1 Thursday, 29 April 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, Doctor. Good morning all others. If
7 I could remind you, Doctor, of the affirmation you took at the beginning.
8 Yes, Ms. Somers.
9 WITNESS: DAVORIN RUDOLF [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much, and good morning, Your Honours.
12 Examined by Ms. Somers: [Continued]
13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Rudolf. Good morning, Counsel.
14 Mr. Rudolf, yesterday -- I'll just try to bring you back to where
15 we left off. If you'll excuse me a second I'll just ask my colleague to
16 give you the last question so we can pick up.
17 We had begun, Mr. Rudolf, to discuss the events of the 6th of
18 December, 1991, and we were following some of the entries in what has been
19 referred to as the harbour-master's log. I will ask you about some of
20 your conversations, if any, with the JNA once it became clear to you that
21 in fact Dubrovnik was under attack on the morning of the 6th of December.
22 First, however, I'd like to return to one point and ask you: When
23 you were tasked originally by Zagreb to come to the Dubrovnik area to
24 carry on what have been described as comprehensive negotiations to put an
25 end to the hostilities, among other things, you indicated that you had
1 been informed that you would be meeting with General Strugar. Had you
2 ever had any dealings prior to that time with General Strugar?
3 A. I received instructions on the 29th of November, 1991 to go,
4 together with Ministers Kriste and Cifric, to Dubrovnik. I had never seen
5 General Strugar before that. I am seeing him for the first time in the
6 Court today. Nor did I have any meetings with him.
7 Q. Can I ask you: Did the term "2nd Operational Group" have any
8 particular meaning to you at the time, at the end of November
9 1991/beginning December 1991? Did the term have any meaning to you?
10 A. No, not personally.
11 Q. When you got to Cavtat and you found Admiral Jokic there instead
12 of General Strugar, was there -- did Admiral Jokic say anything to you
13 about the fact that General Strugar was not there? Alternatively, did you
14 express the view that you were to have met with General Strugar?
15 A. I think Admiral Jokic did say that Mr. Strugar was unable to come.
16 However, it was absolutely a matter of indifference to me to whom I would
17 be speaking, the general or the admiral. What mattered to me was that it
18 be a representative of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of
20 Q. And was it your perception when you were negotiating on the 5th of
21 December, 1991 that Admiral Jokic carried authority to -- of the Supreme
22 Command and of General Strugar to carry on these negotiations?
23 A. He did have authority. In fact, when we met, and before we
24 started discussions, we introduced ourselves as representatives of the
25 Croatian government, whereas Admiral Jokic, as the authorised
1 representative of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of Yugoslavia
2 introduced himself. These introductions were made before the beginning of
4 Q. Despite the fact, if I understood correctly, that there was one
5 point concerning inspections at sea that was not firmly arrived at, did
6 you continue to believe that Admiral Jokic had the authority from General
7 Strugar and from the Supreme Command to carry on these negotiations when
8 you left Cavtat on the 5th of December?
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, objection. I object,
10 Your Honour. The evidence and the testimonies of the witness is that in
11 his understanding Admiral Jokic was a representative of the Supreme
12 Command and had authority from the Supreme Command. Nothing he has said
13 so far indicates that my learned friend may, for the second time now, link
14 up General Strugar into her question.
15 JUDGE PARKER: You had better deal with that, Ms. Somers.
16 MS. SOMERS: I will ask accordingly.
17 Q. Mr. Rudolf, when you learned that you were going to deal with
18 General Strugar but found you were going to deal with Admiral Jokic, were
19 you satisfied that Admiral Jokic was there in place of General Strugar,
20 for whatever reason?
21 A. I was told in Zagreb when I spoke to General Raseta and later when
22 I spoke to the office of Admiral Brovet, that I was going to speak to
23 General Strugar. When we arrived in Dubrovnik on the 4th, we established
24 contact with Sofronije Jeremic and we agreed to have this meeting in
25 Cavtat. I believe he said we would see Admiral Jokic, but as I said, when
1 I arrived there, what mattered to me was to speak to a representative of
2 the Supreme Command. I didn't care which.
3 Q. And were you satisfied that Admiral Jokic was taking the place at
4 that time of General Strugar, for whatever reason?
5 A. I was convinced that Admiral Jokic represents the top leadership
6 of the armed forces of the JNA. He just said that General Strugar was
7 unable to come, and it was sufficient to me to have a counterpart who was
8 representing the Supreme Command of the JNA.
9 Q. Thank you. Now, was the contingent from the ECMM inside the
10 negotiating room on the 5th of December? Did they come inside the
11 negotiating room or did they remain outside?
12 A. I'm not sure enough to answer this.
13 Q. Moving back to the 6th of December, I'd like to ask you if the --
14 now, yesterday we went through some of the entries and particularly I had
15 asked you about an entry on page 20 of what is I believe P162, the log.
16 MS. SOMERS: If I may ask the usher to leave perhaps in front of
17 Mr. Rudolf a copy of that exhibit, as well as presenting to him the
18 document from tab 11, which is P136 also, but it's in tab 11 from our
19 binder. Thank you very much.
20 Q. Mr. Rudolf, yesterday -- actually, beginning on page -- it
21 commences a bit earlier, it starts on page 18, runs to page 19 of the log
22 and goes on to page 20, discussing various points that were proposed by --
23 in a communication to you from Boka VPO, as it says, from Admiral Jokic.
24 Point 7, in particular, was asked of you, about the blockade of the town.
25 Can I ask you, please, to turn your attention to the second document,
1 which is marked at the top P136. It is a transmission from Admiral Jokic
2 to the Crisis Staff and to yourself, dated the 6th of December. And it
3 also contains -- well, first of all, do you recognise the contents of it?
4 I mean, it's in evidence, but I just want to know that you're sure of the
5 contents of it.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, does this document summarise the points that are
8 in the log from pages 18 to page -- actually, the very top of page 21? Is
9 it the same -- effectively the same transmission? If you look from page
10 18 through 21 of the log and you look at this document, the separate
11 document, is it effectively the same transmission?
12 A. Just a minute. Yes, it's the same message. The difference is
13 that it's handwritten in one document and typewritten in the other. I
14 believe it is the same.
15 Q. If you take a look at the typewritten document at point 7, there's
16 a reference to deblock -- do you see it? To deblock the town completely?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And to withdraw the weapons that jeopardise the town out of
19 shooting range. Now, which weapons -- from which side is it your
20 understanding that this is referring to? Whose weapons were jeopardising
21 the town?
22 A. On the 5th, we had discussions. We demanded that the JNA withdraw
23 from the territory of the Republic of Croatia, as had been agreed in
24 Zitnic and in Rijeka. However, the admiral not only did not accept this,
25 he refused to discuss this option at all. He demanded on his part that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 armed forces withdraw from Dubrovnik, in exchange for a withdrawal of the
2 JNA to a larger distance from Dubrovnik. In other words, he suggested a
3 demilitarisation of Dubrovnik in exchange for a withdrawal from Dubrovnik
4 to a greater distance.
5 When the armed forces of Croatia withdrew, although it was
6 promised that the JNA would not come into Dubrovnik, they did, and
7 occupied the town. That's what we talked about with Admiral Jokic. He
8 especially insisted that mercenaries withdraw from Dubrovnik.
9 Q. My question, though, being very focused, because time is not
10 working with us today, the point 7 --
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, regarding
12 interpretation, if you allow me. On page 6, line 3 and 4, Mr. Rudolf
13 talked -- said that although it was promised that they would not come into
14 Cavtat, not Dubrovnik, and they did come into Cavtat.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me answer your question. It is
16 very understandable. It says here that the weapons that represent a
17 danger to the town should be withdrawn out of shooting range, and then in
18 a sort of exchange --
19 MS. SOMERS:
20 Q. Whose weapons? The weapons from which side?
21 A. As I understood this document, the weapons that were a danger to
22 the town meant weapons of the JNA, and from the Croatian side armed forces
23 should withdraw from the town.
24 Q. Now, were there, to your knowledge, mercenaries in the Croatian or
25 on -- among the Croatian forces?
1 A. At that moment when Admiral Jokic spoke about mercenaries, I
2 didn't know whether there were any or not. However, as soon as our
3 negotiations were over and when I went to Dubrovnik, I made inquiries and
4 established that there was only one foreigner, precisely from Holland, a
5 man who married a local woman from Dubrovnik. He was practically a
6 Dubrovnik man of Dutch origin, a man who had a local wife. There were no
7 other mercenaries.
8 Q. Mr. Rudolf, would you -- were you suggesting that the only
9 sticking point was the place of inspection of vessels, that other than
10 that, it appeared to both sides that the agreement was a done deal?
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness is being
12 led. He hasn't said anything so far about which points are in issue and
13 which are not; at least, I haven't heard him say anything to that effect.
14 Maybe my learned friend heard something else. Where exactly has the
15 witness said what was controversial in the document?
16 MS. SOMERS: I will go back.
17 JUDGE PARKER: I'm afraid, Ms. Somers, you're catching the
18 condition that Mr. Rodic and Mr. Petrovic have had of imagining what's in
19 their mind is in the evidence when they're cross-examining.
20 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry.
21 JUDGE PARKER: So you will have to watch it.
22 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry, Your Honour.
23 Q. Mr. Rudolf, what was -- if any, what was a sticking point that --
24 well, were there any points that were not completely resolved when you and
25 the JNA side left Cavtat on the 5th?
1 A. We had agreed immediately after initial negotiations, where I
2 explained the situation in Dubrovnik and presented our demands and then
3 Admiral Jokic did the same. But we immediately agreed on one thing; to
4 cease hostilities, to cease with the fighting. And then ensued a
5 discussion about the reopening of local roads and daily services between
6 Dubrovnik and the surrounding islands, that electricity should be restored
7 to Dubrovnik and the water supply. We even talked about the
8 Dubrovnik-Split road being opened. And the only issue we couldn't resolve
9 was the issue of the naval blockade of Dubrovnik. Right at the beginning,
10 Admiral Jokic said that he was not authorised to discuss or agree to a
11 lifting of the blockade, because that's what we insisted on, and we had no
12 success, and then we started looking for a compromise. We proposed that
13 if the blockade were to remain in place, the checking of the ships should
14 be done in the Dubrovnik port of Gruz, whereas the admiral insisted that
15 ships should be checked or inspected at sea.
16 We insisted on the port because it was the month of December, and
17 when you inspect the ships at sea and when the weather is bad and the sea
18 is not calm, then a ship had to go to the port of Zelenika for inspection.
19 That, of course, was a great inconvenience, both to the crew and to the
20 passengers, and I, as a minister for maritime affairs, had received a lot
21 of complaints from various crews.
22 We had a captain of the Slavija ship, for instance, who was
23 Montenegrin and who complained about this. We had to replace him. That
24 was the only open issue that remained unresolved, because the admiral said
25 he had to consult the Supreme Command. We said: Fine, we will talk to
1 our government as well. And we said goodbye to each other, with the
2 conviction that we had reached agreement about the most important issues,
3 that is, the most important issue, and that is a cessation of hostilities.
4 And we had also agreed to come back the next day, at 10.00, and sign this
6 Q. Did you have any particular perception about whether or not -- as
7 to the other points Admiral Jokic had the authority to enter into
8 agreement? You indicated one point, the inspection was left open, but
9 were you satisfied that as to the other points, the authority was vested
10 in the admiral?
11 You shook your head, but I don't think they pick it up.
12 A. Yes. Yes. I think on all other issues he was authorised.
13 Q. Thank you. Now, we did go into the beginning of what occurred
14 yesterday on the 6th of December. I would ask you if you can tell us:
15 Did you have, once you became aware of the attacks in Dubrovnik on that
16 morning, did you make contact with the other side, with the JNA side? If
17 so, how did you do it, from where, and with whom did you make contact?
18 A. I was awakened by the shooting, and then I went down to the bar,
19 just as everyone else seemed to do. And we could see clearly that
20 Dubrovnik was being shelled. This bar and restaurant and this room where
21 the ECMM monitors were sitting faced the sea. You had a very good view.
22 I'm sorry, I'm not a soldier, but I was later told that the weapon used
23 was some sort of Maljutka. You could see clearly the shells flying over
24 and landing near the ships in the city port.
25 I told you yesterday that I was absolutely devastated when I saw
1 this, because I couldn't believe that despite the agreement we had reached
2 only a day before, Dubrovnik was being attacked. I was absolutely
3 crushed. I didn't care about staying alive even. All my hopes were
4 crushed, because that hope had arisen only a day before, I told you.
5 Our communication with the town and the communication with the
6 defence of the town was still in place, and I went to call Admiral Jokic
7 immediately. I dialed the number, I say, but I don't know where he was
8 located, whether it was Kumbor or Herceg-Novi, but we could not get him on
9 the phone.
10 Q. Do you know -- can you tell us, please, what instrument you used
11 to reach him. How did you try to reach him? With what?
12 A. By telephone, the telephone which was at the hotel. However,
13 Mr. Di Mistura showed up then. He was right there and he had a satellite
14 phone in his room. Then we all went upstairs to try to get Admiral Jokic
15 on that satellite phone.
16 Q. Why Admiral Jokic?
17 A. Because he was the one with whom I had agreed on a cease-fire the
18 day before.
19 Q. Thank you. Who is Mr. Di Mistura?
20 A. Mr. Di Mistura was the representative of the United Nations in
21 Dubrovnik. He had a suite of rooms in the hotel and he had a satellite
22 phone. There were representatives of all kinds of international
23 organisations in Dubrovnik at the time. They were all in the Hotel
24 Argentina. Whenever I say anything about events on the 6th December, I'm
25 speaking about Hotel Argentina. More specifically, about this little
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 annex building attached to the hotel. It's connected to the main
2 building. It's one and the same hotel.
3 So dialing this number, using this special phone, we finally got
4 the office of Admiral Jokic. I spoke on the phone and I said: Is Admiral
5 Jokic there? They said no. And then I said: Look, you are attacking
6 Dubrovnik. And the man on the other end of the line said: No. We are
7 not attacking anyone. Then I took the receiver and turned it away from me
8 and then the man on the other end of the line heard the shooting. It was
9 something horrible. And then he said: Okay. I'm going to get Admiral
10 Jokic now.
11 Q. Do you know who the man on the other end of the line was?
12 A. No. No, I don't.
13 Q. Did you indicate at the time -- I'm sorry. Did you indicate to
14 the man on the other end of the line that the Old Town was also
16 A. No. I simply said that they're shooting at Dubrovnik. When one
17 says Dubrovnik, it means the entire city.
18 After a certain period of time, I couldn't tell you exactly how
19 long, maybe 20 minutes, maybe half an hour, I got Admiral Jokic on the
20 line. I don't know whether I called or he called --
21 Q. When you say that they're shooting at Dubrovnik and it means the
22 entire city, does that include the Old Town?
23 A. That's right. Certainly.
24 Q. And there came a point where you did speak to Admiral Jokic
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And what did you tell Admiral Jokic?
3 A. I immediately said to him: Admiral, they're shooting at
4 Dubrovnik. Yesterday we agreed on a cease-fire. And I also put a
5 receiver so that he could hear the shooting, to which he replied that they
6 did not issue an order to fire at Dubrovnik. He said that it was
7 ludicrous, ridiculous, to do something like that. He said that they were
8 investigating what was going on, and what was most important for me, he
9 suggested, a cease-fire to me, a truce, to begin at 11.00. I naturally
10 accepted that immediately. I can state to you here again that, as you
11 know, I'm a professor of international law and such agreements can be
12 reached on the phone. So we agreed that the cease-fire was to start at
14 Q. Did you indicate to Admiral Jokic that Dubrovnik and the Old Town
15 were under attack?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness has
17 already answered this question, several minutes ago, and in a very clear
18 manner. Please take a look. Page 11, line 14.
19 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, that was with the other individual that
20 I had made reference to that question.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Would you carry on, please, Ms. Somers.
22 MS. SOMERS:
23 Q. Mr. Rudolf, my question to you was: Did you indicate to Admiral
24 Jokic that Dubrovnik and the Old Town were under attack? Do you remember
25 what you said?
1 A. Well, you know, that was what, 12 or 13 years ago. I think I said
2 that Dubrovnik was under attack. When you say Dubrovnik, that includes
3 the Old Town as well. I can tell you that we could see everything that
4 was going on from Hotel Argentina, and we could see that the rounds were
5 landing on the wall ramparts, wall ramparts of the Old Town on the south
6 side. We could also see that within the Old Town there was a smoke rising
7 after the explosion. So it was clear that it was under attack. The
8 rounds also landed on the Hotel Argentina. One round landed on the annex
9 in which we were --
10 Q. Did you convey this to Admiral Jokic, if you remember?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Mr. Rudolf, did you have any communications with General Strugar
13 that day?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Let me ask you -- first I'll show you some documents and then I'll
16 ask you. Perhaps it frames better the question.
17 MS. SOMERS: If I can ask that tab 12, the document from tab 12,
18 which is P23, be shown to you.
19 Q. This is what appears to be a fax, addressed to you. Do you recall
20 receiving this communication on the 6th of December?
21 A. Yes. Well, this is a faxed message. Yes, I remember. I received
22 this sometime in the afternoon. I think that it was stated that the
23 general had sent this fax sometime at 4.30.
24 Q. Now, would you indicate, please, what it says in that fax. Would
25 you be kind enough to read it out, please.
1 A. Shall I read it out or shall I interpret it?
2 Q. [Previous translation continues]... read it.
3 A. I can't see the top here. I think it says: Telegram from the
4 VPS, which is naval military sector, the Crisis Staff of Dubrovnik to
5 Minister Rudolf Davorin. "This morning, JNA forces were fired upon." And
6 then I can't really read what it says here. I think, "with mortars and
7 machine-guns from Srdj and Babin Kuk, without provocation. Our forces
8 returned fire in response to this action. However, upon my orders, the
9 unit ceased fire at 1115 hours. However, your forces did not abide by the
10 cease-fire. It can therefore be concluded that the buildings in the old
11 heart of Dubrovnik are being damaged by the fire your forces are laying
12 down. Commander, Colonel General Pavle Strugar," and then something else
13 at the bottom.
14 Q. Can I ask you -- in pieces we'll look at this. In the first part,
15 where it says "This morning JNA forces were fired upon with mortars and
16 machine-guns from Srdj and Babin Kuk, without provocation," did you at the
17 time agree with that assertion by General Strugar?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Second part: "Our forces returned fire in response to this
20 action. However, on my orders, the cease-fire at 11.15 -- the units
21 ceased fire at 1115 hours." Do you agree that the JNA forces returned
22 fire in response - in response - to Croatian provocation?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do you agree that there was a cease-fire put in place at, it
25 appears, 1115 hours?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you agree with the assertion by General Strugar that your
3 forces did not respect the cease-fire, and it can therefore be concluded
4 that the buildings in the old heart of Dubrovnik, or Old Town, are being
5 damaged by the fire your forces are laying down?
6 A. No.
7 Q. What was your reaction to this particular communication by General
9 A. When I received this message from General Strugar, I consulted --
10 I don't know exactly what time it was in the afternoon, but I consulted,
11 as I always did, the commander of the Dubrovnik defence, Mr. Marinovic. I
12 told him what was stated here. He said it was not true. Yesterday I told
13 you what was the attitude of this lieutenant general of ours, lieutenant
14 colonel of ours. He was a true soldier, and I don't think that he would
15 dare say to a minister something that wasn't true. So he immediately
16 disagreed with the contents of this message. As to the cease-fire at
17 11.15, this is true. We initially said the cease-fire should begin at
18 11.00, and then another radio message arrived stating that it should begin
19 at 11.15 in order to inform all of the units that were on higher
20 elevations. We agreed with this new cease-fire at 11.15, and it started
21 -- it started coming into effect step by step, because the fire was being
22 reduced in intensity.
23 As for this final claim of colonel general that it is our forces
24 who are destroying the Old Town, to tell you the truth, I believe this to
25 be complete nonsense. I don't know whether that day or the following day
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 I watched TV and heard that another general of the JNA - I think his name
2 was Gvero - had stated in Belgrade that Croats were setting on fire tyres
3 near the ramparts of the Old Town to create an impression that the JNA was
4 attacking the town. Naturally, such claims, I knew immediately that they
5 were not true.
6 Q. Mr. Rudolf, you were there. How would you describe the attack on
7 the Old Town which you observed? My question goes to whether it was
8 constant, continuous, sustained, sporadic. Can you give a description of
9 it, please.
10 A. All of that started in the morning. We established contact
11 immediately with the commander of the Dubrovnik defence forces, and we
12 were told that all of that had started early in the morning by the
13 fortress Imperijal on Srdj mountain and later it spread to the town. When
14 we arrived at the bar and when we saw what was going on, we saw that the
15 entire city was under attack. And it was fascinating to watch these
16 rounds that were fired hit the ramparts, and it looked as though a
17 mosquito was attacking this huge structure. And these shells were landing
18 on the left side, on the right side, and I didn't believe that the rounds
19 would hit this ship, because the ship was that of the parliament, but at
20 one point, a shell hit the ship on the right side, and if you look from
21 the Hotel Argentina on the town, you see the view which is the usually
22 depicted view of Dubrovnik. So we saw the ramparts and we could see the
23 fire rising on this side, on that side, from the shells that were
24 exploding. The shells were landing all over the town, around the hotel,
25 in front of the hotel, on the road in front of the hotel: Later on, we
1 could see the empty shells of the rounds.
2 So the entire town of Dubrovnik was shelled, and I would depict
3 that shelling as a brutal one. The shelling continued until the
4 cease-fire came into effect. I can tell you that we were fortunate to
5 have a satellite telephone there. We established contact with Admiral
6 Jokic. We concluded a cease-fire. I don't know what would the fate of
7 Dubrovnik have been had we not managed to do that. So this was a
8 continuous, brutal attack from the Hotel Argentina. I can tell you that
9 the Zarkovica and other hills were behind our back. Therefore, we could
10 see the rounds flying towards Dubrovnik, and we could see the smoke rising
12 When the cease-fire came into effect, this shelling was reduced
13 gradually, and then what happened was that - I don't know who told us, was
14 it the president of the municipality or somebody else - that nine
15 buildings were on fire. The night was approaching, and this was a sight
16 that one can never forget. The night was approaching, there was no more
17 electric power, and behind, in the Old Town, we could see fire raging
18 there, ablaze.
19 We called Croatian government and asked that Italy intervene in
20 order to provide assistance. Some six days prior to that, I was in Rome,
21 and I negotiated with Italians. I even established contact with --
22 between Bari and Dubrovnik. I asked the Chef de Cabinet of Mr. De
23 Michelis to send us the planes that could put the fire out. However, the
24 citizens of Dubrovnik managed to put the fire out. I think that a
25 fire-fighting ship from Korcula had arrived, and it helped in putting out
1 the fire in the Old Town. So this happened on the 6th. This tremendous,
2 brutal attack.
3 I can tell you that at one point, with Mr. Di Mistura, I watched
4 from his small balcony the rounds landing in Dubrovnik. I met with a
5 gentleman on the 5th, in the evening, and he asked me whether I believed
6 the JNA and that they would put in place the cease-fire, and I replied
7 yes. And as we were watching this sight, I remember that I said to him:
8 Well, sir, we have lived in the same state for 70 years, and now look at
9 this. And then I used this impolite word that I do not want to use here
10 again, and I said to him: Now look how they are destroying this peaceful,
11 beautiful town from above.
12 Several days later, after the cease-fire was concluded, Di Mistura
13 asked me again: Do you believe the JNA now? And I said no. And I -- it
14 should have been the other way around. I should have said no first and
15 then yes later. Later on, when I was Croatian ambassador to Italy, I met
16 the gentleman again and we would always go over these memories.
17 Q. Sorry to cut you off, but time again is marching against us. You
18 witnessed, as you indicated, this shelling which you described as brutal.
19 Did you -- you mentioned you saw the ramparts being shelled, the ramparts
20 of the Old Town. Did you witness shells going to other parts of the Old
21 Town or any explosions going into other parts of the Old Town; edges,
22 middle, any parts of the Old Town?
23 A. Behind the ramparts is the Old Town. I didn't see what shells
24 were landing, but they were landing behind the ramparts in the Old Town,
25 and we would see the smoke, the smoke rising up, here, there, in various
1 places, which means that the shells were landing --
2 Q. Did you see it going on the inside?
3 A. Yes, behind the ramparts, which is inside.
4 Q. I'm sorry, it maybe is not clear to the record when you say
5 "behind the ramparts," so I want to make sure it's really clear.
6 A. Behind the ramparts in the Old Town. Let me just give you a
7 detail: When we came back on the 5th from Cavtat, they proposed to us to
8 move into Hotel Dubravka, which is in the Old Town, because prior to that
9 we were staying in Hotel Argentina. The night was approaching so we said
10 we would remain in Hotel Argentina. And that day, on the 6th in the
11 afternoon, they came to wish me a happy birthday, and then what happened
12 was that in the room where I was supposed to sleep, a shell landed in that
13 room, which is in the very centre of the Old Town.
14 Q. Thank you. Did you observe, during the course of the attacks on
15 the 6th, any JNA attacks from the sea? What was your observation, if any?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Now, the issue of fire-fighting, I wanted to ask you about. You
18 mentioned the need to put out the fires. And if I could ask you to turn
19 to the radio log -- the harbour-master's log. I just wanted to see if
20 there's -- on page 25, if I could ask you to take a look, please, at the
21 harbour-master's log. Do you see it, sir? Page 25. And it has an entry
22 for 1813 and 1831. It says: "For the Dubrovnik Crisis Staff: Lieutenant
23 General Pavle Strugar has given permission in principle for a tugboat with
24 a water cannon to enter the old port of Dubrovnik to put out the fire. We
25 ask you to let us know in due time about the number of ships so that we
1 can create conditions for their safe passage." And then it bears a name,
2 Lieutenant General Pavle Strugar, with a "message relayed."
3 Do you have any further information about the permission granted
4 for the tugboat to come in? Is there anything further you can elaborate
5 on about this?
6 A. I think that the tugboat did arrive, as far as I can remember.
7 Q. Are you able to give us an approximate time when you consider the
8 attack against the -- against Dubrovnik and particularly the Old Town to
9 have ended on the 6th of December? If you can give a rough time frame.
10 A. I think roughly at around 5.00 in the afternoon. Because it was
11 gradually diminishing.
12 Q. And are you able to indicate or are you confirming that the fires
13 that you observed did continue to burn perhaps even on to -- did they
14 continue to burn even the next day?
15 A. No, not on the following day, but after 5.00, yes, into the night.
16 Q. What was the particular reason why you -- why a request was made
17 of the Italians to put the fires out?
18 A. It was my idea. A few days prior to that, I was in Rome. I had
19 discussions there on cooperation and so on. And it seemed to me -- you
20 know, that sight was a terrible one, so it seemed to me that it would be a
21 good idea to ask the Italians to put out the fire. You know, at the time,
22 Croatia did not have those fire-fighting aeroplanes, and I doubt that we
23 could have gotten assistance from anyone else. I even called the Deputy
24 Prime Minister, Granic, and I think that we received a consent from
25 Italians to assist us.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MS. SOMERS: If I would ask -- may I ask the usher, please, to
2 distribute from tab 15 of the document. It is from P61. It was tab 33,
3 but in this particular binder it appears under tab 15.
4 Q. Mr. Rudolf, do you -- you indicated that you had -- you've read to
5 us the communication received from General Strugar that day, on the 6th.
6 Do you recognise -- do you recognise a document that says it is from you
7 to General Strugar, also dated the 6th of December, 1991?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And did you compose this particular communication?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And why did you do so?
12 A. I received the message from Mr. Strugar where it was stated that
13 it was us who caused the attack, that we were in fact destroying the Old
14 Town, and I thought that we needed to reply to that. So I wrote this
15 letter and sent it.
16 Q. Did you at any point subsequent to this letter receive any
17 communication from General Strugar about the content of this letter?
18 A. The following day, on the 7th, before we commenced negotiations in
19 Cavtat, Admiral Jokic gave me the letter from Mr. Strugar. I took it to
20 be a reply to my message.
21 Q. And what, if anything, was in the -- what content was in this
22 particular letter?
23 A. That letter stated that he also said he regretted the attack, and
24 he said that there was a renegade unit of the JNA and that unit carried
25 out the attack. He said that he had ordered this to be investigated and
2 I gave this letter to everyone, everybody read it out, and I think
3 I gave it even to Mr. Hvalkof, the gentleman who was there representing
4 the European Community. We were all on one side of the table. So I
5 received this letter from General Strugar, and after that we had no
6 further contacts.
7 Q. Now, did you take this communication from General Strugar to be an
8 acknowledgment or an admission that one of the units of the JNA had in
9 fact initiated the attack and had carried it out? Excuse me.
10 A. Well, listen. I didn't know then, I still don't know now what was
11 happening on the other side and who started the attack. To me, it looked
12 like a synchronised attack, going from one side of Dubrovnik to the other
13 side. Now, whether this was one renegade unit which started attack
14 without authorisation, I don't know that. In fact, I never learned what
15 was going on on the other side. I even planned to go to Yugoslavia, to
16 Serbia one day, and talk to Admiral Jokic, ten years following the event,
17 to see what actually took place on behalf of the JNA.
18 Q. Mr. Rudolf, you have written a book about the war in Croatia, and
19 does part of it -- what is the name of the book that you wrote about the
20 war in Croatia?
21 A. "The War We Did Not Want."
22 Q. And when did you write this book?
23 A. In 1997 and 1998.
24 Q. And did you discuss this particular communication from General
25 Strugar in your book?
1 A. I did.
2 Q. Can I ask you, if I -- just to -- if I present a copy of the page,
3 may I ask you just to read what you wrote at the time. And I'll just
4 distribute, so that the Chamber can see it. Of course it is in the
5 Croatian language, and I'll just ask that it simply be read out.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the page please be put on the ELMO for the
7 benefit of interpreters.
8 MS. SOMERS:
9 Q. Mr. Rudolf, was this book a book that was put out to the general
10 public? Was it a commercially printed and distributed book?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And if you can indicate, if it's on the ELMO, be good enough to --
13 I'm sorry. Is it on the ELMO? The ELMO is the projector next to you,
14 Mr. Rudolf. If you could turn the next page, please, that gives a little
15 bit of information about -- okay. And then the next page, please. Thank
17 What is the date, if ...? Sorry. The book does in fact have a
18 date of publication. Could you indicate that date, please.
19 A. I think it was 1999.
20 Q. And the next page, please. Does this page indicate the
21 conversation -- or the communications with General Strugar that you've had
22 on the 6th and the 7th?
23 A. Yes. Yes. On this page, I listed messages of the 6th, and on the
24 next page, messages of the 7th.
25 MS. SOMERS: Could you turn to the next page, please, Mr. Usher.
1 Q. And what -- could you indicate where you have made reference to a
2 communication from General Strugar that you indicated you received on the
3 7th. If you'd be kind enough to read it into the record.
4 A. It is right at the top of the page. "The next day, the 7th
5 December, before the second round of negotiations, Vice Admiral Jokic
6 handed to me in a blue envelope the response of General Strugar, wherein
7 he gives new interpretation of the attack on the city of the 6th December.
8 He wrote that one unit of the JNA, the Yugoslav People's Army, made a
9 movement on its own initiative and opened fire. And he also expressed
10 regret over what he called 'the incident that occurred.' He informed me
11 that he would start an investigation and establish who was responsible."
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MS. SOMERS: Your Honours, I am fully prepared to tender it if it
14 would assist the Court. Otherwise, if the record is sufficient, I can
15 leave it.
16 JUDGE PARKER: I think the record is sufficient.
17 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much. Thank you.
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Rudolf. Can we go back now -- we've finished with
19 that particular page.
20 During your communications with Admiral Jokic on the 6th, did
21 Admiral Jokic ever indicate to you any concern about outgoing fire from
22 the Old Town of Dubrovnik? Did Admiral Jokic ever indicate to you as you
23 were speaking to him or otherwise communicating, any concern about any
24 outgoing fire from the Old Town of Dubrovnik?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Did you at any time during the 6th of December observe any
2 outgoing fire from the Old Town of Dubrovnik?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Were you able to observe any outgoing fire from any areas outside
5 of the Old Town but in close proximity to the Old Town, if you were in a
6 position to see?
7 A. No. As far as I was able to see, of course.
8 Q. I'd like to ask you, please, to take a look at tab 9, the document
9 in tab 9. This document dated the 8th of December is from what
10 institution, or what stamp does it bear and is it addressed to yourself,
11 Mr. Rudolf, to you? Is it addressed to you?
12 A. Yes. That's the stamp of the command of the Dubrovnik defence
13 headquarters, and the report was addressed to me.
14 Q. And do you recall having absorbed or read the contents of this
16 A. You see, I received a sea of these reports, but I see this
17 description here and I think they sent me this as an explanation of what
18 was going on, and I later transmitted it to the government. Judging by
19 this stamp and the contents, I believe this letter was handed to me. I
20 only can't remember when or --
21 Q. Thank you. Now, if you can just take a very quick perusal
22 through, because of time, and point out a couple of things to you.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. In particular, there is a paragraph on the first page which
25 discusses the type of weaponry involved in the attack. Was this
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 consistent with what was discussed or what you came to learn about the
2 weaponry? And if you're not familiar with that type of detail, feel free
3 to say so.
4 Your hands went up. I assume that you don't want --
5 A. No. No. I'm not familiar with this. You see, I'm no soldier. I
6 keep making mistakes about generals and admirals.
7 Q. No problem. Moving on to the section where it says, "The fiercest
8 fighting took place between 0900 and 1000 hours when the enemy directed
9 all artillery pieces to fire on the Old and New Towns, which inflicted
10 serious damage on the Old Town," do you concur with that? You were
11 observing. Is that --
12 A. Whether it was the fiercest phase then, I don't know, but it was a
13 continuous attack.
14 Q. Reading down, it indicates above where paragraph 2 begins, it
15 says, "There were no naval or aerial combat operations." Do you concur
16 with that?
17 A. Yes. I did not see any. Well, that would be all we needed,
19 Q. Now, the balance of it deals with certain indications of some of
20 the damage on the last page. I will not necessarily ask you to go through
21 it, but if you could confirm, if you know, that some of the buildings that
22 were damaged did include the church of St. Blaise, the Franciscan
23 monastery, the church of St. Joseph, the Sponza palace, the archives, the
24 Rupe museum, the convent of the Sisters of Sigurate, and the Stradun. If
25 you could just indicate if you're in agreement with, if you're in a
1 position to say ...
2 A. On the 6th, we were unable to leave Hotel Argentina at all. It
3 was impossible because the road leading to the Old Town was under fire.
4 The next day, however, we did leave the hotel and we went straight to the
5 Old Town, because those parts next to the Old Town had been shelled but
6 the devastation was not too great. In the Old Town, the picture was
7 terrible. In the Stradun, the high street, that is, there were shards of
8 glass, debris. The building where the Dubrovnik festival was held was
9 damaged. And I will say again, nine buildings in total were either
10 destroyed or burnt. I was together with Pedja Sehovic, who was --
11 Q. When you say "in total," totally destroyed, in their totality
13 A. Completely, completely destroyed. Nothing remained of them, only
14 the walls. And Mr. Pedja Sehovic and I -- who was a writer, and I toured
15 all this. We saw a shell had hit the library, destroyed the fences.
16 Damaged buildings were very numerous. They were destroyed either
17 completely or partially. One of them was the Franciscan monastery.
18 But I will tell you one more thing: We had agreed for a
19 commission to come, precisely based on the letter that I addressed to
20 Mr. Strugar, where I invited him to come to the town and see for himself.
21 And some people indeed from the Yugoslav People's Army came to the town,
22 and they filmed all this. The picture was inconceivable. It was a
23 terrible sight. And in one of these documents that you gave me to read,
24 it says 14 people were killed, 14 civilians, and 30 were hurt. I believe
25 there were more casualties. That's only on the 6th. In addition, 19 --
1 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
2 A. -- other people were killed, including four soldiers. That
3 happened on the 6th, when those people were killed. We toured the
4 hospital, everything. You know how these things are done.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. We went to see the bakery which baked bread for the town. We
7 tried to cover all of Dubrovnik to give some encouragement to people.
8 People had come out into the streets to try to tidy up a little. But at
9 that time, the cease-fire was in place and it was quiet.
10 MS. SOMERS: I'd ask to move this document into evidence, Your
11 Honour, please.
12 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
13 THE REGISTRAR: It will be P164.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm sorry to
15 interrupt this examination, but I'm concerned about the time, because we
16 need time to examine the forensic witness, the forensics expert. Could we
17 be apprised of the plan for today so that we know how we're going to
19 JUDGE PARKER: We certainly can, Mr. Petrovic. We propose to
20 adjourn in about ten minutes, resuming at about a quarter to 11.00. As
21 the first witness will be yours, Dr. Lecic, we would propose that you
22 should have a full 40 minutes to deal with the evidence of Dr. Lecic, in
23 addition, of course, to her report. It will be for you to decide how best
24 to divide that between examination-in-chief and re-examination.
25 The Prosecution will have 40 minutes to cross-examine, we will
1 have a short break, and then Dr. Matthews, as that is the second witness
2 of the Prosecution, we would propose 25 minutes for the Prosecution, to be
3 divided as you choose between examination-in-chief and re-examination, the
4 Defence to have a full 40 minutes to cross-examine Dr. Matthews. And that
5 will take us to just on a quarter to 2.00.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'm sorry
7 again that I interrupted you.
8 JUDGE PARKER: I had in mind making that clear before we broke so
9 that each of you could plan your time, but we tried there to allow both
10 sides a reasonable opportunity, but also to give as much time as we
11 feasibly can to Dr. Rudolf today. I've been over this before and I won't
12 go over it again for the unfortunate Dr. Rudolf.
13 Yes, continue.
14 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. And thank you for clarifying
15 that for the parties on the timing.
16 Q. Do you know what happened to the particular communication that you
17 indicated General Strugar had sent to you that you mentioned in your
18 book? Do you know where the actual document may have perhaps ended up?
19 What did you do with it?
20 A. We sent all those documents on to the Croatian government in
21 Zagreb through the municipality of Dubrovnik. I managed to make
22 photocopies of only the most important radiograms, and they are published
23 in this book. And by the way, this book can be bought in Belgrade as
25 Q. Apart from -- other than General Strugar, are you aware of any
1 other official, high-ranking officer of the JNA, who has blamed the Croats
2 for the shelling of the Old Town in connection with the 6th of December?
3 Did you hear it from General Kadijevic, from Admiral Brovet?
4 A. No. I only mentioned General Gvero. I remember that name very
5 well. On the radio, in a public statement, he accused Croats of setting
6 fire to the town themselves by burning tyres and creating an impression
7 that Dubrovnik was being destroyed.
8 Q. Did you ever hear from Admiral Jokic that he believed the Croatian
9 forces had shelled the Old Town themselves?
10 A. No.
11 Q. I'd like to take a look at the cease-fire agreement that you had
12 entered. I just want to find the tab.
13 Actually, if we can take one moment. There are several documents
14 that I would ask you to address. In tab 13, they're a bit loosely put
15 together so I'll direct everyone's attention to the ones I'm interested in
16 showing to the witness. They're the documents bearing ERN 03091857 in
17 English, dated 7 December. The next document in English is 03091853,
18 which is also dated 7 December. And the next document 03091852, dated 7
19 December. And the last is 03091854, dated 7 December.
20 Mr. Rudolf, if we can take a look first at the document that is --
21 it bears in the upper right-hand corner in the English 03091857. And
22 perhaps put it on the ELMO. I think it might be helpful, please. The
23 Croatian language version is 01076138.
24 Were you able to find it?
25 A. Yes.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MS. SOMERS: If Mr. Usher can assure that it's placed soundly on
2 the ELMO. I think the witness has it in his hand. Thank you.
3 Q. Mr. Rudolf, do you -- well, you have the Croatian version. Do you
4 recognise this document? Did it come from you?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And it's dated 7 December 1991 --
7 A. Yes, I signed it.
8 Q. And can you indicate, please, what -- if you can very quickly run
9 through the content of it - to whom it is addressed and what the concern
10 in it is - we'll try to get through this very fast.
11 A. We had agreed to negotiate in Cavtat, to hold final negotiations.
12 However, when we arrived on the 5th December, on the first day, when we
13 went out on the coast, we found soldiers lined up at a distance of ten
14 metres. They looked very unkempt. Some of them were unshaven. They held
15 these automatic or semi-automatic rifles. And when I was supposed to go
16 into town, I called the general and I said that I had the impression that
17 our life was going to be put in danger, that we might be attacked. And we
18 agreed to meet in Srebreno, which is some way between Dubrovnik and
20 Admiral Jokic accepted this, and the next day we used the
21 hydrofoil to reach the port of Srebreno. However, the vessel was not able
22 to put in because it was -- because of the way it was built, so we had to
23 go to Cavtat anyway. Admiral Jokic asked us where we got the information
24 that somebody was planning to try to kill us, and we said that it was no
25 particular intelligence, that it was only our impression.
1 Q. When you said a few moments ago that you called the general, "and
2 I said that I had the impression our life was going to be put in danger,"
3 to which general were you referring? Just to clarify, please. To which
5 A. No. To be quite clear: I made this mistake again. I sent this
6 message to Vice Admiral Jokic. He was the only one I communicated with.
7 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, does this, then, reflect the concern that
8 you had about your security, and for yourself, and was it also for the
9 other ministers involved, the other negotiators, members of the
10 negotiating party?
11 Is that a yes?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. May I ask, please, to have this document admitted into evidence.
14 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
15 Ms. Somers, can I ask how much longer you would expect your
16 examination-in-chief to be with Dr. Rudolf?
17 MS. SOMERS: Yes, sir. It will not finish, clearly, today. I
18 would anticipate less than one hour, less than one hour. And I regret
19 that I will have to -- I know we have to bring the witness back, but that
20 should be fine.
21 JUDGE PARKER: I cannot help feeling sympathy for the position of
22 Dr. Rudolf, but things are beyond our direct control.
23 You have been what I would call messed about, and I'm sorry for
25 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, if it's possible, I had pulled a few
1 documents out -- are we stopping now or at 10.30?
2 JUDGE PARKER: If we're resuming at 10.45, there must be at least
3 20 minutes for the tapes to be changed, et cetera.
4 MS. SOMERS: Fully understood. I'll pick up with these at our
5 next meeting. Thank you.
6 JUDGE PARKER: So we need to break now to enable the people who
7 are interpreting to rest and the machinery to be prepared for the next
9 THE REGISTRAR: Can I just quickly give the number to the
11 JUDGE PARKER: We will have that.
12 THE REGISTRAR: P165.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Now, we will now adjourn the
14 hearing of the evidence of Dr. Rudolf until Monday afternoon. My
15 understanding is that it's Monday afternoon. That's shared by one of the
16 members of the Chamber. The other member fears it may be Monday morning.
17 So would you please all check with the court officer, and we will resume
18 at a quarter to 11.00 with the hearing of the evidence of Dr. Lecic.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, Doctor, and welcome. Thank you very
23 much for coming. If you would be kind enough to take the card and read
24 the affirmation.
25 WITNESS: DUSICA LECIC-TOSEVSKI
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
3 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
4 JUDGE PARKER: If you could be seated, please.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Examined by Mr. Petrovic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Professor Lecic.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. Please, for the record, tell us your full name.
12 A. My name is Dusica Lecic-Tosevski.
13 Q. Is it correct that you are professor of psychiatry at the medical
14 faculty of the University of Belgrade?
15 A. Yes. I teach at the medical faculty as a professor of psychiatry.
16 Q. Is it correct that in 1992 you got a Ph.D. on the subject
17 depression and changes in personality?
18 A. My Ph.D. is in psychiatry and personality disorders, to be
20 Q. Is it true that you are now working as a manager of the Centre for
21 Education and Mental Health in Belgrade?
22 A. Yes. That is where I work.
23 Q. Are you the founder and long-time member of the Stress Clinic in
25 A. Yes. In 1994, I founded the Stress Clinic, the first clinic of
1 this type in our country. I was its director in chief until year 2000,
2 and since then I have been a consultant there.
3 Q. Are you a founder and coordinator of the Centre for the
4 Rehabilitation of Torture Victims?
5 A. Yes. In year 2000, with a group of my associates, I founded the
6 centre for rehabilitation of torture victims and I was its coordinator
7 until year 2003. This centre was supported by the European Commission.
8 Q. Among numerous other papers enumerated in your CV, which is
9 attached to your report, did you also author a textbook New Oxford
10 Textbook of Psychiatry, co-authored this textbook, dealing with specific
11 personality disorders?
12 A. Yes. This book was published in 2000 in Oxford.
13 Q. This textbook I have mentioned, is it a reference book in the area
14 of psychiatry in Europe?
15 A. Yes. That is the reference textbook in this area.
16 Q. Please enumerate some of your functions in professional
17 associations, professional psychiatric associations, that you discharge at
18 this time.
19 A. I believe I listed them in my CV, but what is most important
20 perhaps is that right now I have been for a number of years president of
21 the prevention section of the World Psychiatric Association. This
22 association covers 120 national associations. I'm also a member of the
23 working committee of the World Psychiatric Association.
24 Q. Thank you, Professor Lecic. I would now like to move on to the
25 subject of our discussion today.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Did you compile an expert report on the health condition of the
2 accused, Pavle Strugar, earlier this year?
3 A. Yes. In January of this year I drew up a report on the health
4 condition of Mr. Strugar.
5 Q. Please be so kind as to tell us: Which diagnoses were you able to
6 establish in Mr. Strugar?
7 A. Perhaps it would be best to say in which way I reached them.
8 Q. Please go ahead.
9 A. I had the opportunity to do several things; namely, to examine in
10 detail the medical reports that were attached on the condition of
11 Mr. Strugar, and as far as I remember, there were 18 of them. So I gained
12 an insight in his previous treatment by my colleagues, and then I did a
13 general psychiatric examination, evaluating his mental status. I took
14 so-called hetero data, I talked to the family of Mr. Strugar, and then I
15 applied modern specification and used several instruments in putting my
16 diagnosis. Since there is no distinct line between somatic and
17 psychiatric or mental health, it would be best to tell you first about my
18 insight into the physical health of Mr. Strugar.
19 Q. Please, only outlines, because we have your report.
20 A. Most notably, there are almost no organs -- there are -- that are
21 not affected practically. He has chronic renal insufficiency, with
22 history of coxoarthrosis. Almost all his joints are affected. He has
23 coxoarthrosis of the lumbar spine, associated hypertension, in fact,
24 oscillation of hypertension, and he receives medication for this. He has
25 also lung problems.
1 Those are the main diseases. There are a number of others, such
2 as benign prostatic hyperplasia. The illnesses I established are
3 recurrent depression, that is, recurrent depressive episodes. There are
4 four of them listed in the specification. Then residual PTSD, as well as
5 vascular dementia, which used to be referred to as multi-infarction
7 Q. Please try to slow down a little, because a considerable part of
8 what you said is not being recorded efficiently.
9 You have mentioned these three diagnoses concerning the mental
10 status of Mr. Strugar.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Tell us, please: What is the interaction of these diagnoses?
13 What is their influence on his overall health condition?
14 A. As I have already said, since there is no clear line between
15 somatic and mental health, all the previously listed conditions,
16 especially renal insufficiency and vertebrobasilar insufficiency, which is
17 a consequence of the damage to the spine, practically affect the three
18 psychiatric types of diagnoses that I established, because a person is not
19 a collection of fragments, a person is one whole. So all of these
20 symptoms that he presents and manifests are both mental and somatic and
21 physical and lead so a considerably diminished ability to function. Do
22 you want me to elaborate?
23 Q. Just wait a second for all of this to be recorded.
24 Please be kind and, in addition to everything you've just stated,
25 could you please give us -- say to us what are the consequences of
1 increased levels of creatinine and urea in Mr. Strugar's body.
2 A. When I examined him, pursuant to findings that I received at the
3 Detention Unit, he had increased levels of creatinine and urea, as well as
4 a bacteria called pseudomonas aeruginosa, he had fatigue, exhaustion, and
5 all of these are consequences of chronic intoxication of metabolites of
6 renal functions which are chronically increased in the patient. He has
7 the diagnosis of chronic renal insufficiency, which sometime in the past
8 brought to -- led to an acute worsening of his condition, at which point a
9 laser intervention was performed and this renal insufficiency was so grave
10 that it endangered his vital functions.
11 And if you allow me, I will add that he has a chronically
12 increased function of renal metabolics, they are consistently increased,
13 and they normally lead to metabolic encephalopathy, or reduction of mental
15 Q. Could you give it to us in layman's terms? What does that
16 actually mean?
17 A. That means that he is not able to participate in normal vital
18 functions. He has a reduced mental ability, acuteness, a reduction of --
19 reduced attention span, and this is something that is caused by his other
20 illnesses, this recurrent depression that I've mentioned.
21 Q. Professor Lecic, could you please tell me: How do changes in the
22 levels of urea and creatinine influence the condition of the patient? To
23 what kind of consequences does the change in levels of these two elements
24 can lead?
25 A. Well, this is difficult to forecast. As far as I could see, the
1 changes are of a permanent nature, because he has a permanent intoxication
2 of these two elements. And since he has a chronic renal insufficiency, it
3 is to expect that, in addition to frequent infections, these functions
4 will be deteriorating in the future and he will also -- he might also
5 develop an acute renal insufficiency if this condition is not treated.
6 So the increased levels of these two elements have negative
7 consequences on the patient.
8 Q. Could you please tell us about the other two diagnoses that we
9 heard you mention here; PTSD and the depression. How can you describe the
10 situation with respect what you were able to diagnose in this patient?
11 A. The recurrent depression that Mr. Strugar suffers from leads to
12 numerous symptoms: Inability to sleep. He has insomnia. He is passive.
13 He has lost interest in many aspects of his life. He is apathetic. He
14 has a disorder in his attention span and also in his memory. He started
15 forgetting important events in his life, which is also something that is
16 caused by vascular dementia. And since there is also a residual PTSD
17 disorder, he also started forgetting certain traumatic events in his life,
18 whereby he is actually protecting his brain from unpleasant memories,
19 which is very typical for a PTSD reaction.
20 So all of these conditions and illnesses lead to a significant
21 reduction in his concentration, attention span, and his memory, including
22 remote memory.
23 Q. Could you please tell us: In addition to clinical interview, what
24 other tests have you applied in order to reach these diagnoses, and also
25 could you tell us something about the application of the test Impact Scale
1 of Events, which has been discussed here before this Trial Chamber.
2 A. As I've already said, I used clinical and psychiatric interview,
3 which is the gold standard for reaching diagnoses, as well as criteria for
4 DSM-IV classification. I've listed the criteria in my report, and
5 especially the ones that have been met by this patient in order to reach
6 the diagnosis. However, in order to confirm the diagnosis, I further
7 applied several other tests, diagnosis of general symptoms, Symptom
8 Checklist Revised, which has a group of nine symptom clusters. And in
9 addition to that, I also used the Beck Depression Inventory test and also
10 Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. These were applied for measuring the
11 stress and depression. I also applied Impact of Events Scale, which was
12 designed by the associates of Mr. Horovitz [phoen], and also another
13 subtest intended to measure the level of stress.
14 What I would like to say about these tests is that these are
15 standard tests used in diagnostics and research. There is a longer
16 version of the test called Impact Events Scale Revised. We use that as
17 well, however, we also sometimes apply a shorter version of this test,
18 which can only be said for the Hamilton scale, that it comes in two
20 So the Impact of Events Scale is a test that is widely used in
21 research throughout the world, and despite the fact that there are many
22 other scales used for measuring PTSD level, it has been established that
23 this particular test, Impact of Events Scale, is very reliable, has a very
24 high level of reliability in psychiatric research. And this test is used
25 by two institutions in Europe which are studying the PTSD levels in
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 refugees. One of the researches started by these institutions started in
2 2002, and the other one started in 2004, and they are aimed at studying
3 the level of post-traumatic stress. This is supported by the European
4 Commission and seven countries participate in this study in Europe,
5 including four countries from the Balkans. Pursuant to our diagnostic
6 protocol, this is exactly the test that we used, the Impact of Events
8 Three months ago, I had a work published in an American Journal of
9 Personality Disorders, and in that article, it was stated that this test,
10 Impact of Events Scale, is very relevant for measuring the level of
12 Q. Could you please tell us something general about the use of tests
13 when making psychiatric diagnoses in addition to psychiatric interviews.
14 These tests that are used, are they the most important, the basic or the
15 most reliable source for reaching conclusions and findings about the
16 subject that the psychiatrist is studying?
17 A. Since in psychiatry we try to make our findings as objective as
18 possible, yes, we do make frequent use of these tests. The interview is
19 considered to be a gold standard in psychiatric research. In addition to
20 that, we use various classifications, such as DSM-IV, which is typically
21 used in the United States and which I have used. This is the DSM-IV
22 classification that I have used in reaching my findings. And also the
23 tenth international classification used by the World Health Organisation.
24 These tests, as I've said, are very important in order to objectivise our
25 findings and in order to measure the disorders, and also so that we can
1 follow the changes in the condition of our patients.
2 Q. When reaching your diagnosis for Mr. Strugar, did you also receive
3 measurable confirmation in the tests that you've applied?
4 A. Yes. There were no discrepancies between the various means that I
5 applied, including these various tests that I applied, the DSM-IV and
6 others; they've all confirmed the same diagnosis.
7 Q. One of the diagnoses that you made was vascular dementia, which
8 used to be called multi-infarct dementia, pursuant to the old
9 classification. Could you please tell us: When a patient is standing
10 trial and when he has to attend trial for four or five hours five days a
11 week five months in a row, could you please tell us: How does this affect
12 the ability of the accused to participate and to follow the trial against
14 A. Vascular dementia, which used to be called multi-infarct dementia,
15 is one of the numerous illness that the patient has, as I've said. Since
16 this affects small blood vessels in the wide mass, which is linked to the
17 hippocampus in the brain, which has to do with the memory function, this
18 affects the memory of the patient, attention span, concentration, ability
19 to understand at a high level what is going on. Mr. Strugar does
20 understand where he is. He used to be a very intelligent and very
21 successful man. However, what is important and which shows that there was
22 a significant deterioration in his intellectual abilities as compared to
23 his condition previously. This leads to a reduction of his ability to
24 participate at a high level in proceedings that are this important.
25 My impression was that Mr. Strugar feels as an outsider in this
1 trial against him. In addition to that, he is passive and dependent, but
2 I think it is important to --
3 Q. We will get to that later. But this is the answer to my question.
4 A. I would just like to add: When I spoke about the PTSD, the
5 residual, chronic kind of it, and the depression, although these
6 conditions are psychiatric, they also have a biological aspect, and they
7 can impair the structure of the hippocampus and can lead to impairment of
8 memory. What should also be said is that when all these illnesses and
9 conditions are combined, as was said in an article published in American
10 Journal of Psychiatry in March of 2003, this all leads to an increased
11 risk of suicide. Mr. Strugar has stated several times that he has had
12 suicidal thoughts.
13 Q. Could you please tell us, very briefly, what is the difference
14 between his ability to understand certain concepts and the dementia? How
15 does that affect his ability to follow trial? How do these two things
16 differ, these two conditions? How do they affect the ability of General
17 Strugar to follow trial?
18 A. He certainly understands where he is, what is going on, what he's
19 accused for, and partially understands the consequences of these
20 proceedings. However, he is not able to participate actively in the trial
21 itself because he has an impaired memory. He only has a partial memory of
22 things that take place during the day, as well as the events that took
23 place earlier, because he has an impaired short-term memory and he is not
24 able to participate actively at a high level in a sophisticated
25 proceedings of this nature.
1 Q. If somebody forgets things frequently, how can that person plan
2 his or her defence? How can such a person develop his or her strategy and
3 long-term planning?
4 A. I think that Mr. Strugar can do that only with great difficulty.
5 I saw that he was able to anticipate the consequences of his actions.
6 Right now he's in a passive, dependent stage or status. He said several
7 times, "My life is in the hands of my attorneys," which shows that there
8 is a regressive and infantile attitude to his activities, which is typical
9 for vascular dementia, especially for a person of his advanced age.
10 Therefore, as I've already said, I do not think that he is able to
11 participate and to function in a trial of this nature, especially at a
12 high intellectual level.
13 Q. Do you think that a person who forgets things in a way that the
14 patient does, do you think that such person can successfully testify
15 before this Trial Chamber, and can this person be cross-examined without
16 negative consequences?
17 A. I do not think so. The interview with General Strugar was not an
18 easy one, especially because he has an impaired hearing and constant
19 ringing noise in his ears, and also because of his forgetfulness, despite
20 the fact that he tried very hard to create an impression of a great man, a
21 man who controls his actions, he was not able to conceal this.
22 Q. You were able to see the reports written by your colleagues, who
23 were hired to do so by the OTP, and I would like us to go over them, but
24 very briefly, please.
25 One of the theses contained in these reports is that the accused
1 is able to plan the strategy of his defence, to plan the strategy of his
2 defence. What were you able to see yourself?
3 A. I was unable to see that General Strugar has any kind of strategy
4 for his defence. My interview with him lasted nine hours, and during the
5 interview, he manifested a high level of forgetfulness, as I've already
6 said. He was passive, he looked dependent and helpless, he was unable to
7 anticipate, to anticipate future events and consequences of what he was
8 doing. Rather, he was in a passive state and dependent upon his lawyers.
9 Q. You've mentioned a minute ago, but it wasn't recorded in the
10 transcript, that he even tried to remember your name, but was unable to do
11 so during the interview.
12 A. Yes, that's right. I asked him about that. He also manifested a
13 disorder called dysnomia, inability to name objects, persons. At one
14 point he even forgot the name of his favourite grandchild. Therefore, he
15 used to be a man who could control his activities, he was a man who held
16 high posts, and this inability causes him to feel extremely irritated and
17 unhappy; and I saw that my colleagues reported this in their reports as
19 Q. In their report, your colleagues agreed that the diagnosis of
20 Mr. Strugar is vascular dementia. They say, however, that it is a mild
21 form of vascular dementia. Please be so kind as to tell us: Is there a
22 relevant international classification, meaning, specifically, the DSM-IV,
23 the classification of the World Health Organisation, that recognises
24 distinction between mild, medium, serious, or other vascular dementia?
25 A. Vascular dementia is an organic thing, so it is diagnosed in a
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 categoric way. Either there is or isn't one. It is not a
2 multidimensional thing. These terms can be used in diagnosing
3 personality, for instance.
4 In the tenth international classification, which all psychiatrists
5 are duty-bound to use, there is no distinction between levels of dementia.
6 There is depression, which can be complicated or uncomplicated; there is
7 depression -- or rather, dementia, which can be combined with depression
8 or not; as well as depression which accompanies delirium as a disorder of
9 the consciousness, or mild forms of madness. However, there is no mild or
10 serious form of dementia.
11 Q. I have two more questions for you, Dr. Lecic. In fact, I have
12 many more, but there is no time, so I have to be happy with two.
13 Namely, the influence of diagnosing various disorders and the
14 suicidal potential derived therefrom.
15 A. On several occasions, General Strugar said that he would commit
16 suicide and that he had intended to do so before but he is not doing so
17 because of his family. In speaking to them, he minimises his troubles and
18 he's trying to create the impression of a strong personality. And he
19 explicitly asked me not to convey this to his family so that they wouldn't
20 worry. I believe that his various conditions and diagnoses, especially
21 the co-morbidity of his diagnoses, can lead to such an act in the future.
22 Q. My last question to you, Dr. Lecic: Could you tell us something
23 about your observations regarding General Strugar's personality. How do
24 you evaluate his personality?
25 A. I believe that evaluating a personality is one of the key things
1 in diagnosing in psychiatry. Different persons manifest clinical symptoms
2 in different ways, including the symptoms that we have discussed today
3 regarding Mr. Strugar.
4 Mr. Strugar is first of all a patriarchal personality, which he
5 manifested in his behaviour in the prison. He is used to being a
6 hospitable man, so he apologised to everyone for not being able to be a
7 better host. He is a man who strongly believes in the truth and believes
8 in justice. And he has obsessive traits of personality. What does this
9 mean? He is inclined to perfectionism. He is very strict towards himself
10 and others. He is inflexible in relation to ethical values which he
11 abides by rigidly. He is a highly controlled person and he has a constant
12 need to leave an impression that he is a strong person.
13 Another trait of his is negation of problems, denial of problems,
14 which makes diagnosing all the more difficult. But if we go deeper in
15 evaluating his personality, especially the psychiatric problems that he
16 denies, we find isolation of the affective side. What does this mean?
17 Although he displayed in the course of the interview a certain degree of
18 emotional instability and oscillation of emotions, and even became
19 tearful, he suffers from alexythymia, inability to express emotion, and by
20 definition such individuals are inclined to developing psychosomatic
21 orders and to somatisation of his problems, which is precisely what's
22 happening with him. I would also like to add that Mr. Strugar, in his
23 desire to be very self-controlled and to come across as a strong man,
24 minimises his problems and dissimilates. Dissimilation is a psychiatric
25 term which means that he is diminishing the importance and size of his
1 problems, which is in keeping with the structure of his personality and
2 with his earlier record of functioning.
3 However, all these traits, which of course dominate in him, are
4 significantly modified by his passive, dependent behaviour caused by the
5 existing conditions and his present status.
6 Q. Thank you, Dr. Lecic, for the time being.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps later I would
8 like to have another three minutes in re-examination.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Petrovic. Your timing is
10 precise. Yes.
11 Mr. Re.
12 Mr. Re may ask questions of you for the Prosecution. The lectern.
13 Cross-examined by Mr. Re:
14 Q. Good morning, Professor.
15 A. [In English] Good morning.
16 Q. This is not the first time you've given evidence before the
17 Tribunal, is it?
18 A. [Interpretation] No. This is in fact the third time I'm
19 testifying before this International Tribunal.
20 Q. And on each of the three occasions, you have testified for accused
21 people facing charges before the Tribunal, haven't you?
22 A. Yes. I have testified for the persons for whom I have been called
23 to testify. [In English] I'm sorry. I was witnessing for the persons for
24 which I was invited to.
25 Q. Okay. Do you wish to speak to me in English? Would that be
1 easier to conduct this?
2 A. Yes, I can.
3 Q. It's entirely up to you. Whatever language you are most
4 comfortable in. You just broke into English there.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. Choice of language? English?
7 A. English, please.
8 Q. Dr. -- sorry. Professor, the other two were, of course, the case
9 of Stevan Todorovic and Damir Dosen, weren't they?
10 A. Yes, they were, the two of them.
11 Q. Stefan Todorovic, you gave evidence in sentencing proceedings,
12 didn't you?
13 A. Sorry? In what kind of proceedings?
14 Q. Sentencing proceedings.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And with Mr. Dosen, you gave evidence during trial for him prior
17 to his pleading guilty to persecution.
18 A. I think so, yes.
19 Q. And in each of these three cases you have examined -- you and
20 other psychiatrists have examined the same accused, haven't you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And each of these three cases, you have diagnosed post-traumatic
23 stress disorder in the accused, haven't you?
24 A. I think so, yes.
25 Q. In each of these three cases - Todorovic, Dosen and General
1 Strugar - the other psychiatrists haven't. That's correct, isn't it?
2 A. Yes, it's correct.
3 Q. In fact, the Trial Chamber in the case of Dosen, which is the case
4 of Sikirica, disregarded your findings because there was a conflict
5 between you and Dr. Skolja, didn't it?
6 A. I'm not aware of the conflict regarding Mr. Dosen.
7 Q. And in the case of Todorovic, the Trial Chamber likewise did not
8 take into account your findings of post-traumatic stress disorder in
9 sentencing Mr. Todorovic, did it?
10 A. I'm obliged to my profession, and I didn't follow what the Trial
11 Chamber decided later on. What I was aware of, that my colleague who was
12 engaged by the Prosecutor, colleague from Germany - I'm sorry, I don't
13 remember his name - did not diagnose post-traumatic stress disorder but
14 was also -- didn't -- was not involved in the questions related to the
15 subject which I was explaining witnessing here.
16 Q. The issue was whether he had diminished responsibility or
17 diminished capacity at the time he committed the acts for which both
18 pleaded guilty, and in both cases, Todorovic and Dosen, you found they had
19 post-traumatic stress disorder but the other psychiatrists expressly
20 didn't; that's correct, isn't it?
21 A. Yes. But I am -- I should add once again that the other
22 psychiatrists were not dealing very much with stress and post-traumatic
23 stress, which is the area of my expertise.
24 Q. When you examined Mr. Dosen, you also administered the same
25 barrage -- tests that you administered to General Strugar, didn't you?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Yes. These are the tests that are usually given to psychiatric
2 patients, most of them, especially those who have experienced some kind of
4 Q. You weren't, of course, assessing Mr. Dosen's capacity to stand
5 trial and continue with the proceedings, were you?
6 A. No, I was not. It wasn't a question that I was asked. I was
7 asked just to evaluate his psychiatric condition.
8 Q. The thing I suggest that is in common with your examination of
9 both General Strugar and Mr. Dosen is that you administered basically the
10 same two tests for both; correct?
11 A. Yes. As I said, these tests are administered to most of
12 traumatised patients and in the studies and in the Centre for
13 Rehabilitation of Trauma Victims, which I coordinate, we always administer
14 the same tests.
15 Q. You also, of course, diagnosed Mr. Dosen, who was a shift leader
16 at the Keraterm camp, as having a "passive and dependent personality,"
17 didn't you?
18 A. I didn't. I don't have the papers here, but I didn't say that he
19 was passive/dependent personality disorder. He has -- he did have
20 passive, dependent personality traits due to his high anxiety that he was
21 manifesting at the time of the examination.
22 Q. If I could quote directly from your summary and conclusions in the
23 publicly filed document filed by Mr. Petrovic: "The accused Mr. Dosen had
24 dependent personality disorder, combined with passivity, compulsive traits
25 and conforming lifestyle."
1 A. Thank you for reminding me, but I really can't remember what I
2 wrote two years ago. Dependent personality perhaps, yes.
3 Q. Is that a -- is another way of saying that a passive, dependent
5 A. If you want to be --
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to this type
7 of questioning by my colleague. First of all, it has nothing to do with
8 what we are discussing here today. That's one. And I am astonished by
9 this approach, because I don't see of what assistance it can be to the
10 Trial Chamber.
11 Second, all that my learned friend is mentioning was done more
12 than three years ago, if I remember correctly. If he wishes to ask
13 questions about all this, he should present here both what Dr. Lecic wrote
14 at the time, namely, her report, as well as all the other documents that
15 he is referring to, because at this moment nobody can any longer remember
16 what happened three years ago. I am the first to admit that I can't
17 remember what was written, what the details were, and what terms were
18 used. So if he wishes to continue this line of questioning, I would
19 appreciate it if he would put before Dr. Lecic her report so that we can
20 see what the condition of the accused Dosen was three or four years ago,
21 if that is relevant at all. Dr. Lecic would then be able to read her own
22 formulations and she can answer these questions.
23 MR. RE: I've actually moved on from that point, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE PARKER: I'm glad, Mr. Re, because this Chamber is certainly
25 not going to consider the accuracy and reliability of earlier diagnoses by
1 the professor.
2 MR. RE: May it please Your Honours.
3 JUDGE PARKER: We're concerned only with this case.
4 MR. RE: The point of that question will become apparent right
6 Q. Professor, during your examination-in-chief by Mr. Petrovic, you
7 described General Strugar as having a passive, dependent personality. I
8 can't find that in your report. Can you show me where it is in your
9 report, that diagnosis?
10 A. I didn't say that he had passive/dependent personality in his
11 report -- in my report, but that he has passive position, and that he
12 passively relies upon the Defence counsels, that he has a passive and
13 helpless position due to the decline of his overall functioning.
14 Q. I'm sorry, my note of your testimony here was that you said he had
15 a passive and dependent personality.
16 A. Passive and dependent position, and regressive movement, actually
17 regression from the previous superior functioning to the helpless position
18 that he is now.
19 Q. In your curriculum vitae, you refer to a book you wrote called
20 "The Stresses of War," written in 1993, co-edited with Pedrag Kalicanin.
21 This book, of course, was written from the Serb perspective, wasn't it?
22 A. That is the only perspective that could have been used because we
23 presented what was happening in the -- with the people we were working
25 Q. You wrote it in 1993, and the chapter you co-authored was titled
1 "The Misuse of Medium and Psychiatry in the --" Sorry. "The Misuse of
2 Medicine and Psychiatry in the Satanisation of the Serbian People." That
3 was the chapter of --
4 A. Yes, I have.
5 Q. And in that you complained about or you referred to Croatian
6 journals making references to a Serbian personality trait.
7 A. Actually, that journal was something we used to show that
8 psychiatry should not be misused because psychiatry is a science and not
9 impassive discipline. And in that journal, many non-violate conclusions,
10 non-scientific conclusions were used. That chapter and that book was
11 quoted and is still quoted in American scientific bases, databases called
12 Biosys, and has been referred to by many colleagues.
13 Q. This is what you said in your chapter: "In the religious, ethnic,
14 and civil war waged in the former Yugoslavia, medicine and psychiatry in
15 particular are being misused in order to spread hatred against the Serbian
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object. I would
18 like this book which is referred to to be put before the witness so we can
19 see the entire context, to see what is written, how it is written to
20 enable the witness to answer. I don't see what purpose can be served by
21 quoting one sentence if questions are to be asked on the basis of the
22 document to which my learned friend is referring to.
23 JUDGE PARKER: The witness shows no sign of lacking familiarity
24 with the work for the general questions, but I take it you're about to
25 move on, Mr. Re.
1 MR. RE: I certainly am, Your Honour, yes.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Are you getting to the merits of this
3 particular case soon?
4 MR. RE: Very much, Your Honour.
5 Q. Where were you working between 1996 and 2001? There seems to be a
6 gap in your curriculum vitae.
7 A. No, there's no gap at all. I was working where I am working now,
8 at the Institute of Mental Health and at the School of Medicine,
9 University of Belgrade.
10 Q. In the history which you have provided -- sorry, detailed in your
11 report, you haven't sourced all of the information there, have you?
12 A. I'm not sure I understand you.
13 Q. The history which you have detailed relating to General Strugar
14 comes from a mixture of sources, doesn't it?
15 A. The history mainly comes from General Strugar himself, and the
16 part of the history comes from the -- very small part, from the
17 informants, and interviewing the informants as a role in psychiatry, it is
18 called so-called -- the so-called third ear in psychiatry. We always have
19 to consult someone in order to be able to make a proper diagnosis.
20 Q. You obtained information from General Strugar, his wife and his
21 son. Are those the three sources?
22 A. Yes, as well as from, as I said before, from a lot, a huge pile of
23 medical reports.
24 Q. In terms of interviews, the three sources were the wife, the son,
25 and General Strugar?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Mrs. Strugar is, of course, aging and unwell and is missing a
4 A. Yes, and what's your question related to that?
5 Q. And it's difficult for her to see him, where he is and where she
7 A. I don't think it's difficult for any wife to describe her husband
8 and his behaviour in their life, which was quite long life together. And
9 the question she was asked was to describe how she sees the personality of
10 her husband, which is, as I said, a must in psychiatric diagnosis.
11 Q. That wasn't my question. My question relates to her speaking to
12 you. You spoke to her this year. She was in the former Yugoslavia and he
13 was here; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And at that stage, she and -- it would be fair to say both she and
16 her son wanted General Strugar home, didn't they?
17 A. Obviously, as every person does.
18 Q. Did you explore with those two people whether General Strugar
19 understood the nature of the charges and the case against him? Did you
20 ask them?
21 A. Not very much, but I did ask what was their feeling about -- not
22 feeling but attitude regarding the memory and the problems and the health
23 of General Strugar, because I am a doctor, and I have --
24 Q. Thank you. I'm not asking you that, I'm asking you specifically
25 about the matter before the trial, which is the capacity to understand the
1 proceedings. Did you ask them or speak to them about his awareness of the
2 charges or his consultations with Defence counsel or any of the matters
3 concerned with the conduct of the trial?
4 A. Yes, I did ask the son, who told me that his father was having
5 severe problems with memory.
6 Q. I'm speaking specifically about the trial.
7 A. No, I didn't ask them such a specific question.
8 Q. You would agree, of course, that neither the son or the wife could
9 be considered to be particularly objective sources of information about
10 their absent father?
11 A. The family, the social context, is considered to be very
12 objective, and when psychiatric diagnosing is being made, and as I said,
13 and I need to repeat it, it is the third ear in psychiatry, and they were
14 objective and they -- as much as any science, including this one here
15 today, can be objective in describing the previous functioning of the
16 husband and the father.
17 Q. And your diagnosis or noting a decline in emotional control, was
18 that based on the history you received from Mr. Strugar's wife?
19 A. It was also confirmed by Mr. Strugar's wife, but this was
20 something I observed and I received that information in the interview with
21 the general.
22 Q. You only met him once on two days. You had nothing to judge it
23 against except a history from his wife. That's correct, isn't it?
24 A. The emotional discontrol?
25 Q. The decline in emotional control. Your only control test was the
1 wife, wasn't it?
2 A. He was the one who told me also how strong he was, and he was
3 apologising for crying on a few occasions when interviewed by me. That's
4 one thing. And another thing is: Psychiatrist's duty is to diagnose
5 personality traits of a person who is being diagnosed in order to be able
6 to make a proper diagnosis and prescribe a proper treatment.
7 Q. I'll please ask you to just concentrate on what I'm asking you.
8 I'm asking you about the control test being the wife and him. Look, have
9 you -- how many people have you dealt with who have been incarcerated?
10 A. I've dealt with many people in the Centre for Rehabilitation of
11 Torture Victims, people who were detained before they came to the centre.
12 Q. How many assessments have you provided in relation to a
13 defendant's capacity or fitness to provide -- sorry, to be tried?
14 A. I've provided many assessments as asked by United Nations High
15 Commissioner for Refugees when they wanted to prepare their cases for
16 resettlement to the third countries.
17 Q. That wasn't what I asked you. I asked you about specifically
18 about fitness for trial. That is accused people. How many accused people
19 have you assessed --
20 A. Not many.
21 Q. How many?
22 A. I was only asked for this case to respond to that question.
23 Q. So when you said "not many," are you saying to the Trial Chamber
24 that this is indeed the first assessment you have ever made of someone's
25 capacity to stand trial as an accused person?
1 A. Yes. Yes. But I was, as I said, someone who was asked for many
2 assessments of psychiatric condition and personality of many traumatised
4 Q. Have you appeared in sentencing proceedings, providing psychiatric
5 reports for people who are being sentenced before, apart from
6 Mr. Todorovic?
7 A. No, I haven't.
8 Q. Have you visited prisons in Serbia, where you reside, and treated
9 prisoners who are facing trial?
10 A. I have visited prisons in Serbia on many occasions, and I have
11 lectured at prisons in Serbia. And I'm also a member --
12 Q. No, no, no. Stop. That's not what I'm asking you. Have you
13 treated prisoners, not lectured at prisons. Have you treated prisoners?
14 A. I was just going to tell you. Let me add what I was going to say.
15 I have not treated prisoners in prison because it's not allowed for --
16 Q. Thank you. That's what I want to hear.
17 A. -- anyone who is not working in prison, but I need to add that I'm
18 member of the International Committee for Education of Prison Doctors,
19 residing in Norway, and I have to add that I have written a chapter, which
20 is going soon to be on the Internet, of treating mentally disordered
21 people in prison.
22 Q. Now, to my question: Are you saying you have never treated
23 prisoners before?
24 A. I can't treat prisoners since I'm a professor of psychiatry and
25 professors are not working in prisons in our country.
1 Q. Okay. Would you agree that responses to incarceration - that is,
2 prisoners - could be - I just want you to answer yes or no - depressed
4 A. Incarceration is one of additional factors, yes.
5 Q. Prisoners may suffer depressed mood as a result of their
6 incarceration; you would agree with that?
7 A. I would agree with that, but that would be only one factor,
8 because each illness is multifactorial and not monofactorial.
9 Q. Loss of appetite is something that prisoners experience?
10 A. Yes, he told me so.
11 Q. I'm not talking about General Strugar, I'm talking about prisoners
12 in general. That is the response of people who are incarcerated. Please
13 confine yourself to that. Prisoners can suffer disturbed sleep patterns?
14 A. It depends on the personality, and some even might go to sleep
15 much longer, to develop what is called hypersomnia, or even to have
16 increased appetite as a defence and a coping strategy with the situation
17 of incarceration.
18 Q. Prisoners may also become emotional when talking about or thinking
19 about absent family, mightn't they? Or that's fairly typical, isn't it?
20 A. I wouldn't say it's fairly typical. It also depends on the
21 personality. Because we have to judge by the individual cases, not to
22 generalise such a serious matter.
23 Q. Would it be fair to say you wouldn't know whether it's fairly
24 typical because you have no experience of dealing with prisoners?
25 A. I have not experience in dealing with prisoners as a physician of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 prisoners, but I do have experience because I have read widely and I'm a
2 professor, I teach these things to my students, and I examine them. They
3 have to pass exams responding to the questions like that.
4 Q. Apart from General Strugar, have you ever dealt with any elderly
5 incarcerated prisoners? Yes or no.
6 A. Obviously not.
7 Q. Would you agree that prisoners may suffer suicidal thoughts,
8 especially in relation -- especially if they're facing a long sentence?
9 A. Some prisoners, yes, but not all. One can't, again, generalise
10 these things.
11 Q. In your report, you referred to the -- I withdraw that. You've
12 already told Mr. Petrovic that you write and publish in English, and
13 you're giving your evidence in English, and you've, of course, published a
14 chapter in the major English textbook, the New Oxford Textbook on
15 Psychiatry. You have quoted a test in your report which is the test you
16 say you are using to determine competency; is that correct?
17 A. I didn't say it was the test for competency. I never said that.
18 Q. Do you have your report in front of you, Doctor?
19 A. I do.
20 Q. At page 14, last page, Fitness To Stand Trial, it says: "By
21 definition 'defendants facing criminal trials need to understand and
22 participate in the proceedings. Psychiatric disorder can render a person
23 incapable and unfit in relation to trial. The defendant should be able to
24 follow the proceedings and be able to instruct lawyers so that defence can
25 be made. The defendant should have capacity to fully comprehend the
1 course of the proceedings in the trial, so as to make a proper defence,
2 and comprehend details of the evidence.'"
3 And it's sourced to the New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry, Oxford
4 University Press, 2000. Do you see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is what you were saying there that you have extracted a quotation
7 from the New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry?
8 A. Yes, you're right. You're correct.
9 Q. And that is the test you have used to determine whether or not
10 General Strugar --
11 A. It is not a test. When you say "test," I understand the
12 diagnostic instrument. You mean the trial or question.
13 Q. Okay. This is the standard that the Trial Chamber should apply,
14 is that what you're saying, in determining whether or not General Strugar
15 is fit for trial?
16 A. I have quoted from the competent book, from the chapter dealing
17 with forensic issues, how the competency is understood.
18 Q. What I'm asking you: Are you saying - you're the expert here, the
19 professor of psychiatry - telling the Trial Chamber that this is the
20 relevant test that the Trial Chamber should use in assessing General
21 Strugar's fitness?
22 A. Again, I can't say it's a test. We obviously understand by "test"
23 something quite different. It's a quotation. It's a paragraph from a
24 relevant European textbook.
25 Q. A definition that the Trial Chamber should refer to?
1 A. This is definition I refer to by being asked to respond to some
3 Q. What I want to do is to show you what the quotation actually says.
4 I want to show you pages -- you, of course, haven't sourced it to a page
5 number. Do you have the page number?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Well, I'll just show it to you.
8 MR. RE: If that could be distributed. Distributing page 2091 and
9 2092 of the New Oxford Textbook on Psychiatry. Could it first be shown to
10 the witness, for time considerations.
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters do not have the copy of this
12 text. If it's going to be read, may the interpreters ask for a copy to be
13 put on the ELMO.
14 MR. RE:
15 Q. Professor, could you just turn to your left and put it on the
16 overhead projector there. Professor, can you just please read --
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I would only ask kindly of my
18 learned friend to mark the passage. I cannot see that from the copy I've
20 JUDGE PARKER: We're about to be directed to it, Mr. Petrovic, so
21 just wait a minute and I think all will be revealed.
22 MR. RE:
23 Q. Professor, could you please go to the section in the bottom of the
24 right-hand page -- right hand of page 2091.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Under the definition of fitness to stand trial.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And just read the paragraph down to the footnote, please.
4 A. You want me to read aloud?
5 Q. Yes, please.
6 A. "Defendants facing criminal trials need the ability to understand
7 and participate in the proceedings. Psychiatric disorder can render a
8 person incapable or unfit in relation to trial. In its traditional
9 formulation, the test of unfitness to plead is whether the defendant is of
10 sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings in the
11 trial, so as to make a proper defence, to know that he might challenge
12 jurors, and to comprehend details of the evidence."
13 Q. All right. Stop there. It then goes over the page to look at
14 specific considerations. Now, professor, you agree, don't you, that there
15 is no mention there of the words which you have quoted, namely, "to fully
16 comprehend the course of the proceedings"? That's just not what it says,
17 is it?
18 A. You mean I didn't quote the whole paragraph? Yes, I didn't,
19 because --
20 Q. No. I'm saying you've misquoted it. It doesn't say "fully
21 comprehend" anywhere, does it?
22 A. Perhaps, yes.
23 Q. It's not even a paraphrasing, is it? It's just wrong, what you've
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can you please tell us what is the
1 edition that my learned friend is quoting from. Is it the same edition,
2 the same textbook? Could you please tell us. Could he please show us the
3 textbook so we can be sure that this is the one that they're quoting from.
4 How can we compare something when we do not know whether it is fit to be
6 JUDGE PARKER: It is the 2000 edition, we are told, Mr. Petrovic,
7 which is the one referred to by the witness.
8 Is that right, Mr. Re?
9 MR. RE: Yes, Your Honour.
10 Q. Now, Doctor, of course if you look over the page there, it sets
11 out a number of specific tests which are used in determining or assessing
12 someone's competency to stand trial, doesn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And if you look at them, they say "specific considerations include
15 whether the defendant understands what he is charged with." It says that,
16 doesn't it?
17 A. You mean the next page?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that's one of the things a psychiatrist should look at in
21 determining whether the accused is fit to stand trial, isn't it?
22 A. To understand the -- what he's charged with.
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Is that what you are saying?
25 Q. Yes.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And the next part is the nature of the Prosecution evidence. That
3 is also something a psychiatrist must assess in coming to a conclusion
4 that a person is unfit to stand trial, isn't it?
5 A. Yes, but also -- and I had the pleasure of reading the chapter
6 that my colleague Dr. Blum has written. There are few models. One of the
7 models is a medical model in which one psychiatrist or doctor should deal
8 with, and these are the emotional, psychiatric conditions and also the
9 overall health of the individual.
10 Q. Please, I said one of the things. I'm listing the things
11 according to the book you've described as the major English textbook on
12 psychiatry in which you have written a textbook.
13 A. Okay. Yes.
14 Q. One of the things --
15 A. That's one of the things, yes. I would agree that that's only one
16 of the things.
17 Q. But the -- the next thing is the nature of the Prosecution
18 evidence and the difference between a plea of guilty and not guilty. A
19 psychiatrist must be able to work out whether or not the person
20 understands the -- whether-- a plea of guilty or not guilty, mustn't they?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And whether or not the defendant is able to follow the
23 proceedings. That's also listed.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. And whether or not the person is able to instruct lawyers. So a
1 defence case can be made.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. That is also listed there, isn't it?
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. And that is one of the things a competent psychiatrist should
6 determine or assess in coming to a conclusion that a person is unfit to
7 stand trial, isn't it?
8 A. Okay, yes.
9 Q. And you'll note, of course, that Dr. -- Professor Matthews and
10 Dr. Blum addressed each of those things in their report, didn't they?
11 A. They did refer to each of those things, but they didn't refer to
12 many other things to which I refer to as a doctor and psychiatrist. And
13 as I said on a few occasions today, a psychiatrist is a doctor who should
14 have and give an integrated picture of the person he's dealing with.
15 Because we can't define and diagnose a person only on the ability to stand
16 trial. And I was asked, one of the major questions I was asked, was to
17 evaluate the overall health, including the psychiatric health of the
18 defendant Mr. Strugar.
19 Q. But Professor, you have referred to the specific section in the
20 New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry, the definition of fitness, but then you
21 haven't gone on in your report to explore the specific considerations,
22 have you?
23 A. No, because I was following the medical model and made a few --
24 many diagnoses, somatic and psychiatric, which I thought are very
25 important for Mr. Strugar, who is, I would repeat here, as I said in my
1 report, a seriously ill person.
2 Q. General Strugar, of course, gave a very different history to
3 Professor Matthews, Dr. Blum, and Dr. Smalc, didn't he?
4 A. I'm not sure I understand what kind of different history. What --
5 could you remind me what is different?
6 Q. Your conclusion is that General Strugar has almost no memory of
7 the war and cannot remember important names. That's your conclusion,
8 isn't it?
9 A. That was my conclusion, and that was something I was -- the
10 information I was given by his son also.
11 Q. Is his son following the trial, as far as you know?
12 A. No. His son is the informant who knows his father very well, and
13 he knows details about his life.
14 Q. The concept of understanding and following a trial, that means,
15 doesn't it, someone following the testimony given in the trial and
16 understanding its effect, doesn't it?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So if the general is able to describe in some detail evidence
19 which has been given against him not just that day but over the preceding
20 days, that would indicate that he has the ability to understand and follow
21 the trial, doesn't it?
22 A. I'm not sure I could agree with you, because what is important for
23 the condition, somatic and psychiatric, of Mr. Strugar is that it has
24 so-called step-wise fashion, which means that the condition of the
25 defendant is changing, as it is changing of all of us. We are not of the
1 same concentration today as we were yesterday, and neither will we be
2 tomorrow. It depends on many factors.
3 Q. A decision an accused has to make in facing trial is choice of
4 lawyers, isn't it?
5 A. Sorry? The decision?
6 Q. An accused has to choose lawyers, unless they're court-appointed,
7 to assist in the defence of their case, don't they?
8 A. As far as I understand the thing, yes.
9 Q. And a choice of lawyers, you would agree, is important for an
11 A. Like the choice of many other important persons in one's life,
13 Q. And if you are able to choose lawyers, that indicates that you
14 have an ability to -- I withdraw that.
15 A choice of lawyers, who one is fluent in English and the other
16 one is an experienced military lawyer, that's what General Strugar did, he
17 chose a military lawyer and Mr. Petrovic who speaks fluent English; you
18 agree with that?
19 A. Yes, but I don't know, did he choose them --
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. -- on his own will --
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. -- or he was advised?
24 Q. Yes. If you accept that he did that, would you agree that he is
25 exercising a capacity to defend himself?
1 A. I'm not quite sure, again, that I could agree with you, because
2 even the person who is demented can make choices, unless it is the final
3 stage of dementia, when one doesn't recognise anything.
4 Q. Someone who has voluntarily surrendered because they say they're
5 innocent and they've come voluntarily to explain that they're not guilty,
6 must understand the difference between a guilty and not guilty plea,
7 mustn't they?
8 A. Yes. A moderately intelligent person, even one who is mentally
9 retarded, who has IQ about 80, would understand these things. It's
10 nothing special.
11 Q. Someone who can tell psychiatrists that I cannot be guilty, I made
12 sure that I am not guilty and I saved Dubrovnik --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down a little.
14 MR. RE:
15 Q. -- I was the third commander, Jokic is guilty, not me, certainly
16 shows a capacity to understand the evidence and the trial proceedings;
18 A. Again, I'm not sure I could -- it's not a factor that is
19 determined by the overall condition of someone. Even someone who is much
20 sicker could think that way.
21 Q. Someone who is able to describe the number of counts on the
22 indictment and the reduction from 17 counts to 5 because "the lawyers
23 persuaded the Court and the charges were reduced," certainly shows a
24 capacity to understand the nature of the charges against them, don't they?
25 A. I'm not sure, but if someone is deeply, emotionally related to a
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 subject, and that certainly is the accusation and the process that is
2 being here, and if that is being repeated on many occasions, everyone
3 would remember that.
4 Q. There are, of course, no tests or criteria in the SCL-90-R in
5 relation to trial competency, are there?
6 A. Sorry?
7 Q. There are no criteria set out in the SCL-90-R related to trial
8 competency, are there?
9 A. No, but there are criteria related to the health of the person who
10 is being examined.
11 Q. Because they're not there, I suggest that they are irrelevant to a
12 determination of whether someone is unfit to stand trial in the sense of
13 understanding the nature of the case, the evidence, and being able to
14 instruct counsel.
15 A. If you say that someone who is depressed and who has on the
16 questionnaire you have just quoted, SCL-R, has high level of many clinical
17 syndromes, much higher than the psychiatric in-patient population and
18 non-patients, if you say that this, together with many other diseases that
19 a person has is not relevant, then that is what you said, your
20 responsibility, not mine. My responsibility is only to the science and my
22 Q. You, Doctor, did not explore with General Strugar his
23 understanding of whether he was charged with a crime, did you?
24 A. I did.
25 Q. Did you ask him whether or not he understood that the Court will
1 decide on guilt or innocence?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. And where is it in your report?
4 A. I didn't put it, because I wasn't asked to put it.
5 Q. What about that the trial could result in punishment? Did you
6 explore that with the general?
7 A. Yes. He was -- he said on many occasions when he was asked that,
8 that he would commit suicide.
9 Q. Where is that in your report, about punishment?
10 A. If he gets a sentence, yes.
11 Q. What about the various ways a defendant may plead? Did you
12 discuss that with the general?
13 A. No I didn't.
14 Q. What about that certain sentences are possible? Did you discuss
15 that with the general?
16 A. I didn't. I didn't have time. If I had three or four days, I
17 would discuss it. I was concentrating on the health of General Strugar.
18 Q. I'm going to list some other things here, to save time, and
19 they're basically in the Prosecution report. Just give me yes or no. The
20 roles of various participants in the trial process. Did you discuss it
21 with him or not? Yes or no.
22 A. No.
23 Q. The general process of the trial. Yes or no.
24 A. You may go with no, because I was concentrating, as I said, on the
25 seriously disturbed health of General Strugar.
1 Q. You would agree, wouldn't you, that if the Prosecution -- if what
2 the Prosecution has said in its report -- sorry, what the psychiatrists
3 engaged by the Prosecution have said in their report about the general's
4 ability to understand the proceedings, instruct counsel, enter a plea, and
5 so on, is correct, that he fulfils the competency requirements as set out
6 in the New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry? You would agree with that,
7 wouldn't you?
8 A. That's what you said. I wouldn't agree. I can't agree with that.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Re.
10 Mr. Petrovic.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Re-examined by Mr. Petrovic:
13 Q. Professor Lecic, very briefly, just a few questions. In your
14 work, is it typical, is it typical to rely on an additional source of
15 information and interview family members? Is it a legitimate and typical
16 method used in order to obtain information?
17 A. I already said, it's a must. It's so-called third ear. And each
18 student, if -- can't pass examination if doesn't rely upon this
19 information, or should at least say that it's very important, so-called
21 Q. My second question: The essence of the role of a psychiatrist, is
22 it to objectivise the information collected from all sources? Is it the
23 essence of your role that, and not just to take information as granted but
24 rather to objectivise it through scientific and professional means at your
1 A. [Interpretation] I think that this is the most important factor
2 for every medical profession, including the science that I have devoted
3 myself to.
4 Q. So this information you received from General Strugar and from
5 other sources, is it your role to objectivise them, all of the
6 information, in order to write up the report that you have written?
7 A. That was my goal, to ensure that the report is as objective as
8 possible, because my wholly obligation is that to my profession, that is
9 my duty first and foremost.
10 Q. The reason and the criteria that a defendant before the Tribunal
11 might use in selecting his attorneys and those reasons and criteria being
12 that one of the attorneys is experienced in military affairs and the other
13 one speaks English, do you believe that these are legitimate, logical
14 reasons and criteria to use in selecting an attorney?
15 A. Could you please repeat your question. I didn't understand it.
16 Q. My learned friend wanted to demonstrate that General Strugar is
17 able to actively participate in planning his defence and said that he
18 chose two criteria in selecting his attorneys, one being that one speaks
19 English and the other one being that one of them has military experience.
20 A. Do you mean whether this reflects on somebody's psychiatric
22 Q. What I have in mind is: Does this demonstrate that the accused is
23 passive, that the accused lacks interest, and so on?
24 A. I've already said that General Strugar is passive, lacks interest,
25 and has regressed to a helpless state. But what I think is important is
1 that you mentioned yourself, which is that findings need to be
2 objectivised. I do that in my everyday work and I especially do that when
3 preparing a serious report, such as this one. The other issue is whether
4 any other report which does not use the objective measures and whether it
5 can be measured if the author of the report was not objective.
6 Q. In your report, in your report dated 2nd February 2004, did you
7 reply to all of the questions that were mentioned by my learned friend?
8 Let me just quote them: Whether the accused is able to understand the
9 accusations, whether he's able to understand the proceedings, whether he's
10 able to contact and give instructions to his attorneys? Did you write
11 about all of these issues, both in your main report and in your addendum?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 MR. PETROVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I have no further
15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, indeed, Mr. Petrovic.
16 May we thank you very much, Professor, for your assistance, the
17 work you've done, the report and the supplementary report we've had, and
18 for your being here today.
19 THE WITNESS: [In English] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE PARKER: You are, of course, now able to return wherever you
21 wish to go.
22 We will adjourn now, and you can then make your arrangements. And
23 the next witness will be in place when we return.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much again.
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 --- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.41 p.m.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon, Doctor. Welcome to the Tribunal.
6 If I could ask you to take the card that is offered to you now and to take
7 the affirmation on it.
8 WITNESS: DARYL MATTHEWS
9 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
10 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. If you could please get
12 yourself comfortable. And Mr. Weiner will ask you a few questions to
13 start with.
14 Examined by Mr. Weiner:
15 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, first may I apologise. I'm the one who
16 has caused this five minutes' late problem here.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Well, it's taken off your time, Mr. Weiner.
18 MR. WEINER: I'll move fast. What exactly is the time? Is it a
19 total of 25 minutes to be split or --
20 JUDGE PARKER: 25 between evidence in chief and re-examination,
21 your call as to how to break it up.
22 MR. WEINER: Okay. Thank you.
23 JUDGE PARKER: And that's actually now 24 minutes as a penalty.
24 MR. WEINER: All right.
25 Q. Good morning. Could you state your name, please.
1 A. Daryl Matthews.
2 Q. And where do you live?
3 A. Honolulu, Hawaii.
4 Q. Can you tell us how you're employed.
5 A. I'm a professor of psychiatry at the University of Hawaii school
6 of medicine and the director of the forensic psychiatry programme at the
7 University of Hawaii.
8 Q. Doctor, what is forensic psychiatry?
9 A. Forensic psychiatry is a subspecialty of psychiatry that has the
10 goal of using psychiatry to answer questions that are posed by the legal
12 Q. Is it different from the other areas of psychiatry or the other
14 A. Yes, it is, it has a different focus than the other specialties.
15 Q. And does it involve tests and evaluations, sir?
16 A. Yes, it does.
17 Q. Such as competency, criminal responsibility type of tests?
18 A. Yes, those are some of the major ones.
19 Q. Have you ever evaluated people as to their competency or criminal
21 A. Yes I have.
22 Q. How many persons have you evaluated as to competency or criminal
24 A. Several hundred.
25 Q. And on these occasions, who retained you to interview or to
1 evaluate these persons?
2 A. In a great majority of cases, I was a court-appointed evaluator,
3 and in the remainder I was retained either by the Defence or the
5 Q. Are you involved at this time in another case in a war-related
7 A. Yes, I am.
8 Q. And where are you involved, sir?
9 A. I am an expert for the Defence in a case involving an inmate at
10 the detention facility at Guantanamo.
11 Q. Thank you. In this case you've been retained by the UN and did
12 you evaluate General Strugar as to his fitness to stand trial or his
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. And as a result of that evaluation, did you and two other doctors
16 prepare a report?
17 A. Yes, we did.
18 Q. And have each of you three doctors agreed to that report?
19 A. We have, yes.
20 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you some questions about the interview you
21 had with the accused over a day and a half, two-day period. Did you and
22 the other two doctors question him during those interviews?
23 A. Yes, we did.
24 Q. And during those interviews, did he have any trouble understanding
25 the questions that were asked?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did he respond to those questions?
3 A. Yes, he did.
4 Q. And were his answers responsive?
5 A. Yes, they were.
6 Q. Did he ever become confused or disoriented during the interviews?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did he show any signs of hallucinations or delusions?
9 A. No, none at all.
10 Q. Now, you stated on page 8 of your report that he is inclined to
11 make jokes and give anecdotes. What did you mean by that -- or actually,
12 what was the importance of that, or significance of that?
13 A. We were trying to describe his demeanour, and his demeanour was a
14 cordial one and one which showed a certain amount of flexibility or
15 ability to go from a serious mood state to a somewhat more light-hearted
17 Q. And what significance does that have as to depression?
18 A. The most seriously depressed individuals don't make jokes, are not
19 able to make jokes, so it would go to the severity of depression, I would
20 say. It would indicate that any depression that he would have would not
21 be the most profound.
22 Q. You also indicate on page 15, you said: "He described having read
23 and understood articles and legal documents surrounding the trial." Could
24 you tell us what you meant by that?
25 A. We asked him if he was interested in the proceedings, if he had
1 gotten copies of the various legal documents, if he looked at them and
2 went over them with his attorneys, and he said he did.
3 Q. And what significance does that have with relation to competency?
4 A. It indicates, at least from what he says, that he is engaged in
5 the process of understanding his case, engaged in the process of assisting
6 counsel, and presumably can understand the documents that he's reading.
7 Q. You further indicate that during the interview, on page 8, he
8 actively questions the examiners. Could you tell us what happened.
9 A. He asked us questions about our background and the like in an
10 assertive and -- way that is normal in a conversation, perhaps not all
11 that normal in a forensic interview, but seemed reasonable in light of the
12 fact that this is a very high status defendant, and in defendants who are
13 not of high status, they might not be as forward in questioning an
14 examiner, but he felt comfortable doing that.
15 Q. Would a passive person actively question the examiners? Would
16 that usually happen?
17 A. No. It would not happen, and his behaviour in terms of the
18 examination was not at all passive.
19 Q. You further state in that same paragraph on page 8: "When
20 explaining certain concepts or events, he is quite elaborate, inclined to
21 precision, and places himself in the role of an educator." What if
22 anything does that indicate as to his intelligence and his memory?
23 A. Our impression was that he was quite intelligent and that he is
24 used to explaining complex issues to subordinates and colleagues and
25 others, and that that was a style that he's familiar with and comfortable
1 with, and he continued to do that in the exam.
2 Q. Now, speaking of the accused's memory, during the interview, did
3 he have any trouble describing the events of 1991?
4 A. We did not detect any trouble describing -- his describing events.
5 Q. Did he have any trouble describing his defence or his defence
7 A. Not at all.
8 Q. During the interview, he mentioned about four, maybe five
9 Prosecution witnesses. Did he have any trouble recalling their testimony
10 or what he perceived to be the weaknesses in their testimony?
11 A. No. In fact, he went right to what he perceived was the weakness
12 in their testimony.
13 Q. Now, you also indicate, on page 12: "During the course of the
14 current assessment, Mr. Strugar reminded the interviewers of comments he
15 had made earlier regarding his wife's health, his children's state of
16 employment, discussions he had had with the Prosecution regarding the
17 possibility of a plea agreement, and the nature and history of the command
18 of the unit he ultimately led. He remembered comments made by the
19 interviewers." And there's a quote: "You asked me why I turned myself
20 in." As well as the testimony given during the hearings.
21 Could you tell us about that, what -- could you give us some more
22 information and what exactly happened that you included that paragraph in
23 your statement -- in your conclusions.
24 A. One of the relevant factors in trial competency, of course, is a
25 person's ability to recall testimony, to recall what might have been said
1 in an earlier conversation and then use that information in subsequent
2 conversations. And he demonstrated that quite well. He did bring up on
3 his own, and also when questioned by us, things that we had discussed
4 earlier. In fact, I recall a time when I myself had forgotten that I had
5 asked him something earlier, and he reminded me that I had asked him that
6 thing earlier.
7 Q. And what does that say with relation to both his short-term and
8 long-term memory?
9 A. It says they are quite intact. They are not necessarily perfect
10 or flawless, but they're certainly adequate for the purposes that he was
11 applying to, to discussions of the material that he was discussing.
12 Q. Now, sir, Doctor, you reviewed certain videotapes of General
13 Strugar in the courtroom. Why did you do that?
14 A. Our practice was to try to develop as many sources of information
15 as we could, and certainly to actually see him relate to the Court and to
16 see him in a situation that would be as analogous to testimony as could
17 be, that was very helpful to us and figured into our decision making.
18 Q. And what did you learn from his statements in the courtroom or in
19 a courtroom setting?
20 A. He was able to speak clearly, coherently, answer the Court's
21 questions appropriately, with good decorum, with some eloquence even. He
22 was perfectly able to communicate in that context, as far as I could tell.
23 Q. Now, you also spoke with some of the guards at the Detention Unit.
24 Why did you do that?
25 A. Once again, we were trying to develop as many sources of
1 information about General Strugar's mental health as we could and these
2 were people who had spent a fair bit of time with him recently, or at
3 least had enough contact with him that they might have an opinion about
4 his mental condition. So we did query them for that reason.
5 Q. And what did you learn from them?
6 A. We learned that my recollection is that two of them found that he
7 had some slight memory difficulties, but their perception was that they
8 were the normal memory difficulties that an elderly person might have and
9 they did not impair his ability to function within the facility, to deal
10 adequately with personnel, to take care of his activities of daily living
11 and the like.
12 Q. Now, the Defence psychiatrist indicates that she didn't have any
13 experience with prisoners in gaol, direct experience. Do you have any
14 experience with prisoners in gaol?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. And could you explain the extent. How many years have you
17 interviewed prisoners in gaol, in a gaol setting?
18 A. I've been working with people in gaol settings in one capacity or
19 another for about 30 years.
20 Q. And does gaol affect one's mental behaviour?
21 A. It certainly affects one's mental condition, yes, it does.
22 Q. How does it affect? What have you learned? What are some of the
23 different factors that you have seen, or features that you've seen how it
24 affects a person's behaviour or actions?
25 A. Depression is enormously common in institutional populations, and
1 people who are in gaols, in prisons, and in other settings where they are
2 deprived of a great deal of their usual comforts and social supports, and
3 the various kinds of depressive symptoms that Mr. Strugar complained of
4 are really quite common in gaol and prison inmates.
5 Q. And when you said certain kinds of problems, are you talking about
6 loss of appetite, trouble sleeping, or becoming emotional when discussing
7 one's family?
8 A. Exactly, yes.
9 Q. And you've seen that before in other prisoners that you've
10 interviewed over the past 30 years in gaols?
11 A. Yes, very commonly.
12 Q. Very quickly: Are family members objective sources of
14 A. They're not normally objective sources of information, no.
15 Q. And why is that?
16 A. Because they are likely to share goals and hopes with the
17 individual, and they may share them to such a degree that they would be
18 prone to distort information in order to help accomplish those goals.
19 Q. Now, sir, you indicated that -- or in your report, that you
20 followed the evaluation or you used the competency evaluation from
21 Professor Griso [phoen], evaluating competency, forensic assessments and
22 instruments. Is that system of evaluating competency or fitness for trial
23 commonly used?
24 A. Yes. I think that Griso's second edition of his competency book,
25 the one that we used and referenced, is as thorough and up-to-date and
1 detailed a discussion of competency issues in forensic mental health that
2 exists in the English language and so that's the reason we chose that
4 Q. Yes. I would like you to look at this document, sir. Just very
5 briefly: Are those the Griso factors?
6 A. Yes, they are.
7 Q. And did you mention each of those factors in your report?
8 A. Yes, I believe so.
9 MR. WEINER: I'd like to offer that, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
11 THE REGISTRAR: P166.
12 MR. WEINER:
13 Q. Doctor, is there any requirement that you're aware of that an
14 accused must fully comprehend the course of the proceedings in a trial in
15 order to be fit to stand trial and in order to be competent?
16 A. No, there's no such requirement.
17 Q. And since we're talking about requirements, have you been involved
18 in establishing the competency tests and requirements in the United
19 States, or standards?
20 A. I've been involved in developing the protocols for competency
21 evaluations by psychiatrists as part of the American Academy of Psychiatry
22 and the Law, which is the forensic psychiatry professional association.
23 They're promulgating guidelines in how to do trial competency evaluations
24 and I've been part of that effort.
25 Q. And at the University of Hawaii and in your lectures around the
1 world, do you teach the standards and the tests to be used in determining
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And based on your experience, there is no requirement to fully
5 comprehend the course of the proceedings in this trial; isn't that
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Thank you. Now, there was some discussion concerning the degrees
9 of dementia. In your opinion, are there various degrees of dementia?
10 A. Yes, there are various degrees of dementia.
11 Q. Would you please explain to the Court your belief or opinion as to
12 the various degrees, why there are various degrees.
13 A. Anybody who has had the sad experience of having a relative suffer
14 from Alzheimer's disease, which is the most common cause of dementia,
15 would recognise that the disease starts off with very, very mild kinds of
16 difficulties, perhaps forgetting names or where you put your keys, and
17 over the course of many years, progresses to the point where there may be
18 total inability to remember even the loved ones that surround that person,
19 and a total inability to function to the extent that they may have to be
20 institutionalised. And so there's certainly a great spectrum of severity
21 in dementia.
22 Q. And utilising a spectrum, where would General Strugar's level of
23 dementia be?
24 A. Mr. Strugar's level of dementia is mild. There are some
25 indicators that it might not even be present, but on balance, I think the
1 best estimation of his mentation is that he has a mild degree of dementia.
2 Q. And can a person with mild dementia be competent or fit to stand
4 A. Yes, they surely can.
5 Q. And can a person with mild dementia be competent or fit to carry
6 on with their everyday life?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you. Now, are you familiar with post-traumatic stress
10 A. Yes, I am.
11 Q. Have you ever assessed anyone as to whether or not they have
12 post-traumatic stress disorder?
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 Q. Approximately how many times have you assessed persons for that
16 A. My estimate would be 50 to 100 people who were either coming to me
17 for treatment, when I had a treatment practice, or who I was evaluating
18 for forensic reasons.
19 Q. Have you ever treated persons recently with post-traumatic stress
21 A. I haven't treated anybody since 1990, I believe. That was the
23 Q. But have you evaluated anyone recently for post-traumatic stress
25 A. I've evaluated people as recently as this year.
1 Q. Did you evaluate General Strugar to determine if he had
2 post-traumatic stress disorder?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And what were your findings, sir?
5 A. We did not identify post-traumatic stress disorder. He did not
6 report to us the range of symptoms that would be required to have
7 post-traumatic stress disorder. So we did not diagnose that.
8 Q. Even if you reach this diagnosis of post-traumatic stress
9 disorder, would it have made any difference?
10 A. No, not in and of itself. Diagnosis per se, no matter what the
11 diagnosis is, does not speak directly to the question of competence.
12 Q. Now, sir, the Defence psychiatrist performed a number of tests, a
13 depression test, an IES test, an SCL-90 test, a Beck and Hamilton test.
14 What relevance do these tests have to competency?
15 A. They're not relevant, they have no relevance to trial competency.
16 Q. Why is that?
17 A. Competency is a functional ability and it has to do with what one
18 is able to do and what one isn't able to do. Those various tests refer to
19 individuals' reports of their own feeling states. So they're quite
20 helpful in assessment for purposes of treatment, so if one were involved
21 in treating people who had been subject to trauma, certainly those kind of
22 tests are very relevant. But in medical-legal assessments, they don't
23 have any place. They're not used ever, really.
24 Q. Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Weiner.
1 Mr. Petrovic.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. May I ask
3 for the lectern, please. It would make my life much easier.
4 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Dr. Matthews. I will ask you a
6 couple of questions regarding your report and your testimony today.
7 Tell us first of all, please, have you ever evaluated anyone from
8 the territory where the Serbian language is spoken in your practice today?
9 A. No, not previous to this occasion.
10 Q. Have you ever evaluated anyone from that area through an
11 interpreter? Because it is a language you do not understand.
12 A. I've never evaluated anyone from that area, with an interpreter or
14 Q. Does the fact that you evaluated General Strugar through an
15 interpreter affect your conclusions? Does the manner of interpretation
16 have any influence on your conclusions, on your final position?
17 A. It might. That's the reason we conducted the examination, both
18 with a person who spoke the language and with an interpreter as well.
19 Q. Which diagnosis did you establish in General Strugar's case?
20 A. The only diagnosis that we felt there was sufficient evidence to
21 establish was dementia.
22 Q. Could you tell us precisely, please, which type of dementia, which
23 form of dementia.
24 A. We diagnosed vascular dementia.
25 Q. Did you have occasion to see the MRI that was done for General
2 A. I saw briefly the film, I think, and then I saw the report as
4 Q. Have you seen the MRI done in March 2004 here in The Hague?
5 A. Yes. I think I didn't see the actual film of the 2004 one; I only
6 saw the report.
7 Q. Then be so kind as to tell us which report did you see regarding
8 this MRI from 2004.
9 A. I would need to look at the list of documents that I reviewed to
10 cite that. The MRI is not something that has any bearing on his
11 competence, so I must tell you that I did not pay a great deal of
12 attention to the MRI.
13 Q. Kindly tell us: Have you seen that MRI report from 2004? Yes or
15 A. I've seen what Dr. Pressman concluded. Is that what you're
16 referring to?
17 Q. I am asking you if you have seen the report, because you just
18 mentioned you did. That's page 89, line 7. Have you seen that report?
19 A. I have seen the results that Dr. Pressman reached when he
20 interpreted the report.
21 Q. In what form did you see the results of Dr. Pressman, the findings
22 of Dr. Pressman?
23 A. Perhaps it was a copy of an e-mail from him. We were working on
24 our report and that was the last thing that had not come in yet, was
25 Dr. Pressman's interpretation.
1 Q. Mr. Matthews, have you read at all this report that you signed?
2 A. Certainly.
3 Q. I put it to you that you haven't read it, because if you had, you
4 would understand that Dr. Pressman telephoned one of your colleagues to
5 inform them of the contents of the MRI film, which is indicated on several
6 occasions in the report itself.
7 MR. WEINER: Objection. It's a misreading of the report.
8 JUDGE PARKER: In what respect, Mr. Weiner?
9 MR. WEINER: The first four findings were sent by e-mail, the last
10 finding was a discussion over the telephone --
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would appreciate it
12 if my learned friend would not testify.
13 MR. WEINER: I'm not testifying.
14 JUDGE PARKER: That was an answer to my question, Mr. Petrovic --
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Sorry.
16 JUDGE PARKER: -- to deal with your objection.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honour.
18 MR. WEINER: All I wanted to say is it's an improper reading. The
19 first four were sent by an e-mail between the doctors, and the last one is
20 they had telephone conversations because they're all in different states
21 in the United States. This doctor is in Hawaii, one is in Arizona, one is
22 in California, and the fourth one is in Croatia, so they had to use e-mail
23 and telephone calls.
24 JUDGE PARKER: If you would carry on now, Mr. Petrovic.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you allow me. On
1 page 2 of the report Dr. Matthews claims to have read before signing, it
2 says: Examination interviews. 15th March 2004, by telephone, Barry D.
3 Pressman, M.D., 15th March 2004. It doesn't -- telephonic, in brackets.
4 Then the only place on page 4 which refers to the findings of
5 Dr. Pressman regarding the MRI, in paragraph 3, the last sentence again
6 refers to an interview.
7 Q. So you, Dr. Matthews, before signing this, have not read the
8 report at all, or maybe you've forgotten.
9 A. Well, I would think the latter is more likely.
10 Q. Are you familiar with all the elements of this report?
11 A. I believe I'm familiar with it. I haven't committed it to memory.
12 Q. This is the report from a month ago. Do you have any problems in
13 conducting your business if you can't remember what you signed a month
15 A. Sir, I have no problems conducting my business.
16 Q. Thank you. How often do you apply the PARADISE test in your
18 A. I don't apply it.
19 Q. Was this test applied in writing this report?
20 A. The report was drafted different sections by different
21 individuals. Dr. Bennett Blum developed the PARADISE test and used that
22 model in drafting his section of the report.
23 Q. Why don't -- why are you not applying this test?
24 A. In this case or in other cases?
25 Q. Generally speaking, because you say you never apply it. So
1 generally speaking, why do you never apply it?
2 A. I don't apply it because the majority of my practice is not a
3 geriatric practice, that it's not that common that I do forensic
4 evaluations on elderly people, and Dr. Blum created this with that
5 population in mind.
6 Secondly, there are other methods of getting at the same kinds of
7 results. I think in this case both Blum's model and Griso's model really
8 get to the same kinds of conclusions. So there's --
9 Q. Thank you. Is the PARADISE test a psychiatric test designed to
10 evaluate trial competency?
11 A. No, it is not.
12 Q. To what extent have you in your practice evaluated elderly persons
13 aged 71 in terms of their trial competency? How many such persons did you
15 A. Probably dozens over the years.
16 Q. Does every person you evaluate -- does every person you evaluated
17 suffer from vascular dementia?
18 A. No.
19 Q. What percentage of the population aged 71, in general, suffers
20 from vascular dementia?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. A moment ago, answering one of my learned friend's questions, you
23 said that depression in General Strugar's case is not the deepest form of
24 depression, the severest form. However, General Strugar does suffer from
25 depression. It is his clinical diagnosis, one of them.
1 A. Is that a question?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. That is not a diagnosis that we reached. No, it's not.
4 Q. Why did you, then, on page 78, line 22, say, a couple of minutes
5 ago, that depression in this man's case is not in its deepest form? This
6 seems to imply that depression does exist.
7 A. I would invite you to differentiate between depression as a
8 complaint, as a state of mind, and depression as a medical disorder or
9 psychiatric disorder. People can experience the state of depression, and
10 commonly do, without qualifying for the psychiatric disorder, diagnosis,
11 depression. So I believe that Mr. Strugar has commonly felt depressed,
12 but I don't believe that he has met the diagnostic criteria for any
13 particular psychiatric disorder involving depression.
14 Q. Have you tried to establish if General Strugar suffers from
15 depression at all? Did you apply any method at all to establish whether
16 depression exists in his case?
17 A. Yes, we did.
18 Q. Do you believe General Strugar when he tells you that he had read
19 all the documents that are relevant to this trial?
20 A. That's a misstatement of my testimony. I did not say that he had
21 read or told me that he had read all of the documents relevant to this
22 trial. He's read some documents, and I believe him.
23 Q. And why do you believe him?
24 A. I believe him because throughout our evaluation of him, he did not
25 give any indication of deception. He impressed us all as a
1 straightforward, honest man.
2 Q. Did he try to hide anything from you, to keep anything from you?
3 A. It's a little hard to know, because if he successfully kept it
4 from us, we wouldn't know that he really had it. But it wouldn't surprise
5 me if he minimised his symptoms somewhat. He did want to present himself
6 in a favourable light, I believe.
7 Q. What did he tell you about the strategy of his defence?
8 A. I can refer to my report and tell you what he said to me. He said
9 he had a written order to show the Court, had to do with an instruction he
10 gave not to fire on Dubrovnik.
11 Q. And that's all he told you about his defence strategy?
12 A. I don't know that that's all he told me. That's the one thing I
13 put my eye on the minute you asked me that question. I can spend time
14 looking through the report, see if there are others. Also, I can obtain
15 my notes and go through those and see if there are others.
16 Q. Did he mention any concept of defence, any plan of defence, from
17 all the discussions in the courtroom?
18 A. I'm not sure I understand your question, sir.
19 Q. Did he present to you any concept of defence? Not only whether he
20 had a paper or not; did he tell you how he intended to approach his
21 defence, how he intended to speak before the Court, what he was planning,
22 what he was planning to say?
23 A. I recall that he said that he had gotten there later than the
24 people who were really involved in doing this and that he himself was not
25 involved. I don't remember the details of his proposed defence, however.
1 Q. When analysing the videotapes and transcripts -- in fact, tell me
2 first: Who made a selection of these tapes? I don't believe you have
3 seen the entire amount of tapes available at this moment, because this is
4 a very long proceeding.
5 A. We were interested in tapes in which Mr. Strugar actually spoke to
6 the Court, so we certainly didn't see the entire tape of all the
8 Q. Did you, on any one of those occasions, hear him say anything that
9 does not refer to tea or his neck or similar things? Did you find
10 anything in what he was saying that did not refer to his health alone?
11 A. I'm not sure. I know he wasn't talking about the war at the time,
12 but what he did talk about, he was able to talk about just fine and was
13 able to remember past episodes of medical care, past insults to his
14 health. So his conversation seemed to be coherent and normal.
15 Q. On page 11 and 12 of your report, as evidence of his ability to
16 remember information, you quote exclusively his medical history. Do you
17 have any other evidence that he is indeed able to memorise new information
18 and to recall old information?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Tell me: What does it mean to you, after observing him for an
21 hour in this courtroom, when he spent more than an hour with his eyes
22 closed here, sleeping in the courtroom? What does that tell you?
23 MR. WEINER: I'd object.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. That is a valid objection.
25 MR. WEINER: The fact that his eyes are closed doesn't mean he's
2 JUDGE PARKER: I've said it was a valid objection.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. What does it mean to you, the fact that you have been watching him
5 for an hour and that perhaps half of that time he had his eyes closed?
6 How do you interpret that?
7 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues]... Doctor,
8 whether, when you were watching, the eyes of the accused were closed for
9 any time?
10 THE WITNESS: Are you referring to the observation period we had
11 when he was in Court rather than right now? I'm not sure what counsel is
12 referring to.
13 JUDGE PARKER: I think he's referring to the time you spent
14 observing the proceedings.
15 THE WITNESS: His eyes were closed sometimes, yes.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Right. Mr. Petrovic will ask you about that.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. For how long and what is your conclusion? What is the cause of
19 this? Just briefly, please.
20 A. The most interesting is that when there was something came up that
21 interested him, he would open his eyes, that he was listening, and he
22 could differentiate between topics that were being talked about by the
23 witness, and when the topic was of interest to him, he was able to open
24 his eyes and attend.
25 Q. So you think that he is able to distinguish between what is
1 interesting and important as opposed to other things. Do you think that
2 what is important for the proceedings is also important and interesting
3 for him, and then he opens his eyes and attends?
4 A. That was my impression, yes, that when they were talking about --
5 when the witness was talking about personal matters and things that upset
6 her, those were the times that he was likely to keep his eyes closed, and
7 when she began talking about things that came closer to military topics
8 that he might have had some knowledge or involvement in, then he opened
9 his eyes and paid attention.
10 Q. Very briefly, in one sentence, tell me: What did that witness
11 testify about when you were here in the courtroom?
12 A. She was testifying about her property being damaged.
13 Q. And what did he find interesting in her testimony, and what did he
14 find without interest?
15 A. My recollection is that when she was describing her property and
16 the suffering she experienced, he was less interested than -- he was less
17 interested than when he was talking about shelling and damage and military
18 activities that were going on.
19 Q. Very well. You say in your report that he has retained many
20 cognitive functions, on page 13, paragraph 1. What cognitive functions
21 has he lost?
22 A. He has some mild memory impairment, and I'll say again, it is
23 mild. He has some mild word-finding difficulties. He has difficulty at
24 times coming up with a word. There's controversy in the mental health
25 field as to whether word-finding difficulties are a memory problem or a
1 language problem. If you consider them a memory problem, then he would
2 not qualify for the diagnosis of dementia. We essentially gave him or the
3 seriousness of his condition the benefit of the doubt and took the
4 word-finding difficulties to be a separate symptom, and so he did qualify
5 for the diagnosis of dementia. Still, the word-finding difficulties were
6 not of such severity that any of us would have called it, for example, an
7 expressive aphasia, which is a major neurologic problem, and his cognitive
8 functioning was not that far from normal. He only had mild impairments.
9 There was nothing beyond that.
10 Q. Do you believe that there is a classification of vascular
11 dementia; mild, moderate, and grave one? Is that what you're claiming?
12 A. No, I'm not claiming that there's an official classification. I'm
13 claiming that in nature, there exists mild dementias and serious
14 dementias. Whether or not medicine has developed a classification for it
15 is not what I'm referring to.
16 Q. What test have you applied? What standard have you applied to
17 determine that this is a mild case and not a serious one?
18 A. We have first looked at the various prior evaluations he had, so
19 for example, the Military Medical Academy diagnosed his dementia
20 essentially as mild, and I believe there are other prior evaluations that
21 found that any cognitive impairment he had is mild. We found his
22 cognitive impairments to be mild; we didn't find any impairments that
23 exceeded that in degree of severity, and so then it's hard to imagine how
24 his total condition then could be something more serious than mild.
25 Q. Therefore, you did not apply any specific scale. This is just a
1 finding that you reached based on your impression?
2 A. We did not apply any specific scale. We used our impressions and
3 the impressions of others that had evaluated him previously.
4 Q. On page 17 of your report, paragraph 3, you state that he is
5 considering suicide as a rational option, rational alternative. As a
6 physician, how can you believe suicide to be a rational option, ever, in
7 anybody's case? Or do you, as a physician, claim that for some persons, a
8 suicide may be a rational option?
9 A. Yes, I believe that for some persons, suicide is a rational
11 Q. Therefore, do you recognise or do you see that this patient has
12 this ability to carry out this rational option?
13 A. I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.
14 Q. Did you include the suicide into your concept of rational planning
15 of his strategy? Do you believe that to be part of strategy, part of
16 plan? And if so, do you believe that to be rational?
17 A. No, I don't believe that that's part of his strategy. I think
18 that he spoke of suicide should his defence fail. And the circumstances
19 that he spoke of, yes, it might be rational under his circumstances to
20 commit suicide.
21 Q. What circumstances would those be where you would believe that to
22 be a rational solution for his circumstances? I'm asking you this as a
24 A. Well, when you say you're asking me this as a physician, then I
25 start becoming a little bit puzzled. Do you mean do I think that there's
1 something irrational about his thinking? That's the kind of thing I would
2 evaluate as a physician. I don't believe there's anything at all
3 irrational about Mr. Strugar's thinking. I believe that he does not
4 suffer from a serious mood disorder which --
5 Q. I'm putting a specific question to you. I'm asking you about
6 suicide because you stated that this is a rational option to spending the
7 rest of his life imprisoned, incarcerated with criminals. So I'm trying
8 to find out what do you find rational about it?
9 A. Rationality is not a property of the conclusion. Rationality is a
10 property of the reasoning process used to reached the conclusion. I don't
11 believe there's anything irrational about his mental processes. I believe
12 he's able to look at states of affairs and understand consequences, weigh
13 risks and benefits, look at his own values, and reach a conclusion that's
14 satisfactory to him. So I would say that that's a rational
15 decision-making process. That's the basis upon which I say it's rational.
16 Q. So you include suicide as a solution into his concept of rational
17 decision making? Yes or no.
18 A. Not as you say it, no. You've misstated my opinion.
19 Q. Very well. Thank you.
20 Do you claim that somebody who forgets two concepts out of three
21 that were mentioned to him can testify before this Trial Chamber?
22 A. I sure do.
23 Q. Do you believe that if that person forgets three -- two concepts
24 out of three, that such person can be cross-examined?
25 A. It's a mistake to think that you can look at one of these tests
1 done at one period of time, using three random concepts picked by a
2 particular examiner, and use that alone to reach the conclusion that one
3 may or may not testify. If I've tried to stress anything here, what it is
4 is this is a complex multi-determined process and we try to look at as
5 many different features of his mental condition as possible. And it is
6 extremely oversimplifying our reasoning to say that because he couldn't
7 remember something on one occasion, that that would produce an impairment.
8 That's not our opinion, that's not the way mental health processes work.
9 Q. Somebody who has difficulty remembering events and names, which
10 goes with the vascular dementia, can such person testify in his own case
11 and subject himself to the possibility of not being able to answer a
12 question put by the Prosecutor, not because he doesn't want to but because
13 he cannot remember?
14 A. Mr. Strugar's memory impairment was not to the extent that it
15 would impair his ability to testify. He did remember relevant names, as
16 far as we could determine, and when he couldn't remember a name, my
17 recollection is that he would think about it for a while and then recall
18 the name. I don't think he has a serious memory impairment.
19 Q. You think that such a person can testify before the Trial Chamber?
20 A. I don't think that "such a person" can testify; I think that
21 Mr. Strugar can testify.
22 Q. Please tell us: If the person cannot remember, for example, your
23 name and the Prosecutor puts that question to him and he is testifying in
24 court, do you believe that to be a problem which can affect his standing
25 before this Trial Chamber?
1 A. No, I don't believe that the fact that he couldn't remember the
2 name of an American psychiatrist who questioned him briefly on a
3 particular day, I don't think that affects his trial competency, I don't
4 think it affects his ability to testify relevantly.
5 Q. For example, if he cannot remember the name of the witness whom he
6 also saw once in his lifetime for a period of two hours, could that pose a
7 problem to him, if he spent less time with that witness than with you and
8 also cannot remember his name?
9 A. This requires really a lot of speculation to answer the question,
10 and if you'd like me to speculate, I will. Shall I?
11 Q. Try.
12 A. Okay. I think it would depend on how important knowing that name
13 would be. He certainly knew I was an American psychiatrist, he knew I was
14 hired by the Prosecution, he knew that I was going to be evaluating him
15 for purposes of trial competency. All the important stuff he remembered,
16 he knew. It's just the name that he didn't, because the name was not
17 particularly important.
18 Q. Mr. Matthews, what if he believes some name not to be important
19 and therefore cannot remember that name, and the OTP believes that name to
20 be crucial, how would he testify under those circumstances in court?
21 A. It's not just Mr. Strugar that has memory problems. Everybody has
22 memory problems. They are very, very common as people age, and having
23 difficulty remembering things during testimony is a problem that many
24 witnesses and defendants have. It certainly is a matter of degree, and
25 I'll say once again that Mr. Strugar's memory difficulties are in the
1 range of someone who has normal memory for his age, up to being mildly
2 demented, that that's the severity of his memory problems. Those people
3 normally are found competent to stand trial and they're normally able to
4 give testimony adequately.
5 Q. Therefore, do all of us have a sort of vascular dementia? Do all
6 of us suffer from it? Do all of us have problems with memory? Does
7 Mr. Strugar have problems just like all other people do? Is that what
8 you're trying to say?
9 A. Which of those would you like me to answer?
10 Q. All three.
11 A. Do all of us have a sort of vascular dementia? No.
12 Do all of us suffer from it? No.
13 Do all of us have problems with memory? Everybody has memory
14 difficulties at some time. Nobody remembers everything that ever happened
15 to them.
16 Does Mr. Strugar have problems just like all other people do? His
17 problems are very much the kinds of memory problems that people develop
18 normally when they age, but maybe they're a little bit worse than that as
19 a result of his vascular disease.
20 I think that answers your question.
21 Q. Then he and the vascular dementia that he has at age 71, how does
22 he differ from a person of same age who does not suffer from vascular
23 dementia? Could you please give us the answer to that and we'll conclude.
24 A. He doesn't differ very much. He differs a little in that his
25 memory is a little bit worse.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no
2 further questions.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Petrovic.
4 Mr. Weiner, is there any re-examination?
5 MR. WEINER: Just briefly.
6 Re-examined by Mr. Weiner:
7 Q. Do you have a copy of your report, Doctor?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. Could you turn to page number 1.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The last line. It says medical report -- sorry, medical
12 record/reports. And it lists on page to the persons that they received
13 that from, in putting this report together. Could you tell us what the
14 last name is on that group of reports and records.
15 A. Dr. Barry D. Pressman.
16 Q. And if we look at the next part, it says examinations, interviews,
17 the last name the person -- the last name on that list of persons.
18 A. Barry Pressman, M.D.
19 Q. So there was some sort of e-mail or some sort of report by
20 Dr. Pressman that was incorporated in this full report?
21 A. That's my recollection, yes.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, they asked you about the PARADISE test. Is that
23 a tool which can be used in determining competency?
24 A. Yes. It's one that is helpful in reaching a conclusion.
25 Q. And that concerns cognitive functioning, does that not?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And is that part of a competency evaluation?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, they asked you about mild dementia. The people who see him,
5 who see the accused daily, the people at the Detention Unit, did they
6 complain to you or the other two doctors about any serious problems in
7 relation to the defendant?
8 A. No, they didn't.
9 Q. Did they complain to you about any serious memory problems in
10 relation to the defendant?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Now, there was some discussion about his view on suicide. Was
13 that view of suicide linked to conviction?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Was there any other discussion of suicide as if it could occur
16 today, tomorrow, in the next few weeks, or was it solely limited to what
17 he might do if convicted?
18 A. It was solely limited to what he might do if convicted.
19 Q. Okay. Now, there was some discussion with regard to honesty in
20 answering questions. Are you referring to honesty in relation to
21 answering questions or honesty in relation to guilt or innocence in this
23 A. I believe he was honest in answering our questions.
24 Q. Thank you. Now, you indicated that at one point during the
25 testimony of a woman whose property was damaged, he became animated and
1 his eyes opened and he was listening to -- or he appeared to be listening
2 to the testimony. What did it concern at that point?
3 A. I think it concerned the shelling.
4 Q. And did he complain to you that he found not all of the
5 information that was coming out from witnesses to be interesting to him?
6 A. Yes. He complained about the testimony in that way, and in
7 others, yes.
8 Q. And do you find that unusual for defendants or prisoners to state,
9 based on your experience?
10 A. Somewhat unusual, yes.
11 Q. Is it unusual as to be a medical problem?
12 A. No. I would say that it's unusual in that he was quite focused on
13 the testimony and its accuracy and in finding indicia that it might be
14 inaccurate. I think that it's not a reflection of poor mental condition
15 at all that he was focused in the way he focused.
16 Q. In fact, do you remember reading a transcript, the following
17 transcript, where the accused said -- and this is page 721: "I'm not
18 asking for any leniency. I know exactly where I am. I'm being tried.
19 But I've been listening to something that I've already went through. What
20 happened in Yugoslavia, my Defence counsel, I suppose, will be able to
21 tell that. However, I was really -- it was really necessary for me to
22 listen to all that has been said today. What has that got to do with my
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down when reading.
25 MR. WEINER: I'm very sorry.
1 Q. "What has that got to do with my indictment? Why did I have to
2 listen to that? So much for me." And then he finishes: "Thank you very
4 Now, do you find it unusual that certain defendants might not want
5 to listen to certain portions of a trial?
6 A. No, not at all. There may be a great deal of material in a trial
7 that would be very upsetting to a particular defendant.
8 Q. Or uninteresting?
9 A. Or uninteresting.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. WEINER: No further questions, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Weiner.
13 MR. RE: Your Honour --
14 JUDGE PARKER: There's a document, Mr. Re. I read your mind.
15 MR. RE: Thank you. We're on the same plane. May I tender into
16 evidence the extract of the New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry, 2nd
17 edition, 2000, pages 2091 and 92. Mr. Petrovic is on his feet. I can
18 hand him the front page. I haven't photocopied six copies of the front
19 page, which Dr. Matthews got for me this morning, because the photocopier
20 wasn't working.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could the Defence
23 please be able to see what this is about before we reply to this request
24 of my learned friend. I don't think we can do it today.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, it is the two pages that were put to
1 Dr. Lecic from the text that she quoted in her report. They were put to
2 her. We had copies. Mr. Re omitted to tender them.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I leave it up to you
4 to decide.
5 JUDGE PARKER: They will be received.
6 THE REGISTRAR: P167. Yes.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
8 MR. RE: Also, Your Honour, on the topic of tendering exhibits,
9 although the reports have been filed with the Trial Chamber, it appears
10 that they haven't actually been tendered into evidence on the application.
11 Do Your Honours -- did Your Honours wish to have them tendered formally as
12 exhibits in -- on the application in these proceedings or remaining on the
13 file as reports which have been adopted and referred to?
14 JUDGE PARKER: No counsel has sought to tender them. From the
15 point of view of the Chamber, it feels that it may properly consider them
16 and should consider the reports of the doctors that have been called to
17 give evidence. They have been the basis of the questioning, or the
18 questioning has supplemented. If either counsel feels that that may lead
19 to some form of technical deficiency, we would receive them, but we don't.
20 MR. RE: The Prosecution, unfortunately, suspects later on it may
21 well lead to, could possibly, and we would like to offer into evidence the
22 report of our three psychiatrists formally.
23 JUDGE PARKER: That report will be received and will the report of
24 Dr. Lecic and its supplement. The numbers will be given when we resume on
25 Monday, because of time constraints at the moment.
1 Could I do two further things in our limited time. Firstly,
2 indicate that the Chamber would like to receive brief, succinct, written
3 submissions on the question of competence to stand trial by the close of
4 our hearing on Tuesday, from each party, and we would indicate that at the
5 close of the evidence of the witness who is presently part heard, we would
6 invite very brief oral submissions to supplement those written
7 submissions. We would think they probably need not exceed ten minutes for
8 each party. And that will be perhaps on Tuesday.
9 Could I thank you, Doctor, for your presence here, the work that
10 you've done to assist us, and your -- the way that you've been able to
11 deal succinctly with a wide range of questions that have been posed to you
12 today. We're grateful for what you have done and wish you well on your
13 journey home.
14 THE WITNESS: You're quite welcome, and thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE PARKER: We will now adjourn until Monday afternoon at
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.54
18 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 3rd day of
19 May 2004, at 2.15 p.m.