Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5267

1 Wednesday, 22 May 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, let me deal with two administrative matters

7 first.

8 The first is this: That I understand that one of the associates of

9 the accused handed in a book which -- of which mention had been made, I

10 think last week, to the Registry, and the registrar has it. Perhaps I

11 could have it. Thank you. It is "To Kill a Nation: The attack on

12 Yugoslavia," by Michael Parenti [phoen]. We will keep this and have a

13 look at it, and in due course, anybody who wants can make mention of it

14 and, if necessary, could be made an exhibit.

15 The next matter is purely administrative, and it's this: On

16 Friday, there has to be an initial appearance before this Trial Chamber.

17 It will take place at 12.45, and as a result, we shall have to cut short

18 the hearings here at 12.15.

19 The final matter - this is really for the Prosecution - Mr.

20 Ryneveld, we should deal with the total number of witnesses that you're

21 going to call in this part, your application to vary the order we made at

22 the Pre-Trial Conference. We should have an argument perhaps about it, or

23 we'll hear argument about it perhaps next week, along with the

24 investigation and any other matters we've got to deal with. We must find

25 some time for that.

Page 5268

1 But let me tell you that preliminary thinking on the matter is

2 that we will extend the time by a week, to the 26th of July, and we will

3 expect you to finish the Kosovo section by then. It's clearly important

4 that this section ends so that the next section can begin. But as I say,

5 that is purely a preliminary thought, and we will hear argument about it.

6 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE MAY: The -- yes, Mr. Kay.

8 MR. KAY: It's just an introduction, Your Honour. It's Mira

9 Tapuskovic sits beside Mr. Tapuskovic today. She is his assistant for

10 cross-examination and his assistant for working on the case as part of the

11 amici curiae.

12 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

13 Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.

14 MR. RYNEVELD: Resuming, if I may then, with Dr. Baccard.


16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 Examined by Mr. Ryneveld: [Continued]

18 Q. Dr. Baccard, yesterday we left off with my asking you about the

19 conclusions in your report at page 15 of that document, and I think I had

20 asked you about what is in the conclusions at 1.4.3. I would ask you if

21 you would now turn with me to 1.4.4, the Dubrava Prison. Very briefly,

22 because the report speaks for itself obviously, and in due course I hope

23 will be marked as an exhibit, I just want to have you highlight for us if

24 you would, please, the conclusions about the number of autopsies and

25 whether there was identification positive for any of them. Can you tell

Page 5269

1 us about that.

2 A. Yes. The autopsies that were performed by the Spanish forensic

3 team were 97, and at the time of the autopsy, 42 people were identified.

4 Q. And were you able to determine the age of the victims and their

5 sex?

6 A. As for the age, the victims aged from 18 to 60. All of them were

7 men.

8 Q. And your report also indicates the cause of death and the types of

9 causes of death. What can you tell us, sir, about whether or not gunshot

10 wounds were involved at all and what percentage?

11 A. Thirty-seven per cent of the cases were the result of gunshots and

12 40 per cent by explosives.

13 Q. Turning to 1.4.5, the Izbica case, I understand this was performed

14 by the French forensic team on 139 graves; is that correct?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. And you've already told us about additional forensic data you

17 obtained from a videotape. Can you indicate to us, sir, the -- from the

18 examination and other information, how many bodies were involved in this

19 particular incident?

20 A. The number of exhumed graves were 139. As regards the number of

21 victims that one could see on the videotapes, it's difficult to determine,

22 but as regards information that was taken from testimony I was made aware

23 of, there were 127.

24 Q. Are you able to indicate, from what you could see, the apparent

25 cause of death in the majority of these cases from the video? I

Page 5270

1 understand you were not able to perform autopsies on these bodies because

2 they were missing.

3 A. Yes. Within the limits of that method, the cause of death could

4 not be asserted for each case. Only one could speak of -- we could talk

5 about compatibility with this or that cause. The lesions that one could

6 see on the video cassette did not appear on all the bodies but only on

7 some of them, and on some of the bodies there were wounds that were

8 compatible with wounds that are caused by gunshot.

9 Q. Now, on all of these reports that are comprised in these binders

10 which form the source material for your report, photographs or photographs

11 or videos are part of the source material that you used. In other words,

12 there are photographs which are available to the Court that form a basis

13 of the source material for your report as well, are there not?

14 A. Yes, that's correct.

15 Q. Turning to 1.4.6, the Kacanik case. I understand there are four

16 subsites under Kacanik. Turning first, if I may, to the Dubrava Islamic

17 cemetery. I understand that there were some eight autopsies performed by

18 the Swiss team; is that correct?

19 A. Yes, that's correct.

20 Q. Seven of those were male and one female? All were identified?

21 A. Yes, that's correct.

22 Q. Are you able to indicate to the Court what the cause of death was

23 and the percentage?

24 A. [No translation]

25 MR. RYNEVELD: I don't think I received a translation.

Page 5271

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The cause of death was thoracic or

2 abdominal injury by gunshot in 75 per cent of the cases. As I said, that

3 is three-quarters of the cases, 75 per cent, the cause of death was

4 related to wounds to the abdomen or the thorax related to the projectile

5 of a gunshot.


7 Q. Thank you. The Kotlina site in I understand there were

8 25 individuals autopsied there; is that correct?

9 A. Yes, that's correct.

10 Q. And are you able to tell us anything about age or gender of those

11 victims that were identified?

12 A. As regards the gender, only five cases provided -- is there

13 information provided for in the autopsy report. As regards the age, 68

14 per cent of the victims were less than 40 years old.

15 Q. And now the cause of death with respect to these individuals, can

16 you tell us, in the majority, what you found to be the cause of death?

17 A. The majority of the victims died from gunshot wounds caused by

18 explosives. That is in 84 per cent of the cases. Only 12 per cent died

19 of projectiles from gunshots.

20 Q. From your recollection, sir, do you know where these bodies that

21 died from explosions were found? It's not contained in your conclusions

22 portion, but in the Kotlina site, do you know where those particular

23 bodies came from?

24 A. I could not answer from my memory. I would have to refer to the

25 documents.

Page 5272

1 Q. All right, sir. Turning to the Stagovo site, I understand that

2 there were some ten autopsies that took place in Kacanik by, again, the

3 Swiss team. And what can you tell us, sir, about the gender of the

4 identified victims and their ages range?

5 A. As regards the gender of the victims which were identified, six

6 were men, four were women, and they ranged from 7 to 83 years of age.

7 Q. And are you able to indicate to us what the cause of death was in

8 the majority of cases?

9 A. In the majority of cases, the cause of death was related to wounds

10 from gunshot projectiles which primarily were involved with thoracic and

11 abdominal wounds, and then in the second place, wounds to the head.

12 Q. Turning to Vata. I understand that there were some ten victims

13 autopsied by the Canadian forensic team, and are you able to tell us about

14 gender and range of age of those victims?

15 A. The victims were all men, aged from 15 to 52 years of age.

16 Q. Are you able to say anything about the cause of death?

17 A. The cause of death was the result of projectiles of gunshots,

18 mostly to the abdomen, the thorax, and the ...

19 Q. All right. And about these particular bodies, were there any --

20 were the entry wounds from the back as opposed to from the front?

21 A. Yes. Insofar as possible, that detail was sought in each report,

22 and the entry point was at the posterior part of the body in 37 per cent

23 of the wounds.

24 Q. Now, sir, just going back to the Stagovo site, the previous site

25 one moment. Again there, the location of the entry wounds of those

Page 5273

1 bodies, are you able to give us a percentage of entry wounds from the back

2 of the body?

3 A. Yes. At Stagovo, the location of the entry wounds was at the back

4 side, at the back level, that is in 89 per cent of the cases.

5 Q. Eighty-nine per cent. I see. Turning then, if I may, to 1.4.7,

6 the Krusha e Vogel site, there were some four victims I understand that

7 were autopsied by the British forensic team, and I understand that there

8 were one female and three males, one young adult and three adults; is that

9 correct?

10 A. Yes, that's correct.

11 Q. 1.4.8, Padalishte. The Spanish forensic team performed autopsies

12 on the Imeraj family, I understand. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes, that's correct. That involved 18 victims.

14 Q. And are you able to tell us anything about gender or age of those

15 victims?

16 A. Yes. Eleven of the victims were males, seven females, and

17 two-thirds were less than 40 years old.

18 Q. And what percentage died from gunshot wounds, sir?

19 A. Eighty-three per cent.

20 Q. Turning to Racak, if I may, 1.4.9, how many victims were

21 autopsied in Pristina?

22 A. In all, 40 victims were autopsied in Pristina. 16 of them were

23 autopsied before the arrival of the Finnish expert pathology team.

24 Q. Who had performed the earlier autopsies, sir, do you know?

25 A. Yes. The identity of the experts appears in my report. There was

Page 5274

1 a team of forensic professors, Yugoslavian, with the assistance of two

2 forensic specialists from Belorussia.

3 Q. All right.

4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ryneveld, if we can go back to 1.4.7, to Krusha e

5 Vogel.

6 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, sir.

7 JUDGE KWON: In the statement, there is a saying that "the status

8 of these remains did not permit to determine the cause of death." Could I

9 hear some explanation of this?

10 MR. RYNEVELD: Certainly. Thank you, Your Honour. I'd be happy

11 to ask that.

12 Q. Sir, in your conclusions, there was something about the status of

13 the remains. What can you tell us about the status of the remains that

14 does appear in your report which prevented you from determining the cause

15 of death? What was it about those bodies that prevented you from doing

16 that?

17 A. Yes, I can. The bodies were severely damaged. They were

18 skeletonised and partially burned, which prevented the British experts

19 from being able to go further in respect of determining the cause of

20 death.

21 Q. So their state of having been burnt and skeletonised simply did

22 not permit you to venture an opinion; is that correct?

23 A. No, because they were what we call body parts, fragments of

24 bodies, body fragments mostly.

25 Q. All right.

Page 5275

1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.


3 Q. Returning, if I may, to Racak, sir. The cause of death in the

4 majority of those 40 individuals, were you able to determine what the

5 cause of death was?

6 A. The cause of death was determined. It related to wounds through

7 projectiles from firearms.

8 Q. In what percentage of the victims would you say that was the case?

9 Were all the deaths related to gunshot wounds? Is that what I hear you to

10 say?

11 A. Yes. All the victims died from gunshot wounds.

12 Q. Turning, if I may, next to 1.4.10, the Studime e Eperme case. I

13 understand that some 93 individuals were exhumed and autopsied by the

14 French forensic team; is that correct?

15 A. Yes, that's correct.

16 Q. Are you able to say anything about gender or age of the victims?

17 A. As regards the sex, 87 per cent were -- 87 were men, six were

18 women. More than 75 per cent of the victims were under 50 years old.

19 Q. Are you able to provide some opinion to the Court concerning the

20 cause of death?

21 A. As regards the deaths, 97 per cent were due to firearms.

22 Q. Are you able to indicate, sir, whether or not the range at which

23 these people were killed in a certain percentage of the cases, whether it

24 was from a distance or close range?

25 A. As regards the firing distance, I myself was unable to confirm it,

Page 5276

1 and I could only repeat what was indicated by my colleagues, Professor

2 Lecomte and Dr. Vorhauer; and according to their conclusions, the firing

3 distance was close, even though they were not able to be more specific.

4 Q. And again, the entry -- was there any incidence of the entry wound

5 being in the back side of the corpse in those victims?

6 A. According to the information and the photographic documents which

7 appear in the reports, in 43 per cent of the cases, the wounds were in the

8 back side of the body, and in 23 per cent of the cases on the front side.

9 Q. Turning finally, with respect to this report, to your conclusions

10 under 1.4.11, the Suva Reka case, I understand, sir, that there were some

11 six bodies autopsied there by the British forensic team.

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

13 Q. And are you able to indicate, sir, for some of the identified

14 victims what the cause of death was?

15 A. Yes. For the victim identified as being Faton Berisha, that

16 victim died from a gunshot wound to the thorax. As regards the victim

17 identified as Fatime Berisha, that victim died from a gunshot wound to the

18 head. And as regards the four unidentified victims who were mixed

19 together, mingled together in the body bag, the cause of death could not

20 be determined.

21 Q. Is there a reason -- I suspect the answer is in your -- to my next

22 question has already been in your last response, but is there a reason why

23 the cause of death could not be determined for the four other victims? Is

24 it because their body parts were all mixed together? Is that what I'm

25 assuming from your answer, or is there some other reason?

Page 5277

1 A. That's the -- this deduction is correct. The absence of a

2 diagnostic -- diagnosis as to regards the cause of death was connected to

3 the fact that the bodies were extremely degraded, and there was a mixture

4 of the bones there.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I would tender Dr. Baccard's report

7 as the next exhibit.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, just one clarification from

9 yesterday. We're going to renumber the Meja binder, and that will be

10 given -- it was previously marked as Prosecutor's Exhibit 160.1. It will

11 now be 167. The expert report will be 168.

12 MR. RYNEVELD: And in accordance to what I indicated yesterday in

13 relation to the additional page from the index that was handed out

14 yesterday, I have had prepared an additional page which includes the tab

15 numbers for the Meja binders, three binders. And also, finally, one

16 binder that has also not been mentioned yesterday, the Cirez, Srbica

17 municipality binder for sexual assaults. That's on the same page. So if

18 I could distribute those pages, and then I want to finally deal with the

19 Cirez binder with Dr. Baccard.

20 This page is numbered 9 of 9. I think you received pages 1

21 through 8 yesterday.

22 This will be the last area of examination for the doctor.

23 Have the Cirez binders been distributed, are they there? Thank

24 you.

25 Madam Clerk, have we assigned numbers to the -- you've just

Page 5278












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5279

1 assigned the number to the Meja binder. Have you assigned the number to

2 the Cirez binder?

3 Your Honours, might we have a number assigned to the Cirez binder?

4 Because I intend to show it to the witness in a moment.

5 JUDGE MAY: Is it one of those which have been lined up or is it a

6 totally different binder?

7 MR. RYNEVELD: It's not one of the ones that was lined up

8 yesterday. It's a binder that was still being worked on yesterday and

9 it's been completed this morning. So it is a further binder but it does

10 -- it is on this index. It has been -- the contents were disclosed, we

11 just didn't physically have the binders reproduced yesterday, and they've

12 been produced now. They were disclosed. All this material in this binder

13 was disclosed in February to the amici and to the accused, and it relates

14 to the sexual assault counts only.

15 JUDGE MAY: Do we have the binder here or is there only one copy

16 of it?

17 MR. RYNEVELD: No, there are copies.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we'll give this Prosecutor's Exhibit

19 Number 169.

20 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

21 Q. Very briefly, Dr. Baccard. I understand, sir, that during the

22 year of 1999, you were in charge of all of the autopsies that were

23 performed under your supervision, including the French forensic mission on

24 the 2nd and 3rd of July of 1999 in Cirez; is that correct?

25 This was under Professor Dominique Lecomte?

Page 5280

1 A. No, that's not correct. In 1999, I was not responsible for the

2 autopsies performed by the French mission.

3 Q. All right. During the course of your employment, during the

4 course of your review of the autopsies of various bodies performed on

5 Kosovo victims, was one of the sites that you reviewed the Cirez site

6 involving some eight women who had been apparently found in a well, in

7 three wells? Do you recall looking at that?

8 A. Are you referring to the mission from 2000 or the mission in 1999?

9 Q. This would be 1999.

10 A. In 1999, I did not participate in the autopsies performed at that

11 site.

12 Q. All right. Doctor, there is an autopsy report performed by the

13 French team, with photographs of the various bodies. Sir, if you were

14 requested to review the -- actually, it's a very brief report, about five

15 pages with photographs, and if you were asked to stand down, would you be

16 able to provide the Court with an opinion later this week if you were

17 asked by the Court to review -- or by the Prosecution to review these

18 photographs to determine whether or not the findings in this binder are

19 consistent with your observations?

20 A. I don't understand the question.

21 JUDGE MAY: I think, Mr. Ryneveld, the witness can't assist on

22 this matter. I think -- suspect you'll have to call another witness or

23 review the position rather than trying to put a burden on him now.

24 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. My hope was that since the witness is here,

25 that he may, if the Court would - after he concludes his evidence - permit

Page 5281

1 him to review this binder and if he is able to render an opinion, to

2 recall him before he leaves.

3 JUDGE MAY: One moment.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE MAY: We think it's going to be difficult, but we'll see

6 what the position is.

7 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honours.

8 MR. KAY: Shall we withdraw the exhibit?

9 JUDGE MAY: I think that would be the best course. Let's withdraw

10 the exhibit now.

11 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

12 JUDGE MAY: Cross it out of the numbers and I'll hand this copy

13 back.

14 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour. Those are the questions I

15 have with respect to Dr. Baccard at this time, subject, of course, to a

16 further application once he's finished testifying. Thank you.

17 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ryneveld, before we move on, I'm not sure whether

18 he gave us the explanation of the concept of minimal number of victims

19 which was dealt with in

20 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

21 JUDGE KWON: Can I hear it again?

22 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, absolutely.

23 Q. Dr. Baccard, did you hear the question from His Honour Judge Kwon

24 about 1. -- I'm sorry, I've got the wrong binder. 1.3. -- sorry, what was

25 that?

Page 5282

1 JUDGE KWON: 4.1.

2 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

3 Q. Would you turn to that part of your conclusion, and --

4 JUDGE KWON:, yes.

5 MR. RYNEVELD: I'm trying to locate it, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE KWON: It's on page 10.

7 MR. RYNEVELD: Ah. Yes. All right.

8 Q. Yes. On page 10 of your report, sir, at the bottom of the page,

9 you gave a report concerning the minimum number of victims, talked about

10 commingling of skeletonised body parts, et cetera. Can you explain what

11 you mean, how you arrive at the minimal number of individuals for the

12 purposes of reporting in this report? Can you explain the process you

13 adopted where you were confronted with commingled body parts? You

14 understand my question?

15 A. Yes, I do. This has to do with the problem with which

16 anthropologists and forensic anthropologists are confronted. When one is

17 in the presence of bones that have been destroyed and commingled about

18 which it is difficult to identify not only the individuals but even the

19 number of individuals because one might find only one part of a right arm,

20 for example, for instance, or a part of a left arm, and that the two parts

21 could belong to -- either to two individuals or to the same individuals.

22 And the expert work is to try to put together the bones which can be put

23 together. And the risk one runs is overestimating the number of victims,

24 and that's the reason that we prefer to speak about the minimum number of

25 victims, realising that this is the lower limit below which one cannot go,

Page 5283

1 basing oneself on bones that are only one single bone, like the sacrum or

2 the right or the left side, and that one would get a left or right

3 humerus, that prior work which the anthropologist expert does when he is

4 faced with commingled bones which have been severely damaged.

5 Q. Is another way of phrasing what you've just told us, sir, that if

6 you err on the side of caution, in other words, you err on the side of a

7 lower number of victims that might possibly be there? Is that what you

8 mean by the minimal number of victims? There could be more but no less

9 than what is reported?

10 A. Absolutely.

11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

12 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. Those are my questions of Dr. Baccard

13 at this time. Thank you, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before I start with my questions,

16 for the record, in connection what I asked for yesterday, I have here your

17 ruling of the 4th of January, 2002. And under point (e), it says that the

18 current status of disclosure [In English] "66(A) of the Rules including

19 the necessary translations into the language of the accused."

20 [Interpretation] Therefore, you made the ruling that I should

21 receive the documents translated into my language. My yesterday's

22 objection was not whether something was disclosed or not but that it was

23 not disclosed in the language that you required it to be disclosed in.

24 And when something was not disclosed in accordance with the Rules, then it

25 is the same as if it hadn't been disclosed at all. And I link this to

Page 5284

1 this witness who notes errors which he himself established, discrepancies,

2 differences, and so on.

3 Therefore, I have been withheld the possibility for the experts

4 assisting me to review the documents on the basis of which the witness

5 made his conclusions, on the basis on which he found errors and so on and

6 so forth. I'm saying this --

7 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Which documents have not been

8 disclosed in B/C/S?

9 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour, to -- all this material has been

10 disclosed in English. These are exhibits under -- my understanding is

11 that even the report doesn't have to be disclosed in B/C/S, nor do

12 exhibits. This is -- these documents are not subject to the ruling that

13 they have to be in the language of the accused.

14 Now, we, as a courtesy, provided him with a copy of Dr. Baccard's

15 report in B/C/S, but my understanding of the Rules is that that was not a

16 requirement, nor are exhibits themselves. They are not part of the

17 documentation that needs to be disclosed in the language of the accused.

18 That's my understanding of the Rules. And everything was disclosed, as I

19 say, in its form, in its present form, since February.

20 JUDGE MAY: We don't want to waste the time of this witness. The

21 report has been disclosed in B/C/S, so the witness has that. We will

22 review the position with regard to disclosure in due course.

23 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

24 JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Milosevic, do you want to ask this witness

25 any questions based on his report?

Page 5285

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly.

2 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Baccard, what do you imply under sources of

4 forensic information?

5 A. As regards the sources of information which I used for the

6 drafting of this report, those sources were mentioned yesterday and they

7 appear on page 9 of my report, that is, they were reports of autopsies of

8 anthropological experts that were prepared by my colleagues who worked on

9 site and which constitute this document. There are also reports of crime

10 scene examinations which were prepared within that same context,

11 photographic albums of photographs taken during the autopsies, also

12 photographs taken at the crime scenes. And in the case of Izbica, there

13 was an additional document which is the video cassette and the photographs

14 which were extracted from that video cassette.

15 Q. As I am not an expert, I have to ask you some questions which may

16 appear to you to be too simplistic, but I would like to put them to you

17 because I think they help to clarify the situation about which you are

18 testifying. The question is linked to the first point you just made.

19 Is it necessary for those sources of forensic information to exist

20 prior to the beginning of the post-mortems, those that you have listed, as

21 this can affect the position of the persons carrying out the autopsies of

22 bodies or post-mortems?

23 A. I did not understand the question. Could it be re-asked, please.

24 Q. My question was: This collection of forensic information that you

25 have listed as your sources, do they need to be available before

Page 5286

1 undertaking an autopsy? Do you need to have what I would call information

2 that are included in the overall analysis before undertaking a post-mortem

3 or not?

4 A. The sources of information were based on the autopsies which were

5 performed by international experts who came on site. The sources of

6 information and the autopsy reports, the photographs were taken at the

7 time of the autopsies, and therefore, they come from the autopsies and did

8 not pre-exist the autopsies.

9 Q. I wanted to establish that. So before an autopsy, you didn't have

10 any information as a guideline for those autopsies. So you had no

11 information whatsoever prior to the autopsies?

12 A. The list that I use for this report of an analysis and summary is

13 clearly mentioned on page 9. I did not use other information.

14 Q. Thank you. Military or civilian clothing, can it determine the

15 status of a person in an armed conflict in a war-ravaged area or is the

16 status determined by the activity of a person who is carrying weapons,

17 using weapons, and killing people? So does the clothing determine the

18 status of the person or not?

19 A. I can answer that question -- I cannot answer that question which

20 goes outside my speciality, and have access only to the photographs which

21 give details. And this was mentioned in several of the reports. I

22 systematically studied that criterion in order to make -- to point out

23 that information to the Judges. It was for their information. And then

24 the Judges will have to interpret the information. But that is not up to

25 -- it's not up to the forensic expert to -- to evaluate things in that

Page 5287

1 way.

2 Q. Yes. But in your report, in point 1.1, you do refer to that

3 aspect of the situation.

4 A. Yes, that's correct. This is a criterion, as I said, which was

5 systematically studied in the report but no interpretation was made, at

6 least not by me, in the report on the meaning which the presence or

7 absence of this or that piece of clothing might have.

8 Q. So you do not consider yourself qualified to judge whether the

9 status of a person is determined by the clothing he is wearing or the arms

10 he's carrying or --

11 JUDGE MAY: He has answered that question. Now, let's move on.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Why are statements of witnesses a component part on the report on

14 autopsies and anthropological expert findings?

15 A. Certain witnesses that were doctors, these persons provided

16 clarification about the interesting information and in -- as such, it was

17 very rare. This is established in the report in that case. From the time

18 that forensic information was indicated in the statement, and then if that

19 was the case, I learned of it.

20 Q. So that means when you're talking about witnesses, you're talking

21 exclusively about information of a forensic nature provided again by

22 experts. Do I understand you properly?

23 A. The list of documents appears for each case in the introduction to

24 the report on that site. Therefore, one has to refer to it in order to

25 answer your question.

Page 5288

1 Q. Mr. Baccard, I am cross-examining you, so you can't tell me it is

2 to be found in the list of documents. I have that list. You need to

3 answer my question. My question was very clear.

4 When you mention witness statements, does that mean exclusively

5 forensic expert findings of your own colleagues that you used? Yes or no.

6 A. As regards the witness statement to which allusion has been made,

7 it was the statement of a physician who carried out what we call an

8 external examination at the site of the incident. It was a medical

9 opinion.

10 Q. So you only have one medical opinion as a witness statement that

11 you used in your report?

12 A. The term "witness statements" concerns seven statements of a

13 witness who was a physician who carried out an external examination of the

14 corpses at the site of the incident; and in his medical studies, he has a

15 part which is devoted to forensic medicine and the opinion of a specialist

16 physician which might be very, very useful in terms of the -- in terms of

17 the forensic information he noted.

18 Q. And what is the name of that person?

19 A. That was (redacted).

20 Q. And what was her position and function in the investigations?

21 A. I think -- well, I don't know exactly what the functions were. I

22 think that that person did not have any function in the investigation, but

23 the -- she was there, because we're talking about a physician who was

24 there to treat.

25 Q. Are you aware of the qualifications of that witness regarding her

Page 5289

1 forensic expertise?

2 A. No, I don't know them.

3 Q. But you took her statement as being the statement of a forensic

4 specialist.

5 A. No, that's not correct. It was one of the elements which is

6 indicated last and that I used in the Racak case study after the autopsy

7 reports that were performed by the Finnish forensic pathologists and those

8 from Yugoslavia and Belorussia and the various documents which were

9 drafted for that incident.

10 Q. I'm talking in principle about witness statements as a component

11 part of the reports on autopsies. So my question was: Why is a witness

12 statement a component part of a report on autopsies? And I wanted to get

13 a professional explanation for this. We'll come back to this specific

14 case later.

15 My next question, Mr. Baccard, is: Can videotapes and stills made

16 on the basis of those tapes being considered evidence in legal

17 proceedings? This refers to the part of your report 1.2. I wish to

18 facilitate your answers.

19 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour.

20 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

21 MR. RYNEVELD: When reviewing the question, I believe that's

22 something within Your Honours' domain rather than the witness's domain.

23 He's asking his opinion as to whether or not this is, as I see it,

24 considered evidence in legal proceedings.

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course.

Page 5290












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5291

1 Yes. It's not matter for the witness. It's a matter for us.

2 Let's have the next question.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I shall move on to the next

4 question, Mr. May, but I do have the right in cross-examination to ask any

5 questions that were mentioned and brought up by the witness in his report.

6 But, yes, I shall move on to my next question.

7 JUDGE MAY: That wasn't brought up. But let us move on.

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. If in the report on Suva Reka, for example, two anthropological

10 experts of the same kind do not coincide, what about the rest of the

11 findings of the anthropologists? Can they be accepted as being

12 trustworthy? And it is point that I'm referring to.

13 A. I apologise. Could you repeat the question, please?

14 Q. If in the report on Suva Reka two anthropological expertise --

15 experts of the same team do not coincide, what about the rest of the

16 findings of the anthropologists? Can they be accepted as being

17 trustworthy?

18 A. I noted the contradiction which appeared on a very specific point

19 of the report on Suva Reka. This does not put into question the rest of

20 the report.

21 Q. In wartime conflicts, do we see more adults taking part, young

22 adults, that is to say, or adults --

23 JUDGE MAY: That's not a question -- this witness is here to deal

24 with the pathology, not to deal with general points such as that sort.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness is a forensic expert,

Page 5292

1 Mr. May.

2 JUDGE MAY: No. That's a matter for the Court if it's a matter

3 for anybody.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. How, and does this occur, that is to say, how do the putrefaction

7 changes and disintegration of the corpses, as well as the existence of the

8 bones themselves of human origin, how does this affect the establishment

9 of the number of wounds on the body and the establishment of the cause and

10 origin of death?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. But my question was if yes, how? How were these putrefactions

13 expressed, decaying processes?

14 A. The state of degradation of a body - and this is a general answer

15 - does constitute an additional obstacle for the forensic pathologist in

16 determining the cause of death. Perhaps I won't explain all of the

17 changes that take place in the colouring of the teguments which can mask

18 or conceal in part ecchymosis or haematomas or changes which are related

19 to the appearance of ecchymosal cavities of putrefaction. All of these

20 changes that take place during putrefaction cause difficulties for

21 determining the source of the wound or the trajectories.

22 At a later stage, the gradual disappearance of all the soft

23 tissues also constitutes a handicap for the forensic pathologist who will,

24 in the end, be confronted with only a skeleton. And if the wounds which

25 have soft parties are on a body, then from that point of view, the state

Page 5293

1 of a body is very important in order to determine the cause of death.

2 Q. Therefore, they have -- they affect the number of wounds on the

3 body and determining the cause and origin of death. They affect this very

4 much; is that right? Am I understanding you correctly?

5 A. This is a difficulty, an additional difficulty, but there are

6 other methods which allow one to make up for that additional difficulty.

7 Q. How is it possible for a person killed to establish different

8 forms of death? First of all, a person can die because the fact that the

9 brain has been blown out or destroyed. Perhaps it is due to bleeding.

10 Perhaps it is due to the heart or the fact that the aorta has been cut

11 off. And you have this in, these different elements.

12 A. In general, the answer is that the death is not the result of a

13 temporal succession of pathological but rather a succession of various

14 events that take place at the same time. When a person has been hit by

15 several projectiles, those projectiles can wound different organs, and the

16 pathologist is then faced with several potential causes of death, and to

17 that extent, the conclusions of the autopsies indicate frequently several

18 causes of death.

19 Q. And to determine the circumstances under which death set in, is

20 that the business of the person, the physician conducting the post-mortem,

21 the autopsy? Is that their duty?

22 A. There is no obligation from a scientific point of view, but it is

23 recommended. Still, there are cases when the cause of death cannot be

24 established.

25 Q. I'm asking this question in connection with your point,

Page 5294

1 manner of death. So it was in that regard that I asked the question,

2 whether physicians conducting autopsies can determine the circumstances

3 which cause death, under which death occurred, and whether that was their

4 job or not, and as you're a professional man, whether you can tell us

5 since when that has been their job.

6 A. As to determining the circumstances of the death and not the cause

7 of death, the determination of the circumstances of the death require,

8 when possible, knowledge of other information, in particular information

9 relating to observations that were made on crimes -- on crime scenes and

10 the certainty that the chain of proof was respected.

11 Q. And is it the duty of the expert dealing in homicide?

12 JUDGE MAY: What's the question?

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The question is: Is that the duty

14 of the experts investigating homicides?

15 JUDGE MAY: Is what the duty?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, to establish the circumstances

17 under which death occurred. A moment ago, the witness mentioned --

18 JUDGE MAY: That's the question. Let the witness deal with it.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The obligation of the expert is to

20 provide to the Judges the most complete information, the most exhaustive

21 information possible. When that expert is in a position to provide an

22 opinion on the circumstances of death, he can do so, observing, of course

23 -- or being as careful as possible. But if there is information allowing

24 him to establish that the possibility of suicide, for example, would be

25 the most plausible in respect of forensic medicine, he can make a

Page 5295

1 statement in respect of that possibility.

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. And on the basis of which parameters will a pathologist be able

4 to, after an autopsy has been conducted, to draw conclusions as to how he

5 differentiates death which occurred through hand firearms, for example, in

6 war as opposed to a killing that took place, for example, in an armed

7 conflict in which two people were involved, or the results of an

8 unfortunate event such as self-infliction of wounds by a firearm going off

9 and things of that kind? So all these different circumstances in fact and

10 these different possibilities. What are the parameters that a pathologist

11 will use to differentiate between these different types of death?

12 A. He refers to the Racak case where the Finnish team systematically

13 took up that point without -- without giving an answer. In practice,

14 current forensic medicine establishes that the -- that we must consider

15 the possibility and on which we have to make -- give an opinion generally

16 is that of suicide, homicide, or accident. And I can give you perhaps the

17 various forensic arguments which allow us to decide which of these

18 possibilities is the correct one and which we then provide to the Judges.

19 I don't know whether your question is actually related to that.

20 Q. Yes. Thank you. Now, with a skeletonised corpse, how can you

21 differentiate between inflictions to the bone with blunt or sharp objects

22 in the course of life from injuries that were caused with those same

23 objects after death or while the person was being buried, the body was

24 being buried? And this is once again referring to your point

25 With skeletonised corpses, how are you able to ascertain that?

Page 5296

1 A. In that case, the forensic pathologist is confronted with

2 significant difficulties, and that explains that, in some cases, he is

3 unable to make a diagnosis as to the cause of death. As regards the first

4 part of the question, from the very moment when the body has -- even if it

5 has been skeletonised, that body has lesions. By the aspect of -- the

6 external aspect of those lesions and the microscopic aspects of the

7 lesions, one can find wounds which could be indicative of gunshot wounds

8 or types of fractures which would indicate a blunt instrument or a cutting

9 instrument. That is possible, but nonetheless, there must be lesions on

10 the bones.

11 Of course, when we're talking about wounds on the soft tissues and

12 when we are dealing with a skeletonised body, one cannot make an

13 evaluation.

14 Q. And what about carbonised corpses and corpses that have been

15 distorted through decay after exhumation? Can you ascertain whether the

16 effect of the firearm was while the person was still living or when he was

17 dead? And I'm linking this up with your point to facilitate you

18 in answering your question.

19 A. --

20 Q.

21 A. Yes. As regards the difficulty caused by carbonisation of a body,

22 x-rays make it possible to establish whether or not there were

23 projectiles. Then everything depends on the degree of carbonisation. The

24 wounds systematically must be studied with a desire to find whether one

25 can find the antemortem character or the post-mortem character.

Page 5297

1 Everything then depends on what remains of tissue around the wound which

2 would make it possible for the expert to answer the question as to whether

3 it is a -- it was a lethal wound or one that was -- that occurred later

4 on.

5 Q. So it is possible, even with carbonised and decayed corpses; is

6 that right? Have I understood you correctly, it is possible?

7 A. It is difficult to make a general answer because there are

8 different degrees of the stages of putrefaction. There are also different

9 stages of carbonisation. Therefore, each case is individual, but

10 systematically one has to try to see whether it is possible to point out

11 certain indications of wounds that give to that wound the definition

12 whether it was something that happened before death or after death.

13 Q. So it is on the basis of bleeding around the wound, with a

14 carbonised body, that you are able to establish that. Am I correct in my

15 understanding?

16 A. That is one of the criteria which is studied.

17 Q. Very well. And with a skeletonised and putrefied corpse, can you

18 establish the exact number of entry wounds or can you only assume how many

19 there are or a minimum number of wounds and something that is not

20 conclusive in that respect? And I'm linking this up to the next paragraph

21 of yours which is, number of gunshot wounds.

22 A. From the moment that the parts of the skeleton show lesions, it is

23 possible to identify those lesions. But first one underestimates the

24 numbers because all the wounds which concern only the soft tissues, which

25 have therefore disappeared, are not taken into account.

Page 5298

1 And secondly, as regards a skeleton, one must take into account

2 the fact that certain of the -- of the wounds are entry wounds and -- some

3 are entry openings and some are exit openings and that they might

4 correspond to the same wound.

5 And then the third point that the pathologist has to consider is

6 whether the fact that the victim is a moving target and that that target

7 might have an arm raised in a gesture of defence and it will be wounded in

8 the arm, the forearm. The projectile will therefore afterwards perforate

9 the thorax but it is the same shot. And if one examines the person in an

10 anatomical position, you would see three different wounds, four if you

11 count the exit wound in the thoracic cage. And that is why the

12 pathologist, as far as possible, tries to speak about the minimal number

13 of shots.

14 Q. Now, an experienced expert, an experienced professional, can he,

15 without having any great problems in determining the entry and exit wounds

16 on the upper and lower extremities, and where does the difficulty lie in

17 determining the position of the wounds on the extremities, as is stated in

18 your report in paragraph, location of the point of entry?

19 A. The problem of the upper limbs and lower limbs, in fact, is a

20 significant one because the bones will be long bones. There are bones

21 which have a cortical thickness which is significant with a cylindrical

22 form. In those cases, it is much more difficult to determine whether we

23 are talking about an exit or an entry orifice. I'm speaking about a body

24 which has been skeletonised, and I'm leaving aside the case of a body

25 which is -- still has soft tissue, because at that point we have other

Page 5299

1 arguments that we can use.

2 Having said this, even when we're talking about a long bone, it is

3 possible in many cases to determine an entry -- an open -- an entry point

4 which we can distinguish from an exit point. But it's difficult to have a

5 general position on this, but there is no question that it is much more

6 difficult to make a differential diagnosis between the exit and the entry

7 point on a long bone than on a flat bone. That would be the skull or the

8 ribs.

9 Q. And on the bodies, were blindfolds and ligatures found, and if so,

10 where were they found?

11 A. If I remember correctly, there was never shown that there were

12 blindfolds on the corpses. There was one case was disputed, but in my

13 opinion, it was a kind of a band that was -- that was put around the head

14 in order to keep the jaw in place and that during movement, that type of

15 tissue might move. And then in that case, on that site, it was not shown

16 that there were any blindfolds.

17 Q. I'm talking about all your localities. In explaining the

18 methodology of your work in Racak, for example, you state that all the

19 autopsies can be classed into three groups and that they were verified

20 ones, supervised ones, and complete forensic autopsies. And for the first

21 two, you give detailed explanations of your methodology, but there is no

22 detailed explanation of methodology for your third group. Why is that so?

23 A. The third group is the group of autopsies which were performed by

24 the Finnish team.

25 Q. You mention that the first 16 autopsies were carried out before

Page 5300

1 the Finnish expert team arrived. Isn't that so?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. But were the expert positions of the Yugoslavs, Finnish experts,

4 and Belorussian experts for those 16 autopsies, were they harmonised

5 and dovetailed or not? Aligned or not?

6 A. Those reports are -- well, I only had available to me the Yugoslav

7 expert and the Belorussian expert. I only had one page, and it was a page

8 indicating the conclusion responding to answers asked by the Yugoslav

9 judge. I did not have available to me the full report drafted by the

10 Yugoslav physicians, and therefore, this was a comparative work done

11 between the conclusions -- based on the conclusion page prepared by the

12 Yugoslav and Belorussian physicians which I compared with the report and

13 conclusions made by the Finnish physicians. In order to answer your

14 question, there existed - and this is listed in the annex of my report -

15 there existed some cases wherein the conclusions were different.

16 Certain points were minor points. Others were more important in respect

17 of the number of shots that were fired on the victims.

18 Q. And do you consider those differences to be significant or less

19 significant? The differences that you've been speaking about.

20 A. On the whole, for questions which are significant, such as the

21 cause of death, there were some differences. Those differences, in my

22 opinion, did not call into question the agreement between the two or three

23 teams, that is the Finnish team, Belorussian, and Yugoslav. But there

24 were some contradictions, and that appears in the annex.

25 Q. Yes, yes. The important thing is this: That you say they don't

Page 5301

1 bring into question this agreement, that is to say, the differences will

2 not affect the general agreement. That's how I understood you. Is that

3 correct?

4 A. That is not quite what I said. What I said is that I had

5 available to me a conclusion page which provided information which is

6 extremely simple, even somewhat summary, in respect of the causes of death

7 and the fact that the wounds were ante or post-mortem and the number of

8 shots. As regards the cause of death, there was no discrepancy that was

9 evident between the work carried out by the two teams, that is the Belarus

10 and the Yugoslav team on one side and the Finnish on the other.

11 As regards other points, because these reports, which I had to

12 study, from the Finnish pathologists were sometimes quite long and one

13 could not compare a very complete report with a one-sheet conclusion

14 because I did not have available to me the complete reports that were

15 drafted by my colleagues from Yugoslavia and Belorussia.

16 Q. All right. Now, if the pathologists in Racak claim that in one

17 case you cannot exclude the possibility of the fact that a wound was

18 inflicted with a blunt object and then the person conducting the autopsy

19 concludes that, only on the basis of a photograph, that that injury was

20 caused by a firearm because it has a typical description, the keyhole

21 element, then the question arises - and this is my question to you - how

22 come the pathologist does not see that? And this is linked to,

23 paragraph of your report.

24 A. I remember the case which is being referred to, and it is true.

25 The conclusions of the Finnish forensic specialist left some doubts as

Page 5302












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5303

1 regards the two possibilities, the first being that of a cranial cervical

2 lesion caused by a gunshot and the other being a wound by a blunt

3 instrument. And therefore, I learned of the photograph album which was

4 prepared at the time of the autopsy, and I can assert that the lesional

5 aspect that one sees on the photograph is typical of a lesion caused by a

6 firearm which performs a kind of a keyhole aspect described by many

7 writers, particularly in the United States. And this is the type of

8 lesion which one frequently finds with certain types of calibres which

9 then create a kind of a keyhole, which is absolutely typical. That is the

10 -- that's my expert opinion.

11 Q. Yes, but my question is how come the pathologist did not see it,

12 notice it?

13 A. Those people who performed the autopsy noted the lesion, described

14 it, measured it, and mentioned two possibilities among which is the

15 possibility of a wound by gunshot, and this was the first possibility

16 which was mentioned.

17 JUDGE MAY: It is the time for an adjournment. We will adjourn

18 now for 20 minutes.

19 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

20 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Mr. Baccard, you said --

24 JUDGE MAY: We've got no translation.

25 THE INTERPRETER: One, two, three. Is that better?

Page 5304

1 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. You said, Mr. Baccard, in connection with the comparison of

4 reports, that you only read a page-long list of conclusions by Yugoslav

5 and Belorussian experts, that you didn't read their entire report. Is

6 that right? Did I get you correctly?

7 THE INTERPRETER: The witness doesn't have his microphone on, Your

8 Honour.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read what was given to me, that is

10 40 times one page of conclusion of the expert report of the experts of the

11 Yugoslav and Belorussian experts. Those are the only -- that's the only

12 thing I had available to me.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. And did you ask the Yugoslav authorities to provide you with the

15 whole report in view of the job that you were asked to do?

16 A. I asked that from the Office of the Prosecutor, and I myself did

17 not make a request with the Yugoslav authorities. I didn't have any

18 qualification -- any authorisation to do so.

19 Q. Very well. But you did ask this of peoples who were able to

20 provide you with that. So you did address yourself to the Prosecution,

21 did you not? Thank you for your answer.

22 In connection with the witness that you mentioned, do you, as an

23 expert and in view of your references, which are most impressive and show

24 that you are a very prominent forensic expert, do you consider that person

25 that you mentioned as a physician who testified for this case, that she

Page 5305

1 was able to provide relevant facts in that testimony in view of the fact

2 that, according to her testimony, which I hold in my hands, she spent a

3 total of two hours for all those 40 bodies that she examined. So was it

4 possible for a high-level expert or an expert who is far from that that

5 you referred to, in a period of some two hours, to examine 40 bodies,

6 establish the entry and exit wounds, the clothing, and all the other

7 parameters that she mentions in her testimony?

8 JUDGE MAY: Can you comment on that, Dr. Baccard, or not?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like, Your Honour, to recall

10 that the testimony of (redacted) was only one element among others

11 that I used partially for the summary report. I would remind you that the

12 doctor was not on site as an expert but, rather, as a witness. And I

13 would also like to recall that in current forensic medicine, whether it be

14 in France or other countries, we frequently have available to us at the

15 time of the autopsies descriptive certificates which were prepared by

16 general practitioners called on to appear on site, either by the family of

17 the deceased person or by the police services, and that this type of

18 document is transmitted to the forensic expert as one piece of information

19 among other pieces of information.

20 And therefore, I would like to put this in its right proportions.

21 That is, I am speaking about the contribution of (redacted)

22 the documents which were the basis of my report.

23 JUDGE KWON: Doctor --

24 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour, if it assists, that report referred to

25 by the witness whose name I don't want to mention and ought be redacted

Page 5306

1 from the transcript, is found in the Racak binders which are part of the

2 38 binders that Your Honours have. So --

3 JUDGE MAY: The Trial Chamber has the position in mind. We have

4 dealt with this matter. And Mr. Milosevic, there's no need to ask any

5 further questions about it. We have it fully in mind, and we have now the

6 witness's answer that it was merely one element amongst the others which

7 he took into account in coming to the conclusions which he did. But

8 there's no need to repeat the point, because as I say, we are fully aware

9 of it in the various points that you have made.

10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

11 JUDGE MAY: Have you got your microphone on?

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is switched on now.

13 I was saying, regarding the question, it has to do exclusively

14 with my interest in hearing Dr. Baccard's professional opinion in

15 connection with the very specific question, that is, whether two hours is

16 sufficient to draw any kind of conclusions of the examination of 40

17 bodies.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As Dr. Baccard is a specialist

20 witness --

21 JUDGE MAY: So we don't go over this again, let the witness give

22 an opinion, if he thinks he can, as to that point.

23 If you think it's right -- you've heard the point. Is it possible

24 in two hours to come to any kind of conclusions in these circumstances?

25 What would your view be, if you have one?

Page 5307

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course not as part of a forensic

2 expert -- expert evaluation, but one can carry out a serious forensic

3 analysis on 40 bodies in two hours. But the conclusions of this colleague

4 were not of interest to me. What was of interest to me were the comments

5 and not the conclusions or the interpretation about what she had seen,

6 only what was important to me were the observations that she was able to

7 make on the bodies of the victims.

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Which observations, Mr. Baccard?

10 A. The observations in respect of the position of the victims and the

11 wounds that were shown, that is, those observations which appear in that

12 document.

13 Q. And do you know that there is a serious reason to believe that

14 those corpses were moved and brought from various locations to the spot

15 where she found them? Did you take into consideration that fact too?

16 A. I did hear about the possibility that that might have happened,

17 but my work essentially was based on the results of the autopsy -- the

18 autopsies and not on a prior possible moving of the bodies.

19 Q. Very well. Let us move on then with other questions.

20 The number of gunshot wounds and other wounds, can they be an

21 indication of the cause of death or not?

22 A. The number itself, no, but the location of the wounds, yes.

23 Q. If a group of armed men is surrounded by another group and if

24 there is an armed conflict between them, on what part of the body will the

25 surrounded people have entry wounds, and will in that case be a greater

Page 5308

1 probability of one part of the body being fired at more frequently than

2 another? I draw attention to paragraph of your report.

3 A. To answer in general terms that question, that is outside the

4 scope of my specialisation. The question calls into account criteria

5 which are not necessarily forensic, and I am not in a position to answer.

6 Everything would depend on the respective positions of the two groups, of

7 their weapons, the circumstances; there are too many variables, and I

8 cannot answer that question.

9 Q. So there are too many variables to be able to give a qualified

10 professional opinion on your part.

11 JUDGE MAY: That's what the witness has just said.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. And can one explain a large number of injuries on the head and

14 trunk by the fact that in any training of soldiers or any members of armed

15 formations at exercise grounds one usually uses targets with heads and

16 trunks, and the advice is mainly to hit the head and trunk. This is part

17 of the routine training of anyone being trained for combat.

18 JUDGE MAY: It's not a matter for the witness. Yes. Next

19 question.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. In the event of a person lying down, on what part of the body

22 would the wounds be found if we're talking about close-range struggle,

23 running, moving, when both sides are mobile, moving around?

24 A. It would be difficult to answer that question also because it

25 calls into account too many variables into whether the person is lying

Page 5309

1 down, whether he's lying on the back, on the stomach, whether that person

2 ran or was running. One cannot give a general answer to that type of

3 question. One must take into account the particular cases in order to

4 provide a well-reasoned answer.

5 Q. And on the basis of the appearance and size of the wound, is it

6 possible to determine the calibre of the firearms that were used and on

7 the basis of which criteria? I'm referring to paragraph

8 A. As regards determination of the calibre of the weapon, one --

9, you said? One can provide only general directions. It's very

10 difficult to make the aspect of a wound match a specific calibre. One can

11 give a direction in respect of a type of weapons or munition. That's much

12 easier when one has, for instance, a body which has been pierced by a

13 projectile. It's much more elastic then. The diameter of the entry point

14 will be more or less the same as the calibre of the weapon. That is much

15 more hazardous in respect of the entry wound on the skin because of the

16 fact that the skin is elastic.

17 Another fact which gives information as to the calibre of the

18 weapon is what we call, in ballistics, lesional ballistic, the lesional

19 profile, that is what one finds during the autopsy in respect of the

20 issues which were traversed by the projectile. So it is a kind of -- a

21 grouping of various elements which will allow, later on -- allow the

22 expert later on to provide information to the judge about a large category

23 or a large class of weapons or projectiles; weapons, calibres, and

24 projectiles.

25 Q. And which are the criteria for determining the distance from which

Page 5310

1 a projectile was fired, the projectile that hit the body?

2 A. This is a very important question in forensic medicine, but one

3 wants to make a distinction between two cases, depending on whether one --

4 one is dealing with a single shot, a bullet of a weapon or a rifle or a

5 carbine or an assault weapon, or ones which have gunshot -- gunshot wounds

6 which come from buckshot. Buckshot or various projectiles. The spacing

7 of the spray at the point of impact will be correlated with the distance

8 of the firing. The person firing either will be far away -- the further

9 he is from the victim, that is the person firing, the larger there will be

10 a spray of shot. But there are other variables to be taken into account

11 which take into account the length of the gun, the -- the charge of the

12 weapon or the -- the -- what is going to help in dispersing the shot.

13 And then we deal with the single projectile, that is the bullet

14 itself, the bullet which is by itself. In that case, other information is

15 used in order to determine the firing distance. These have to do with

16 information which are either visible or which are shown by analysis. This

17 information which is visible is -- would be burns on -- at the point of

18 the wound or the kind of tattooing of the powder traces which have been

19 partially or incompletely burned on the edges of the wound and then we

20 call it the fading zone. That is the place where the smoke struck the

21 body. And then in respect of the firing distance, some of this

22 information will be present or absent.

23 The final case to be taken into account is the one of firing which

24 had been at close range or in which -- when one sees a specific aspect of

25 the wound itself.

Page 5311

1 These are the different criteria which we use in forensics in

2 order to determine the firing distance.

3 Q. Yes. But, for instance, there are no burns, which means that it

4 was not close range. Can you then assess the distance from which the shot

5 was fired? Was it 10, 50, or 500 metres?

6 A. Beyond a certain distance, which various depending on the length

7 of the gun or the size of the -- amount of powder used, it is true that

8 one can determine the firing distance. One can determine contact

9 discharge firing with the -- where the gun is put right up against the

10 skin of the victim, those which are close range, those which are short

11 range, and then intermediary distance and long distance about which one

12 cannot give any specific information from the point that the traces of

13 sulphur powder have dissipated. Once that has happened, one cannot

14 determine the firing distance.

15 Q. Very well, then. Let me be more specific. Which distances can be

16 established during the autopsy and using which research methods? Which

17 distances is it possible to establish and on the basis of which methods of

18 research?

19 A. The firing distance which we can evaluate at the time of the

20 autopsies, referring to single projectiles, one can determine that things

21 -- approximately only those which -- the cases where the gun actually

22 touched the skin, at close-range shooting, that is, a few centimetres from

23 the wound, and then intermediary distance. Once all of those factors can

24 no longer be determined, there would be no signs on the body.

25 Q. So in that case, it is not impossible to establish the distance

Page 5312

1 from which the shot was fired, whether it was 20 metres or 200 metres, if

2 those traces are lacking?

3 A. With -- using classical methods, traditional methods. Using other

4 methods, using more sophisticated techniques relating to lesional

5 ballistics, there are differences in velocity which will cause changes on

6 the lesional profile, but that requires specific methodology.

7 Q. In the studies that you did of those killed in Racak, did you have

8 at your disposal information about the number of persons for whom the

9 paraffin test was positive? That is, it was established that they were

10 shot at by firearms.

11 A. As regards the reports which I consulted, that is the Finnish

12 report and the one-page conclusion of the Belorussian and Yugoslavian

13 team, there are no mention of paraffin tests. I would add that that

14 paraffin test, which dates back to the 1930s, is a test which is of

15 historical interest but which today is of no scientific interest. It is a

16 test which can make it possible, when used on a person who shot in order

17 to get an idea of the distribution of nitrate on the hands. But it will

18 only indicate nitrate and in no way will it be very specific about firing

19 residue. This is a test whose scientific valuation today has been

20 rejected by all experts throughout the world because of its lack of

21 specificity and the fact that our atmosphere has nitrate pollution at very

22 large levels which is related to fertilisers and related to the

23 possibility of having positive tests if there are traces of urine or nail

24 polish or using any other kind of agents which would give positive

25 reactions. So that is a test which is no longer scientifically accepted

Page 5313

1 at all and has no scientific value in respect of showing firing residue.

2 Having said this, I -- I was able to -- I did not really use that

3 method in order to -- to come to any conclusions. If I had had to, I

4 would have pointed out that there was a lack of specificity in that type

5 of test which does not allow it to be accepted in the scientific

6 community.

7 Q. And did any of the persons killed have any traces of nail varnish

8 or did you have any information that in that village in the month of

9 January, which had been abandoned several months ago, did you have any

10 information to show that somebody had been using artificial fertilisers?

11 A. I had no information in the reports about the use of nail polish

12 with the victims, including the female victims there. There was no

13 information as to the use of fertilisers. But we do not need information

14 about that type of detail in order to reject categorically - and that

15 appears in all criminalistic books - to reject categorically the use of

16 this type of method in order to look for firing residue.

17 And I'm absolute on that point. I can refer you to several

18 international publications, the most recent dating from 2001 from the

19 Lausanne forensic laboratory. This is something which everyone knows in

20 the scientific community.

21 Q. You have already said that the Prosecution did not provide you

22 with the entire report, but did they provide you with the testimony of the

23 witness that they have in their file, Dr. Dusan Dunjic, a forensic

24 pathologist and also a member of these international associations of

25 forensic experts and pathologists? Do you perhaps remember seeing that?

Page 5314












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5315

1 A. The list of reports or documents that were used for drafting my

2 report appears in the introduction, and I did not use them to prepare the

3 report, that is the one from Professor Dunjic.

4 Q. Very well. Thank you. Diseases verified among those killed in

5 Racak, could they have been an obstacle for them to take part in armed

6 conflict?

7 JUDGE MAY: It's not for the witness to say.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand why not.

9 JUDGE MAY: He's a pathologist. He's here dealing with the

10 various corpses and not the diseases they suffered from and whether they

11 prevented them from being in armed conflict. If you want to call a doctor

12 about it, you can.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I'm linking this to paragraph

14 from his report, and diseases are also part of the pathology.

15 JUDGE MAY: Let us look at that.

16 You will have to help me, Doctor.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's on page 26, Your

18 Honour.

19 JUDGE MAY: I have it. Doctor, can you help us whether somebody

20 who had cancer of the bladder would be capable of taking part in an armed

21 conflict? Or any of the other diseases that you mention; pulmonary

22 emphysema? It would depend on how bad it was, presumably.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour. That

24 would depend on the seriousness. In respect of the cancer for RA2, it was

25 a cancer which had not metastasised into secondary locations and was

Page 5316

1 relatively limited to that particular part of the body. Therefore, one

2 could assume that that individual was still in a position to -- was still

3 -- able-bodied. But I do not have any medical information which would

4 allow me to answer properly that question.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Very well. Why anthropologists and pathologists could not

7 establish the minimum number of persons in the Djakovica site in Millosh

8 Gillic Street on the 2nd of April, 1999, and was, on that occasion, an

9 adequate method used to determine the minimum number of persons in the

10 grave? I am linking this to, paragraph

11 A. Yes, the difficulty which apparently was encountered by Dr.

12 Rodriguez and his colleagues was related to the very bad condition of the

13 human remains which they had to examine. They were not bodies but

14 fragments of bodies and bodies which were partially carbonised.

15 As regards the estimates of Dr. Rodriguez as to a minimum number

16 of approximately 20 victims, this is related to the fact that in this type

17 of case, as I have already said, the anthropologist or the forensic

18 specialist will try to count the bones which are in a single position, and

19 it's on the basis of that information, or that anthropological

20 information, that we can estimate numbers.

21 Q. And the burnt nature and dismemberment, is it the result of mines

22 and explosives of great destructive power or not?

23 A. It is difficult to answer the question because of the very poor

24 state of preservation of the bodies, and that did not allow pointing --

25 pointing out traumatic lesions. One could point out that there were

Page 5317

1 wounds and most likely those were caused by explosives. I could say that

2 in some cases there were signs of post-mortem animal activity to show that

3 the bones had been degraded by dogs or others -- or other animals.

4 Q. If the doctor that we're talking about could not ascertain with

5 any certainty the minimum number of individuals and the sex of the people

6 that were victims and found in this grave, how is it possible that the

7 human remains of minors coincide with the published number of children

8 listed as missing? And I'm talking about the number 12. And is that --

9 does that come within the frameworks of that professional work as well?

10 A. Some of the bones have an unequal value in respect of others when

11 it comes to determining the age. If one is lucky enough to find a part of

12 the sacrum or a part of the clavicle or a rib or a fragment of a skull,

13 depending on the specific anatomical relief that one notices on those bone

14 fragments, one can make estimates as to the age. For the certain parts of

15 the body, we know that -- that it changes with age. It will -- the

16 cartilage will change in that part of the body, particularly having to do

17 with the pubic bone. And so we have reference tables, or there is

18 the Suchet and Brooks team which we can use. They have the same thing for

19 the extremities of the limb -- of the ribs. We know that the sutures,

20 cranial sutures will come together at different times and different ages.

21 The same thing applies to internal aspects of the clavicle, the

22 collarbone.

23 So when we can put forward these types of bones among commingled

24 bones, that one -- one will be able to identify, according to the age

25 group, those bones. And that allowed the Dr. Rodriguez to answer that

Page 5318

1 question and to provide the detail from that point, although he was not

2 able to give a specific number because he spoke only about a minimal

3 number of individuals. That is something which is completely acceptable

4 and understandable from the point of view of a scientific study.

5 Q. Yes. But this kind of finding, could it have been made with any

6 certainty, any degree of certainty?

7 A. Everything depends on the type of bone which is being considered.

8 The predictive value of this or that bone is different depending on the

9 age group. The pubic bone has a diagnosis value which is very important

10 for determining the age before the age of 40. The value of an internal

11 clavicle extremity or a cranial suture may be much less specific and

12 therefore one has to refer to each of the bones under consideration in

13 order to determine whether the predictive value has been encountered.

14 Q. Yes. You're explaining how this is professionally possible in

15 principle, and I'm asking you in concrete terms for a concrete case and

16 concrete data which was arrived at by looking at concrete bodies, specific

17 bodies. So were you able -- is it possible -- possible to ascertain that

18 kind of thing with a high degree of certainty or not?

19 A. As regards the documents made available to me, I did not have any

20 specific criticisms to make about the methodology that was used by my --

21 by Dr. Rodriguez. I do not have any reason to doubt his work, but I was

22 not in a position to control all the evaluations which he made. I did not

23 have photographic documents of each of the bones, only overall views with

24 limited incidents. And therefore, I have no reason to question the

25 doctor's conclusions but I myself was not able to control each one of the

Page 5319

1 operations carried out.

2 Q. So in principle, you have no reason to doubt. But in this

3 concrete case, as far as I understood you, you were not able to check this

4 out and test it. Is that right?

5 A. I was -- I was not able to carry it out as part of an

6 anthropological evaluation.

7 Q. Thank you. Now, yesterday, you were talking about this particular

8 matter and you were asked during the examination-in-chief in your

9 testimony something with respect to the determination of sex of those 20

10 persons that were killed. And as far as I was able to gather and note,

11 make a note of, you said that only in one case was it possible to

12 establish the sex and that that was in fact in the case of a male, whereas

13 in 19 of the other cases, it was not possible to determine sex. Did I

14 understand you correctly?

15 A. Yes. The comments that one can make in general which will apply

16 also to the specific case in respect of determining the sex are the same

17 as those done -- made in order to determine the age. Only some of --

18 points on the skeleton will be of interest to determine the sex of the

19 victim. This is the case, for instance, of the pubic bone, which shows

20 different morphological characteristics depending on whether it's a man or

21 woman. And this is the case of the base of the skull and other criteria

22 which are much less reliable and which are related to the general

23 condition of bones like the femur and the overall impression of the

24 skeleton.

25 However, in that case, one is faced with bones that are extremely

Page 5320

1 degraded and whose diagnostic value in respect of sex may be limited.

2 When Dr. Rodriguez was lucky enough to come upon a fragment of the pubic

3 bone, it was possible to state the sex, but in other cases that is not

4 possible.

5 Q. Therefore, did I understand you to say that in the rest of the 19

6 cases it was not possible to determine the sex of the bodies; is that

7 right?

8 A. It was possible to determine the bones which were -- had more

9 female characteristics than not and to distinguish them from bones which

10 could not be attached to one sex or the other. The problem also was that

11 in respect of determining the sex, one does not give a categorical answer.

12 In respect of the sex, there are -- there is a certain percentage of

13 probabilities that the subject would be of this or that sex.

14 We're dealing with men whose morphology is more feminine, more

15 graceful, and then there are certain females which have more masculine

16 characteristics. That explains the care that was expressed in Dr.

17 Rodriguez's report. Only one individual showed very clearly masculine

18 characteristics.

19 Q. All right. Now, would you answer this then, please: Why does it

20 say in this list of yours one man and 19 women? On the basis of what?

21 How come you were able to introduce that factor into your list as you say

22 it was impossible to determine the sex of the 19? Why then does it say

23 one man and 19 women in the list, one male and 19 female corpses?

24 A. One male and 19 which were either female or male. Female or

25 undetermined, rather.

Page 5321

1 Q. Well, take a look at what it says in your list. I haven't got the

2 page in front of me, but I did study it carefully. One man, one male.

3 You have a list and it says one male, 19 females.

4 A. Page 38, paragraph, there we read that all the others --

5 well, there was only one adult male was identified - that is bone cluster

6 number 10 - and all the others were diagnosed as either female or

7 undetermined.

8 In the conclusions on page 50, paragraph 2.5.2 -- it says that one

9 was male and the others were female or undetermined. And as regards the

10 chart which -- which says sex distribution,, we read that there

11 were 5 per cent male and 95 per cent female or undetermined. I didn't say

12 that the rest were only females.

13 Q. But that question was asked you yesterday during the

14 examination-in-chief. One man and 19 women. So that means that that is

15 not correct. One cannot make that conclusion; right?

16 A. It seems to me that I corrected that yesterday when -- and I said

17 at issue were either women or people whose sex was not determined.

18 Q. So that observation and conclusion could not have been drawn from

19 your report. The Prosecutor could not have drawn that conclusion from

20 your report in asking you that question; is that correct?

21 JUDGE MAY: The witness has clarified the matter. Move on to

22 another question.

23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. All right. Then I just have one more specific question. As we're

25 talking about professional reports here, expert reports, highly expert and

Page 5322

1 professional reports of which I was denied the right to be provided them

2 in my own language, could you please, Mr. Baccard, when I receive a

3 translation in my own language and when I am able to pinpoint certain

4 questions and some of the differences that you yourself point to, not I

5 establish them but experts who will take a look at it, would you be so

6 kind as to come back and answer some of my other questions which will

7 emerge from that study and examination?

8 JUDGE MAY: That is a matter for the Court. We will ask Dr.

9 Baccard whether he's available, and if -- once you've provided your

10 questions, we will see if we can ask him to come back. Unless, as Judge

11 Robinson said, you would like to call him as a witness, but that's another

12 matter.

13 Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no. I do have some more

15 questions. You thought I was finished? No.

16 JUDGE MAY: Yes, absolutely. Right. Well, you've got about half

17 an hour more. See if you can finish by the break, please.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know why in this particular

19 case you're once again restricting my time for cross-examination, Mr. May.

20 We have a report which numbers 150 pages. We had a comprehensive

21 examination-in-chief. We have 38 binders that were not provided to me in

22 my own language, and you now tell me that all I have left is half an hour

23 for my questioning.

24 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand.

Page 5323

1 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We've considered the time which you've taken and

2 the purpose for which it's been taken, and with respect to you, it hasn't

3 been to a great deal of purpose so far. Now, you've had an hour and a

4 half and you're getting another half hour. We'll consider the position

5 then. But let's move on. If you've got specific questions, ask them.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As you have noticed, I of course

7 don't have an objection to this, but the witness is giving extensive

8 answers. So could you please take that into consideration as well when

9 you calculate the time that you allot to me and all the circumstances.

10 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

11 Dr. Baccard, could you please answer as shortly as possible. Yes

12 and no, if possible.

13 Yes.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I personally don't have any

15 objections to lengthy answers, but I do have objections to you and the

16 time you are restricting me with and all the other things that you are

17 restricting.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Move on.

19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Now, explosive wounds registered on the bodies of those killed in

21 the Kacanik area, 2.8.5, what do these indicate, these injuries, these

22 wounds, what do they indicate?

23 A. It was noted by Dr. Markwalder and Dr. Wyler that there was marks

24 of explosions, of wounds and fractures and disintegration on 21 of the

25 bodies, which would call into mind explosive agents.

Page 5324

1 Q. And in view of those findings, does the possibility exist that

2 people were buried there who had died in the bombing, who were killed in

3 the bombing?

4 A. I have no information which would allow me to make -- give you a

5 forensic answer in respect of the burials.

6 Q. You say that they were killed as the result of an explosion. Now,

7 an explosion can be the explosion of an aeroplane bomb, for example, in

8 the vicinity. Is that possible or not, or do you exclude that

9 possibility?

10 A. I have no information in the report of the two forensic physicians

11 which would allow me to answer the question. The determination of the

12 origin of an explosive agent is based more on the basis of shrapnel

13 fragments that were found during the autopsies rather than clinical

14 examinations, taking into account the nature -- the very nature of the

15 wounds.

16 Q. All right. Now, if eight persons were exhumated [sic] at the

17 Muslim cemetery in Dubrava, for example, and if all these persons were

18 identified by their relatives and family, how come the age was not

19 determined in five cases? And that is point, paragraph

20 JUDGE MAY: Can you help us as to that, Dr. Baccard, or not?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no answer, no. It appears

22 that the bodies were extremely degraded, that is, most of them were. I

23 don't know whether that is referring to the state of degradation of the

24 bodies.

25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 5325

1 Q. If seven bodies in this case were in the skeletonised state, that

2 is to say with no soft tissues, how were the pathologists were able to

3 conclude that death resulted predominantly from internal bleeding, and is

4 it possible at all to draw that kind of conclusion or, rather, is it

5 possible to arrive at conclusions in that way when you are dealing with

6 skeletonised bodies? And that is point that I'm referring to.

7 A. Could that question be asked again, please?

8 Q. The question was: If in this case we have seven bodies that were

9 skeletonised, seven skeletonised corpses, that means without any soft

10 tissue, how then were the pathologists able to conclude that death

11 resulted predominantly from internal bleeding, that it was caused by

12 internal bleeding? And is it possible at all to make conclusions of this

13 kind when you're dealing with a skeletonised corpse?

14 A. I have no information about internal bleeding.

15 Q. paragraph. That is it, Doctor,

16 JUDGE KWON: Page 53.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There is an error. You're

18 speaking about what site? Is that the Kotlina site or the Dubrava site?

19 Both were part of the Kacanik case. Because I was not at the right --

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Yes, it belongs to Kacanik. This is, the question I'm

22 asking you is about, skeletonised bodies, seven of those, and the

23 conclusion was that death resulted from internal bleeding. Is it possible

24 at all to establish that death was the result of internal bleeding when

25 you're dealing with skeletonised bodies?

Page 5326












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5327

1 JUDGE KWON: And it's Dubrava.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dubrava. My previous answers dealt

3 with Kotlina and not Dubrava.

4 As regards Dubrava, since I was not looking at the right page, it

5 was noted that the bodies were skeletonised. Now, I have to explain what

6 is particular about that term. It means that there is a gradual

7 disappearance of the soft tissues and that the -- most -- that most

8 remaining -- remains are constituted by the skeleton. But that can be --

9 the skeletonisation can have different phases as well. There can be

10 partially skeletonised bodies which let one see, depending upon the burial

11 situation -- I'm sorry, but I've got to go into more detail here, and I

12 give you a somewhat longer answer, but I've got to make this point clear.

13 One can have, depending on the -- the burial, there can be

14 skeletonisation which is not complete, which is partial, and which varies

15 depending upon the location of the body. There can be within the thorax,

16 with ribs that will be apparent, that is in skeletonised stage, in death,

17 there can be remains of traces of bleeding which are putrefying, but there

18 are still remnants of that, which might explain why that there was the

19 diagnosis of internal bleeding that was provided by the forensic

20 specialists.

21 And I repeat that my previous answers referred to Kotlina. In

22 terms of Dubrava, there were seven cases of skeletonised bodies in various

23 degrees, and one was mummified.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. All right. So in answer to my question of whether we can note

Page 5328

1 that -- conclude that death resulted from internal bleeding on a

2 skeletonised body, your answer to that was yes. Did I understand you

3 correctly?

4 A. Skeletonised is the end result. There are different degrees of

5 skeletonisation, as I have just explained. There are partially

6 skeletonised bodies or totally skeletonised. When the body is completely

7 skeletonised --

8 Q. Yes. We've already heard about that, Doctor. Yes, I know that.

9 But we can ascertain that death was caused by internal bleeding even on

10 skeletonised bodies. That's what you said, isn't it? I'm just checking

11 out whether I understood you correctly.

12 A. From the point that the forensic specialist notes that there were

13 traces of bleeding in the thorax, the diagnosis can be given even if the

14 limbs have been skeletonised. There must be enough soft tissue in order

15 to make that assertion.

16 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, on the basis of which findings was

17 the pathologist able to conclude that in some of these cases the victim

18 was leaning or lying down when the bodies had in fact been skeletonised?

19 How is that possible?

20 A. We are referring to the Dubrava case in Kacanik; is that right?

21 Q. That is, point, what I'm referring to. On the

22 basis of which factors was the pathologist able to determine whether the

23 victim was kneeling, in a bent-over position, lying, et cetera, when he

24 was dealing with skeletonised bodies?

25 A. These are questions that you should ask him. I put in the

Page 5329

1 criticism -- I put this in the criticism about the report, but these are

2 questions that should be asked of him directly.

3 Q. Does that mean that you personally did not examine these bodies in

4 the capacity of an expert pathologist? Does that mean that in fact your

5 report is exclusively based on the reports you got in, you were relying

6 on?

7 A. That's correct. And that was stated yesterday in the beginning

8 and is explained in my evaluation report.

9 Q. Fine. And could all injuries on the body be registered when we

10 know that the bodies were skeletonised? I'm referring to 2.9.5, to save

11 time and facilitate your answer.

12 A. What is the question?

13 Q. I was referring to 2.9.5, to help you answer. And the question

14 was if it is known that the bodies were skeletonised, was it possible to

15 register all the injuries or wounds?

16 A. Once again, I would recall that there are degrees of

17 skeletonisation of bodies. Secondly, the wounds which were studied and

18 the statistics drawn from those wounds deal with wounds that were

19 identified as such.

20 Q. Very well. In the case of Vata and Kacanik, the appearance of

21 the wounds in three cases indicates that they were shot at from a large

22 distance. Is that a sign that these persons were killed in an armed

23 conflict?

24 JUDGE MAY: The pathologist cannot determine the circumstances in

25 which they were killed in this sort of case, I would anticipate.

Page 5330

1 Dr. Baccard, is that right? Can you tell whether it was an armed

2 conflict or what it was?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. The firing

4 distance in no way indicates the circumstances under which the firing was

5 done, whether it was an accident or a homicide or an armed conflict.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. And in Stagovo and Kacanik, the wounds established, were they made

8 by a blunt instrument? Could they have been caused by falling? How was

9 it possible in 99/04/5 -- 10 that it was not impossible to establish

10 whether the injury on the left side of the chest was caused by shrapnel or

11 not? This is paragraph

12 A. It is noted that in some cases there were associated lesions which

13 are described in paragraph which -- to which reference is being made.

14 Wounds which would call into -- which call up three-quarters of wounds

15 caused by blunt instruments, and the term was used by the forensic

16 pathologist, that is, possible wounds caused by shrapnel to the -- in the

17 left thorax.

18 Q. So it's a possibility. And the different condition of

19 putrefaction of bodies exhumed at Gornje Stimlje, does it indicate that

20 death occurred at different times? That is the different degrees of

21 putrefaction, is that an indication that death occurred at different

22 times? This is, I'm sorry.

23 A. We know in terms of forensics that the states of putrefaction

24 which are different do not indicate different burial dates. The damage to

25 the bodies once they have been buried depend upon local burial conditions,

Page 5331

1 whether or not there is water at that location, what the quality of the

2 soil is, what the significance of -- of the clothing and other factors

3 such as the size of the body. There are many factors that have to be

4 taken into account, and it is not possible to deduce from that what the

5 dates of -- different burial dates.

6 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I wonder if I might just clarify the

7 paragraph to which we're being referred, because I don't know whether it's

8 a matter of translation or a matter of the reference being given

9 incorrectly, but I don't see, on a number of occasions now, that there's a

10 corresponding paragraph. Thank you.

11 JUDGE MAY: You've got to have a good look. It's Yes.

12 Let's go on.

13 JUDGE KWON: There's a problem in the report in numbering

14 generally.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]

16 JUDGE MAY: There is obviously some problem in the numbering

17 because the numbers are not the same.

18 MR. RYNEVELD: And in fairness to the witness, we're now on to a

19 different site altogether. By my reading, if it's, then we're on

20 to Studime e Eperme.

21 JUDGE MAY: The accused did say that.

22 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

23 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Shall I continue?

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

Page 5332

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. By which method was it established that, in those cases on this

3 location, firing was at close range? This is

4 A. The evaluations were performed by two forensic French -- two

5 French forensic specialists, Dr. Vorhauer and Dr. Lecomte, assisted by a

6 ballistics expert and munitions expert.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not getting any interpretation.

8 I'm sorry. I have to apologise.

9 JUDGE MAY: Dr. Baccard, would you go back, please. You said

10 that the evaluations were performed by two forensic -- I think French

11 forensic specialists. Could you pick up the answer from there.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I was saying that

13 each autopsy was performed by two forensic specialists from France,

14 Professor Lecomte and Dr. Vorhauer, with the assistance of a ballistics

15 and munitions expert, and that in most of the cases, the firing distances

16 were asserted by observations that were made by that expert on the

17 clothing and traces that were found on the clothing.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. And the victims in the prison in Dubrava, were they killed mostly

20 as a result of the effects of explosions -- of an explosion? This is

21 --

22 A. As regards Dubrava and the prison at Dubrava, the victims -- 40

23 per cent of the victims showed wounds that were related to the effects of

24 explosive directly by shrapnel or by sulphur, and part of the victims as

25 well, 37 per cent, suffered bullet -- gunshot wounds. Thirty-seven per

Page 5333

1 cent with the wounds and the other per cent by shrapnel -- explosives,

2 excuse me.

3 Q. The death of a person with a sharp object and a blunt object in 25

4 cases could have been caused as the bodies were thrown by the explosion

5 and as those bodies hit against blunt or sharp objects as they fell to the

6 ground.

7 A. There are several mechanisms in explosive-caused deaths. They

8 could be direct explosives, fragments of the explosive envelope which hits

9 the body in the form of projectiles, there is the sulphur effect which

10 alone can cause death, and there is also the possibility of secondary

11 lesions related to a fall which sometimes might happen in steep areas.

12 The two major causes are deaths caused by shrapnel or sulphur blast.

13 Q. And the death of 23 persons on which no external or internal

14 injuries were established, are they due to so-called blast injuries as a

15 result of the explosion which caused this air blast? And as you know, the

16 prison was bombed, so could that have been the consequence? That is in

17 the case of persons for no -- on which no external or internal injuries

18 were found, could their death have been caused by this blast effect of the

19 explosion?

20 A. Once one does not have enough soft tissue in order to carry out

21 histological examinations, the diagnosis remains one of eliminating. The

22 only conclusion that one could arrive in the 25 cases, the only conclusion

23 that the forensic specialist arrived at was that it was impossible to

24 determine the origin or the cause of death.

25 Q. And all the bodies found at the grave in Rakosh, were they killed

Page 5334

1 at the prison in Dubrava or could they have been brought there and buried

2 from some other place?

3 A. I don't have information, forensic information, that would allow

4 me to answer that question.

5 Q. But you find that in paragraph 2.13.5.

6 A. What is the title of that paragraph?

7 Q. 2.13.5.

8 JUDGE MAY: No, its title, because there's something gone wrong

9 with the numbering.

10 JUDGE KWON: It might be "Conclusions," 2.13.9.

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can be of

13 assistance. There is a serious difference in the numbering between the

14 B/C/S version and the English version so the errors are very considerable,

15 and that is why the difficulties arise.

16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Regardless of that, my question remains whether all the bodies

18 found at the Rakosh cemetery were killed at the prison in Dubrava or,

19 after being killed, could have they been brought there and buried there

20 after being brought there from some other place?

21 A. I cannot answer -- give a forensic answer to that question.

22 Q. Very well. Thank you. And the report on Suva Reka, can it be

23 considered acceptable if there are differences in the findings and

24 opinions regarding the gender and age of the victims between experts,

25 members of one and the same team that examined them? and

Page 5335


2 A. There were differences between the two anthropologist reports who

3 successively investigated the cases, the report of Dr. Black and of

4 Dr. Roberts. I was not in the position to know which of the two was

5 right. I noted it down in respect of the cause of death, as I have

6 already said, and Fatime Berisha and the cause of death could be asserted

7 for Fatime Berisha and Fatime -- Faton Berisha. We have there is the

8 problem then of this divergence between the two reports. The cause of

9 death, in any case, was not determined.

10 Q. You said that you personally did not examine any of these bodies

11 but that you just used findings and reports. Did you carry out any

12 autopsies personally? Did you examine any one of these gravesites that

13 are mentioned here at any time? I'm not just referring to the time when

14 you were working on your report.

15 A. I -- this was said yesterday: I did not perform autopsies on the

16 sites which are the subject of this report. I did not carry out the

17 autopsies by myself. I did it -- I performed autopsies in 2000, but not

18 the autopsies which are described in this report.

19 My work, as I said yesterday, was a work of analysis and summary

20 and work of analysis of a video document and a photographic document

21 relating to the Izbica site.

22 Q. Could you tell me, Mr. Baccard, please, I'm more interested in an

23 explanation as to how a prominent expert in your field of expertise can

24 accept, on the basis of what I would call poor photos, stills taken from a

25 videotape, to interpret the types of injuries on dead bodies, the types of

Page 5336

1 injuries inflicted during life, the age of the victims, the origin of

2 traces on the clothing of the victims, the mental retardation and --

3 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer that and then we shall adjourn.

4 You're being asked about how you can make observations on the

5 basis of a film of sorts.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As regards the list of conclusions

7 which I made in the report, I certainly did not interpret the mental

8 condition of the victims. I return to what I said beforehand about the

9 forensic analysis and the video cassette. The limitations were clearly

10 indicated in terms of scientific research, first of all, in my report, and

11 they appear in the annex which deals with Izbica.

12 The conclusions are not forensic conclusions which are absolute.

13 The answers are always given with the possible correction that such images

14 are compatible with certain -- with such lesions. And as I said, this is

15 not a document which has the value of an expert evaluation. This is

16 stated in the introduction to my report.

17 Having said this, I answered yesterday a question asked about the

18 -- the character -- the fact that it was not unexceptional to have this

19 type of a mission, a mission which is frequently given to us by judges.

20 JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now.

21 Mr. Milosevic, we've considered the extra time you should have.

22 We said a quarter of an hour, however, you've had five minutes of that, So

23 you'll have ten minutes on our resumption.

24 Mr. Tapuskovic, we shall expect to finish this witness today. We

25 don't want to detain him here any further.

Page 5337

1 We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.

2 --- Recess taken at 12.21 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.

4 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Could I ask you to give me short answers, please, because I have

7 very little time left for a lot of questions. How did you establish, as

8 we are talking about Izbica, how did you establish that the photos were

9 indeed from Izbica?

10 A. I didn't determine that those photographs were from Izbica. I

11 analysed a video cassette which was given to me by the Office of the

12 Prosecutor.

13 Q. So you were given the tape by the Prosecution.

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Do you know who filmed the video?

16 A. Yes. I was told that.

17 Q. And who was the author?

18 A. I was told that the video was made by a witness, a doctor,

19 Dr. Dosik [phoen].

20 Q. Did you ask for the minutes of the Yugoslav authorities or the

21 reports of the Yugoslav authorities from Izbica? Because I've just been

22 told that they too carried out a detailed investigation into what had

23 happened there, an on-site inspection and investigation was carried out.

24 Were you given those reports?

25 A. No.

Page 5338












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5339

1 Q. Very well. Very briefly, then, a few more questions. You spoke

2 yesterday about errors and discrepancies. Are you sure that you

3 identified all the errors and discrepancies?

4 A. What I was given, under the -- using as a control the photographic

5 albums and the various reports, I believe that the divergences that could

6 be seen were listed in my -- the annexes to my report.

7 Q. Is it possible for you to have established each and every single

8 discrepancy and error?

9 A. I don't know. The -- I described in the annex of my report any

10 divergencies I noted, and I don't know whether that list is complete.

11 Q. The documents indicating discrepancies, by being looked through by

12 another expert, would that expert possibly find or identify some other

13 errors or discrepancies?

14 A. I don't know.

15 Q. Would you allow for the possibility for another expert being able

16 to identify some other errors and discrepancies?

17 A. I don't know.

18 Q. You said yesterday that the use of this method, that is

19 photographs, has its limitations and that it is not frequently used.

20 Isn't that so?

21 A. That is correct. I -- was written in the annex in respect of the

22 report on Izbica. On page 93, it is stated that the limitations of the

23 state are shown by the poor quality of the images that came from that

24 videotape and that the definition's very incomplete and does not allow

25 important enlargement of the details. There is no reference to a

Page 5340

1 millimetre length scale, and that do not correspond obviously to the

2 criteria required of the scientific photography. It says that a simple

3 analysis of the images can in no way correspond to the external

4 examination of bodies, but I emphasised that, in other terms, this

5 medico-legal opinion in my report did not have the value of a scientific

6 evaluation, that nowhere was there a diagnosis or certainty but simply

7 diagnostic hypotheses, and what I did note here was things that were

8 compatible or not compatible with lesions that had been noticed. This was

9 stated in the introduction to my report.

10 Having said this, in the absence of an autopsy report, this

11 document was the only one, along with the report of the French team on the

12 exhumations, it was the only one which allowed us to have a forensic

13 opinion.

14 Q. Do you consider this to be a serious limitation or not? Please,

15 yes or no.

16 A. I'm sorry, I have to temper my answer.

17 Q. I didn't quite understand the answer.

18 A. I was saying that, in this case, it was not possible to answer by

19 saying yes or no but that I had to give a more qualified answer.

20 Q. But as briefly as possible, please, because my time is limited.

21 So the question is: Do you consider this to be a serious impediment or

22 not?

23 A. I repeat that in no way is this a question of an expert -- a

24 scientific expertise but, rather, a forensic opinion like the one that we

25 give in other cases at the request of judges who have only available to

Page 5341

1 them videos or photographic documents.

2 Q. What if the photographs were not taken by an objective person but

3 by an interested party or by a person with prejudice? Would you consider

4 that an impediment?

5 A. That would in fact be a possibility which I took up in the last

6 paragraph of the chapter material, on page 93, where I looked at the

7 possibility of simulation, and I gave my opinion on that possibility. But

8 I must say that I did have that come to mind.

9 Q. Very well. It did occur to me as well.

10 Could you tell me where you specialised in ballistic wounds?

11 A. At the faculty of medicine in Marseille as part of a diploma in

12 lesional ballistics that was organised by the faculty of Marseille and

13 General Breteau.

14 Q. And why did you prepare a new report on all the sites when your

15 colleagues had already prepared reports for each of those sites

16 separately?

17 JUDGE MAY: He's already explained what he did.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Did anyone - and if so who - express doubts as to the expertise of

20 your colleagues who had previously studied the sites covered by your

21 report?

22 A. No.

23 Q. And did you coordinate your report with the -- with your

24 colleagues whose reports and conclusions you had analysed?

25 A. No. This report was prepared afterwards.

Page 5342

1 Q. Can you explain, in view of the fact that you were in Bosnia, why

2 expert pathologists engaged by this institution, after so many years,

3 still do not have a unified methodology of expert analysis of mass graves?

4 A. At the ICTY, we use a single methodology for exhumation operations

5 that took place in Bosnia and in Croatia or in Kosovo. The methodology

6 which was used in 1999 by the various international teams who worked

7 separately, this is methodology which -- their methodology might have

8 varied, and principally that was the reason that the Prosecutor's office

9 asked me to prepare this summary report.

10 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, this must be -- this must be your last

11 question.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Allow me two last questions, please.

13 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. What is the total number of victims that you mention -- or,

17 rather, on how many victims have you given your expert opinion though you

18 said you personally did not examine a single victim? You used one witness

19 testimony and the rest was based on photographs and the videotape. On how

20 many victims have you provided your expert opinion?

21 JUDGE MAY: Unless the witness has got it in his head, he'll have

22 to add it up, and we can do that ourselves. What's the next question?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. If you have so many objections regarding the findings of experts

Page 5343

1 of this institution for Bela Crkva, Padalishte, Studime, and Dubrava, and

2 then you come to the conclusion that, from the forensic point of view,

3 these are observations, do not change the content of the expert reports,

4 my question is: Do you justify -- are you justifying somebody's mistakes

5 or ignorance or the need of this institution to justify the omissions made

6 by others?

7 A. I would say, of course, no.

8 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. I

10 should just like to tell you, however, before I begin my questioning, that

11 throughout my professional career, I was never faced in such a sensitive

12 point in time to make -- to take care of the time and to deal with only

13 two sites out of all the sites that are before us, are before you, first

14 and foremost. So I would like to ask Mr. Baccard just things related to

15 the Dubrava site, the Dubrava prison site, that is to say And

16 the second site is the Racak site.

17 Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

18 Q. Mr. Slobodan Milosevic has already asked several questions

19 pertaining to the Dubrava prison site, and Mr. Baccard answered his

20 questions. However, I should like now to ask a direct question, to ask

21 Dr. Baccard a direct question, and it is the following: In paragraph

22, in the second paragraph of that point, it states that the cause

23 of death is pulmonary shots, explosions. So there are no outside signs

24 but the lungs burst in 23 cases. Now, what kind of explosion could it

25 have been, what kind of blast could it have been to have caused the death

Page 5344

1 of 23 persons exclusively by this cause, that is to say, the shattering of

2 their lungs? So was it a blast of extraordinary strength?

3 A. As regards the answer to that question, that diagnostic

4 clarification does not necessarily mean that there was a single explosion.

5 At issue there might be a blast -- consecutive blasts of several

6 explosions. This is a comment which -- this is the comment that I would

7 make.

8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for the amicus.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. These, however, were blasts, were explosions of such a nature that

11 they caused exclusively internal injuries. That means that they must have

12 been several explosions, one following another, of great power and

13 strength. Strong, very strong explosions.

14 A. In the report, we do not have details which would allow us to

15 answer that question. It also depends on the situation of whether the

16 victims were being confined at the time of the explosion. An explosion in

17 the open air will not have the same effect as one in a confined area, as

18 in a small room, for instance.

19 Q. But none of these individuals was killed through direct contact

20 with anything. It was just this air blast. Now, can that be

21 characteristic of bombs, bombs that were thrown in this locality during

22 the bombing, during the NATO bombing? Could that be it?

23 A. I am not aware of the circumstances, but this type of lesion might

24 be encountered in the explosion of a bomb.

25 Q. Thank you. Similarly, when you spoke of these 25 injuries where

Page 5345

1 we were dealing with damage -- that is to say, they weren't lethal, now,

2 could that have been the product of these air blasts as well, similar air

3 blasts, that people were thrown through the air, went flying through the

4 air as a result of the blast?

5 A. No. What is stated is that in 25 cases, the type of agent,

6 wounding agent, could not be determined.

7 Q. Yes, but what -- could the wounding agent have been an explosion,

8 a blast which threw the victims up in the air and then they fell every

9 which way and landed on the ground?

10 A. Insofar as my colleagues were not able to answer that question, I

11 cannot answer now. As regards the blunt trauma instrument wounds, the

12 aspect of the wound was sufficiently characteristic for that explanation

13 to be given. But in 25 cases, it was not possible to determine the

14 wounding agent.

15 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions about that, Dr. Baccard,

16 but I should like, and I have to bear in mind the time, to move directly

17 to another area and cover everything that you described and explained in

18 your introductory remarks, in fact, when you said that you were presenting

19 -- when you presented your views on method, methodology. And then you say

20 -- I don't know where it is in the English version exactly, let me try and

21 find it. It is And in that section, you deal with clothing,

22 military or civilian, and you present the view that: "We are able to

23 conclude that the victims in practically all the cases were wearing

24 civilian clothing." Is that right? Do you make that observation?

25 A. This is in paragraph "Military/Civilian Clothing" on page 12 of

Page 5346

1 the report, and in fact it is stated that all the victims seemed to be

2 wearing civilian clothes. That is, almost all the cases were that.

3 Q. Thank you. Now, what about Racak? The clothing that the people

4 were wearing who lost their lives in Racak, were those people dressed in

5 any specific way, that is to say far differently from all the other people

6 that you encountered wearing civilian clothes? Were they wearing

7 substantially different types of clothing?

8 A. As regards Racak, in the autopsy reports of the Finnish team,

9 there is a paragraph which dealt with the description and photographs of

10 the clothing. This did not exist for the 16 autopsies which were used to

11 -- for verification purposes, because those bodies were undressed.

12 The second source of information was the photographs taken on site

13 and on those clothes that one could see on those victims on site or on the

14 clothes that were described in the autopsy reports, there were only

15 clothes that seemed to be civilian clothes.

16 Q. Thank you. However -- of course I'm not going to tire either you

17 or the Court, but among the documents that are in existence, in the

18 binders, that is, of the 40 persons -- of the 40 persons that were looked

19 at, 24 show without a doubt that they were wearing two kinds or even three

20 kinds of clothing. I'm not going to show anything else but just a case in

21 point. I have selected one particular case, and I would like the Trial

22 Chamber to have a look at it. It is in binder 5, which is the Racak

23 binder. It is tab 30.

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May this one case be viewed by

25 Dr. Baccard, and then I would like to ask him something concerning what he

Page 5347

1 has looked at.

2 May we place the document on the ...

3 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let it be put on the ELMO, and then perhaps the

4 doctor can see it on the screen.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge May, there are

6 quite a number of photographs, and I think that Mr. Baccard ought to have

7 a look at all of them in this particular case, one by one.

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now, do you want them to go on the ELMO?

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm forced to ask that, yes.

10 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] In all other --

12 JUDGE MAY: It can go on. Now, start, if you will, with -- there

13 seems to be the first one. What is it you'd like him to look at?

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The number of the clothing on

15 this person. He had two jackets or parkas, three pairs of trousers, and

16 so on. I don't want to go into all the details. Then there were

17 cartridge belts, and then we have an insignia of the KLA among all that.

18 And I think it would be very useful to have a look at all the photographs

19 in this particular case. I am trying to bear in mind the time, but this

20 is a case I'd like to look into.

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, let's all have a look. Let's put it on

22 the ELMO and just go through them one by one. Yes. We've got the first

23 picture. Do you want to ask the witness a question about that or do you

24 just want to go through the photographs and then ask him a question?

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could he please take a look at

Page 5348

1 all the photographs first?

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's just go through. Can we go through all

3 the photographs, placing them briefly on the ELMO. Yes.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. And here is the KLA sign.

6 Mr. Baccard, in 24 cases, it was like this. There are 24 cases of

7 people dressed in this way. Is this clothing that civilians wear in

8 normal -- in the normal state of affairs regardless of what times we're

9 talking about or the actual moment that they were taken? Is this standard

10 clothing?

11 A. The answer will be drawn from my experience during 2000 in respect

12 of several hundred autopsies, several hundred -- thousand autopsies.

13 These are autopsies which we did in Kosovo in order to find the victims

14 who were wearing different layers of clothes.

15 It is true there -- they were very frequently wearing several

16 layers of clothing. I don't remember what the temperatures were in Racak

17 at the time of the events, but this is information which might be compared

18 with that -- with that data.

19 Q. Mr. Baccard, if you carried out all these autopsies, did you

20 perhaps have occasion to learn the facts or to perform autopsies with

21 respect to persons who were found in the month of December? Mr.

22 Ciaglinski, who was a witness here, spoke about that and said that a group

23 of people were intercepted that were importing arms from Albania, that

24 they were victims, that they were carrying weapons, and that they all --

25 they were all dressed in similar fashion. Do you know about that

Page 5349

1 particular case and those autopsies?

2 A. What case are we talking about?

3 Q. Well, never mind. If you don't know, I won't ask you. I won't

4 pursue the point. I have to hurry up, in view of the time.

5 Now, what I want to ask you is this: You spoke a moment ago of

6 the fact that taking paraffin gloves was not a suitable method for

7 ascertaining particles of gunpowder and their presence on hands or

8 clothing. I know about the analysis that Interpol conducted a while ago,

9 but I have to say that, in my country at least, we use this method still

10 exclusively. That's how we do the job.

11 You know that these paraffin gloves were taken off some of the

12 people. You have that particular fact in your lists. And that the

13 Yugoslav team arrived at a fact that with 37 individuals, the presence of

14 paraffin particles was established and found on their hands. Particles of

15 gunpowder, I beg your pardon. Particles of gunpowder were found on the

16 hands.

17 A. I was not -- I did not read that report. I can state

18 categorically, and I can provide all the scientific publications which

19 would justify what I'm going say. I repeat categorically that from

20 paraffin tests one can show on the hands only nitrates. One cannot claim

21 that one is showing the presence of powder because of the pollution of the

22 -- the nitrate pollution in the environment and the many other pollutants

23 that exist. And I also repeat in the most absolute way that this test is

24 no longer accepted scientifically today and hasn't been so for many years.

25 Q. Thank you. I understood that when you were describing it earlier

Page 5350












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5351

1 on. But the paraffin test was not taken by the Finnish team at all, and

2 I'm asking you this in connection with the clothing. On the clothing,

3 gunpowder particles are still -- still can be found. Now, do you know why

4 the Finnish team did not conduct an analysis of so much clothing that was

5 found on these people and why they did not use a radiological analyser and

6 all the other methods that are used to ascertain the presence of gunpowder

7 particles? Do you know why this wasn't done? It could perhaps be

8 conducted today, in view of the fact that the clothing still exists, or

9 would you say that it was impossible to conduct such an examination at

10 this point in time?

11 A. I can answer only that it is important in order to keep for this

12 examination the scientific value. The fact that the clothing must be

13 taken as soon as one arrives on the crime scene and that afterwards these

14 clothes have to be conserved from all kinds of possible contamination and

15 that the chain of proof be maintained. And I cannot answer about anything

16 that was done or not done by the Finnish team. I don't have the results

17 in terms of any possible powder discharge. That does not appear in any of

18 the reports that I was asked to check in order to verify the thesis

19 presented.

20 Q. Mr. Baccard, were there any scientific reasons -- are scientific

21 reasons more important than the truth that we are here to ascertain in

22 respect of this problem?

23 JUDGE MAY: I don't understand the question. It doesn't sound as

24 though it's a matter for the witness.

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't insist on that.

Page 5352

1 Mr. Baccard said that it was for scientific reasons that this was not

2 undertaken by taking this paraffin glove and so on. But I won't persist.

3 JUDGE MAY: The witness cannot say why the tests were not

4 undertaken. His evidence is about the unsatisfactory nature of the

5 paraffin tests, which he says is no longer acceptable amongst scientists.

6 That's all he said.

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I understand the point,

8 Your Honour, and I won't insist further.

9 Q. Now, I have some introductory questions to ask before I go on to

10 what I want to say.

11 You took note in the report of the documents you used to draw up a

12 synthesis of the report and the event in Racak specifically, and you said,

13 or, rather, as can be seen from your report, you didn't use a tape of any

14 kind; no film, no cassette, no footage of any kind.

15 Now, would a film that was filmed on that same day when the bodies

16 were found at that site, would it be useful to you for the purposes of

17 your analysis and to complete your analysis, in fact, to round it off if

18 you have the autopsy and you worked on the basis of a film and stills in

19 certain cases?

20 A. Everything depends on the type of film.

21 Q. For the 23 victims or, rather, bodies who were found in the pit in

22 the village of Racak, you did not have any documents as to the on-site

23 investigation that was conducted; is that right?

24 A. The list of documents that I used is limited, is given in a

25 restricted manner.

Page 5353

1 Q. The analysis of the events for what was found in the pit and ditch

2 you'd seen in November and March on the spot; is that right?

3 A. You're alluding to Racak?

4 Q. Just Racak.

5 A. The list of documents is comprised of six documents which you

6 mentioned and nothing else.

7 Q. According to the description, a number of wounds that these people

8 in the ditch received and the cause of death, such as bleeding or damage

9 of vital blood vessels and so on, one would have expected to find a lot of

10 blood, traces of blood round the bodies; is that correct? Around the

11 bodies, on their clothing, of course. That is -- that goes without

12 saying. But isn't it logical to suppose that there could be a lot of

13 blood to be found around the bodies themselves, traces of blood?

14 A. That depend on the wounds. Some wounds bleed a lot and others

15 cause internal bleeding and are not seen -- are not seen on the outside.

16 It depends on the layer of clothing and on the type of ground, and it also

17 depends on whether or not there is rain afterwards.

18 Q. So you don't know why, as soon as the bodies were removed from the

19 pit, that the soil -- a picture of the soil wasn't taken? And do you know

20 how all this was organised, the transportation of the bodies and how they

21 were transported from the ditch to the mosque? Do you know about that?

22 A. No. I have only the information that appears in the documents

23 that were given to me.

24 Q. In paragraph 1.2, you note that you used reports from the on-site

25 investigations, the crime scene examination reports. Now, did you ever

Page 5354

1 learn where the other five bodies were that were found, and do you know

2 that on that particular day from Racak, as it says in the Prosecution

3 documents that have been disclosed, that there were nine bodies of people

4 belonging to the KLA? Do you know about that?

5 A. I did not know that.

6 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me this: When does primary rigor mortis

7 set in? Does it set in at the moment of death itself?

8 A. No. It goes over a certain amount of time. It depends on the

9 individual himself, and it begins -- it goes in a decreasing pace. It

10 begins slowly and then it moves to completion.

11 Q. And that is to say when does the flabbiness set in and then rigor

12 mortis? The first question referred to flabbiness of the body.

13 A. Depends on how one is going to look at things. It's not an

14 overall thing. One joint begins to become rigid and then others. It's

15 something which is gradual.

16 Q. Mr. Baccard, I know full well, and I don't want to enter into

17 discussion as to what cataleptic rigidity means, but I'm interested in the

18 majority of cases. Does the body begin to become stiff in the position it

19 was found in after the flabbiness of the body set in?

20 A. I don't think I really understand that question. There may have

21 been an interpretation problem regarding that question.

22 THE INTERPRETER: Limpness of body, the interpreter's note.

23 A. I understand the general nature of this question. There is a

24 period after death, a period of several hours where the body can be moved

25 before that rigidity sets in. That rigidity then starts incompletely,

Page 5355

1 then more completely. From the point that that rigidity has set in, any

2 moving of the body is going to break something. If you try to dress or to

3 undress a body, you can break that rigidity at the level of a joint and it

4 will not reappear. I don't know if that was the thrust of your question.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. But when death occurs and the first stage sets in, the limpness of

7 the body, then the body cannot move at all if it is limp or flabby.

8 A. I think there is an interpretation problem of your question. I

9 don't know whether the interpreter understands your question fully,

10 because after death, there is no movement.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like most

12 if it were possible for Mr. Baccard to take a look at the film and then I

13 could ask him about that afterwards.

14 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let him see the film. Yes.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We have two minutes of it, a

16 two-minute extract. It is Exhibit 95, this extract. It was used with

17 Witness Drewienkiewicz, but we've already prepared it and given it to the

18 technical booth.

19 [Videotape played]

20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That's all. I will now, of

21 course, go from one photograph to the next.

22 Q. But as at the end we've seen this exhibit, and as you are also a

23 ballistics expert, this was found on the spot, this film, or this object

24 was found there. Could you tell us what it is? Is it a bullet, a casing?

25 This film has already been seen in this courtroom, and it is the only

Page 5356

1 object found on the spot. Could you tell us what it is, what you just saw

2 at the end of the film?

3 A. I want to correct something. I'm not a ballistics expert nor an

4 expert in munitions. I am an expert in lesional ballistics and I'll

5 explain what that is, but that does not authorise me to give an opinion on

6 projectiles or weapons which are part of another speciality which is not

7 mine. Lesional ballistics is the science and the study of the movement of

8 projectiles --

9 JUDGE MAY: I think we have the point, yes.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to ask for this

11 photograph to be shown to the witness, Dr. Baccard. Could it be placed on

12 the ELMO, please.

13 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. If this man was killed on this spot, this hand, after deathly

16 limpness, could be raised in this way or not? And he had three wounds and

17 also his brain was injured in this particular case. That is true.

18 A. I didn't get an interpretation of that.

19 JUDGE MAY: Could you quickly, Mr. Tapuskovic, say it again and

20 we'll get an interpretation. It's to do with the hand. That's the point

21 you want to make.

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. After this deathly limpness which necessarily sets in, is it

24 possible for a hand to be raised in this way if this man had been killed

25 here rather than being brought there from some other place?

Page 5357

1 A. In order to answer the question -- I can't answer that.

2 Examination of rigidity is done on a case-by-case basis. In the analysis

3 of this photograph, one cannot know whether there is an obstacle or some

4 other kind of support on which the hand is resting, or whether this

5 forearm was not wounded, or it might be fractured. So it is very

6 difficult to interpret the rigidity on a photograph. One can interpret a

7 wound or analyse a colour or form which really is part of visual

8 diagnosis, but rigidity requires movement of the body, manipulation of the

9 body, so one cannot answer that question.

10 Q. Dr. Baccard, I am a layman, but believe me, I have been doing this

11 for many years. So if it is inevitable after death for the body to go

12 limp, then the hand simply dropped by the body and they can no longer be

13 raised after rigidity except in the case of very serious brain injuries.

14 The hand goes rigid in the position that it was in the moment limpness

15 sets in, or death. So you are denying that. It is possible, you're

16 saying, that he died on that spot and that his hand could be raised in the

17 way we see it on this photograph?

18 A. I am not denying anything, I'm not affirming anything, I'm simply

19 saying that one cannot interpret the rigidity in a photograph.

20 Q. You saw the film, and on the film too, the situation is identical.

21 A. I saw the film, yes.

22 Q. It is a film made the day when the bodies were discovered on that

23 spot, and you're claiming that it is possible, at the moment of death,

24 when limpness sets in, for somebody to be in this condition and to go

25 rigid and to remain like that, together with seven other bodies who were

Page 5358

1 found further up in that trench?

2 A. I'm not asserting that. I'm simply stating that the study of

3 rigidity cannot be made from a photograph.

4 Q. Would you please look at this photograph too. Could it be shown

5 to Mr. Baccard. It was a drastic head injury, and below the head, on the

6 ground, there is no trace of blood.

7 A. I don't know whether or not there are blood traces. The

8 photograph does not make it possible to state that.

9 Q. Could Mr. Baccard please look at this photograph as well.

10 JUDGE MAY: Yes, see the next photograph, yes.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. I have the same question for the next five cases. Is it possible

13 for bodies, after limpness, to go rigid in this position if they were

14 killed on this spot?

15 JUDGE MAY: The witness has answered that. He has said it's not

16 possible to say.

17 Dr. Baccard, is there anything you want to add to your answer in

18 light of the photographs you've been shown?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Looking at the

20 photograph, I'm wondering whether one could see -- I'm asked a question as

21 to whether or not there was blood. But in the lower right corner of the

22 photograph, really, I can't think that one can just analyse a photograph

23 very, very quickly, just like that.

24 As regards the position of this person, the only thing that one

25 can assert is that, once again, it is impossible, scientifically, to state

Page 5359

1 whether we are dealing here with rigidity, because this is diagnosis which

2 is something that is done through touch. We can merely say that this

3 person has the forearm -- the forearm is across the thorax, and this could

4 be for reasons -- this can be explained by several reasons. But one

5 cannot simply assert that that person is showing cadaverous rigidity on

6 the upper part of his arm.

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am insisting on

8 one single problem. I will not insist any further, but I would like

9 Mr. Baccard to look at this very carefully. I have only one more

10 photograph to show Dr. Baccard.

11 JUDGE MAY: Show him it.

12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It is this photograph.

13 Q. Is it possible, after limpness, for the body to be in this

14 position? After first going limp, to be found in this position?

15 A. It's only when one looks at the outside appearance of that body

16 that we can come to that conclusion. Looking at a photograph, this is too

17 fragmentary, too partial for one to be able to say whether that person was

18 lying on the side and whether for the examination it was turned over on

19 its back. We do not know in what position it was. It seems here that

20 there is a blood trace around the head, subject to any reservations that

21 may be made, so one could think that that person might have been on his

22 side. But these are really questions which I can deal with but for which

23 I cannot answer on the basis of -- on criteria which deal with rigidity.

24 That's not something that one can state on the basis of photographs.

25 Q. When life ceases and deathly limpness sets in, how can a body be

Page 5360

1 turned? How can the body turn around? Isn't this a sign that the body

2 or, rather, the person was killed somewhere else and then brought there to

3 that spot?

4 A. Not necessarily. There might have been movements in the death

5 throes. We do not know whether the body fell in a position in which it

6 was in not balance and that, over time, or as the person was dying it

7 might have shifted. We don't know whether animals came by the body. I

8 don't know. We can make observations on the crime scene because then we

9 could check the various things around the body but when looking at the

10 photographs, we're not going to answer those questions.

11 Q. But here there are no traces of any animals having contact with

12 these bodies --

13 JUDGE MAY: The witness --

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. -- in the cases of all these bodies with the hands raised.

16 JUDGE MAY: The witness has said he cannot assist further. He's

17 assisted as far as he can. The time now is quarter to.

18 Mr. Ryneveld, do you want this witness to come back tomorrow for

19 re-examination?

20 MR. RYNEVELD: I had just two very brief one-word questions, but I

21 can --

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Tapuskovic, you've had the time which has

23 been allowed. You've made your points, and the witness has answered them

24 as best he can.

25 Yes, Mr. Ryneveld. Two very quick questions.

Page 5361

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I haven't had a chance to put the

2 most important thing to the witness.

3 JUDGE MAY: No, I'm sorry. You've had your time. You've had

4 three-quarters of an hour. You knew your time was limited. What is the

5 final question you want to put?

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The question is linked to a

7 photograph on which it can be seen that three bodies were first separated

8 and then suddenly placed together.

9 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Put it to the witness. If he's got a different

10 answer, it will be a change.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This is the first photograph.

12 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's have the second one.

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And then another photograph where

14 we see the bodies together.

15 Q. Can this happen? Can something like this happen, for bodies to

16 move unless somebody moved them? Were those bodies moved after this first

17 photograph was taken? Because the difference is obvious.

18 A. I don't know. I cannot answer in respect of photographs. The

19 only thing I can say is that it does seem that for the first two people

20 these are the same people and the respective positions of the bodies is

21 different in both photographs. Having said this, I cannot assert whether

22 or not the bodies were moved after death.

23 Q. Isn't this evidence that somebody interfered with these bodies?

24 A. I -- it's not for me to answer that question. I can only give

25 opinions as to the photographs, and I have a very limited opinion in

Page 5362












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5363

1 respect of these photographs which have been submitted.

2 JUDGE MAY: No. The witness has given his opinion.

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I just wish to thank

4 you. But this is such a serious and complex problem. There are many more

5 photographs like this that, for a case like this, we amici should be

6 allowed the opportunity to draw attention to some other such factors.

7 JUDGE MAY: You've had every opportunity, and time, as you know,

8 is limited.

9 Yes, Mr. Ryneveld. Two questions, please.

10 MR. RYNEVELD: I will take one.

11 Re-examined by Mr. Ryneveld:

12 Q. Sir, with respect to Dubrava, you were asked by Mr. Tapuskovic

13 concerning what you described as blast injuries, whether or not those

14 injuries could have been caused by something like a bomb. I believe you

15 answered that it could. My question to you is this: Would the injuries,

16 the blast injuries, also have been consistent with, for example, a grenade

17 being thrown in a small room?

18 A. Yes. This type of wound is compatible with any type of explosion

19 which would create pressure in the immediate environment. And if the

20 victim were in that immediate environment, there would be that kind of

21 lesion. The example would be a bottle of gas which explodes or an

22 automobile explosion or an explosion in a kitchen with a gas stove, one

23 can find that kind of lesion. Even with aerosol cans. In very, very

24 close areas, there can be that kind of effect of the explosion.

25 Q. So I understand the answer is it could be a bomb but it could also

Page 5364

1 be any one of a number of these other things that you've mentioned

2 including, say, a grenade?

3 A. Absolutely. With any type of thing that could explode.

4 MR. RYNEVELD: Those are all the questions I ask. I only ask one

5 further thing, Your Honour; that if Your Honour is dismissing this

6 witness, we would simply indicate that provisionally we may -- after I

7 speak to Dr. Baccard, once he's dismissed now, provisionally we may ask

8 him to be recalled on the Cirez binder after I'd had an opportunity to

9 discuss it with him.

10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, we're not dismissing the witness. We're

11 thanking him for attending and we're telling him he's free to leave, which

12 he is.

13 Dr. Baccard, thank you for your attendance. You are free to go.

14 If the Prosecution ask for you to come back, of course we'll consider it.

15 But, Mr. Ryneveld, I must say we don't encourage you. If you can

16 deal with the matter in some other way rather than having the witness come

17 back, then it should be done.

18 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honour.

19 [The witness withdrew]

20 MR. NICE: Tomorrow's witnesses, problems with dealing with

21 witnesses many of whom have already given a lot of their time and are on

22 limited availability. Of the three witnesses remaining to be heard this

23 week it was hoped, it's clear that I'm only going to be able to get

24 through two, if those two, it will be Baton Haxhiu tomorrow. He's a bis'd

25 witness, as it were. There's a small additional bis'd statement coming,

Page 5365

1 one paragraph of which directly deals with the accused.

2 JUDGE MAY: He's the journalist.

3 MR. NICE: He is indeed, yes.

4 JUDGE MAY: We will admit him under 92.

5 MR. NICE: It may be that one paragraph of the additional would

6 have to be dealt with, but you'll see it when it comes through this

7 afternoon. Then after that, I'll take Mr. Merovci and I'll deal

8 with him as swiftly as I possibly can, given to the degree to which there

9 is overlap.

10 JUDGE MAY: So no K5.

11 MR. NICE: Almost certainly not. It's quite easy for him to be

12 brought back here. He's very cooperative and the logistics are easier for

13 him than for some.

14 JUDGE MAY: Very well, we will adjourn now. Apologies to Trial

15 Chamber I for late finishing.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.,

17 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 23rd day of May,

18 2002, at 9.00 a.m.