Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 27840

 1                           Wednesday, 5 November 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good morning, Madam Registrar.  Could you call the

 7     case, please.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is the case

 9     number IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  All the accused are present.

11     Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Mitchell.  Absent amongst the

12     Defence teams are the following:  Mr. Nikolic, Mr. Bourgon, Mr. Krgovic,

13     and that's it.  The witness is here.

14             Professor Dunjic, good morning to you.  Welcome back.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Hopefully we'll finish with your testimony today.

17     I don't know.  I don't promise, but we'll try.

18             Mr. Gosnell.  You've finished?  Yes.  We had finished

19     Mr. Gosnell.  We had finished Ms. Nikolic.  So it's Ms. Fauveau.

20             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] President, I have a couple of short

21     questions.

22                           WITNESS:  DUSAN DUNJIC [Resumed]

23                           [Witness answered through interpretation]

24                           Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:

25        Q.   My name is Natacha Fauveau Ivanovic, and I represent General

Page 27841

 1     Miletic.  I would now like to ask you a few questions on Potocari.

 2             Yesterday, you stated that on the basis of the report it was

 3     impossible to establish the moment of death.  I am interested in the

 4     following:  During the autopsy, was it possible to establish the time of

 5     death using methods?

 6        A.   No.  No, during the autopsy that was not possible to establish

 7     nor was it possible during the exhumation, but during the exhumation and

 8     during the autopsy it was necessary to describe various elements which

 9     would have helped us to determine more precisely the time of death such

10     as the changes on the corpse, et cetera.  These are the elements missing

11     in these autopsy reports, and it's from these elements that we indirectly

12     find out approximately the time of death or the time of burial.  Those

13     are two things, the time of burial and the time of death.

14        Q.   Today, on the basis of the elements which you have and which are

15     in these reports, you cannot tell us at all when -- if it was in 1992,

16     1993, 1995, the people died, the moment of death?

17        A.   No, no.  No, based on this I cannot make that determination.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Ms. Fauveau.  Mr. Josse.

19             MR. JOSSE:  Nothing from us, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Mr. Haynes.

21             MR. HAYNES:  No, thank you, Mr. President.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Haynes.  Mr. Mitchell.  How long do

23     you expect your cross-examination to last?

24             MR. MITCHELL:  I hope less than an hour, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Go ahead.  Then, please make sure that

Page 27842

 1     the next witness is here as soon as we finish.  Thank you.

 2                           Cross-examination by Mr. Mitchell:

 3        Q.   Good morning, Professor.

 4        A.   Good morning.

 5        Q.   I'd like to start out and ask you a couple of questions about the

 6     examination from my friend from the Nikolic team yesterday.

 7             MR. MITCHELL:  Can I go into private session, Your Honour?

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Sure.  Let's go into private session.

 9                           [Private session]

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 27843











11 Pages 27843-27845 redacted. Private session.















Page 27846

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4                           [Open session]

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  We are back in open session, and if you need to --

 6     the gentleman you've been referring to and others that we need to be in

 7     private session, please be careful.  Draw our attention, and we'll go

 8     back in private session.

 9                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

10             MR. MITCHELL:

11        Q.   Professor, I want to read you a paragraph on this page and then

12     get your comments on it.  Under the second bullet point, it says: "ICMP

13     anthropologists do not engage in identification of human remains.  They

14     assist local authorities with exhumations and prepare remains for DNA

15     testing.  ICMP would like to ensure that remains are buried only once DNA

16     testing has been completed.  Especially in the early days, however, ICMP

17     and local authorities were not always able to ensure that remains are

18     buried following DNA testing only.  As a consequence, re-exhumations have

19     become necessary, in particular where a missing person is recovered and

20     identified as someone whom family members believe they have already

21     buried."

22             Now, Professor, are you familiar with this situation described

23     here where an error is made in the anthropological identification and

24     it's then later corrected through DNA analysis?

25        A.   Yes.  That is mentioned in that text several times, only I have a

Page 27847

 1     comment about this in case you care to hear it.  Anthropologists have a

 2     very significant role in the verification, not only in the preparation of

 3     samples for DNA identification.  I said it yesterday, and I'll repeat it

 4     now:  Identification is a complex process in which the DNA analysis is

 5     the crown of all that must be done.  But it is not an untouchable,

 6     undoubtable proof because errors can be made in the extraction and the

 7     storage, et cetera, and also in the interpretation of the DNA profile.

 8     So in order to make a complete analysis, you need the forensic aspect,

 9     the anthropological aspect, and the genetic aspect, so that I do not

10     fully agree with the ICMP in that sentence about anthropologists.

11        Q.   Okay.  Professor, in 1998 you supervised exhumations at Lake

12     Radonjic, correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And you and three of your colleagues -- well, 39 bodies were

15     recovered from this site, correct -- I mean, a minimum of 39 bodies?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And you and your colleagues identified 12 of these bodies by

18     anthropological methods, correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And the DNA analysis later showed that three of these

21     identifications were incorrect?

22        A.   Yes, indeed.  Can I comment, though, and reply to that --

23        Q.   Yes.

24        A.   -- since I'm the living proof of the fact that incomplete

25     identification can lead to wrong conclusions.  I was head of the team

Page 27848

 1     making an anthropological analysis and other analyses, but we had still

 2     to do DNA analysis.  So we had to extract samples for DNA analysis.  This

 3     was all in the summer of 1998.  If you apply the classical identification

 4     method, apart from anthropological and forensic aspects, you need to take

 5     samples from the nearest of kin.  So you need ante-mortem data that go to

 6     show what kind of person that was, how he or she was dressed, how tall he

 7     or she was, and other anthropological characteristics, which information

 8     must be matched to what you find in the field.  But the problem with the

 9     remains of the clothes was that the relatives gave wrong information, or

10     they misidentified some clothes; and the greatest problems was with

11     Albanians who wouldn't and weren't allowed to testify as to some of their

12     near relative died.

13             So based on the information that some relative recognized a piece

14     of clothing, we identified an individual as being X or Y, but it turned

15     out that we made some mistakes, and we were aware of it at the time.

16     So -- and I repeat that identification based on anthropological

17     information is very sensitive.  We made no forensic mistakes.  We were

18     very precise.  But some details that were essential - in this case it was

19     DNA - led us to correct our conclusions so that -- and the example of the

20     possibility of making mistakes.

21             So why am I telling you that?  I went to Madrid with the

22     representative of the Prosecution to transport some samples, and what is

23     mentioned in this letter - I mean the personnel we referred to - we were

24     taking samples to Madrid to make an analysis, and the samples of bones

25     that were found in Batajnica, for those we got profiles right away.  The

Page 27849

 1     samples from the case that you referred to, they were stored in plastic

 2     bags and refrigerated, and so they decayed, and -- so there was

 3     accelerated decay due to the circumstance in Belgrade at the time.  And

 4     in Madrid, they were not able to determine the DNA samples.  And those

 5     samples from Madrid, once we learned about it, we had to re-exhume all

 6     the corpses that were found in Kosovo, and only then was a correct

 7     profile made.  That was the whole story why a mistake was made in the

 8     identification.  So that I'm very familiar with that.

 9             The DNA profile we saw yesterday is the DNA profile of a bone

10     from the electropherogram, and that is very important.  The

11     electropherogram enables you to make an accurate DNA profile.  You now

12     remember those peaks I pointed out to you.

13        Q.   So based on your experience, you'd agree that DNA-matching is an

14     integral part of the identification process that started with the

15     anthropological and forensic examination of the remains?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18        A.   You're right.  That's the right thing to do.  That would be the

19     true identification.

20        Q.   Now, let's move to a different area.  I'd like to talk to you

21     about the graves in Potocari that you were asked some questions about

22     yesterday.  There are three known graves in Potocari, correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   There is one behind the zinc factory, which was assumed in 2004;

25     there's one which was exhumed in the Rabin field in 2005; and a second

Page 27850

 1     grave exhumed in the Rabin field in 2006, correct?

 2        A.   Yes, yes.

 3             MR. MITCHELL:  Can we go into private session briefly, Your

 4     Honour.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's go into private session, please.

 6                           [Private session]

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 27851

 1                           [Open session]

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay, you can go ahead now.  Thank you.

 3             MR. MITCHELL:

 4        Q.   I'd now like to clarify with you the exact location of these

 5     graves.

 6             MR. MITCHELL:  And can I please have in e-court 65 ter 3894.

 7     That's page 2.

 8        Q.   Now, Professor, what you're about to see is a sketch done by an

 9     RS MUP crime technician of the 2005 exhumation site in the Rabin field.

10     If we can just scroll down a little bit.  As you can see on the sketch,

11     the site is located approximately 27 metres from the Budak road and 3

12     metres away from the stream on the left-hand side of the field.

13             Now, yesterday you confirmed that there were three bodies exhumed

14     from this grave in 2005, correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Okay.  And these bodies are labeled SR-POT-01/1, 2, and 3?

17        A.   Yes.

18             MR. MITCHELL:  Can I please have in e-court 65 ter 3895?

19        Q.   Now, Professor, what you're going to see here is another sketch

20     done by an RS MUP crime technician which shows the site of the 2006

21     exhumation in the Rabin field.

22             Now, the exhumation report for this site which you reviewed for

23     your report actually had the incorrect coordinates written on it.  The

24     correct coordinates are written on the sketch, and these have been

25     verified by a Prosecution investigator who went to that site.  So looking

Page 27852

 1     at this sketch, you can see that the second grave is 29 metres from the

 2     road and 6 metres in from the stream.  Can you see that?  So you can tell

 3     from these measurements that this grave is within a couple of metres of

 4     the one that was exhumed in 2005, correct?

 5        A.   A bit more to the north, I would say.  I actually don't know

 6     where east is, where north is.  This is 29 and this is 27, so it would be

 7     one on top of the other or one above the other if -- that's how they were

 8     positioned, one on top of the other.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Now, there were ten sets of remains exhumed from this site

10     in 2006, correct?

11        A.   Those were not ten bodies --

12        Q.   Ten sets of --

13        A.   -- and there were six men and one woman [Realtime transcript read

14     in error, "six women"].  Yes.

15        Q.   Okay.  And you testified yesterday that only one of these sets of

16     remains mentioned any evidence of injury in the autopsy report, correct?

17     That was case number 7.

18        A.   Yes.  I said that there was only such an expression -- a

19     description, i.e., of the presence of an injury that might but only might

20     correspond to a wound inflicted by a firearm.  We are talking about

21     number 7, aren't we?

22        Q.   Correct.

23             MR. MITCHELL:  Can I please have in e-court --

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.  Yes, Madam Fauveau, please.

25             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it's just to correct

Page 27853

 1     the transcript.  Page 13, line 8, one reads, "there were six men and six

 2     women", and this is not exactly what the witness said.  Could the witness

 3     perhaps repeat his answer concerning the number of bodies?

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Professor -- thank you, Ms. Fauveau.

 5     Can you follow-up on that, please?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Six men.  Thank you.  Six men, one

 7     woman.  That's what I said, and that's how it was recorded.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 9             MR. MITCHELL:  Can we please look at 65 ter number 4D00540.

10        Q.   Now, Professor, this is your report.

11             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can go to page 38 in the English and page 20

12     in the B/C/S.

13        Q.   Professor, this is the autopsy report for the remains labeled POT

14     01 SRE 001.  Now, under the heading "Other Observations," the autopsy

15     reports significant trauma to this body, including damage to the

16     supraspinatus and infraspinatus fossa of the right scapula.  Now, that

17     damage isn't identified as post-mortem damage, is it?

18        A.   No, no.  Please, when we're talking about D, it says evidence of

19     injury, and it says none under that, which means that there is no

20     evidence of injury.

21        Q.   Professor --

22        A.   Please, and then it says "Other Observations."  Under that, it

23     says PM damage to the distal ends of the left clavicle; damage and

24     effects to the supraspinatus and infraspinatus scapula fossa, P; and

25     damage to the anterior and posterial ends of the ribs bilaterally; and

Page 27854

 1     let me not go on reading the rest of the observations.  So the other

 2     observations marked as PM is just a list of the things that were observed

 3     and that could be explained or accounted for as post-mortem injuries,

 4     e.g., after the death.  These were not considered proofs of injury, and

 5     they could not establish even with a lesser extent of reliability what

 6     the cause of death was, and let me just finish.  When you read this under

 7     "Other Observations," and if we go back to the previous case of which you

 8     have asked me and for which you have witnesses that the person had

 9     committed suicide - and I won't mention the name of the person who hanged

10     himself - in the same paragraph of the post-mortem record under "Other

11     Observations," you will see very similar descriptions of damages and

12     defects, which means that it was done by one and the same person in the

13     same way and that damages and defects were described very inconsistently.

14     That's why we are unable to draw any conclusions, any final conclusions,

15     and that's what I've been claiming all this time.

16        Q.   Professor, it was a simple question.  That damage to the

17     supraspinatus and infraspinatus fossa isn't listed as post-mortem damage,

18     is it?

19        A.   That's very possible.  However, I'm not aware of the nature of

20     the damage.  I am not aware of the nature of the defect.

21        Q.   There is no indication there, is there, Professor?  There is

22     no -- nothing there that says post-mortem?

23        A.   It says PM.  PM.

24        Q.   But it doesn't say PM on the line that describes damage to the

25     right scapula, does it, Professor?

Page 27855

 1        A.   Please, this PM, I provided a comment on that in my written

 2     report.  There is nothing to describe here as being ante-mortem or

 3     post-mortem if you're dealing with a skeleton.  I will accept this as it

 4     has been written, as PM.  However, the line that you have just read out

 5     where the abbreviation PM is missing, this abbreviation, PM, does not

 6     accompany every sentence.  However, this is a description that means

 7     nothing.  Just the word "damage" doesn't mean a thing.  It's as if I were

 8     to say, for example, that we all have pencils on our tables as -- and you

 9     are supposed to take that as a fact.  However, I have a ballpoint pen,

10     some have other things, and some don't have pencils at all.  So this is a

11     general term which this person used and was not supposed to use.  This is

12     something that should not be used in forensic science.

13             If you consider the word "defect," how would you explain that to

14     the judges?  I know what a defect is.  It can be a skin defect.  It can

15     be a bone defect.  It has its surface.  It has its borders.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Stop, stop, stop.  I think the essence of any

17     testimony, examination-in-chief and cross-examination is to make sure

18     that we stick to what is relevant and we do it in a concise way and that

19     we are all able to distinguish the wheat from the chaff.  I don't think

20     we have been doing this, so from now on - especially Professor, I am

21     addressing myself to you in particular - if you expand beyond what is

22     barely necessary or if you, Mr. Mitchell, together with the witness

23     concentrate on matters that we feel are not that important or relevant,

24     we will be drawing your attention and directing you to cut it short.  So

25     let's proceed.

Page 27856

 1             MR. MITCHELL:

 2        Q.   Professor, I just have one more question about this autopsy

 3     report.  Under the heading "Samples Taken," it lists a projectile,

 4     correct?

 5        A.   No.  It says "projectiles," plural.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Now, I don't want to go through all the other reports from

 7     this site, but I want to briefly summarise some of the findings for you.

 8     The autopsy reports for POT 01 SRE 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 all describe

 9     trauma under the heading "Other Observations" in the autopsy report, and

10     they all describe at least some trauma that is not listed as post-mortem.

11             In addition, under the heading "Samples Taken," projectiles are

12     listed in each of those autopsy reports that I've just named.  So,

13     Professor, isn't it fair to say that each of these autopsy reports

14     actually does describe significant trauma to the remains; it's just not

15     listed under the heading "Evidence of Injury"?

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  One moment, Professor, before you answer.

17     Ms. Fauveau.

18             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have an

19     observation to make.  I'm not sure that the witness should stay here

20     while we are discussing this aspect.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  If I recall, Professor Dunjic does

22     understand English.  Is that correct?  Yes, he did does.  So I think you

23     need to leave the courtroom for a short while, please.

24                      [Witness stands down]

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Madam.

Page 27857

 1             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, here one starts from

 2     the presumption that the projectile was -- if you look at the autopsy

 3     report, one sees, indeed, that the samples taken, colon, and then the

 4     projectiles, colon, hyphen, it means I think there were none; and then

 5     after that, you got again -- it says here "ADN has been taken," and then

 6     the rest will -- I'm not at all sure that the projectiles have been found

 7     and taken on the site.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you, Madam.  Do you wish to

 9     comment?

10             MR. MITCHELL:  Very briefly.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, please.  Thank you.

12             MR. MITCHELL:  Your Honour, it's under the heading "Samples

13     Taken."  I think the clear implication is that this is a sample that's

14     taken from the body.  In any event, the question I put to Professor

15     Dunjic was just asking him to confirm that that was actually written

16     under the heading.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  I think we can leave it at that, and then we

18     see, basically.  Don't you agree?

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Let's bring Professor Dunjic back, please.

21     Thank you.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you for your patience and understanding,

24     Professor.  We are proceeding, thank you.

25             MR. MITCHELL:

Page 27858

 1        Q.   Professor, my last question was:  Isn't it fair to say that in

 2     each of the autopsy reports that I just described, it actually does

 3     describe significant trauma to the remains; it's just not listed under

 4     the heading "Evidence of Injury."  Isn't that correct?

 5        A.   No, it's not correct, first of all.  Not completely.  You can't

 6     say that they sustained those injuries.  In the chapter evidence of

 7     injury it says, loud and clear, none.  And then after that, there is a

 8     sub-chapter entitled "Other Observations," so there is no evidence of

 9     injury on the one hand and there are injuries on the other hand, and the

10     person lists fractures, defects, on various bones.  They were -- are not

11     described according to any standards.  There is no mechanism of injury,

12     and he doesn't put them in the group entitled "Evidence of Injury."

13     These are merely his observations, the things that he saw; and from that,

14     he arrived at a conclusion that the cause of death cannot be established.

15     This is the consistency between the conclusion and the findings that I've

16     already spoken about.

17             And as for the samples taken, and it says "Projectiles,"

18     semi-colon, dash, I've already explained that.  It doesn't say whether 1,

19     2, 3, 4, or more projectiles were found in which part of the body, in

20     which of the bones, and there is no evidence of the projectile

21     penetration either on the clothes or on the bones.  This is nothing but a

22     form which is printed and copied, one of the entries is "Samples Taken,"

23     "Projectiles," so if you find them as a doctor, you just say that

24     projectiles were found, and you may even add to that how many were found.

25     And this is the way you should understand this report or findings.

Page 27859

 1        Q.   Okay.  There were ten sets of remains that were found at this

 2     site in 2006, and yesterday you testified that the autopsy reports showed

 3     seven actual bodies, correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             MR. MITCHELL:  Can we go into private session, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, of course, Mr. Mitchell.

 7                           [Private session]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 27860

 1                           [Open session]

 2             MR. MITCHELL:

 3        Q.   So just to summarise this information on the Rabin field graves,

 4     Professor:  We had three graves exhumed in 2005, and in 2006 an

 5     additional six bodies have been identified.  So that's a total of nine

 6     bodies from this area of the Rabin field, correct?

 7        A.   I would have to go back to that to see whether there were six or

 8     nine.  In addition to the six identifications, the other two would make

 9     up seven, seven and eight were reassociated, so I suppose it was nine.

10             Your Honours, I've never had this document when I prepared my

11     analysis, this document showing DNA identifications.  I had post-mortem

12     reports which state that the skull marked by number 5 is a female skull,

13     and that was all.  However, if the DNA matching was done and

14     reassociation with the bones and the case is taken as 003, then it is

15     just person.  And this only confirms something that I've already said,

16     and that is that the information in the post-mortem reports are totally

17     non-transparent; and for me as pathologist, forensic pathologist, I can't

18     confirm that.  I have to reject this.  And then you give me a DNA

19     matching report, which says that it was not two bodies but just one, so

20     the whole process of exhumations and identification is now being

21     questioned.  I don't know what else to say.

22        Q.   Professor, I just want to confirm the numbers with you.  It was

23     three bodies exhumed in 2005, and after you've seen this DNA matching

24     report, we now know there were six individuals exhumed in 2006.  And

25     that's a total of nine bodies, correct?

Page 27861

 1        A.   In 2006, there was a total of ten skeletal remains; and in 2005,

 2     there were three skeletal remains.  In 2004, there was just one skeletal

 3     remains in the Potocari location.

 4        Q.   Professor, yesterday my friend from the Borovcanin Defence team

 5     told you about six individuals who died or were killed in the DutchBat

 6     compound and whose remains are unaccounted for.  He then asked you if

 7     there was anything in the forensic material that would exclude the

 8     possibility that those six individuals were buried in the Rabin field

 9     graves.  Do you remember that, Professor?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Okay.  Well, I'd like to put a different situation before you

12     based on facts in this case, and we discussed this briefly last time you

13     were here, but I want to give you a little bit -- a few more details this

14     time.  Now, we've heard testimony in this case from two United Nations

15     officers, Koster and Rutten, who saw nine bodies with gunshot wounds next

16     to a stream in Potocari on 13 July 1995.  A third DutchBat officer,

17     PW114, described seeing nine to ten bodies in the same area on the same

18     date.

19             Now, all three of these officers gave evidence that the

20     individuals had been shot in the back.  Now, Professor, an injury to one

21     or both scapula or to the ribs, that would be consistent with that

22     testimony, wouldn't it?

23        A.   That such injuries were found during the autopsy of the bodies or

24     if these were found, that would be consistent with that statement.  But

25     there simply are no injuries to those body parts that could stem from

Page 27862

 1     gunshot wounds.  There are no such injuries, and therefore ...

 2             MR. MITCHELL:  Can I please have in e-court 65 ter 3482.

 3        Q.   Professor, what we're about to see is an area of the Rabin field

 4     which was taken on 17 July 1995.

 5             MR. MITCHELL:  It might actually make more sense if we turn the

 6     picture upside down.

 7        Q.   Now, Professor, if you recall the sketches of the Rabin field

 8     graves that we looked at earlier, you can recognise the Budak road

 9     running along the bottom of the picture.  The stream is concealed in that

10     line of trees, just to the left of centre, and that's the Rabin field

11     itself in the centre of the picture.  Can you see that?

12        A.   Yes, yes.

13             MR. MITCHELL:  Can I please have 65 ter 3483 in e-court, please.

14     Now, if we can turn this one upside down as well.

15        Q.   Now, Professor, this is an aerial of the Rabin field from 27 July

16     1995 --

17             MR. MITCHELL:  Sorry, can we turn it upside down.

18        Q.   Now, sometime between 17 and 27 July, two areas of disturbed

19     earth appeared in the Rabin field.  Now, if you remember where the

20     sketches of those two graves were located, you will see that that one

21     area to the left of your screen is the same area where the nine bodies

22     were exhumed in 2005 and 2006.

23             MR. MITCHELL:  Now, can I please in e-court 65 ter number 3897,

24     and I actually have hard copies of these.  If I can give one to the

25     witness and four to the Bench.  It's also in e-court.

Page 27863

 1        Q.   Now, Professor, this is a compilation of aerials of the Rabin

 2     field which were put together by a Prosecution investigator.  Now, the

 3     larger image shows that area of disturbed earth which appeared between 17

 4     and 27 July.  The three smaller images were taken from aerials marked by

 5     those three DutchBat witnesses to show the spot where they saw nine or

 6     ten bodies on 13 July; and just to clarify, on the larger image the

 7     investigator placed those marks there just to highlight the spot, the

 8     places marked by those DutchBat witnesses.

 9             So to summarise this information, we have witnesses -- three

10     witnesses who saw nine to ten bodies next to a stream in Potocari on 13

11     July 1995.  They all testified that the bodies had gunshot wounds to the

12     back.  Now, sometime between 17 and 27 July, an area of disturbed earth

13     appeared in the Rabin field within metres of where those DutchBat

14     witnesses saw the nine or ten bodies.  Then in 2005 and 2006, we have

15     nine bodies exhumed from the same area.

16             Professor, could this information assist you in determining what

17     happened to the nine individuals who were exhumed from the Rabin field

18     graves in 2005 and 2006?

19        A.   I apologise again.  The DNA identification that you showed in

20     private session, how many bodies were identified there as a total?

21     Because I have the identification of six persons, and I don't know if

22     those are bones of the arm, but that doesn't amount to a total of nine by

23     any means.

24        Q.   Professor, there were six bodies identified in 2006, and as

25     you'll recall, in 2005 there were a further three bodies exhumed from a

Page 27864

 1     site right next to that one.  So it's the three plus the six equals nine.

 2        A.   All right.  So you are adding up what was exhumed in 2006 and

 3     2005.  All right.  So could you please put your question again with

 4     regard to these sketches.

 5        Q.   Certainly.  As I said, we have three witnesses who saw nine or

 6     ten bodies in this area.  They testified that the bodies had gunshot

 7     wounds to the back; an area of disturbed earth appeared between 17 and 27

 8     July; and then in 2005 and 2006, a total of nine bodies is exhumed from

 9     that area.  And my question was:  Could this information assist you in

10     determining what happened to those nine individuals who were exhumed in

11     2005 and 2006?

12        A.   The statement they made can point to nine persons who suffered

13     gunshot wounds.  That is a realistic assumption.  For that realistic

14     assumption to be considered evidence in court, it must be accompanied

15     with autopsy reports to corroborate that; and we are talking about two

16     things, three persons and six persons found at two different sites,

17     albeit close, but two sites nonetheless, which points toward two

18     inhumations or burials.  Out of these persons that I haven't seen the

19     autopsy reports for three, but I reviewed in detail the reports for the

20     other six, in none but one case, number 7, I have found the description

21     of an injury that would be consistent with inflicting a gunshot wound,

22     inflicting a gunshot wound.  That is reason for me to doubt things in my

23     witness statement.  And the clothing remains for -- on these bodies and

24     from 2005 and 2006, so the description of that clothing does not include

25     damage done by a projectile.  And then, obviously, the anthropological

Page 27865

 1     analysis here is highly suspect because an error was made, for example,

 2     in determining the gender of an individual whose skull was found.  And

 3     this, in my observation, when I say that this was completely

 4     untransparent and actually unusable and superficially drafted, is now

 5     again confirmed.  And the statements of the witnesses who saw that cannot

 6     be matched with the forensic findings.  So the forensic findings cannot

 7     confirm their statements.  I have nothing here to confirm the statements

 8     of those witnesses.

 9             MR. MITCHELL:  Your Honours, just to clarify.  There's a second

10     area of disturbed earth you can see on that image.  My information is

11     that that area has been probed and nothing has been found, so just to

12     clarify.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchell.

14             MR. MITCHELL:

15        Q.   Professor, I would like to move to a different area now and talk

16     about the Sandici grave, which you analysed in your report.

17             Now, as you told us in 2004, a grave was exhumed at Sandici which

18     contained 17 sets of remains, correct?

19        A.   Yes, in 2004.

20             MR. MITCHELL:  Can we go into private session, please.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Can we go into private session, please.

22                           [Private session]

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 27866











11 Page 27866 redacted. Private session.















Page 27867

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14                           [Open session]

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  We are in open session.

16             MR. MITCHELL:  And I am finished with this document, too.

17        Q.   Just a couple of more questions about your analysis of the

18     Sandici grave.  Professor, the Trial Chamber has heard evidence in this

19     case that on the evening of 13 July 1995, a group of 10 to 15 Muslim men

20     were executed at the Sandici meadow, executed by members of the RS

21     Special Police brigade from the Jahorina training centre.

22             Now, the witness who testified about this execution stated that

23     some of these witnesses were executed with bursts of fire and others with

24     a shot to the head.  Now, last time you testified here, you told us that

25     this kind of information could be very important for your analysis.  Do

Page 27868

 1     you remember that testimony?

 2        A.   Yes, I remember.  That is para -- medical information that can

 3     help me in choosing a direction for establishing the manner of inflicting

 4     injury.  When I got that information, I look for data in the autopsy

 5     report confirming that there were injuries as sustained from bursts of

 6     fire or shots to the head.

 7        Q.   And were you provided with this information when you were asked

 8     to analyse the autopsy reports from the Sandici grave?

 9        A.   In the autopsy reports, I didn't find such information except in

10     three cases --

11        Q.   Sorry, Professor.  You misunderstood my question.  I'm asking,

12     were you provided with the information about this the witness's testimony

13     when you were asked to analyse the autopsy reports?

14        A.   No.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16        A.   No, no.

17        Q.   Now, in addition to the grave we've just discussed, there are six

18     sets of surface remains that were found in the Sandici area, correct?

19     There were three sets in 2000, one set in 2001, one in 2002, and then one

20     in 2005, and that's in your report, correct?

21        A.   [In English] Uh-huh.  [Interpretation] And that was contained in

22     the documents that I reviewed.

23        Q.   Well, we're about to look at that document.

24             MR. MITCHELL:  Can I please have 65 ter number 3609 in e-court.

25        Q.   Now, what we're about to see, Professor, it's that document from

Page 27869

 1     the Federal Commission for Missing Persons dated 28 December 2007, which

 2     contains information on all the surface remains found between 1996.

 3             MR. MITCHELL:  Is there an English translation?

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  It's not released.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't find that document.

 6             MR. MITCHELL:

 7        Q.   Now, Professor, this -- yes, you'll recall from your review that

 8     this contains information on all the surface remains --

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   -- between 1996 --

11        A.   Yes, this is it.

12        Q.   -- and 2007?

13             MR. MITCHELL:  Now, if we can go to page 3 of this letter, and

14     there should be a translation in e-court now.

15        Q.   Now, this letter shows that between 1996 and 2007, a total of 929

16     sets of surface remains were collected in the area from Ravni Bujan to

17     Nezuk and the surrounding areas, correct?  I just need an answer for the

18     transcript, Professor.

19        A.   Yes, I know about this.  I know.  I know exactly.  I know this

20     document exactly.

21        Q.   And there's 484 of these remains have been identified, correct?

22        A.   Were identified, yes.

23        Q.   Now, in the surface remains update there were three people who

24     were reported missing in 1993, correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 27870

 1        Q.   And we can agree that the death of those three individuals is not

 2     related to the fall of Srebrenica in 1995?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Now, in --

 5        A.   They went missing in 1993, and they are on this list of surface

 6     remains.

 7        Q.   Now, in your report you've identified a further 19 individuals

 8     who went missing in August 1995, 3 in September 1995, and 2 in October

 9     1995; and you suggested that these are not connected with the fall of

10     Srebrenica in July 1995.  Is that correct?

11        A.   Yes, that is my opinion.

12        Q.   Professor, are you aware that following the fall of Srebrenica,

13     groups of Muslim men remained for weeks and sometimes months in the woods

14     in Serbian territory while they were attempting to get to Muslim-held

15     territory?

16        A.   I can only assume as much.

17        Q.   And are you --

18        A.   I can't say I know it.

19        Q.   Okay.  Well, so you're not aware that specific evidence in this

20     case that Muslim men that were still being captured by Bosnian Serb

21     forces until at least mid-November 1995?

22        A.   That information is not known to me.  I'm a forensic expert.  I

23     did not have an opportunity to read anything of the kind.  I quoted the

24     statements to which I referred in my previous reports -- report submitted

25     here, and I referred to events that took place in that period, no more

Page 27871

 1     than that.  I don't know about any other statements.

 2        Q.   Professor, I just have one more quick area I'd like to cover in

 3     respect of surface remains.

 4             MR. MITCHELL:  Can I please 65 ter 3902 in e-court, and it's

 5     under seal.

 6        Q.   Unfortunately, Professor, there's not a translation of this

 7     document.  It was a short information report that was prepared yesterday

 8     by a Prosecution investigator, just to update this information in the

 9     surface remains document.  Now, it's the Prosecution's position that to

10     date, 620 Srebrenica-related individuals have been identified from that

11     total of 929 surface remains cases that were collected between 1996 and

12     2007.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

14             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  May I ask just clarification of the term

15     "Srebrenica-related"?  What does it mean?

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

17             MR. MITCHELL:  Referring to people who went missing in July,

18     August, September, October, 1995.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you, let's proceed now, and it's

20     time for the break.  As soon as Professor Dunjic answers this question,

21     we'll go.

22             MR. MITCHELL:  I have just a couple of minutes, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.

24             MR. MITCHELL:

25        Q.   Professor, I just wanted to very quickly work through this number

Page 27872

 1     of 620 with you just so the Court and everybody understands where it came

 2     from.  Now, in the surface remains update that we just looked at, there

 3     were 484 individuals.  We subtracted the three individuals who were

 4     reported missing in 1993, which leaves us with 481.  The investigator who

 5     drafted this report then identified 139 individuals in the ICMP's 2008

 6     update, and he identified them as surface remains based on their case ID,

 7     which corresponded with data in that surface remains update.

 8             So the 481 individuals in the update plus the 139 individuals

 9     from the ICMP update equals 620 identified individuals out of that total

10     of 929 surface remains cases.  In your view, does that help clarify this

11     issue of surface remains and the numbers of Srebrenica-related

12     individuals?

13        A.   It is logical that the bodies would be scattered all over the

14     place, on the surface, in the woods, in the fields during war.  It's only

15     logical, as I say, and I can fully appreciate that, why they were

16     scattered and found like that.  The circumstances which led to their

17     death is something that can only be shown by forensic pathology findings,

18     and without that you cannot establish the time of death without an

19     autopsy.  I don't know who these people are.  You're showing me the

20     extended list, i.e., the document with that list, and I can only say that

21     these persons were found under various circumstances.  Now, whether these

22     circumstances were tied to Srebrenica or some other cases that took place

23     before the 11th of July around Srebrenica which is very significant,

24     before the 11th of July or after the 11th of July, I can't say that

25     without an autopsy, i.e., without the time of death being at least

Page 27873

 1     approximately established; and this is what I can tell you from my

 2     standpoint, from the forensic pathology standpoint.

 3        Q.   Thank you, Professor.

 4             MR. MITCHELL:  I'll have about maybe ten minutes after the break.

 5     That will be all.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  We'll have a 25-minute break now.  Thank you.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

10             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.

11        Q.   Professor, there's one final area which I'd like to talk to you

12     about.

13             MR. MITCHELL:  Can I please have in e-court 65 ter number

14     4D00540.  That's Professor Dunjic's report, and it's page 140 in the

15     English and page 73 in the B/C/S.

16        Q.   Professor, I want to read you just a small part of your report

17     and then ask you a couple of questions about it.  Now, under the heading

18     "Clothes," you say: "At the site in Potocari and the site in Sandici,

19     winter clothes were found on some individuals, which points to the fact

20     that these people died in the winter period before/after the fall of

21     Srebrenica.  Another possible conclusion pertaining to the winter clothes

22     discovered at both sites could be a different time of death than stated

23     of persons at the same site and also burial at the same site on several

24     occasions."

25             Now, earlier in your report you described these winter clothes as

Page 27874

 1     things such as woollen socks, sweaters, jackets, and leather boots,

 2     correct?

 3        A.   Yes.  But it was not me saying this.  I just quoted from the

 4     findings of the physicians who were involved in exhumations and

 5     autopsies.

 6        Q.   I want to show you a few pictures from videos that were taken in

 7     Potocari and Sandici on 13 July 1995.

 8             MR. MITCHELL:  Can I please have in e-court 65 ter 2992.  If we

 9     can go to page 6.

10        Q.   Now, Professor, this footage was taken in Potocari on 13 July

11     1995.  As you can see, a number of men wearing jackets, sweaters, and

12     what look like woollen hats.

13             MR. MITCHELL:  And if we can go to page 9.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Before we proceed, my attention is being drawn to

15     the fact that there are some names indicated.  I don't know whether those

16     should be protected or not.  Out of an abundance of caution, I suppose we

17     proceed out broadcasting.  It will be safe enough.  So no broadcast of --

18     and if you are going to make use of names, then we need to check whether

19     we need to be in private session.  Thank you.

20             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.

21        Q.   Professor, this is also Potocari on 13 July.  Again, you can see

22     men wearing jackets, sweaters, and hats.

23             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can go to page 14.

24        Q.   This footage was taken in Sandici on the 13th of July.  You can

25     see the heavy jacket that's being worn by this man.

Page 27875

 1             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can go to page 16.

 2        Q.   We can see this man is wearing a jacket and also what appears to

 3     be a sweater.

 4             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can go back to one final photo of Potocari

 5     on page 8.

 6        Q.   Now, Professor, you can see that the man on the left of this

 7     image is holding what appears to be a jacket and he's wearing a red vest.

 8             MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. President, can we go into private session for

 9     a minute.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's go into private session.

11                           [Private session]

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 27876











11 Page 27876 redacted. Private session.















Page 27877

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11                           [Open session]

12             MR. MITCHELL:  If I can just have one moment, please.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  We are in open session.  Yes, of course,

14     Mr. Mitchell.

15             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you, Professor.  I have no further

16     questions.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.  Is there a

18     re-examination, Mr. Gosnell?

19             MR. GOSNELL:  Very briefly, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, go ahead.

21             MR. GOSNELL:  Could we please have P3485 placed on e-court,

22     please.

23                           Re-examination by Mr. Gosnell:

24        Q.   While that's coming up, Professor, do you remember being asked

25     some questions --

Page 27878

 1             MR. GOSNELL:  Let me just repeat the exhibit I'm asking for.

 2     P3485.

 3        Q.   Professor Dunjic, do you recall being asked some questions about

 4     the findings marked on the Potocari autopsy reports that you reviewed?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   All right.  I'd now like to have you take a look at the document

 7     on the screen, and this appears to be the autopsy report for POT 01 SRE

 8     006.  Can you confirm that?

 9        A.   001, not 006.

10        Q.   I'm sorry.  Let me direct --

11             MR. GOSNELL:  Could we please have page 12 of the B/C/S version.

12        Q.   Do you see it now, Professor?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   All right.

15             MR. GOSNELL:  Could we now move to page 4 of the English and page

16     14 of the B/C/S, please.

17        Q.   Now, what do you see there under Section F?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Well, how would you -- looking at this, how would you interpret

20     the marking "projectile"?  Does it indicate that projectiles were found

21     in or near the remains?

22        A.   In my written report, I've already said that I wasn't clear on

23     this.  Under F where it says "Samples Taken," one would imply and one

24     should enter the evidence that was taken during the autopsy, something

25     that was found in the body or on the body during the autopsy.  Usually,

Page 27879

 1     these would be projectiles or parts thereof or something to that effect.

 2             The way things are written here says there were a number of

 3     projectiles, plural, with a dash, which means that the form had already

 4     contained projectiles as pieces of evidence.  So if they are to be found,

 5     their number should be listed together with the place where they were

 6     found.  But this doesn't mean either in this case or in a number of other

 7     cases that were projectiles were indeed found.  This is just a form of an

 8     autopsy report as was prepared in advance.

 9        Q.   All right.  And to the right of the DNA marking, do you see

10     details which actually describe something relevant to DNA?

11        A.   Yes.  It says that a sample taken from the body was not a

12     projectile.  What was taken was a section of the middle part of the right

13     femur and a tooth.  That was what was taken by way of DNA evidence, and

14     then it says "Other Things," nothing was taken.  So where it says

15     "projectiles," this is part of the form, but it does not refer to

16     anything that has actually been found either on the body or in the body.

17     That would be my answer to your question, sir.

18        Q.   And if nine individuals had been killed by gunshots, if all of

19     them according to the hypothesis had been killed by gunshots, would you

20     expect to find projectile traces in or near the remains?

21        A.   On the assumption that there had been execution by a burst of

22     fire, as it says here, at a least some fragments of the projectiles would

23     have been found in the tissue, in the bones, in the clothes.  At least

24     some of the clothes would have been damaged, and the damages would have

25     been described, but this is missing from these autopsy reports.  It

Page 27880

 1     hasn't been described.  It has not been listed in this report or on the

 2     reports describing the nine bodies found in Potocari.

 3             And let me digress a little bit further.  When you look at the

 4     description of the injuries on the bodies who are assumed to have been

 5     executed, and if you look at the description of the observations in case

 6     Potocari 1/1 whom the witnesses had said that he had hanged himself, you

 7     will see that the description is [Realtime transcript read in error,

 8     "isn't] identical in all of these cases.

 9             MR. GOSNELL:  I understand there is a transcription problem at

10     line 15, "is identical."

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  I thank you, Mr. Gosnell, instead of "isn't."

12             MR. GOSNELL:  Mr. President, we have no more questions.  Thank

13     you.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Gosnell.

15             Professor, it's over.  We don't have any further questions for

16     you.  I see how pleased you are, being able to return home.  Once more, I

17     have the pleasure of thanking you for having come over; and once more, I

18     wish you a safe journey back home.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thank you too.  I may have gone

20     on for a bit long, but I would like to thank you for allowing me to

21     express my expert opinion.

22                           [The witness withdrew]

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  So let's proceed.  Mr. Gosnell, documents?  I see

24     you have only got one.

25             MR. GOSNELL:  That's correct, Mr. President.

Page 27881

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Any objections, comments, Mr. Mitchell?

 2             MR. MITCHELL:  No objection, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Other Defence teams?  I hear no

 4     comments.  Document is admitted.  Ms. Nikolic, you have two documents,

 5     515 and 516.  Any objections, Mr. Mitchell?

 6             MR. MITCHELL:  Your Honour, there is no objection to 515, and we

 7     have no objection to 516 coming in provided that the ICMP response also

 8     comes in.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Ms. Nikolic, do you have any problems with that?

10             MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  So that's problem solved.  Any remarks

12     from any of the other Defence teams, Mr. Gosnell or Mr. Lazarevic?

13             MR. GOSNELL:  No comment from us, Mr. President.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  So these two documents in addition to the

15     one referred to by Mr. Mitchell, that would -- will accompany 3D00516,

16     forming an integral part of it, are being admitted.

17             Yes, Mr. Mitchell.  Prosecution documents?  You have 12.

18             MR. MITCHELL:  That's correct, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Any objections from the Borovcanin Defence team?

20             MR. GOSNELL:  Before I answer that question, first of all,

21     Mr. President, if I could just tell you that after looking more closely

22     at the Markovic exhibits, we have no objection.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  The four that you mentioned yesterday?

24             MR. GOSNELL:  Precisely.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

Page 27882

 1             MR. GOSNELL:  And I wish to tell you that first because I would

 2     again would request your indulgence to review these documents.  There are

 3     one or two in particular we may have some concerns with, and I would just

 4     -- I need to go back and look and see what's been previously admitted.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  We'll call on you again after the next

 6     break.  Ms. Nikolic?

 7             MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with regard to 3902

 8     from the OTP list proposed with Professor Dunjic - that's the last

 9     document, yes - this is a report that the OTP investigators drafted with

10     an additional list of the identified bodies.  I believe that the document

11     in question can -- cannot be admitted through this witness since this is

12     just an information report which compiles the work of the OTP and the

13     demographic department because the compilations are carried out by the

14     demographic department of the OTP based on the ICMP data.  That's why I

15     believe that this document should not be admitted through this witness

16     that we have just heard.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Before giving you the floor, Mr. Mitchell, let's

18     hear Mr. Haynes, if it's about the same thing.

19             MR. HAYNES:  It is about the same thing, but can I just crave

20     your indulgence for one second to say on my own behalf and perhaps on

21     behalf of everybody here, to offer my to offer Judge Kwon for his

22     ascension to high office.

23             But I do join that objection.  This is a document that was

24     drafted yesterday by somebody called Jans, who hasn't even given it the

25     authority of putting his signature on it.  It wasn't addressed with the

Page 27883

 1     witness at all.  It was simply put on the screen, and then a proposition

 2     was put to him.

 3             It is debatable whether it has any evidential status whatsoever.

 4     If it does have evidential states, then we'll all be running off to ask

 5     the court staff, getting them to write short documents stating what our

 6     position is on any particular issue in the case, putting them into

 7     e-court, and then having them admitted into evidence.  It simply has no

 8     evidential status whatsoever, and it shouldn't be admitted into evidence.

 9     That's P3902 for the avoidance of doubt.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Haynes.  Mr. Mitchell, do you insist

11     on this document?

12             MR. MITCHELL:  We do, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Then could you respond to the objection, please.

14             MR. MITCHELL:  Yes.  It was clearly relevant to Professor

15     Dunjic's testimony and his expert report, and the whole aim of this

16     document was to clarify the issue for the Trial Chamber and the Defence,

17     and I think the evidential value of this document is clear on its face.

18             Sorry.  It's organising information that's already in evidence

19     and simply clarifying it for the Chamber.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  But the point made -- the main point

21     made as far as I am concerned - at least, of course, I need to consult

22     with my colleagues - is that it could be best or better introduced or

23     tendered by or through another witness and not through Professor Dunjic.

24     That's -- because otherwise, the probative value that one attaches is

25     something that will come to -- in due course.  In other words, does the

Page 27884

 1     testimony of Professor Dunjic give it probative value, make it stronger,

 2     or...

 3             MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. President, I submit that it clarifies

 4     Professor Dunjic's report and his testimony.  That's why we showed him

 5     this document and --

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

 7             MR. MITCHELL:  -- admitting it through Professor Dunjic will save

 8     us from calling Investigator Jans.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Are there objections in the meantime?

11     We hear none, except that you will come later, of course.  So what we are

12     going to do is we will postpone the issue until after the break.  In the

13     meantime, we'll check whether indeed we do need this document at all in

14     the records, and we'll come to you after the break.

15             Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Could I just briefly add, this was my idea, this

17     document, and I just might be able to provide you some helpful

18     information about why we're offering it, or not.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Go ahead.

20             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Thank you.  Yes, Mr. President.  It's our view

21     that Mr. Dunjic's report was somewhat confusing as was his testimony

22     regarding this issue, of bodies and who was who, and the

23     cross-examination was designed to unravel that.  Now, the simplest way

24     for you to see the results from ICMP and the others is through this

25     one-page reorientation of the evidence.  This can, of course, be argued

Page 27885

 1     by us, can be attached by -- you know, in any brief; but really, it's

 2     much like the reorganisation or the organisation of the material that

 3     Dean Manning put in just so it can help you make sense of this -- this

 4     evidence.  This is the kind of thing that by looking at one page you can

 5     sort out what this stuff means from the Prosecution's perspective and

 6     make a judgment on the issue as opposed to trying to read only the

 7     transcript and look for arguments.

 8             So it's just a pure simple thing to help your job be easier,

 9     which is just based on the evidence that's already in, much like Dean

10     Manning but without having to call the investigator and go over all the

11     material.  I don't think there's anything that's contested in there.

12     It's just a brief one-page reorganisation of these key issues related to

13     the bodies, and that's it.  Thank you.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  So just to go back to Markovic's

15     documents, did I confirm that the documents on the lists, now having

16     heard Mr. Gosnell, are all admitted or not?  No, I haven't, so I'm doing

17     so now.  Those documents are admitted.  Thank you.

18             Next witness.

19             JUDGE KWON:  I would like to thank Mr. Haynes for your warm

20     congratulations.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  For the record, Mr. Vanderpuye now has joined the

22     team for the Prosecution.

23                           [The witness entered court]

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good morning to you, Mr. Ristivojevic.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

Page 27886

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Welcome at this Tribunal.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Before you start your expert testimony, you are

 4     required under our rules to make a solemn declaration that you will be

 5     stating the truth and the whole truth.  Please read out that text, and

 6     that will be your solemn commitment with us.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

 8     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Please make yourself comfortable.

10             Mr. Lazarevic will be putting questions to you.  He will then be

11     followed by others on cross-examination.  I don't see your testimony

12     finishing today, probably not even tomorrow.  But -- tomorrow we don't

13     have a sitting, anyway, but probably not even on Friday, although we are

14     having an extended sitting on Friday, although I am going to make an

15     appeal to all parties here to finish by Friday afternoon.

16             Mr. Lazarevic.

17             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour, and good morning.  Good

18     morning, everyone.

19                           WITNESS:  BRANISLAV RISTIVOJEVIC

20                           [Witness answered through interpretation]

21                           Examination by Mr. Lazarevic:

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Ristivojevic.

23        A.   Good morning.

24        Q.   We have already had the opportunity to meet, but still for the

25     transcript I must introduce myself to you.  I am Aleksandar Lazarevic,

Page 27887

 1     and with my colleagues I defend Ljubomir Borovcanin before this Tribunal.

 2             A piece of warning -- a warning that I have to give to each

 3     witness that speaks the same language as I, after each question please

 4     wait for a short while and -- before answering so that there is no

 5     overlapping for the transcript; and thus, you will make the interpreter's

 6     life easier.

 7        A.   All right.

 8        Q.   Can you tell us your full name for the transcript?

 9        A.   My name is Branislav Ristivojevic.

10        Q.   When and where were you born?

11        A.   I was born on the 10th of October, 1982, in Novi Sad.

12             THE INTERPRETER:  A correction:  The year is 1972 and not 1982.

13             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   All right.  It has been corrected in the transcript.  Can you

15     tell me briefly about your education?

16        A.   Primary school and secondary school, I graduated from Novi Sad,

17     and I completed my law studies at the university in Novi Sad in 1996.  I

18     got my masters degree at the same university; and in 2006, I got my

19     doctoral degree at Belgrade university?

20        Q.   We have slight problems with the transcript.  I believe that this

21     will be resolved.  It is probably not necessary to repeat the question.

22             Tell us, please, to which academic positions were you appointed,

23     if any?

24        A.   I was appointed assistant professor in 2007 within Novi Sad

25     university.  That is the lowest level academic degree in Serbia.

Page 27888

 1        Q.   All right.  Except in teaching and the scholarship, did you also

 2     engage in research?

 3        A.   Yes, at Novi Sad university.

 4        Q.   I apologise, but it seems to me that you reply to my questions

 5     too fast, too soon, so that the transcript cannot follow the pace of your

 6     reply.  So I would just ask you to slow down.

 7             You have already told us that you have a doctor's degree, and can

 8     you tell us the topic of your dissertation?

 9        A.   The topic was crimes against humanity.

10        Q.   Can you tell me, for example, some of -- some of your more

11     significant papers?

12        A.   My specific field of interest is command responsibility, joint

13     criminal enterprise.  That's what I wrote about, and lately I have dealt

14     with the confrontation of legal concepts from the Anglo-saxon tradition

15     and the European continental tradition and their influence on the

16     development of international criminal law and the outcomes of

17     proceedings.

18        Q.   Tell me, please, during your professional work, have you ever

19     been a guest teacher at any other faculties?  If so, which?  But please

20     wait for this to be recorded in the transcript.  You can see it in front

21     of you, so you can adapt the pace of your response.

22        A.   Yes.  Last year, I held a short course at the law school of

23     Zagreb University in the framework of their post-graduate studies.

24        Q.   What was the topic of that course?

25        A.   Joint criminal enterprise.

Page 27889

 1        Q.   All right.  Did you take part earlier in proceedings before this

 2     Tribunal, or were you ever summoned to the international Tribunal in The

 3     Hague?

 4        A.   I was a hired by -- as legal assistant by the Defence team of

 5     Mr. Krajisnik a number of years ago.  Four years ago, I was a member of

 6     the state delegation that was here in the procedure for the -- for the

 7     extradition of the Kara term 4, so it was an extradition procedure.

 8             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Your Honours, I think we have a problem with the

 9     transcript.  It was a referral procedure.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.  That's line 8 on page 49,

11     by the way.

12             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   I believe we have corrected this in the transcript.  And the next

14     thing I want to ask you, are you active in politics?  Were you at any

15     given moment a member of Serbian parliament?

16        A.   Yes, I used to engage in politics.  I was member of Serbian

17     parliament in 2004; and in 2006 and 2007, I was an advisor to the prime

18     minister.

19        Q.   All right.  Now that you have said that you were advisor of the

20     Serbian prime minister, in which fields did you advise him?

21        A.   I was his legal advisor.

22        Q.   Apart from being a member of parliament, did you at the time hold

23     another position with the parliament of Serbia?

24        A.   Yes.  I was the head of the justice committee of the Serbian

25     parliament.

Page 27890

 1        Q.   What did your work in that committee include?

 2        A.   I had -- it included several things, but mostly the -- it was

 3     about the opinions to the appointments of judges.

 4        Q.   Your curriculum vitae is enclosed.  This is Exhibit number 4D504

 5     [Realtime transcript read in error, "4504"].  I will not dwell upon these

 6     issues any longer.

 7             Tell us now, please, when you -- I apologise, there seems to be a

 8     problem with the transcript again.

 9             MR. LAZAREVIC:  It is page 50, line 4.  It should be 4D504.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] I apologise.  I will now repeat the question.

11     These problems with the transcript are frequent.

12             When did you first set up contact with the Borovcanin Defence

13     team?

14        A.   It was about a year ago.  I must add that the Defence team

15     contacted me and not the other way around.

16        Q.   What was said to you at the time about the subject matter of your

17     expertise?  What was supposed to be the subject?

18        A.   It was said to me then that the subject of my expertise was the

19     issue of the legal system in force in the Republika Srpska at the time to

20     which the indictment in this case refers.  Then, the issues with regard

21     to the changes to that system, when -- when the state of war was

22     declared, and --

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat the latter part

24     of his answer?

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  The interpreters didn't catch the last part of your

Page 27891

 1     answer.  I'll read what we have here.

 2             You said: "Then the issue with regard to the changes to that

 3     system, when a state of war was declared ..." and from then onwards they

 4     don't have -- they didn't catch what you said.  If you could repeat it,

 5     please.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand.  Furthermore,

 7     the issue of the remit for trying persons for violations of international

 8     martial war and the remit with regard to prisoners of war.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.  Microphone for the

10     counsel.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Microphone.

12             MR. LAZAREVIC:  I apologise.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] When you accepted to be an expert and when you

14     were appointed, did you have any further contacts with the Defence team

15     of Mr. Borovcanin?

16        A.   Yes.  We met a couple of times in Belgrade after that, and I

17     accepted to draft the expert opinion, and I was provided with all the

18     documents and maybe two or three times after that when I wanted some

19     additional documents from the Defence team.

20        Q.   And did you receive the necessary documents which you deemed

21     important for your expert opinion?

22        A.   Yes, save for some exceptions that I myself could not locate and

23     I could not obtain them from you, either.

24        Q.   Very well.  Did any members of the Borovcanin Defence team

25     influence you in terms of the contents of your expert opinion or your

Page 27892

 1     conclusions?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Did you have an occasion to meet Mr. Borovcanin personally, and

 4     if you did, could you tell us when and under what circumstances?

 5        A.   Yes.  That was towards the end of spring or beginning of summer

 6     this year in Bijeljina.  That's when I met with the Defence team, and I

 7     met Mr. Borovcanin in person.  We may have spent five or ten minutes in a

 8     conversation at the time.

 9        Q.   And just one more question about this.  At the moment when you

10     met and saw Mr. Borovcanin, was your expert opinion already drafted and

11     handed in?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   In addition to the encounter with Mr. Borovcanin that you have

14     just described for us, did you have another occasion to see

15     Mr. Borovcanin, to talk to him?  Did you have any other contacts with him

16     after that?

17        A.   No.

18        Q.   And now I would kindly ask you to tell us, what is it that you

19     have in front of you in the courtroom?

20        A.   I have my own expert opinion, I have documents - those that I

21     used in drafting the opinion - and that is that.

22        Q.   Very well.  Can we now talk just briefly about the structure of

23     your expert opinion?

24             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Can the Court please produce

25     4D503.

Page 27893

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  At the beginning of my expert

 2     opinion, you will find the contents, a brief introduction, the

 3     indictment, its temporal and spatial framework.  I had to investigate the

 4     legal system at the time and in the area as defined by the indictment.

 5     After that, there is a second part dealing with the relationship between

 6     the army of Republika Srpska and the MUP; i.e., the command relationship,

 7     i.e., when the MUP of Republika Srpska became part of the armed forces,

 8     the way it acted in combat activities.  And then there is the third part,

 9     the overview and analysis of relevant regulations of the Republika Srpska

10     with a special overview of the change of these regulations in the state

11     of war --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Could this witness please slow down because

13     this is becoming a bit impossible.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Exactly.  Stop one moment because we were letting

15     you finish.  We had the intention to intervene and ask you to slow down,

16     but the interpreters very likely are finding the answers too quick.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Apologies once again.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Please slow down.  Let's continue.  Now, if I may

19     ask the interpreters, do you think you've missed something apart from --

20             THE INTERPRETER:  No, nothing was missed.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Okay.  "Then we had arrived here, and

22     then there is the third part of the interview, analysis with the special

23     overview of the change of these regulations in the state of war ..."

24             Please continue from there.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  And then there is the fourth

Page 27894

 1     part, the issue of the responsibilities of the members of the armed

 2     forces for the violations of the humanitarian law and the treatment of

 3     prisoners of war; and the fifth part would be the responsibilities and

 4     procedures to establish disciplinary and criminal responsibility of the

 5     MUP members in war conflicts; and the sixth part would be the conclusions

 6     that I drew.

 7             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Very well.  And can we now go to the next page, which is page 2

 9     of your expert opinion.  It is the same exhibit that we already have in

10     front of us.  You have provided us with --

11             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.  Just a moment.

12     Could you please bear with me.  Two pages further from here, which is

13     page 4.

14        Q.   In your copy, it is page 2.  You have provided us with a temporal

15     framework as well as spatial framework which consists with the

16     indictment?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   What did you determine as the temporal and spatial frameworks of

19     your expert opinion?

20        A.   The period between March 1995 and November 1995 was my temporal

21     framework.  This is the broadest temporal scope that I found in the

22     indictment in paragraphs number 26 and 49.

23        Q.   And in terms of the spatial scope of the indictment --

24        A.   When it comes to the spatial scope of the indictment, we are

25     talking about eastern Bosnia or the area which is usually known as the

Page 27895

 1     Birca [phoen] region -- or Birac region.

 2        Q.   Let's continue with the next chapter in your expert report, which

 3     is the command relationship between the VRS and the MUP as the components

 4     of the armed forces of Republika Srpska.

 5             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the Court to

 6     produce exhibit number 4D413.  This is the law on the -- application of

 7     the Law on Internal Affairs during an imminent threat of war or the state

 8     of war.

 9        Q.   In your case, in your binder, it is under tab 1.

10             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] And can we please look at page 4

11     in B/C/S and page 12 in the English version of this document.

12             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation]  Yes.

13             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Very well.  The first article of this law that I would like us to

15     look at is Article 12.  Could you please tell us what Article 12

16     prescribes?

17        A.   The Article 12 of this law says that the Ministry of the Interior

18     shall establish special police units to carry out combat tasks, which

19     will complement the special purpose police units.

20        Q.   Very well.  So we're talking about two types of police units

21     here, and they're both engaged in combat; wouldn't that be correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Let us now look at the next article, Article 13, which is on the

24     following page of the B/C/S version, and in the English version we can

25     stay on the same page.  What I would like to ask you about Article 13 is

Page 27896

 1     this:  Who is it who issues a -- the order on the use of police units in

 2     combat?

 3        A.   Such an order is issued by the Minister [Realtime transcript read

 4     in error, "Ministry"] of the Interior pursuant to the order of the

 5     Supreme Commander of the armed forces.

 6        Q.   Could you please repeat your answer because I can see we are

 7     having problems with the transcript.  Who is it who issues the order on

 8     the use of police units in combat?

 9        A.   Such an order is issued by the Ministry of the Interior pursuant

10     to an order issued by the Supreme Commander.

11        Q.   I think it would be good if we corrected the transcript at one

12     point, page 56, line 5 [as interpreted].  You said "the Minister," not

13     the "Ministry"?

14        A.   Yes, you're right.

15        Q.   Very well.  Let's now look at paragraph 2 of the same Article 3.

16     Pursuant to this paragraph, who is in charge of the police units and

17     through which bodies?  Who is in command of such units, in other words?

18        A.   The Minister of the Interior does it through the staff of the

19     police forces command.

20        Q.   Very well.

21             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] And now let's --

22        Q.   Could you please read that paragraph very slowly to help us have

23     a clear record.

24        A.   "The Minister of the Interior shall control the police units

25     through the ministry police forces command staff."

Page 27897

 1        Q.   It seems that we have a clear record, that everything has been

 2     recorded as it should have been.  And now, let's move to Article 14 in

 3     the same law.

 4             First of all, let's look at paragraph 1.  Could you please tell

 5     me what paragraph 1 provides for and how do you understand it?

 6        A.   According to paragraph 1, the police units which are deployed in

 7     combat are resubordinated to the commander of the military unit in whose

 8     area of responsibility they will be engaged in combat.

 9        Q.   And now just briefly, I would like us to move on to another law

10     that you analysed, and we will come back to this one.  Let's look what

11     you have under tab 2.  That's the Law on Internal Affairs.  I would like

12     us to the focus on the part dealing with the use of firearms.  This is

13     Article 53 on page 6 in B/C/S and page 14 in the English translation,

14     Article 53, please.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  I'm sorry, and the 65 ter number --

16             MR. LAZAREVIC:  4D212.  [Interpretation] We need page 6 in B/C/S

17     and page 14 in English.

18        Q.   Very well.  We have both versions in e-court.  Could you tell us,

19     please, what Article 53 of the Law on Internal Affairs prescribes?

20        A.   According to Article 53, the legality and regularity of the use

21     of coercive means or firearms is being evaluated by authorised officials.

22        Q.   Could you please tell me, who is it who evaluates the

23     justifiability of the use of means of coercion?

24        A.   Pursuant to this article, it would be the minister within seven

25     days.

Page 27898

 1        Q.   When we are talking about this regulation, i.e., the Law on

 2     Internal Affairs, are we talking about regular police duties and whether

 3     Article 53 applies to such situations?

 4        A.   Yes.  This is about the legality of the use of firearms during

 5     normal police work. [Realtime transcript read in error, "Q."]

 6        Q.   And now, let's go back to 4D413, which is under your tab 1, the

 7     Law on the Implication of the Law on Internal Affairs during an imminent

 8     threat of war and the state of war, and let's look at --

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please repeat the number of

10     the article.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  You have been asked to repeat the number of

12     article, please.

13             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Number 15.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

15             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]  This is on page 5 in B/C/S and

16     on page 12 in the English version of the text.

17        Q.   What is your comment, or how do you understand the provisions of

18     Article 15 of this law?  Is this about the usual procedure that we were

19     able to see in the proceeding regulation or not?

20        A.   Under the law on the application of the Law on Internal Affairs

21     in the state of war or, in fact, under Article 15, the assessment of the

22     legality and correctness of the use of firearms is not done.

23        Q.   So, the provision that we have just been able to see differs

24     essentially from that which is enforced in normal conditions and in the

25     carrying out of normal tasks of the police of the Ministry of the

Page 27899

 1     Interior?

 2        A.   Yes, but I want to add that Article 15 clearly stipulates that

 3     this refers to the use of firearms and means of coercion in combat

 4     operations.

 5        Q.   Now that we have seen how the issue of the use of firearms by --

 6             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] There seems to be some problems

 7     with transcript again.  There has been a confusion between question and

 8     answer.  I'm referring to page 58, line 23 [as interpreted].  This should

 9     be the answer rather than the question.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  All they need to change is the A for a

11     Q, and that will be okay.  Thank you.

12             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   All right.  I will repeat this last question because I believe

14     you haven't answered it yet.  Now that we've had the chance to compare

15     the two regulations regulating the same matter, one in normal conditions

16     and the other in combat operations, can you tell us whether the MUP units

17     that take part in combat operations are still within the regular system

18     of command of the MUP, or are they as part of the armed forces exempt

19     from that system and belong to the other system?

20        A.   Yes.  Under Article 14, they are resubordinated - I mean the

21     police units - when they engage in combat operations, resubordinated to

22     the commander of the military unit in the area of which they are carrying

23     out a combat task.

24             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Let us now look at Article 16 of

25     this law.  It says that members of police units in combat operations have

Page 27900

 1     the right to use all weapons and equipment used by the units of the VRS.

 2        Q.   How do you understand Article 16?  What is its essence?  What

 3     does it regulate?

 4        A.   Article 16, its purpose is for police units when they take part

 5     in combat operations to be equal in efficiency to military units and

 6     to -- or for that to be possible, they must be enabled to use the same

 7     kind of weapons as the military.

 8        Q.   In a situation when a unit of the MUP was resubordinated to the

 9     commander of the VRS in whose area of responsibility it's carrying out

10     combat tasks, do the rights and authorities of members of the MUP that

11     they normally have change in any way?

12        A.   Yes.  Under the Law on Internal Affairs, authorised official --

13     authorised officials of the ministry are those who directly carry out

14     tasks related to public safety and state security.  The law on the

15     application of the Law on Internal Affairs in wartime conditions, in the

16     state of war, makes it possible for police units to carry out combat

17     operations, which means that they no longer carry out tasks of public

18     security and state security.  Therefore, they no longer have the status

19     granted to authorised officials under the Law on Internal Affairs.

20        Q.   Just one more question.  When you speak about the law, you mean

21     the law on the application of the Law on Internal Affairs during imminent

22     threat of war or during state of war?

23        A.   When we speak about combat tasks and when we speak about

24     authorities --

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.  Mr. Vanderpuye.

Page 27901

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I just wonder if we

 2     could clarify for the record what specific provision of the law we are

 3     talking about because there are have been a number of questions just put

 4     speaking about the law generally, and I want to know what specific

 5     provision the witness is referring to.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Mr. Lazarevic.

 7             MR. LAZAREVIC:  I must say I am not quite sure what my learned

 8     colleague referred to, whether he speaks about law of implementation

 9     of --

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  What I see in the record is the witness

11     answering that under the Law on Internal Affairs, authorised officials in

12     the ministry are those that directly carry out tasks related to public

13     safety and state security.  In the following testimony, I don't see a

14     specific reference to the article to which he's referring to in that law.

15     The last we left it was Article 16, which doesn't speak about that.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a moment.  That's Article 35.

17     Here it is.  The Law on Internal Affairs, Article 35, paragraph 2.

18     "Those personnel working on operational" -- "carrying out operational

19     tasks and duties related to public and state security are considered

20     authorised officials."  I don't think I need to go on reading.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you for that clarification.

22             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   All right.  Let us now look at the following document, 4D337.

24     It's under tab 3 in your binder.  This is about an order issued by the

25     commander of the staff of police units in Pale, 64/95, dated July the

Page 27902

 1     10th, 1995.

 2             Let us first look at the part above "I hereby order..."  Can you

 3     tell me what it says?

 4        A.   First, there is a reference to the legal basis.  It says:

 5     "Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Commander..."  That is, the

 6     Minister of the Interior issues the following order.

 7        Q.   And just one question before we continue with this document.  A

 8     short while ago, we were able to see the provisions of Article 13 of the

 9     law on the implementation of the Law on Internal Affairs during imminent

10     threat of war and in the state of war.  If you remember, it regulated --

11     or it provided for the participation of police units based on the order

12     issued by the Supreme Commander.  If we take a look at this order, is it

13     based on the provisions of Article 13 of the said law?

14        A.   Yes.  There is a reference in the initial part to the order of

15     the Supreme Commander.

16        Q.   Yes.  And you spoke about this in more detail in paragraph 2,

17     item 12, of your expert opinion.  I don't want to dwell upon that any

18     longer, but let us continue with item 1 of this order where the -- the

19     units are being listed and the word "independent" is mentioned.  Tell me

20     how you understand this phrase "independent unit."  Independent of who?

21        A.   I believe that the word "independent" used in item 1 of this

22     order means that the unit is independent from the other units belonging

23     to the Ministry of the Interior.  It is now detached.

24        Q.   If we continue looking at this order, we see that Mr. Borovcanin

25     was appointed commander of this unit and he was ordered to establish

Page 27903

 1     contact with General Krstic, chief of staff of the Drina Corps, upon

 2     arriving at his destination.  You were able to analyse the document from

 3     which it follows that at the time General Krstic commanded the operation

 4     for which Mr. Borovcanin was deployed there.  How do you understand the

 5     obligation of Mr. Borovcanin to report to General Krstic, the commander

 6     of the operation?

 7        A.   I understand it in line with Article 14 of the law on the

 8     implementation of the Law on Internal Affairs in a state of war.  That

 9     means, as we have already said, that a police unit is resubordinated to

10     the commander of the unit in whose area of responsibility it will engage

11     in combat operations.

12             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Maybe we should have a break now.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Before we break, just so that -- it's a

14     small housekeeping matter.  On Friday, since we will be sitting an

15     extended sitting, the schedule that we are proposing - and Yaiza, you

16     will liaise with the staff to make sure that it is okay with everyone and

17     with the parties - is as follows:  We start at 9.00 in the morning and

18     sit for a hundred minutes until 10.40.  Then we will resume at 11.10, in

19     other words, after a 30-minute break, until 12.50.  That's, again, a

20     hundred minutes.  Then a break of one hour, restarting at 13.50 and

21     finishing at 15.30.  So look around you a little bit and see whether that

22     is agreeable to everyone, particularly to the staff that have to stay

23     with us until ten past.  If it's okay, we'll proceed along those lines.

24             We'll have a 25-minute break.  Time now is 12.25.

25                           --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.

Page 27904

 1                           --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  We've been told there is some preliminary?  Yes,

 3     Mr. Gosnell.

 4             MR. GOSNELL:  Yes, Mr. President.  Concerning the exhibits

 5     proposed by the Prosecution in respect of Professor Dunjic, we have

 6     comments or objections in respect of six of the documents, and they fall

 7     into three categories.

 8             First, P2992 --

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.  Yes, okay, the first one.

10             MR. GOSNELL:  P2992.  We have no objection to the photographs

11     that were shown to the witness being admitted, but the remainder of the

12     document we would object to.  It's very long.  It's 60 or 70 pages in

13     length, and I believe -- I'm now told, informed that it's in evidence, in

14     which case I guess it didn't need to be on the tender list.

15             Moving on to the --

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment, I think -- yes, it's on.  Let's take

17     this and dispose of it first.  Do you wish to comment -- first of all, is

18     it already a document -- an exhibit?

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I believe there were two versions

20     of it.  There was an original version, which is 65 ter 1938, that is in

21     evidence.  There was a second version --

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  And is it identical to it, in other words?  Is it

23     identical?

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  It was slightly revised.  It was nearly

25     identical, and we reached an understanding, I believe, with Defence

Page 27905

 1     counsel.  In fact, that document actually contains even a stipulated

 2     statement, as it were, of Pasiga Mesic [phoen], and to that extent I

 3     believe we had reached an agreement with respect to that document as

 4     well.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  And this is precisely what I was going to say.

 6     Given what you've just said, do you need it once more under a different

 7     number?

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I believe we do because I don't believe -- I

 9     don't believe it's actually in evidence at this moment with --

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  1938 is --

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- with a separate 65 ter number, and it was

12     supposed to have been in evidence.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yeah, but if you -- there is a stipulation that

14     2992 is essentially the same as 1938.  Do you need anything further than

15     that?

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  We do, Mr. President.  There are actual

17     differences between the documents.  There are corrections that are

18     contained in the second iteration of the document that aren't in the

19     first and so on and so forth.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  So let's concentrate now on the objection

21     itself.  No objection in relation to the photos, but there is an

22     objection in relation to the identification of Bosnian Muslim images.  Do

23     I read you well, correctly, Mr. Gosnell, or not?

24             MR. GOSNELL:  Well, for the time being, Mr. President, we do

25     maintain the objection.  If there is a stipulation, I must tell you, as I

Page 27906

 1     stand here on the my feet, I don't know the contents of that stipulation,

 2     if there is one; but in respect of this witness, I suggest it's

 3     appropriate that only the portions that were used with the witness are

 4     tendered in a separate number.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

 6             MR. GOSNELL:  And then the document can be dealt with separately.

 7     That's what I would propose.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  But you've coloured it differently now.

 9     It's a little bit different than the way you put it in the first place.

10     Can you live with that?

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I don't think we can live with

12     that.  I think that the document is -- it is an integral document.  It is

13     a single piece of evidence.  I believe if -- if I have a few minutes at

14     some point because I didn't know they were going to raise an objection, I

15     can find in the record where the stipulation is discussed.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Let's postpone 2992.

17             MR. GOSNELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.  The second objection is

18     to the two sketches of Potocari, P3894 and P3895.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  And what's the basis?

20             MR. GOSNELL:  These are the sketches of the Potocari grave

21     locations.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  And what's the basis of your objection?

23             MR. GOSNELL:  We would object on the same basis that we objected

24     to P2210 in our 27th of October filing.  These documents should have been

25     part of the Prosecution case and tendered there as part of the

Page 27907

 1     Prosecution case.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  To be honest with you, as far as I am concerned,

 3     but I need to consult with my colleagues, I don't even require an

 4     explanation from the Prosecution.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. McCloskey.

 7             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I don't know if you need to hear from me on this

 8     or not.  It may be depending on what your ruling has been, but I've just

 9     -- to try to clarify some of this, we have an expert that is dealing with

10     Bosnian exhumation materials that are closely related to the Bosnian

11     investigative materials and some of the ICMP data.  He doesn't refer to

12     all of it.  He doesn't incorporate all of it.  Even though the Defence

13     has it, he doesn't ask about it.  It becomes very relevant for

14     cross-examination given what they have brought up and put forward.  And

15     so for you to have a full picture of the Bosnian investigation where

16     these graves are and in rebutting what they're suggesting in their

17     direct, you need to have the whole picture, and you need to have it for

18     any purposes that you that you feel comfortable with.  And this is the

19     course, the practice that we have been going on for the whole trial both

20     with the Defence and with the Prosecution.

21             So it's a very important issue that has arisen, and I see no

22     reason why after this many months we would change course and suggest that

23     this kind of important material that we are using in response to specific

24     issues.  You're not seeing rawed volumes of material that have been

25     hidden away to be used on cross-examination.  These are things that are

Page 27908

 1     used specifically to respond to issues that come up, such as the SDS

 2     issue.  This is not some kind of a mystery material that we are holding

 3     back on, and I think it's important that you are able to see this

 4     material and accept it for whatever value you think it's worth.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, please keep yourself as --

 6             MR. GOSNELL:  I'll keep this very short, Mr. President.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, exactly, please.

 8             MR. GOSNELL:  The essence of having the expert come here and

 9     testify is not to comment upon the entire universe of information that

10     may have been disclosed.  It's to comment upon the evidence in the case

11     that's been presented by the Prosecution.  If that is fluid or open to

12     change, then that poses serious difficulties for us, and it poses in our

13     view a certain unfairness that we -- so therefore, that's why we would

14     object these documents coming into evidence.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  And now how this sketch --

16             MR. GOSNELL:  And furthermore, Mr. President, the documents were

17     shown to the witness, and he was given an opportunity to respond.  That's

18     on the record.  So that's a sufficient testing of his opinions, and then

19     now to put these sketches in as evidence, we suggest, is improper.

20             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Mr. President, can I make one small comment and

21     it'll be done?

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, go ahead.

23             MR. McCLOSKEY:  The Defence strives to bring out through their

24     witness that the graves and the bodies are not associated with the Dutch

25     evidence that saw bodies.  We have specific evidence to show you that

Page 27909

 1     these two little pits are right next to each other and fit right in with

 2     the aerial image.  We in the court should hear that evidence to respond

 3     to this so the whole picture can be seen.  We can't possibly anticipate

 4     every tiny detail that comes up, so we need to be able to respond so you

 5     can see the truth.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Enough, enough.  Sorry to be so abrupt, but enough.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  That's enough heard on this.  We'll decide it soon.

 9             Your next objection, Mr. Gosnell.

10             MR. GOSNELL:  The third and last objection is to three documents,

11     P3517D. [Realtime transcript read in error]

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  3...

13             MR. GOSNELL:  517D.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Can you repeat, please, because -- yeah, but it's

15     wrong here.  That's why I ask him to repeat.

16             MR. GOSNELL:  It's P3517D.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

18             MR. GOSNELL:  P3898D.  Sorry, let me take that again.  3898

19     without a D at the end, just 3898.  And then the third one is 3902, to

20     which objection has already been made, but now this is going to be a

21     separate ground of objection.

22             Now, these three documents are all based on another document, or

23     they are extracts or compilations that are drawn from another document,

24     which is P3517.  Now, this document has actually not been admitted on

25     e-court; however, I went back and checked the transcript, and it actually

Page 27910

 1     had been admitted, or at least that was the ruling of the Chamber, but

 2     there were no comments from counsel.

 3             And I would just need to put in context what happened during when

 4     that document was admitted.  One line from that document was shown to a

 5     fact witness in respect of an identification, and it was a Beara witness.

 6     And then there was a -- that one line was shown to the witness, and then

 7     the entire document of 3517, which is an updated ICMP list, was then

 8     admitted without any objection from Defence counsel.

 9             Now, the document that is in evidence is 3159A.  Now, that's the

10     January ICMP update.  That's what we relied on when we were providing

11     information to Professor Dunjic, and as far as I understand it, that's

12     the report that he relied upon.  So now what's happened is six months

13     later there's an update to the ICMP list, which now apparently has come

14     into evidence in its entirety.  I hope Your Honours can understand the

15     difficulty that that puts us in.  If the witness is commenting upon a

16     certain set of materials and a certain set of data, and then that data

17     changes and is admitted into evidence, first of all, what is the witness

18     supposed to be responding to?  And more importantly, secondly, what are

19     we responding to?  Of course, it's appropriate for the Prosecution to be

20     disclosing this material for us.  We need to review it in order to

21     determine whether there's anything in there that might be exculpatory,

22     but I think there's a serious danger here of something inculpatory,

23     something incriminating, coming into evidence at this late stage halfway

24     through our cases.

25             So we object on that ground in addition to the grounds that were

Page 27911

 1     stated by my colleague, which only exacerbates the problems.  In order,

 2     you have a commentary coming from an employee of the Office of the

 3     Prosecutor on data that has changed from the data that was viewed by the

 4     witness.

 5             Now, I do understand the difficulties here, but I hope that the

 6     Chamber can understand the difficulties that it poses for the Defence as

 7     well.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

 9             MR. McCLOSKEY:  It's alarming to me to the hear that argument.

10     It's the same argument I saw in a written submission.  Somehow making a

11     complaint months later after a document has been received into evidence

12     pursuant to the Court's ruling, we have to be able to stand by those

13     Court's rulings and not come back months later and try to unravel them,

14     unless there is a specific request to ask leave for the Court to

15     reconsider.  Anything but that is chaos, and the rule of law goes out the

16     window.  We have to be able to rely on the Court's rulings, no matter

17     what the context of what someone said when it came in.  I can't tell from

18     his discussion whether it came in through the Defence or the Prosecution,

19     but everything he is talking about is in evidence, I am told.  Every one

20     of those things, I am told, is in evidence already.  So I don't know what

21     the complaint is, and any suggestion that we have to revisit your

22     previous rulings is outrageous.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  One clarification, Mr. McCloskey.  There is no

24     doubt that 3159 has already been admitted.  Has 3517, that is, the 3rd

25     July, 2008, update also been admitted?

Page 27912

 1             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Ms. Stuart has written me a yellow sticky that

 2     says that 3517 A, B, and C are also in evidence.  That's why I say, what

 3     is this all about?

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

 5             MR. GOSNELL:  Perhaps I can just assist the Chamber.  The

 6     transcript references 23674.  That's from the 11th of July, 2008.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Which dealt with 3517?

 8             MR. GOSNELL:  Yes.  And in fact, it -- what you have there is

 9     P3517 A, which is a single line extracted from the long list of data, and

10     that single line was used with the witness.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  But 3517 as well as 3159, which is the

12     previous -- 3159 have already been admitted.

13             MR. GOSNELL:  That is what is indicated in the transcript, but I

14     must tell you, Your Honour, if this is an issue of having to make a

15     motion for reconsideration or to exclude the evidence, we will make that

16     motion because I can tell you in all honesty, I don't think that anyone

17     here realised that what was going into evidence was the full update as

18     evidence rather than simply the source for the single name which was

19     being put to the witness.  My own recollection is that that was my

20     understanding at the time.  So, you know, I understand we need finality

21     of rulings, but if necessary, we'll make a motion on that.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.  We've heard enough on this

23     as well.  Any other objections?  Mr. Gosnell.

24             MR. GOSNELL:  No, but I do have one additional piece of

25     information.  I understand that the updated version of the revised

Page 27913

 1     compilation exhibit was apparently uploaded in place of 65 ter 1938.

 2     Now, I stand to be corrected, but we do have an e-mail from the

 3     Prosecutor indicating that that's what happened, so I'm not sure if that

 4     assists.  The date of the memo or the e-mail is the 6th of February,

 5     2008.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  I am under the impression, also, that we may have

 7     discussed this before and decided which one to have in the e-court, and

 8     we may have ourselves contributed to that discussion, if I remember well,

 9     but I stand to be corrected.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think I'm looking at a copy of the e-mail, and

11     that is correct, that the updated version was loaded into e-court, and

12     you're right.  It was discussed in December, the 6th December, 2007, in

13     the record, and it was followed up by the actual submission of the

14     document later on.  You're correct, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  That's my recollection, Mr. Vanderpuye.  Sometimes

16     I'm wrong; most of the time, I'm not.  So I need to consult with my

17     colleagues, of course.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Mr. Gosnell, Mr. Zivanovic, Mr. McCloskey,

20     and Mr. Haynes.  Yes, and Mr. Haynes, too, because you associated

21     yourself with Mr. Zivanovic.

22             We start with tendered document 3902.  Our decision is as

23     follows:  While we do, of course, understand the purpose for which the

24     Prosecution offers this document, in our view the summary of the document

25     given by Mr. Mitchell in the course of his cross-examination, which is

Page 27914

 1     already on the record, is sufficient for us to understand the evidence

 2     given; and therefore, we do not consider this document to be necessary.

 3     So we are not admitting it.

 4             Document 65 ter number 2992, having heard what you had to submit,

 5     particularly what was submitted by the Prosecution, we believe that this

 6     document, as numbered 2992, has already been for all intents and purposes

 7     been admitted into evidence, replacing 1938; and therefore, it is already

 8     there.  We don't need it to be introduced again.

 9             The documents 3894 and 3895.  We come to the conclusion that the

10     use of these documents was -- became necessary or was -- the need for

11     their use was triggered by the further testimony of Professor Dunjic; and

12     as such, the objections or the reasons for the objections failed to

13     convince this Trial Chamber, and both documents are being admitted.

14             As regards 3517D, 3898, and 3902 - it's done - 3898, our position

15     is as follows, or rather, our conclusion, that these four parts of

16     documents or exhibits that are already in the record have been admitted

17     already, and insforas they have excerpts, they consist in excerpts from

18     those documents that have been put to this witness and who has testified

19     in their regard, they are also being admitted.

20             That disposes of the problem.  Can we bring in the witness now?

21             Yes, Mr. Ristivojevic.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Lazarevic.

24             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I'll proceed.

25        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Ristivojevic, there has been a little delay

Page 27915

 1     or somewhat longer break than we expected.  We had to discuss some

 2     procedural matters.  I would like to apologise for keeping you waiting.

 3     And now, if that's not a problem, I would like to go on and proceed with

 4     my examination-in-chief.

 5             Before the break, we discussed order number 64/95.  Let's look at

 6     the following document now.  In your binder, it would be under tab 8 -- I

 7     apologise.  It is your number 7.

 8             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] This is exhibit P8.

 9        Q.   We can see that this is an order by the Supreme Commander of the

10     armed forces of Republika Srpska, dated 22nd April, 1995.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Let's look firstly who the addressees of the order are.

13        A.   The order was sent to the Main Staff of the army and the MUP of

14     Republika Srpska.

15        Q.   And now if you'll look at items 1 and 2 of this order, would you

16     say that there were some problems and ambiguities with regard to the

17     engagement of the units of the MUP in -- and their employment in combat?

18        A.   According to the letterhead or the heading of the document, there

19     was indeed such ambiguities.  It says, We have been informed about some

20     problems and ambiguities -- or rather, confusions regarding the

21     engagement of the MUP in combat activities.

22        Q.   And what was ordered to the Main Staff of the army of Republika

23     Srpska with regard to the engagement of the MUP in combat activities?

24        A.   The Main Staff, pursuant to the president's order, has to

25     henceforth define more precisely and concretely their request for the

Page 27916

 1     engagement and employment of MUP units in combat.

 2        Q.   Very well, and now I believe that we will no longer need this

 3     document.  And now I would like to ask you something about some other

 4     things contained in your expert report.  Let's look at the paragraphs

 5     starting with 3.1 to 3.32 of your expert report.

 6             MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] These are pages 11 through 24 in

 7     the e-court system in B/C/S, and in the English those are pages from 9

 8     through 18.

 9        Q.   Can you please tell me now, before the war broke out in the

10     Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, what was the division of

11     authorities in the matter of criminal law?

12        A.   The Former Socialist Federative of the Republic of Yugoslavia was

13     a federal state; and when it comes to the matter of criminal law,

14     according to its constitution, the federation had the authority of one

15     part of it, whereas the federal units had authority over a different part

16     of this law.  The criminal law of the socialist federative Republic of

17     Yugoslavia regulated the general matters of the criminal law, whereas

18     some groups of the crimes from the special part of the criminal law were

19     also regulated by that.  Amongst other things, or rather, this included

20     chapter 16, which referred to crimes against humanity and the

21     international humanitarian law.

22             There was also a special part of the criminal law; i.e., other

23     groups of crimes were left to the federal units, which were the six

24     republics and the two autonomous provinces which had their own special

25     criminal laws.  In other words, there were eight criminal laws at the

Page 27917

 1     level of the former states, federal units, and there was also one

 2     criminal law at the level of the federation itself.  Except for the

 3     crimes against humanity and the international humanitarian law at the

 4     federal level, there were also some other groups of crimes that were

 5     provided for by that law.  However, these are not important for this

 6     expert report.

 7        Q.   Let me now ask you this:  The provisions of the federal criminal

 8     law, i.e., the criminal law of the socialist federative Republic of

 9     Yugoslavia, were they implemented and applied in all the federal units?

10        A.   Yes.  In all the federal units, there was no way to regulate one

11     and the same thing at two levels, i.e., at the level of the federal state

12     and its federal units.

13        Q.   And what was the situation with the republican, i.e., the

14     provincial criminal laws?  In what territories were those implemented?

15        A.   They were in effect only in the territories of those federal

16     units where they were adopted.

17        Q.   This is a very relative -- a very short answer; however, it

18     hasn't been recorded properly.  This is page 76, line 17.  It seems that

19     the transcript has in the meantime been corrected, and now we have just

20     spoken in very general terms about the system of criminal law and the

21     criminal legislation.  This system that we have just spoken about, was it

22     homogenous?  Was it harmonized in terms of the provisions of republican

23     provincial laws having had to be in consistency with the federal laws?

24        A.   Yes.  The authorities were divided.  I've already said that.  One

25     thing could not be regulated differently at two different levels.

Page 27918

 1        Q.   And now, tell me, please, with regard to the criminal and

 2     procedural matters, how were these matters regulated in the former state

 3     of Yugoslavia?

 4        A.   In the sphere of criminal and procedural law, or rather, the Law

 5     on Criminal Procedure, the constitution did not provide for the split of

 6     authorities between the federation and its federal units.  So there was

 7     just one law on criminal procedure which covered the territory of the

 8     entire state.

 9        Q.   And just one more question about this.  In the socialist

10     federative republic of Yugoslavia and its republics and provinces, how

11     was the issue of courts regulated?

12        A.   There were two types of courts.  There were regular courts and

13     military courts.

14        Q.   And tell me, please, when the war broke out after the break-up of

15     the socialist federative republic of Yugoslavia, in the system that we

16     have just analysed, were there any changes?

17        A.   At the moment when the state broke up and when the new states

18     emerged in that territory, these new states had two choices.  One choice

19     was to pass totally new laws, and the second choice was for them to adopt

20     the laws of the former state, the state that no longer existed.

21             In the sphere of criminal law, most of the new states opted for

22     the latter choice or the latter solution because it was more

23     cost-effective; it was more efficient and practicable and faster at the

24     end of the day.

25             In Republika Srpska, the situation was the same.  The former

Page 27919

 1     criminal law of the SFRY was adopted under the title the criminal law of

 2     Republika Srpska.

 3        Q.   Very well.  This may be a good moment for us to look at 4D375.

 4     This is under your tab 8.  This is the law on the amendments of the

 5     criminal law of the SFRY dated 23 July 1993.  This was published on the

 6     9th of August, 1993.  Let's please look at Article 1 of this law.

 7             Tell me, please, what does this law regulate?  How does this

 8     relate to the things that you've just spoken about?

 9        A.   This is the moment when the former law of the socialist

10     federative republic of Yugoslavia was renamed pursuant to Article 1 to

11     the criminal code of Republika Srpska.  At the same time, some amendments

12     were introduced to this new code, and from the point of view of my

13     report, these amendments were not relevant.  However, we can say that the

14     monetary fines or pecuniary fines were raised because of the inflation

15     that prevailed at the time.

16        Q.   What does that mean?  Does it mean that all the crimes that were

17     formally envisaged by the criminal law of the SFRY were adopted by the

18     criminal code of Republika Srpska?

19        A.   Yes.  Chapter 16 remained in effect in this law.

20             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Good time to adjourn.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  We'll do so.

22             We have to stop here today.  As I told you, there is still a long

23     way to go.  We'll reconvene Friday morning at 9.00.  Is the schedule

24     acceptable to everyone?

25                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

Page 27920

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  If there are problems, let us know.  So we stand

 2     adjourned until Friday at 9.00 in the morning.  Thank you.

 3                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.42 p.m.,

 4                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 7th day of

 5                           November, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.