lot of
20 damage. It's a fact. One can find traces on the bones of different
21 shapes from the point of entry or exit of the projectile.
22 However, the injuries of the skull, identical to the ones
23 described here when we have parts of the skull missing, could also have
24 been caused by a piece of shrapnel, that is to say pieces of an explosive
25 device when hitting the skull. Such injuries could also have been caused
1 by a blunt instrument. Also, when discussing low-velocity and
2 low-calibre projectiles, even when fired point blank, create a lot of
3 fractures, always leaving a trace.
4 During putrefaction and decomposition, parts of the bones become
5 separated, disarticulated, once the soft issue is gone. The longer the
6 time, the more missing pieces of the skull we have, whereas originally
7 these have been numerous fractures with many pieces of the skull. If I
8 would receive such a skull I would never make the conclusion made here.
9 It would have been but one of the possibilities indicating that it may
10 have been a high-velocity projectile. It is only one possibility in
11 speaking from the point of forensic medicine. The very description
12 provided, with its characteristics, and with the things that should have
13 been described, does not point to that particular thing. The only
14 conclusion one can make is that we have the defects of the skull.
15 Q. You mean to say that there are no indications which would prove
16 that it was caused by a projectile?
17 A. Yes. And let alone a projectile of high velocity.
18 Q. Let's go to the next page, both in the B/C/S version and in the
19 English version.
20 A. I apologise.
21 Q. Could you please look at the screen? This is 2/13 but you will
22 see it on the screen appearing in front of you. The whole findings will
23 be on the screen. And in your findings, you focused on the part that you
24 analysed. This is another --
25 A. [In English] Scroll down, please.
1 Q. [In English] Next page, I suggest.
2 A. Next page, please. Okay. Thank you.
3 Q. [Interpretation] This is 199 in English.
4 A. [Interpretation] I'm going to read the proof of the trauma. "The
5 damage to the lobe, 11 centimetres by 10 centimetres, including the left
6 temporal bone, the crown of the head and the occipital region.
7 "Number 2, linear fractures radiating from the place of injury
8 across the left and right part of the bone to the right temporal bone."
9 Q. I apologise. Since we are here, can you please tell me something
10 about the evidence of previous trauma? Is that something significant?
11 A. Yes. Here, there is something that I was going to comment upon
12 subsequently, but here, under A, there is proof of previous injury. And
13 then on the 1, 5, pieces of shrapnel embedded in the soft tissue of the
14 left lower leg and in the area of the ankle.
15 Q. What would be implied by a previous trauma in a report of this
17 A. This is a trauma that should have been inflicted ante-mortem,
18 which means before death, when any sort of previous injury is mentioned.
19 However, this description does not allow me to answer your question. And
20 I can't tell you whether this trauma was caused before death and what is
21 the basis of this statement, and as for the head trauma that I've quoted
22 here, if we just remind ourselves what I read in the previous case, the
23 description of the skull defect of certain dimensions with linear
24 fractures, again I don't have here any other indicator pointing to the
25 type of that trauma or that defect. [In English] Page down. Next page,
1 next page, please. [Interpretation] As for the cause of death, it says,
2 "Extreme head trauma. Extreme head trauma."
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. Now if you compare the description given in here, what we have
5 here is the statement that there is a head trauma involved. And I'm not
6 going to go into discussion on the cause of death. An identical
7 description that we saw in the previous case of the similar skull defect
8 speaks very precisely about a wound inflicted from a high-velocity
9 firearm, so we have very similar descriptions and in one case --
10 Q. I apologise for the interruption. Are you talking about a
11 projectile that was a high-velocity projectile?
12 A. This is a head wound inflicted by a projectile fired at a high
13 velocity, and this is very similar to the description of this head
14 trauma, and I apologise if I have confused the matters a little bit here.
15 Q. In other words, the injuries are described in a very similar way
16 in the previous findings, and in this findings, but the causes differ?
17 A. Yes, they are different. In the second case that I have quoted,
18 which is the case that we have in front of us now, the last case, case
19 2/13, the only thing that is mentioned is trauma, which has not been
20 defined, whether it was caused by a projectile, by a shrapnel, whether it
21 is a wound inflicted by a blunt object before death or after death, and
22 from their conclusion, one could deduct that it was inflicted before
23 death, and I cannot accept that because there is no single piece of
24 evidence proving that, but let me not repeat that.
25 Q. I would now like you to look at another findings, the following
1 one. Page 201 in English. Page 201 in English, and in B/C/S it is page
2 number 210.
3 Again, you see the description of a skull trauma, 2/14, you see
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. It is again from Nova Kasaba.
7 A. [In English] Next page, please.
8 Q. [In English] It is English page 202 and B/C/S page 211.
9 A. Scroll down, please.
10 Q. Next page?
11 A. Next.
12 Q. Next page, in B/C/S. Yeah. That's it.
13 A. That's okay. [Interpretation] Here we have proof of injury,
14 which is the descriptive part of the trauma or the internal findings.
15 Under 1, damage of the left temporal region, size 1 by 1.30 centimetres
16 with a cone-like internal damage. Under 2, a fracture of the fourth
17 right rib and the tip of the chest bone.
18 Now, if I want to analyse this case very carefully, it says here
19 that the cause of death is a skull trauma. The damage of the left
20 temporal region is what it is, the size is 1 by 1.3. It points to a
21 possible projectile wound because only a projectile causes a cone-like
22 injury internally. As for the item 2, this is just a statement, no
23 description of the external examination of the rib. So let's leave that
24 aside. The cause of the head trauma, again, a general -- how shall I put
25 it -- a general statement is taken into account and it is stated that the
1 cause of death was the head injury.
2 Here, the skull trauma has not been explained, i.e. no cause of
3 trauma has been explained. It hasn't been stated whether it was caused
4 by projectile, by shrapnel or a blunt object, because there is no other
5 proof, no X-ray or anything, and the pathologist just concluded that it
6 was a head trauma without any specifications. Therefore here we have a
7 combination of a very generalised conclusion about the trauma and the
8 relatively imprecise in one part and in another part a little bit more
9 precise description of the trauma findings.
10 Q. Now I would like us to move on to something else. You've told us
11 that these findings, the autopsy findings, for the graves in Nova Kasaba
12 number 6, 7 and 8 are rather correct and that they have been done
13 according to the rules of the profession. In your findings, you have
14 commented upon that. Before we move on to your report on these graves,
15 could you please provide us with a general picture of these autopsy
16 findings concerning Nova Kasaba? What can you tell bus the findings, the
17 conclusions, the causes of death and so on and so forth?
18 A. There are two things here that I would like to highlight. First
19 of all, Nova Kasaba number 6, 7 and 8, in the description of the main
20 injuries, there is a very precise description of the injuries, which can
21 help a professional in concluding that those indeed were injuries of
22 certain kind. The descriptions of some bone fractures, not only of the
23 skull but also of all the other bones is very precise, so one can easily
24 draw conclusions based on that.
25 For example, in one of the cases, Nova Kasaba 6, body number 1,
1 there is a very precise description of the trauma, and I'm talking in
2 very general terms about this trauma. Those were actually bone injuries.
3 And the pathologist precisely describes all the elements that should be
4 contained in a post-mortem report. However, when it comes to the cause
5 of death, he had certain reservations, and irrespective of the very
6 detailed description, he said that it was impossible to establish the
7 cause of death.
8 Q. I apologise. This is Nova Kasaba 6 or --
9 A. Nova Kasaba 6, case number 1001. 001. Not 1001 but 001. I'm
10 just correcting the transcript here.
11 In the second case found at the same site, the head trauma has
12 been described very well, in great detail and with a great precision.
13 Q. Can you just give me a moment, please?
14 A. I apologise.
15 Q. I apologise. We have been given a wrong report. Just ignore my
16 question, and please describe the situation. We'll try and obtain the
17 correct thing, Nova Kasaba 6.
18 A. In general terms, I have quoted something that I have put in my
19 report in a very detailed form, and I can only say that the descriptions
20 correspond to the diagnosis and this is what I can say in general terms
21 about these three sites, Nova Kasaba 6, 7 and 8. Without offering any
22 comments on the cause of death, but -- and I emphasise that -- but what
23 is important and what differs, these three locations, sites, from the
24 previous three sites is the very detailed descriptions of the findings,
25 which indeed confirm that the injuries were inflicted with firearms.
1 Q. In general terms, can you now tell us something about the graves
2 in Nova Kasaba under numbers 6, 7 and 8? Are they primary graves?
3 A. Yes, they are primary graves according to the information that I
5 Q. And can you also tell us, in very general terms, what was the
6 status of the bodies found in those graves? What was their condition?
7 A. Judging by the description of the external appearance of the
8 mortal remains, there is a lack of precision in the description of the
9 degree of putrefaction that I have already emphasised before. For
10 example, in most of the cases, what is said is a complete body with
11 clothes, but only the bones are present but no soft tissue. This is a
12 rather correct description. But there are descriptions lacking detail on
13 the degree of putrefaction and where those -- where the soft tissue is
14 preserved, which does not help the forensic expert to conclude anything
15 about the possible time of death. So these are the general shortcomings
16 and deficiencies that I could easily apply to all the other sites that I
17 had an opportunity to look at.
18 Q. When it comes to the bodies, as far as I understood you, there
19 was the presence of soft tissues at the moment of autopsy, at least in
20 some of the bodies.
21 A. You're talking about mortal remains?
22 Q. Yes, mortal remains. Was there any difference noticed in the
23 degree of what you call it, skeletonisation or putrefaction or the
24 decomposition of those soft tissues in the bodies that were found in
25 these particular graves?
1 A. There is a difference in the description of the putrefaction and
2 decomposition. Some bodies are completely skeletonised and some other
3 sites there are soft tissues that were subject to putrefaction, to the
4 degree of very deep saponification. Let me just quote NK 8. That's the
5 site. And the case number is 46. It says here, "Soft tissues at head on
6 the hands whereas the trunk is deeply saponified." What I'm reading here
7 about the saponification, I as an expert can conclude that this part of
8 the body had been exposed to high humidity, i.e. that it had been lying
9 in a body of water or that there was water in the grave, or that it had
10 previously lay in some humid conditions that had created conditions for
11 the onset of saponfication, and based on such description, one can assume
12 or conclude whether the body was in humid conditions before the burial or
13 in the grave itself.
14 Q. I'm going to show you this as well as some other findings
15 tomorrow, but before that, let me ask you to explain this term
16 saponification because this is as very technical term that we have not
17 come across before.
18 A. This is a degree of putrefaction. This is a specific type of
19 changes on the soft tissue which is of some importance for -- to us
20 forensic experts. Where there is saponification, that means that that
21 part of the body or the whole body lay in high humidity, and those soft
22 tissues transformed into soap. Later on, on a body saponified in this
23 way, calcium is deposited on that part of the body, and the -- this turns
24 into a saponified remains. This is very important for establishing the
25 time of death, the time of death from the time of death to the moment of
1 saponification. And at the same time, a body saponified in this way or
2 putrefied in this way allow the pathologist to notice even those changes,
3 for example wounds or injuries, which he could not have noticed in the
4 initial stages of putrefaction.
5 So when you say saponification, you mean the degree of
6 putrefaction in which the tissue is so much altered that it looks like
7 soap or can be calcified, and this is why it is very important to
8 describe in very tiny detail which parts of the body have been
9 saponified, which have been skeletonised and the latter term implies a
10 complete lack of soft tissues and the fact that the bones are completely
11 bare. There's are the same thing as in the disarticulation of joints
12 which happens due to putrefaction and is also used to establish the time
13 of death.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think we can leave it at that. We
15 will continue tomorrow, Professor Dunjic, and I wish you all a very nice
16 evening. Thank you.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.
18 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 26th day of June,
19 2008, at 2.15 p.m.