1 [Open session]
2 [The accused entered court]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Call the case, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-32-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Mitar Vasiljevic.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome?
9 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just a note for the transcript. We are
10 interrupting the examination of (redacted) -- I'm sorry, of a witness.
11 JUDGE HUNT: 84.
12 MR. GROOME: 84 and taking -- the Prosecutor is now calling
13 Dr. De Grave.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, would you please stand up and take the solemn
15 declaration in the form in which the card the usher is showing you.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
17 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
18 WITNESS: YVAN DE GRAVE
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 JUDGE HUNT: Sit down, please.
21 Yes, Mr. Groome.
22 Examined by Mr. Groome.
23 MR. GROOME:
24 Q. Dr. De Grave, could you briefly describe your educational
25 background for the Tribunal?
1 A. I started as a civil -- [Interpretation] I started as a civil
2 engineer and then I switched to medicine. I practised general medicine
3 until about the 1980s. I'm interrupting my answers to allow the
4 interpreters to do their job. If you say I should continue. I will
6 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, please continue.
7 A. So as I was saying, I was engaged in general practice until the
8 1980s, then I was called as an expert by the tribunals, first for very
9 minor cases and later on more and more important ones. I taught
10 neurology, courses in neurology for three years, and up to now I have six
11 different diplomas, the last being in criminal law and forensic
12 medicine --
13 MR. GROOME:
14 Q. And have you called -- been called to serve as an expert to the
16 A. -- issued by the University of Gent.
17 Not explicitly. I was asked whether I would be willing to do
18 expert findings as an expert of the Tribunal. I never considered myself
19 to be such, but when I'm asked something by whoever, I answer to the best
20 of my abilities.
21 Q. Can you tell us approximately how many times have you rendered
22 expert opinions for the Courts of Belgium?
23 A. In general terms, one submits findings in writing to tribunals and
24 I would say that on the average, I receive two and a half missions per
25 week by tribunals and also other requests regarding opinions or
1 arbitration for tribunals. Again, these come several times a week.
2 Q. Prior to today, have you been asked to render your medical
3 expertise before this Tribunal?
4 A. Yes. I was invited for a previous case, that is I was an expert,
5 together with an expert from Serbia, Djukic. This is my second testimony
6 here in this Tribunal.
7 Q. Can you describe for the Chamber what experience you have
8 regarding the examination and comparison of radiological X-rays?
9 A. In my daily work, it is customary that we are given X-rays to look
10 at the protocols. This is a classical method. In other cases, there are
11 files covered by medical confidentiality, so you are given X-rays without
12 any additional information. And one learns to read X-rays without the
13 accompanying protocols. This develops the ability to be able to study,
14 read and interpret X-rays but also to be able to judge the quality and
15 occasionally, also the technique used to take those X-rays.
16 Q. Have you in the past been called upon to give your expertise on
17 the interpretation of X-rays and the comparison of X-rays?
18 A. This is a -- my daily occupation. Would I say that I am able to
19 say that most disputes have to do with movement and that there are hardly
20 no legal cases without X-rays, which always need to be interpreted, and an
21 expertise consisting exclusively of X-rays is rare, but generally
22 speaking, it is only a part of my work required when my expert opinion is
24 Q. Last year were you asked to provide your medical expertise in
25 connection with this case, the Prosecutor against Mitar Vasiljevic?
1 A. Yes, yes. I was asked to take into consideration the case of
2 Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic, and I was asked to take X-rays to compare with those
3 that were brought to me. The first point was that I realised that I
4 was facing X-rays of different persons. There was no similarity and
5 therefore no way of comparing them. And I submitted my conclusions in an
6 initial, a first, report.
7 Q. Were you asked to compare an X-ray purported to have been taken in
8 1992 with one that was taken in the detention facility here in Holland?
9 A. Indeed, I was asked to compare those X-rays.
10 Q. Were you given an X-ray plate that bore the name of Mitar
11 Vasiljevic and the date 14th of June 1992, by an investigator, Yves Roy,
12 of the Office of the Prosecutor?
13 A. Yes, I received from Mr. Yves Roy two X-rays to compare.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome, I'm wondering why we are worried about
15 the X-rays taken last year, despite the doctor's rather confident
16 assertion that he was facing X-rays of different persons, he went on to
17 criticise the quality of the X-ray. That's why a second one was taken.
18 MR. GROOME: Yes. I'm asking him about the X-ray from 92 at this
19 point, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, but I'm a little worried that we are stuck in
21 last year's.
22 MR. GROOME: I assure the Court we are not and I'm going to
23 confine myself to the X-ray taken just recently.
24 Q. Have you been in custody of -- for the remainder of your
25 testimony, I'd ask you to refer to this X-ray that you were given from
1 1992 as the 1992 X-ray. And I would ask you, have you been in custody of
2 that X-ray plate since the time you were given it to -- it was given to
3 you by investigator Roy? Have you been in custody of that X-ray since the
4 time it was given to you?
5 A. Yes. I was given two X-rays. There was this one. Can I show it?
6 Q. The only X-ray that you were given by Mr. Roy that I will refer
7 to, is the X-ray that says Mitar Vasiljevic, 14th of June 1992. And that
8 is the one you have in your hand, is it?
9 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time I would tender that X-ray
10 as Prosecution number 151?
11 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
12 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. That will be Exhibit P151.
14 MR. GROOME:
15 Q. Now, doctor, on the 15th of August this year, did you conduct an
16 examination of Mr. Vasiljevic yourself?
17 A. Yes. I did carry out an examination of Mr. Mitar. I spoke to
18 him. I questioned him. I examined him. I was assisted by Dr. Bollen for
19 some new X-rays and radioscopy and what I have here before me.
20 Q. Okay. As part of that examination, were new X-rays taken of the
21 leg of Mr. Vasiljevic?
22 A. We tried to make new X-rays with the same incidents as those that
23 I have here on the ELMO, and I have my finger on it. And then we made
24 this X-ray. I don't know if you can see it well but any way, these are
25 X-rays and photos that I added to my report. There is also a difference
1 here because, on the X-rays that -- the new X-rays we did, all these new
2 X-rays confirm an element which makes them reconcile -- recognisable, name
3 and date.
4 Q. Dr. De Grave, I want to ask you, it sounds as if you took many
5 X-rays, did you attempt to position the leg of Mr. Vasiljevic in such a
6 way as to obtain an X-ray that was most suitable for comparison with the
7 1992 X-ray?
8 A. Exactly.
9 Q. I'm going to ask you to put the other X-rays away and just take
10 out the X-ray plate of the position of Mr. Vasiljevic that is most similar
11 to the X-ray plate from 1992.
12 A. They are these. In order to compare them, these are the two, and
13 in profile, we have this X-ray.
14 Q. Okay. So there are two X-rays that best simulate the position
15 that a leg was in in 1992; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. I would ask at this time that those X-rays be marked as
18 Prosecution number 21, and I would tender them into evidence.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Why have we got the wildly varying numbers,
20 Mr. Groome, 21 and 151.
21 MR. GROOME: It's just the numbering system that the -- the order
22 in which they were originally conceived to be --
23 JUDGE HUNT: Any objections, Mr. Domazet?
24 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE HUNT: So there are two X-rays and they were taken in 2001:
2 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, August 15.
3 JUDGE HUNT: They will be Exhibit P21. Now for our own purposes,
4 because what we see on the ELMO is absolutely nothing, could we have a
5 reference to the pagination of the doctor's report which has reproduced
6 various X-rays in colour for us?
7 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
8 Q. Doctor, I'd ask you maybe just put the other X-rays aside for the
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I've given the court deputy copies of
11 the report. Would the Court like them handed up or is the Court already
12 in possession of the doctor's report?
13 JUDGE HUNT: I was hoping you were going to get the evidence
14 without the content of the report because, as I mentioned to you
15 yesterday, it is not expressed in the most helpful way. But the annexes
16 to it, will be very helpful because we can then work from these rather
17 than try to see something on the ELMO.
18 MR. GROOME: Okay. So I'd ask that they now be passed to the
20 A. [In English] One more.
21 JUDGE HUNT: Now, I would like to know which two of these plates
22 consist of copies of Exhibit 21.
23 MR. GROOME:
24 Q. Doctor, I'd ask you to take a look at a copy of your report which
25 is being handed to you and take a look at document number 35, a photocopy
1 of your original report?
2 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry, but you're talking about some document 35
4 MR. GROOME: That's the document I've just handed up to the
6 JUDGE HUNT: All right.
7 MR. GROOME:
8 Q. I would ask you to please refer us to the page of what we are now
9 going to refer to as the 1992 X-ray. Is there a photograph or a
10 reproduction of that X-ray plate in your report and, if so, tell us what
11 page number.
12 A. I have been given my second report and the original photographs
13 were attached to my first report dated the 27th of March, and there, there
14 is an original copy.
15 Q. I'd ask to you place that on the ELMO. I believe we will be able
16 to see that clearly on the ELMO?
17 JUDGE HUNT: I'm a little puzzled by the doctor's answer. He gave
18 us a report last year, 2000. That report was, I thought, made before the
19 X-rays were taken again this year.
20 MR. GROOME: He's talking about the 1992 X-ray at this time, Your
21 Honour, which he's saying now he did not include in the report you have
22 before you now, but in his original report. He has a very good
23 reproduction of it here now that we will be able to see on the ELMO and I
24 would propose that --
25 JUDGE HUNT: That will be a copy of Exhibit 151, this one?
1 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE HUNT: I had asked about Exhibit 21. We will get to that
3 eventually, will we?
4 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE HUNT: All right. This one is Exhibit 151. Thank you.
6 MR. GROOME:
7 Q. Now the X-ray that you took on the 15th, or that was taken on the
8 15th of August 2001, can we from this point forward refer to that as the
9 2001 X-ray. And would I ask to you refer to the page on your report where
10 a reproduction of that X-ray is contained.
11 A. All the plates were reproduced in the annex to my report. On page
12 12 is a detail of the X-ray, of the heel. On page 13 is a comparison of
13 the fractures. Page 14 are photos which can be compared with the photos
14 of 1992, the X-rays. And the other photos are control X-rays, page 16 is
15 to note that there were no ulterior fractures. Page 17 are general
17 Q. Doctor, so is it true that the X-ray that is now Prosecution
18 Exhibit number 21 is reproduced on page 14 of your report? Is that
20 A. Could you please repeat the question for me?
21 JUDGE HUNT: What we want to know, doctor, is where we will find a
22 copy, a reproduction of the two X-rays which you have identified and which
23 have become Exhibit 21. I think they are on the ELMO next to you. We
24 want to see them in a document that we can follow. On what page of your
25 latest report will we find those reproduced?
1 A. 14.
2 JUDGE HUNT: 14.
3 MR. GROOME:
4 Q. Now, doctor we can not see the X-ray itself on the ELMO. I would
5 ask you to place your reproduction of Exhibit number 21 on the ELMO side
6 by side with the reproduction of the 1992 X-ray. Can you place both of
7 those on the ELMO next to each other?
8 JUDGE HUNT: Wait a moment, Mr. Groome. I'm sorry. I don't think
9 that we have still got an answer to the question I'm trying to seek.
10 There were two X-rays, as I saw it, that became Exhibit 21. Now the
11 document on page 14 that the doctor has referred to seems to be one X-ray,
12 not two. There were two separate x-rays.
13 MR. GROOME: I'll see if I can clear that up.
14 Q. Doctor on page 14 of your report, you're holding up now the
15 original of document or Exhibit number 21. On that are two impressions or
16 two exposures of an X-ray; is that correct?
17 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Was there not another what I would call a half
18 sheet that the doctor had?
19 MR. GROOME:
20 Q. Is this is, what you're holding up in your hand, the most suitable
21 X-ray taken in August of 2001 for comparison with the X-ray taken in
22 1992? Is that the most suitable one for comparison?
23 Okay, answer yes or no, please?
24 A. Yes, yes. [In English] It's the best one.
25 Q. And does it contain two exposures of the leg?
1 JUDGE HUNT: Well, clearly it does, but Mr. Groome what I want to
2 know is Exhibit 21 only that one sheet of X-ray with two exposures on it?
3 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Okay. As long as we've got it clear because there
5 was another half sheet, if I can say, that was floating around and I
6 thought the doctor had held them up together. It may be that he was
7 holding the 1992 X-ray up as well. I don't know.
8 MR. GROOME:
9 Q. Doctor, if you could follow my instructions as far as the ELMO --
10 A. This is the 1992 X-rays.
11 Q. Doctor, would you please place the reproduction of the 1992 X-ray
12 on the ELMO. Can you place that on the ELMO next to -- can you place it
13 along side of the reproduction of the 2001 X-ray.
14 MR. GROOME: I'd ask the technician if it's possible to zoom out
15 to take in both of those.
16 Q. Now, doctor, did you compare the 1992 X-ray with the 2001 X-ray?
17 A. Yes. Yes. I was able to compare them.
18 Q. First, let me ask you a few questions regarding them. Did you
19 compare the fibula or small bone of the lower leg in those two X-rays?
20 Did you compare those two bones?
21 A. Yes, I compared them. One shouldn't forget that it is not as easy
22 to reproduce photographs but we can see on the photographs, but I also
23 have the original X-rays. It is possible to see that the fibula is
24 intact. There are no fractures, and here, this fibula is deformed on the
25 outside, and the inside of the bone is also different. So I also have the
1 original X-rays that confirm the differences.
2 Q. Doctor --
3 A. This is the fibula.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Just one moment, because this has to be able to be
5 read later. The deformed one to which you refer, doctor, that you're
6 pointing to, that was in the 2001 X-ray, was it?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, 2001. And this one is 1992.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, but doctor, when you say "here" and "here,"
9 that's all that comes down on the transcript. We want to be able to read
10 this later and understand what it is you're talking about.
11 Now, you said you compared the two fibulas. The 1992 fibula was
12 not injured in any way, but the 2001 fibula is deformed. Is that correct?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
15 MR. GROOME:
16 Q. Doctor, I would ask you to take the pen in front of you and write
17 1992 on the reproduction that represents the 1992 X-ray. There is a pen
18 on the table in front of you.
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. I'd ask to you write 2001 on the other X-ray. Doctor, I would
21 just ask you to take a look at what you marked on the X-ray closest to
23 JUDGE HUNT: I'm afraid the doctor has got the wrong year. It's
24 1982 he's written it should be 1992.
25 MR. GROOME:
1 Q. I'd ask you to write 1992 on the X-ray or the reproduction on your
2 left. Now I would ask you on the X-ray or the reproduction of the X-ray
3 2001 X-ray, would you please circle the deformity that you're now
4 referring to?
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. Now, would you please circle the same area on the 1992 X-ray which
7 does not indicate the same deformity?
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. Now, doctor, did you also examine the tibia or large bone of the
10 lower leg?
11 A. Yes. I also examined the tibia.
12 Q. And can you describe for us your findings regarding your
13 comparison of the large bone in the 1992 X-ray and that of the 2001
15 A. We also have other X-rays which can explain or confirm this.
16 Let's take the 1992 one. There is a fracture which starts here and goes
17 up to here, so at an angle as you can see, like this. Also, from the take
18 in front, you have the top point and the lowest point in this direction.
19 If you look at the fracture in 1992, it is spiral in form, a fracture,
20 which is usually provoked in football, whose leg is fixed by the heel and
21 then he does a pirouette. This is a fracture that one frequently finds
22 among skiers, ladies walking in the street with a high heels which get
23 caught between the stones.
24 If we look at the fracture of 2001, but you can see that better on
25 another X-ray, that we have here.
1 Q. Before you move any X-ray I'd like to ask you a few questions on
2 the X-ray?
3 JUDGE HUNT: Before you go, the doctor has made a very good
4 point. When you asked him to select the X-rays which most -- which best
5 provide a comparison, the 1992 one on the left is clearly a side-on view
6 and not a head-on view whereas the two that we see in the document marked
7 2001 appear even to me to be head-on views. So can we have one or the
8 other annexes to his report, because he's obviously got one there, which
9 has a side-on view with which we can compare the 1992 X-ray on the
10 left-hand side?
11 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I'll do that. I just want him to
12 mark a few --
13 JUDGE HUNT: Before you do it, though, can we just get the
14 exhibits correct and then we can let the doctor -- because he wants to
15 refer to a number of different ones to demonstrate the alterations. And
16 I think we should have them all in evidence.
17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
18 Q. The reproduction that's on the right that you've marked the
19 deformity in the fibula, I would just ask to you write the number 1 on the
20 bottom of that. We will call this the first X-ray that you're referring
21 to in your testimony. Would you please write the number one on the bottom
22 of that X-ray on the right.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. Now, is there another X-ray that you took which you think is more
25 suitable for comparison of the large bone or tibia of the leg? Please
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 answer yes or no for the transcript.
2 A. For the fibula that you asked me about a moment ago, you have here
3 a side-on view, this one, because this is the left leg and the right leg,
4 and here again, left and right. And on the fibula, the question you put
5 to me a moment ago, you can see here that the discontinuity. It was
6 cracked like this and like this.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Can we have the number of the page in your report?
8 It's not sufficiently clear I'm afraid, doctor, on the ELMO.
9 MR. GROOME:
10 Q. Doctor, what page in the annex is this new X-ray that you're
11 showing us now?
12 A. 15, page 15. All the pages have been numbered. Page 15. One
13 cannot make a mistake. All the reproductions have been numbered so as not
14 to be confused.
15 JUDGE HUNT: We cannot read the number on the foot of the document
16 you've got there. That's why I asked you. Now you've told us it's 15.
17 That's all we want to know for the moment. Now, can we have this marked
18 in some way as an exhibit?
19 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I'm going to ask that the first
20 one that he's referred to which bears the mark 2001 and has number 1
21 circled, that be tendered into evidence as 21.1.
22 JUDGE HUNT: That will change the number from 21 to 21.1. Yes.
23 MR. GROOME:
24 Q. Doctor, before you make any marks on the plate, I want to ask you
25 to put 2001 on the bottom. I see you've done that and I would ask, Your
1 Honour, that this document be marked as Prosecution or tendered as
2 Prosecution Exhibit 21.2.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
4 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Exhibit P21.2.
6 MR. GROOME:
7 Q. Now, doctor, before you make any marks on it, I'm going to ask
8 to you return to the 1992 X-ray and I'm going to ask you to draw a
9 horizontal line to indicate the lowest -- where the fracture at its lowest
10 point is on the leg. Where did the fracture end on the lowest part of the
11 leg? Can you draw it with the blue pen, please, on the 1992 X-ray. On
12 the 1992 X-ray.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, you're marking it on the wrong one. See the
14 one which has 1992? Yes.
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. Would I also ask you to mark the upper-most portion of the
17 fracture. Okay. And I would ask you to draw a line parallel to the
18 fracture to indicate the angle at which the fracture occurred --
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. -- on the 1992 X-ray.
21 A. To answer your question, on page 13 of my report, you can find the
22 various angles of the X-rays.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. The diagram. Of the fracture in 1992, there is a line indicating
25 it. The direction of the fracture that I X-rayed on the 15th of August
1 goes along this line.
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would ask that page 13 of the annex be
3 marked or tendered as Prosecution Exhibit 21.3.
4 JUDGE HUNT: That's page 13. Right, any objection, Mr. Domazet?
5 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE HUNT: Unfortunately the documents that I was given, at
7 least the copies of the documents I was given, it's marked page 11 of 11
8 but it's obviously the same document. That will be Exhibit P21.3.
9 MR. GROOME:
10 Q. Now, doctor I would ask you just to point out with the pointer the
11 angle of the fracture that you observed on the 1992 X-ray. On page 13 of
12 your annex.
13 A. Here it is. This is one angle. And one needs to have what school
14 children have, to measure the angle. Regarding the question of angle,
15 these are angles. This is a method to calculate the angle relying on the
16 X-ray. To have the real angle, one needs to have three dimensions. But
17 this shows the whole layout. In medicine we don't talk about angles but
18 about a plane, which is horizontal, so to speak. Based on the X-rays that
19 I took on the 15th of August, you see a direction that is almost vertical,
20 but I would -- I did not speak of angles.
21 Q. I would ask you to place your pen along side and leave it for a
22 moment, along the plane of the fracture that you observed in the 2001
23 X-ray. And now would you shift the pen to parallel the angle of the 1992
25 A. [Indicates]
1 Q. Okay. I'd ask that you take 21.3 off the ELMO now at this point.
2 Would you remove page 13 of your report from the ELMO?
3 JUDGE HUNT: Well, despite the preference of the doctor for the
4 word plane, I'm not quite sure that I understand what it means other than
5 the angle. Is it just a technicality, doctor, or can a layman describe
6 that as the angle through the bone at which the fracture has gone?
7 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
8 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry, doctor, but we are getting no translation
9 at all. You'll have to start again, I'm afraid.
10 THE INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon, Your Honour. I failed to
11 switch on the microphone.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Could you give us the description again or the
13 explanation again, doctor, I'm sorry, but the translators didn't have
14 their microphone on.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you go to a butcher and who
16 takes his axe and he's going to cut a piece of meat along a certain line,
17 but in this case, it's as if you take a branch of a tree, you put it on
18 your knee and you break it. In that case, you have a surface which is
19 irregular. But the general impression is it gives you a certain
20 direction, a certain inclination. It's like a piece of ground that you
21 look at and you say that it is slopey or hilly or it has an angle of ten
22 degrees. It is a piece of raised ground. If you go to Switzerland, you
23 climb the mountains, you see a crevice which is almost vertical, but it is
24 difficult to measure the degree. You would have to measure it and it
25 would be between zero and 90 degrees.
1 So that is why I don't talk about degrees because this can only
2 provoke dispute. We talk about a plane. If you look at the leg, you look
3 at the average inclination or direction of the fracture. I hope I have
4 managed to explaining myself.
5 JUDGE HUNT: How about the expression, general direction, so that
6 the general direction of the 1992 fracture is as shown in your document.
7 And the general direction of the fracture that is shown in the 2001 X-ray
8 is as shown in your document? Would that be a fair enough use of the
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It is an approximate
12 MR. GROOME: I would ask that page 13 of the doctor's report be
13 removed from the ELMO. Perhaps if the usher could assist the doctor in
14 just organising the remaining documents so that we can see them. Just
15 page 13, if page 13 is removed.
16 I would ask that the reproduction on the ELMO -- we just had the
17 reproduction of the 1992 X-ray and page 15 of the doctor's annex, the
18 profile of the leg.
19 Q. Doctor, I would ask to you place your pen to show the angle of the
20 fracture on the X-ray itself, just as you did on page 13. Would you
21 please place your pen on the 1992 X-ray parallel to the fracture? Just
22 place your pen on the X-ray and leave it there for a moment.
23 A. [Indicates]
24 Q. I'd ask to you place the pen, leave the pointer where it is, place
25 the pen to show us the plane of the fracture on the 2001 X-ray. Page 15
1 of your report.
2 A. [Indicates]
3 Q. You've just drawn a line. Is that to indicate the upper-most
4 portion of the fracture?
5 A. This is the upper part and the lower part, the superior and
7 Q. Now, doctor, in addition to examining the tibia and the fibula or
8 the large and small bone of the lower leg, did you also examine and
9 compare the structures of the heel?
10 JUDGE HUNT: Are we going to go back to the length of the
11 fractures? Because as I understand it, the doctor thinks that that is
12 very important.
13 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, sorry.
14 Q. Doctor, before we leave the fracture of the Tibia and fibula, I
15 want to ask you one additional question.
16 JUDGE HUNT: It is the tibia you mean, don't you?
17 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry. The tibia. The large bone.
18 Q. Were you able to measure the length of the fractures?
19 A. This is also to be found on the diagram and I measured the length
20 of the fracture at this point. This was the fracture. It starts there
21 and stops here. Which means that it starts at the superior point up here
22 and it stops there. You can see it on the photograph. So the elements
23 allow us to localise the two points, as I have indicated here, which gives
24 you the length of the fracture. This hasn't been properly calculated.
25 Just one moment.
1 The other fracture goes from here. I can now see that the
2 indications have slipped but there you have the two elements. No. I
3 apologise. I seem to be having trouble myself now, getting my
4 bearings. This is the first fracture, the top of it, and it goes down to
5 the bottom here. And the other is from here to here. It's very difficult
6 to do this on a photograph.
7 This is the inferior point down here. The measurements were for
8 another version, because at the beginning I was a little worried about the
9 fact and troubled by the fact that we didn't think that the photographs
10 were comparables. That is why I added in my report this other study. So
11 this is the effect of different apparatuses and different moments and
12 conditions under which the X-rays were taken.
13 Q. Doctor, let me ask you a few questions. Given this variability
14 that you're now telling us about, given what you're saying is possible
15 uncertainty, are you able to say or are you able to accurately compare
16 the length of the fractures?
17 JUDGE HUNT: What the doctor has already said is that this diagram
18 that is 21.3 was compiled by reference to the earlier, that the 2000
19 X-rays, and therefore he is not satisfied it is accurate. But what I
20 would like, if we can, from the doctor, is to, by reference to the 2001
21 X-rays and the 1992 X-rays, is he able to tell us what the difference in
22 the length of the fracture is.
23 MR. GROOME:
24 Q. Are you able to answer that question, doctor?
25 A. The exact length was measured. It was 20 centimetres, 3
1 millimetres. It goes from there to there, 20.3.
2 Q. Which X-ray are you talking about, doctor, the X-ray taken in
4 A. 2001, yes. They were 90 -- as regards my second report, I am
5 dealing with the 15th of August 2001. So the first report includes all
6 the X-rays.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Look, doctor, please, do not tell us details from
8 your first report because you yourself concede that they are not likely
9 to be accurate. What I want to know, and it's very important, as I
10 understand it, from having read your report, is that the length of the
11 fracture shown in the most recent X-rays is a different length to that
12 which is shown in the 1992 X-rays. And what I want to obtain from you is
13 your assessment of what the lengths are. Now I understanding you to have
14 said that the 2001 X-ray shows the length of the fracture as being 20.3
15 centimetres. What does the 1992 X-ray show it to be?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 15 centimetres. 15.2, in fact.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Are you able -- you've been drawing little lines.
18 Are you able on the documents we have now got, the reproductions of the
19 two X-rays, or three X-rays, to show us where you find those marks?
20 Now, in the 1992 one, let's take that one first, the one with the
21 grids across it. You seem to have drawn a line on the left-hand side of
22 the bone on one. Just take it -- that's right. Now you see -- yes,
23 that's one mark there, and you have another mark up on the top on the
24 right-hand side of the bone next to the fibula. You see where you've
25 drawn that line?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The figure I used to trace this was
2 this one here.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Please, doctor, just would you just answer my
4 question? We will get along a lot more quickly if you do. On that
5 document which you've now got your right hand on, you have drawn a line on
6 the left-hand side of the bone, just where one of those grids goes across,
7 it and you've drawn another line, so far as I can see, on the right-hand
8 side of the bone, somewhat higher up. Can you see where you've done that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One should always take, in order to
10 compare and to answer your question, the extreme points. Here the extreme
11 point is the superior one up here and the second extreme point is the
12 inferior or lower point there. So the upper and lower. So those two
13 points are reproduced on this diagram; that is to say, the two points on
14 this diagram represent the plane of the fracture.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, I still want to know what the mark is on the
16 right-hand X-ray there, of the 1992 document. You drew two lines. You've
17 pointed one of -- to one of them just then. And you can follow up -- no,
18 no, look. Just take the one where your pen is now pointing towards. Go
19 to the right-hand side of it. I think the usher has got his finger very
20 close to it. Now, can you follow up a line that appears to be the
21 fracture in that bone? So that on the fibula side of it, there is another
22 line which I saw you draw, and I want to know what it is.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the fracture.
24 JUDGE HUNT: No, no, doctor. It's the one next to it, on the
25 right-hand side of it. You see the one that's the head-on view? Yes.
1 Now, that's right. Is that the fracture?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE HUNT: So the line you had drawn on the right-hand side
4 of it is the top of the fracture? Is that right?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE HUNT: And is that the 15.2 centimetres that you've given
8 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
9 JUDGE HUNT: We are getting no interpretation again.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Yes.
11 A. [English] You see I'm troubled on the [Interpretation] I see that
12 I'm not quite clear on the numbers with regard to millimetres and
13 centimetres but actually I can reproduce what we see on the right-hand
14 side, starting from the extreme points, these four points, in order to
15 measure the maximum size of the fractures. We are now discussing
16 measurement. On the second photo that I took.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Before you go to the most recent one, can we get
18 your agreement that it is between those marks that you've put that you
19 have measured the 15.2 centimetres?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During the discussion, I was taking
21 a look, and giving it some thought, to look at the diagram again. The
22 point I took is the dome of the heel to have an exactitude here. We
23 measured the top and the bottom. That's how we measured it.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, I'm sorry to interrupt you but that diagram
25 clearly, where it shows 15.2 centimetres, is not showing the length of the
1 fracture. That's what's got me worried. And I thought that you had said
2 that those figures had slipped in some way. What I want you to do is to
3 show us on the X-ray where you get this figure of 15.2 centimetres from.
4 Do you see my problem? You've got 15.2 centimetres from what you call the
5 dome. Now, nobody suggests, do they, that the fracture started down at
6 the dome, so where do you get this figure of 15.2 centimetres from?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you look at the diascope on
8 which the X-rays are placed, if you do that, then we place a line or a
9 thread and we are able to measure in this way. That is how we measure
10 distance on bones.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, I'll only ask you once more and after that
12 I'm going to give up. You will see in the diagram that you have a figure
13 of 15.2 centimetres which is measured from what you have described as the
14 dome of the bone. Now that clearly is not where the fracture started.
15 You also told us that the figures in that diagram had somehow slipped.
16 Now, what I am trying to find out from you, and it seems to me such a
17 simple question, how do you measure the length of the fracture as 15.2
18 centimetres when you look at the X-ray?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was just saying that we take the
20 dome, a point which is fixed, that has nothing to do with the thing we are
21 examining, and we take a thread, a horizontal line, in fact, and from that
22 horizontal line we take a measurement and we read the superior point that
23 we find. And we can't go beyond that point in another direction. So the
24 superior point is marked by -- is hidden by the bone but nevertheless we
25 try to find the superior point on all the X-rays of the same object taken
1 at the same time, and so it is a point which I indicated here and we
2 look at the -- try and find the inferior point, the lowest point. This is
3 a more certain point here. We have this horizontal here, and we mark that
4 point and then measure. That is how we measure fractures.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Well, now, doctor, then it wasn't, if I may suggest
6 to you, a fracture that was 15.2 centimetres long. It was a fracture
7 which started at a point 15.2 centimetres above the dome and which may
8 have ended at 8.4 centimetres above the dome. So that the horizontal
9 difference between the two was 6.8 centimetres. It's not the length of
10 the fracture. It's just that the fracture commences 6.8 centimetres
11 horizontally above.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE HUNT: That's the 1992 one. Now, is the exercise on the
14 left-hand side, the 2001 measurements, so that the highest point of the
15 fracture is 20.3 centimetres above the dome and the lowest point is 3.9
16 centimetres above the dome, so there is a horizontal difference of 16.4
17 centimetres? Now, is that what we are dealing with? Are those the
18 differences you see? No good just nodding. It won't be in the
19 transcript. Are you agreeing with me?
20 A. [English] 200 per cent.
21 JUDGE HUNT: Now, I think I can understand it, Mr. Groome. I'm
22 sorry, the doctor had told us about the difference in lengths. I hope I
23 have explained to myself what it is the doctor is referring to. It's a
24 horizontal difference of 6.8 centimetres for the 1992 fracture, and it's a
25 horizontal difference of 16.4 centimetres for the 2001 X-ray shown.
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. Doctor, if I may take it just one step further, if we subtract
3 16.4 -- if we subtract 6.8 centimetres from 16.4 centimetres, we end up
4 with a difference of 9.2 centimetres between the uppermost portion and the
5 lowermost portion of these fractures; is that correct?
6 JUDGE HUNT: In a horizontal plane.
7 MR. GROOME:
8 Q. In a horizontal plane?
9 A. Well, you are now comparing potatoes and other vegetables. We can
10 discuss measurements and planes if it is the same victim, but there are
11 other elements that tell us that this is not the same person. So if we
12 are discussing a length, the principle is, is it the same fracture, and
13 the answer we have to say is yes or no, is it or isn't it? So I do
14 apologise. I was really very troubled by the question about measurement,
15 because I never thought of this. This question, in fact, is not one that
16 we are disputing. When I look at the X-rays that I have here, I see
17 different fractures. I'm still not speaking about two different people,
18 but I'm speaking about two different fractures, the position, the strength
19 and stress used. So I am looking at the diagrams and at the planes and I
20 am -- the conclusion I have come to is that the fractures are of two
21 different people. You led me astray through some of your questions but
22 that doesn't matter. We get back to basics. I apologise for having to
23 say that.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, perhaps I should explain to you our
25 respective functions in this case. The Prosecution has to demonstrate
1 that there is no reasonable possibility that these are X-rays of the same
2 person. And that decision as to whether they have proved that is ours.
3 That's why I have been very anxious to find out from you what it is you're
4 saying so that I can understand it. And you have demonstrated, along
5 these lines, that the fractures are in entirely different places. That's
6 the first thing. And the Prosecution, as I understand it, is going to
7 take to you the heel bone, but before we go to the heel bone, is there
8 anything else, when you compare these two X-rays, that has persuaded you
9 that they are of different people?
10 MR. GROOME:
11 Q. Doctor, before we move to the heel structure, I'd like to ask one
12 more question regarding the fractures we are now discussing at length, if
13 I may, Your Honour. Doctor, earlier in your testimony you described the
14 fracture indicated in the 1992 X-ray as a spiral fracture. Can you please
15 characterise the fracture in the 2001 X-ray? Is that a spiral fracture?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Can you please describe how somebody would incur the injury that
18 you observed in the 2001 X-ray?
19 A. I did not address that question in my report but I can answer it,
20 or at least try to do so. The fracture that I find on the 1992 X-rays are
21 fractures that can be called spiral. All tibia fractures are spiral. It
22 is twisted. As I was saying a moment ago, among -- one finds such
23 fractures in football players, skiers; it is a fracture caused by tortion.
24 The fracture that I examined, the principal plane is one that goes from
25 the front backwards. So if one is facing someone and you have a plank,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 you can break the plank, and you have a fracture -- I need a piece of
2 paper. You have a plank and a fracture like this. Then, it would be
3 demonstrated in this way. And you see that it is like something has
4 slipped. The fracture that I have before me from 1992 is a fracture one
5 comes across, a pedestrian who is hit by a car in a traffic accident. Or
6 as a pedestrian, so this is a fracture which is due to external influence.
7 The leg is folded or -- excuse me, I have to get up. Leg moves forward.
8 I hope I have managed to demonstrate. If you are hit from the front, the
9 leg is going to be raised and you have a fracture like this. It has
10 different characteristics therefore, compared to those in the first X-ray.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Before you ask another question, I think we better
12 clear something up in the transcript. The one you're talking about, about
13 the pedestrian being hit by a car in a traffic accident, is that the 1992
14 or the 2001 X-ray?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 2001.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. There is just a reference to 1992. It
17 may be a slip of the tongue.
18 MR. GROOME:
19 Q. So, doctor, would it be fair to say that the two fractures are of
20 different types and caused by different mechanisms?
21 A. Exactly.
22 Q. Now, doctor, did you also compare the structure of the heel of the
23 two X-rays, the X-rays taken in August 2001 and the 1992 X-ray?
24 A. In 1992, here are the details. We see the heel, which is pointed,
25 and what I found here, it is rounded. One could say there was arthrosis
1 but if there were arthrosis then this one should be pointed and not
2 rounded because with aging--
3 JUDGE HUNT: Wait a minute, doctor. What page of your report are
4 you pointing to there? Is it page 17 or page 18?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 18, page 18. The same photograph
6 can be found on another page too. No?
7 MR. GROOME:
8 Q. Let's just work with one photograph at a time, doctor.
9 JUDGE HUNT: And these are the 2001 again, are they?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 2001. Yes.
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would tender page 18 into evidence as
13 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
14 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. That will be Exhibit P21.4.
16 MR. GROOME:
17 Q. Now, doctor, I would ask you to go step by step and ask you to
18 indicate certain things on the X-rays that are now before us. I would ask
19 you just to work with the documents. Please do not put anything else on
20 the ELMO at this time.
21 Doctor, I'd ask you to circle the portion of the heel structure on
22 the 1992 X-ray that you observed or you examined. Can you circle the
23 portion or the area that you examined? On the 1992 X-ray? On the 1992
25 JUDGE HUNT: On the 1992 X-ray, doctor.
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. Okay, doctor, just the 1992 X-ray. Can you describe -- I see
3 you've drawn a line now to indicate a portion of the 1992 X-ray. Can you
4 please describe for us the shape of that structure? Just the 1992 X-ray.
5 A. It is pointed here. The lowest point of the calcaneum, as we call
7 Q. Now, you've also drawn a line to indicate the same structure on
8 the 2001 X-ray. I'd ask you to now describe how the -- how the structure
9 appears in the 2001 X-ray.
10 A. This point here is rounded, this area here.
11 Q. Now, doctor, after examining the X-ray from -- purported to be
12 from 1992 and those that you were involved in taking in August of 2001,
13 are you able to say with a degree of scientific certainty whether or not
14 they are of the same person?
15 JUDGE HUNT: Are you talking only of the heel at the moment?
16 MR. GROOME: No, of the two sets of X-rays.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Well, scientific certainty is not the test we are
18 dealing with. You have to persuade us that they could not reasonably be
19 the same person. Now, I know doctors and lawyers have this problem
20 throughout, but that's the test. And scientific certainty doesn't mean a
21 thing from a lawyer's point of view.
22 MR. GROOME:
23 Q. Doctor, after examining or comparing the X-rays from 1992 with
24 those that you were involved in taken in August of 2001, are you able to
25 say whether or not these two -- the people or the bones depicted in both
1 of these X-rays could not reasonably be of the same person?
2 A. [No interpretation]
3 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear your answer.
4 A. These are not the same persons, but not only relying on this
5 point. There are different points. We cannot rely on a single point.
6 That would be dangerous. One particular point can be due to the way in
7 which an X-ray was taken. But here, there is difference over here, up
8 here, different talus and other points that cannot be found. So it's
9 not just one point but several points that differ. For example, I haven't
10 written it in my report --
11 JUDGE HUNT: Can we take them one by one? You've shown us the
12 point of the heel. That's the first one. Now, what's your next point?
13 Let's take them one by one.
14 MR. GROOME:
15 Q. Is there another structure on the two heels that is not similar?
16 One by one, doctor.
17 A. This is the first. Here above, it can't quite be seen on the
18 reproduction but I have the originals over here. This too is extremely
19 pointed and on the second take, in August 2001, it is rounded.
20 Q. Doctor, I'd ask you to put the number 2 next to those two
21 structures you're now referring to.
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. Are there other structures that you can observe in the comparison
24 of these two X-rays that are different?
25 A. I should like to assist by saying that I took the heel several
1 times. There are small differences in angle, to make sure I'm not
2 mistaken. So we tried to test ourselves, and that is why here we have a
3 point three, a kind of hole in the talus, which one can not find on the
4 other. On any of these other X-rays. One could not find it.
5 Q. So you found a hole in the talus of the 1992 X-ray that you did
6 not find in the 2001 X-ray; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Are there any other differences in the heel structure?
9 JUDGE HUNT: Just before we go on, is that hole you're referring
10 to, the one that you thought might have been relevant to traction, where
11 traction has been applied?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you repeat, please?
13 JUDGE HUNT: In your report, your most recent report, you referred
14 to a hole that you had seen or some mark on the heel, I've forgotten
15 which, which you said was consistent with there having been traction
16 applied. Is this the hole?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Here I shall mark it with a
18 number 4. That is the trace of traction, which is not found on this other
19 X-ray. I should also like to make an observation. You have here the same
20 heel but the way in which the X-ray was taken differed slightly, and you
21 see here that there is no rounding, but you could say it depends on the
22 X-ray. This was an X-ray taken shortly after the X-ray so there was no
23 traction. This was taken later. Secondly.
24 Traction is achieved by attachment to the bone for days and the
25 human body reacts by calculosis, calcification, which prevents the -- this
1 is known as the fire well, a kind of envelope of the bone and we see that
2 here, but not over here. So this could not have been due to traction.
3 JUDGE HUNT: But the hole, the number 4 that you've shown, you
4 think that that was consistent with traction?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That is correct.
6 JUDGE HUNT: But the absence of that hole on the 1992 X-ray would
7 not be significant, I suggest, because the X-ray is usually taken before
8 the traction is applied. That's so, is it not? It's a matter of ordinary
9 orthopaedic practice. You're nodding. I'm sorry, doctor, but it has to
10 be recorded in the transcript. But the point, you still haven't said
11 yes. Are you not able to say it?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot put it better than
13 Mr. President, Your Honour, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Well, thank you for that compliment. I just want to
15 make sure it's recorded somewhere. And whilst we are on this question of
16 traction, may I ask you what is really an orthopaedic question? Is it
17 usual for there to be traction applied if only the tibia is broken and not
18 both bones?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is what I thought about seeing
20 the traction in our area. In the western countries, traction is not
21 applied. We have various other means. Traction is applied in situations
22 of war or poverty or lack of surgical resources. Not only the shortage of
23 surgical equipment but also medicines, because any intervention on the
24 skeleton, surgery, is -- opens the possibility of infection and
25 osteomyelitis. And anyone familiar with bone diseases knows that once you
1 get osteomyelitis once and one can never tell when it can be treated.
2 Shortage of antibiotics, medical materials, all this leads -- encourages
4 Another minor detail that is not to be found in my report is the
5 position of the traction is uncustomary in our area because traction is
6 one centimetre too high and too much forward. If in our areas we were to
7 apply such traction, there is the risk of affecting the nerves and the
8 tendons and the arteries that are to be found here, and so it is very
9 risky. And if anyone did this in this particular position, it must have
10 been a doctor with an enormous amount of experience. I immediately
11 thought of Jozsef Trueta [phoen], the orthopaedic surgeon of the
12 antifascist forces in the civil war in Spain. He became a professor of
13 orthopaedics at London University. He would be somebody who could do
14 this. The doctor who treated Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic in Serbia is a really
15 great doctor with a capital D. It is strange that a little mark like this
16 can lead to observations of this kind.
17 JUDGE HUNT: But, doctor, equally it could have been in times of
18 stress or war and by a doctor who didn't quite know what he was doing. Is
19 that not reasonably possible? I'm trying to reduce this case to what are
20 the real issues, you see. Is it reasonably possible that a doctor without
21 having served in the civil law -- civil war with the colleague you refer
22 to, has made perhaps a bad error of judgement, but is it reasonably
23 possible that it was put there for the purposes of traction? And that it
24 did not need to be a fracture of both bones because in the circumstances
25 they may not have had metal pins or anything like that available to them.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. If there is a fracture of one
2 bone, one would avoid intervening even with a needle. If there is a
3 fracture of two bones, if possible, it needs to be treated surgically with
4 a cushion of nail or a platelet. There is no reason to put a needle
5 unless two bones are broken. The fact that a needle was put was because
6 they were obliged to apply traction. As I was saying, due to lack of
7 material and also because this was necessary, because of the nature of the
9 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. We will, now -- Mr. Groome, you want to start
10 something knew?
11 MR. GROOME: Maybe just finish up this area before the break.
12 Q. Doctor, taking the totality of the all the comparisons that you
13 made of the tibia, of the fibula, and the heel structures of the bone, are
14 you able to render us an opinion whether or not the leg of the 1992 X-ray
15 and that of Mr. Vasiljevic taken in August of 2001, could they reasonably
16 be the same person?
17 A. No. They were not of the same person.
18 JUDGE HUNT: The test, I'm sorry to correct you, Mr. Groome, is it
19 reasonably possible that they were the same person?
20 MR. GROOME: Let me rephrase the test.
21 Q. Is it reasonably possible that they are of the same person?
22 A. No.
23 MR. GROOME: Thank you, doctor. May I suggest this is a place to
25 JUDGE HUNT: Right. We will resume again at 11.30.
1 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.30 a.m.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome?
4 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Doctor, in addition to what you've testified to earlier today, did
6 your examination of the 1992 X-ray indicate some irregularities regarding
7 the labelling of that X-ray?
8 A. What I was struck by was that the identification was written in
9 handwriting on that X-ray. There was a label, a sticker, which was stuck
10 to the X-rays. Is that what you wanted to ask me?
11 Q. Well, in addition to that, were there other indications on or in
12 the labelling portion of the X-ray that you found irregular?
13 A. The irregularity -- I'm struck by the irregularities afterwards,
14 after the study and after having made my conclusions that it was an
15 X-ray -- X-rays of two different people. After that, I looked at the
16 other differences, but let me repeat, I am a physician and what I'm
17 interested in first and foremost are the medical aspects. Everything else
18 is -- are the technical aspects, which, in principle, do not come under my
19 realm of expertise. I am not qualified to give opinion on those
21 Q. Let me draw your attention to the bottom of the X-ray and there
22 are several white boxes or the outlines of white boxes. Do you know which
23 boxes I'm referring to?
24 A. I have paid attention to that part. I speak about that part in my
25 first report where I speak about the identification of the document. It
1 is customary that documents are described in a certain way, standard
2 procedure. On the first document, I mention something that I noticed.
3 This is the detail and I have photographed that detail.
4 What do we see here? If we look at this bottom half here, let me
5 make a sketch to make what I want to say clearer. What we can see on the
6 back, this sticker covers another sticker, and when you take a closer look
7 at this, which I did and photographed, here it is, you gain the impression
8 that a piece of paper has been stuck over the X-ray and as it was not
9 exactly superimposed, you can see the traces of the sticky material. If I
10 were to take a piece of paper like this, for example, and fold it over so,
11 you see? Then I take another piece of paper and put it inside between the
12 folds. You can see that this has been folded. But as I say, these are
13 just details that one can notice, but it is not up to me to explain them,
14 to give them an explanation of how they got there.
15 Q. In your experience as somebody who has examined numerous X-rays,
16 would this be something that you would expect to find on an X-ray?
17 A. Well, every X-ray has some form of identification. Here we can
18 see the name of the person, the person who requested the X-ray, and the
19 date. This is either prepared before the actual X-ray is taken or it is
20 placed on the X-ray afterwards. So it contains usually the name of the
21 patient, the date the X-ray was taken and the author of the X-ray, the
22 person who took the X-ray. Which I can't find here. This has been
23 written in handwriting, we see a date here, and it is not a very legible
24 piece of writing, and on the basis of that, we don't know who took the
1 Q. Doctor, I'd ask you --
2 A. Whether it was some sort of spirit or who actually took it.
3 Q. -- to just with your pen circle the areas which appear to you to
4 be other labels placed on this X-ray. Would you just circle those areas
5 that indicate that to you?
6 A. Well, this has been stuck on, and there was -- it was
7 superimposed. I can -- by looking at this, I can count three stickers,
8 and if you take a closer look, and have the X-ray in your hands, there is
9 a sticker that starts here and ends there, and then you have another
10 sticker that begins -- here it is, not very visible. You can only barely
11 make it out. But in my opinion, that is another sticker. And somebody
12 tried to place the sticker on several times. I don't know actually what
13 happened but it's not standard procedure. What is usually done is one
14 sticker is stuck on and that's it, that's the end of it.
15 Q. Doctor, I'd ask to you put a number 1 next to the first sticker
16 that you see on the bottom of this X-ray, just to indicate which one --
17 where that is. Just, not on the X-ray itself, doctor, on the exhibit
18 that's on the ELMO, please.
19 A. No, no. I can't say which sticker was the first and which was
20 stuck on subsequently. I don't know. I can't say that. But I can see
21 three stickers. I don't know which came first. I can't answer that.
22 Q. I'm not asking you to tell us which came first. Can you put the
23 numbers 1, 2 and 3 next to the three different labels that you see
24 evidence of on the X-ray?
25 A. Before I do that, in my first report, you have a detail here, and
1 you can see the arrows marking those stickers. So there you have your
2 answer. You have the arrows, 1, 2, 3, perhaps even four stickers. So you
3 have it marked on that page. I can repeat what I did but you already have
4 it on my report, page 3 of the first report. You have the arrows
5 indicating the different stickers.
6 Q. I would ask you to just repeat those markings on the exhibit
7 that's on the ELMO.
8 A. Shall I place a number 1 or 5, 6?
9 Q. Yes. Number 1, 2, and 3 to indicate the three different labels
10 that you see.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. Thank you, doctor. Now, during the course of your examination of
13 Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic, did you interview him regarding how he injured his
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you summarise for us how it was he told you he injured his
18 A. Well, I asked him how he had injured his leg, and I also asked him
19 to reproduce the position he was in. And he was on the examining table in
20 order to demonstrate this to me. He said that he had fallen to the ground
21 and that he was on his right -- left-hand side, left-hand side, and that
22 his right leg was behind him, according to what he said, and his left leg
23 was a little to the front. Now, in that position, a horse would have
24 fallen on his leg. So in this way, the inferior, internal leg.
25 Q. Did he say that a horse did fall on his leg?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. Now, the injuries that you --
3 A. I didn't ask him but he volunteered the information. He said that
4 there was a horse which fell on his leg.
5 Q. The injuries that you observed in the X-ray, the 2001 X-ray, were
6 they consistent with his description of how he received a broken leg?
7 A. If it occurred on a terrain which was not an even one, on a
8 rougher terrain, then I would say that the explanation he gave me is
9 consistent with the fracture that I myself observed.
10 Q. And would the fractures that you observed in the 2001 X-ray also
11 be consistent with somebody slipping and falling on a steep, grassy
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I'm going to ask that the witness now be shown Prosecution
15 document number 62, a translation of the medical history form which is
16 already in evidence as P138.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time I would tender Prosecution
18 document number 62 a translation of an already -- an exhibit that's
19 already in evidence.
20 JUDGE HUNT: The Exhibit 138 was the English translation -- the
21 Serbian language one, was it?
22 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE HUNT: I thought this went in with it. I've seen it
25 MR. GROOME: I do not believe it did, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Have you any objection to this,
2 Mr. Domazet?
3 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. It will be Exhibit P62.
5 MR. GROOME:
6 Q. Doctor, Exhibit number 62 you've had an opportunity to see this
7 document already, haven't you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Are you are observations regarding the injury that you could see
10 on the X-ray that -- the 2001 X-ray, are they consistent with the
11 diagnosis indicated on lines 10 and 11 on this medical history form?
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Perhaps you could translate them for us, doctor. Ten
14 is a fracture of the tibia and something else. It's in Latin, you see.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Point 10, in the left-hand column,
16 in totality the tibular fractures are tibular, that is to say, it is the
17 big bone. And the fine bone on the left-hand side. I think there has
18 been a typing error. It says tibia but it should be fibula. So this
19 typist seems to have made a typing error just like our own typists do
20 from time to time. There are some other things too. Psychosis and so on.
21 JUDGE HUNT: You were referred to number 11, though, number 10 and
22 number 11. What is that?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's in Latin. It is Latin of
24 the middle ages. They are expressions that we don't use. We haven't
25 been using them since the 1950s, but fractura cruris is the lower leg.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 But this is really ancient Latin.
2 JUDGE HUNT: And what is the 1 sin?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What did you say?
4 JUDGE HUNT: Number 10 and number 11 have the figure 1 and then
5 the abbreviation, SIN. Is that another Latin expression?
6 A. Fen? Sinistra, sinistra, left.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. You think they have given the diagnosis
8 of a fracture of the tibia and the fibula; is that right?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Both legs. Both legs have
10 been marked as being fractured.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Both legs or both bones?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Bones. It's a fracture of the left
13 leg, two bones there.
14 JUDGE HUNT: And this would have been filled in, would it not,
15 after the X-rays?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that. I can't say.
17 Perhaps it was filled in before and afterwards. It is customary in an
18 emergency unit, is that the patient is brought in and a nurse taking the
19 X-rays places the X-rays at the disposal of the doctors. And to take an
20 X-ray, on an average you need 1 minute 20 seconds. You get the X-rays
21 after a minute and 20 seconds have gone by so that the doctor, the
22 specialist, will -- waits for the X-rays because he can get such a speedy
23 answer. So there is no need for him to do anything before he gets the
24 X-rays. So I think, it is my opinion, that the X-rays were taken first
25 and this was filled in afterwards because it is a speedy process.
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. Doctor, I want to draw your attention to line number 20. Does
3 this form indicate the date and the time that the person sustained their
5 A. That is something that I also noticed. I remarked that too. And
6 I was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Belgian army, the reserve forces, let us
7 not forget that, so I do have some knowledge as to procedure with respect
8 to accidents in wartime. And it is almost an obligation to fill in not
9 only the date but the time, the hour and minute, and specific
10 circumstances under which a lesion has occurred. The reason is a very
11 simple one and that is that the wounded, anybody who has been injured at
12 the end of a battle, resort to administration and the funds of the army to
13 be remunerated for the injuries sustained. They might seek their pension
14 rights. So if anybody asks for remuneration from the army, the army tries
15 to avoid having to pay out anything it need not. So they are very
16 meticulous in recording everything, in the administrative sense. And the
17 medical staff too have to fill this in so that they always have proof of
18 what the victim has sustained and that the situation corresponds to a
19 battle situation where the injuries occurred. That is why the date and
20 the hour and time is always introduced on all documents. And it usually
21 is on the left-hand side. You have the MP, military post number, and case
22 history and everything else. So this is a document which is a medical and
23 military document. But this document is not a complete one, but it is an
24 essential data bank for these purposes.
25 Q. And the date an hour of injury were left blank on this document;
1 is that correct? Did you answer yes?
2 A. [English] Yes, sorry.
3 Q. Now, would it be standard medical practice during the initial
4 interview or initial examination of an injured person to ask them how they
5 received their injury, assuming that the person was conscious at the time?
6 A. Certainly. We have to ask what the conditions were and normally,
7 there would have to be at least two witnesses. From time to time we
8 accept having just one witness. But we do have to have the testimony of
9 somebody, of an eye witness, to the accident, in order to complete the
10 dossier, the file. If we have no eye witnesses, well it becomes more
11 difficult, so we have to avoid that. So in order to know when we have a
12 valid witness, we have to have the time at which the accident took place,
13 for example, at 10.00. And if you ask the witness, "Where were you at
14 that particular time?" That is the technique we use, the administrative
15 techniques. So I am answering -- my answer is yes normally, but there are
16 situations where this doesn't always meet the regulations.
17 Q. And if the patient is conscious, wouldn't the doctor interview the
18 patient and ask the patient him or herself how it was they were injured?
19 A. It depends. We -- if we have nothing else to do, if the -- then
20 we spend a little time asking the patient. This will depend on the
21 assistants, because doctors are always very busy, busy. If they have
22 other victims, they are not going to waste their time interviewing the
23 person who has received the injury. It's usually up to the nurses, and of
24 course the doctor is usually not alone. He always has his assistants.
25 Q. I want to draw your attention to the third page of this exhibit
1 and ask you to read aloud the first paragraph of a note by Dr. Jovicevic?
2 A. Do you want me to read it out in French or in English?
3 Q. Perhaps if you don't mind if you read this portion in English as
4 that is what we have before us?
5 A. [English] "Admit to the ward as an emergency case, because of a
6 simple fracture of the left tibia caused by a fall on a flat surface in
7 the battlefield. Did not lose consciousness. On admission, the tibia was
8 deformed. Movement pathological. Active movement not possible. Passive
9 movement painful and restricted."
10 Q. Thank you, doctor. During your examination of the medical history
11 form in this case, did you find any reference to a horse or an accident
12 involving a horse?
13 A. No.
14 MR. GROOME: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet?
16 Cross-examined by Mr. Domazet:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Dr. De Grave, if I understood you correctly, from
18 the X-rays taken in 2001, it is possible to conclude that in the case of
19 Mitar Vasiljevic, the fractures occurred as indicated in the case history
20 issued by the hospital that you have just reviewed. Is that true?
21 A. Yes. They are perfectly compatible.
22 Q. You also found traces of traction on the X-rays. My question is
23 whether your examination of Mitar Vasiljevic's leg also showed such
24 signs. Is it possible to establish any such signs of traction?
25 A. The small mark on the outside cannot be seen, but on the inside
1 one can see under the skin, under focused light, a small, round mark with
2 a diameter of, I think, if I'm not mistaken, of 3 or 4 millimetres. So it
3 can be seen. That is true, yes. But let me also add that one of the
4 X-rays, we put a pen on the mark, and a photograph was taken of the point
5 of the pen, which showed the trace on the bone of traction. So there is a
6 connection between the outside and the inside.
7 Q. Mr. Groome asked you about the standard procedure for filling in
8 case history forms such as the one you have in front of you. Are you
9 familiar with the standards that used to be applied, especially in those
10 days, that is almost ten years ago, in Yugoslavia, or is what you are
11 saying based on the standard procedure in your country, that is, in
13 A. It is international, and these are not minor details. This is an
14 essential element, and it is a custom that was introduced at the beginning
15 of the nineteenth century by the TransAmerican Railway Company, which was
16 the first to issue files on victims and labour accidents and occupational
17 accidents. And so this procedure was established with the establishment
18 of the railways, and it is applied by all administrations.
19 Q. Yes. Mr. De Grave, you were talking about a military document and
20 the military, the army. I would just like to draw your attention to the
21 fact that this document which is before you, and it is Exhibit P62, or
22 136 of the English version, is a document issued by a civilian hospital,
23 not a military hospital. It is a document that is issued for civilians
24 and not for military men.
25 A. First of all, I haven't seen the official document, the original
1 document, but only the translation. That is my first point. The second
2 point, if you have an accident, as a civilian, you do the same thing. I
3 have told you that is a universal procedure applied everywhere. So when
4 there is a responsibility in question, one is going to discuss the
5 circumstances under which an accident occurred, and that is why this is so
7 So it doesn't apply only to military documents but also to
8 civilian ones.
9 Q. Yes, I agree with you. In this document where the date and hour
10 of the injury should be filled in, nothing has, in fact, been filled in,
11 and we really don't know why that wasn't done, whether the practice should
12 have been applied to all cases or not, but I thought you were talking
13 about military hospitals and military forms.
14 My question is whether a form of this kind, though this is a
15 translation and it is difficult for you to say whether it is an
16 internationally acceptable form or is it a form specially adapted to local
17 circumstances in Yugoslavia?
18 A. I think that anyone can compile documents. I'm not familiar with
19 the customs, but generally speaking, the entries are entered from left to
20 right, from top to bottom, but what is essential are the data, which are
21 the same in -- perhaps entered in a different order, but the data are
22 usually the same.
23 Q. Mr. De Grave, have you had occasion to review a copy of the
24 discharge document issued by the same hospital of the 6th of May 1993?
25 And the diagnosis is refractura cruris sinistra. So a little less than a
1 year after this first injury dated the 14th of June 1992.
2 A. No. I've never seen it.
3 Q. If this is a repeated fracture of the same leg, is it possible for
4 the fracture to occur in the same place or, rather, if it is in a
5 different location, would there be traces on the X-ray -- your X-rays, of
7 A. One may refracture on an average within a period of two years. If
8 there is a refracture, repeated fracture, it will always occur in the same
9 area, and generally it is possible to note the refracture in the
10 structure, but there is no guarantee, if it occurs within a two-year
11 period, of the vertical structure.
12 Let me explain with the help of an X-ray that we have here on the
13 screen. We can -- if we see the compact, it is regular, and there is an
14 enlargement here, and on the other hand, we see again a small enlargement.
15 And here there is a trace, a mark, which corresponds to a temporary
16 pseudo-arthrosis. One must not forget that he was exposed to traction and
17 there is -- that is why a fracture under traction requires much longer
18 time to treat than if it is put in a plaster cast.
19 So we see traces here. The X-ray of the fracture tells us a story.
20 And I see on this fracture -- I do not see elements that lead me to
21 suspect a second fracture.
22 After a period of two years, it is almost impossible for the
23 fracture to occur in the same location. That would mean that my fracture
24 was -- my treatment was defective and then the fracture would occur above
25 or below the original fracture, but we don't see that either.
1 Therefore, regarding your question, I haven't seen the dossier,
2 and this is in my first report, all the documents that I had, and I'm not
3 aware of this document, but to answer your question, I don't see any
4 evidence to the contrary.
5 Q. So if I understood you correctly, Doctor, it is possible that, in
6 the case of a repeated fracture that occurred within a period of less
7 than a year since the first fracture, that such a refracture could have
8 existed and that your X-rays from the year 2001 do not exclude that
10 JUDGE HUNT: I think you should make it a reasonable possibility.
11 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Perhaps having interfered with it I'm sorry,
13 Mr. Domazet, but it is important.
14 I think what Mr. Domazet is after, Doctor, is this: Is it a
15 reasonable possibility that a further fracture occurred within 12 months
16 and that it just doesn't show on this X-ray?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If there was a further fracture
18 within that time period, one should not forget that it is a fracture in an
19 area which is already of inferior quality. In our technical jargon, we
20 say that it is an affected area. So if there is a second fracture, one
21 can see additional traces, and also the treatment is more difficult. If
22 there is a further fracture within this period of two years, one would
23 have to undertake surgery of one kind or another, and one would also see
24 external traces on the bone, exetosis, or rather, deformations. And I
25 have to say that the fracture that I see on this X-ray was a big fracture
1 and was finely treated without any reduction in the physiology or the
2 quality. It's a magnificent treatment that was given.
3 JUDGE HUNT: I'll leave it to you, Mr. Domazet to follow that up.
4 There is something, I think, to follow up.
5 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Dr. De Grave, yes, you explained regarding fractures that would
7 occur after a period of two years. But this was not the case here. And I
8 am just interested in the possibility of a further fracture within a
9 period of less than one year since the original fracture.
10 So is it possible that such a further fracture occurred without
11 this being specifically visible on the X-rays you took in 2001?
12 A. No, if you're talking about a refracture. We are talking in that
13 case of difficulties of recovery, because that is the same thing. And if
14 there is a refracture, you see an additional swelling. Just a moment,
15 please. I'll take another reproduction.
16 One would see traces, a broader, a larger kortex. You would see
17 irregularities. This fracture was treated in one go. There was no
18 disruption. This is very clear. It was fully healed. The only thing
19 that you see as a result of traction is this mark, but there is no element
20 in the X-ray that lead me to suspect that there was a refracturing.
21 Q. Mr. De Grave, in your written report, in the part on the
22 discussion and answer to questions, there is a question as to: Can you
23 see whether the leg was fractured one time or more than once? Your answer
24 is: "No, after more than two years, we can't see whether the leg was
25 fractured once or several times or more than once. It is possible that
1 the two bones of the lower leg were broken separately in different
3 What I have just read out, does it differ from your previous
4 answer? Because it seems to me that it does.
5 A. I'm just looking for that question.
6 Q. On that same page, may I read a little further on, where it says:
7 "When a second fracturing incident of the lower leg happens, in the not
8 too distant future, and certainly within one year, that fracture shall
9 overcome on the same location as the first fracture."
10 A. One should not forget that you are asking me questions which are
11 very difficult. One sees a bone that has been fractured and healed. One
12 sees only one fracture. And you're asking me hypothetical questions and
13 that is the difficulty. We know very well that if there is a second
14 fracture, it may occur, but the question was: Can one see where whether
15 the leg was fractured one time or more than once? I said no, but what I
16 see on the X-rays, we have a fracture that is quite regular, that has been
17 healed regularly, and that is why one does not ask oneself whether there
18 was a man on the moon or not, whether you can see a second fracture.
19 There are no elements to lead me to say that the fracture was irregular,
20 in which case one would ask, what is the source or the reason of that
21 irregularity? We don't see any irregularity. And that is why there is a
22 conflict in my perception of these questions.
23 Q. You are mentioning as one of the arguments the fact that the bone
24 healed well. Could that good healing have occurred after the repeated
25 fracture, the second fracture?
1 A. Oh, no. You are operated on and you have a scar and then you're
2 reoperated in the same scar so as to avoid having two scars but you can
3 see that. It is not possible to redo a scar or a fracture in the same
4 location, in the same place. That is the dream of aesthetic surgeons.
5 They are trying to do that.
6 Q. Could you explain to me, then, what I have just read out in
7 relation to what I have asked? Because otherwise, I really don't see
8 the -- don't understand the meaning of this written answer.
9 A. Which text?
10 Q. If necessary, I can read it again?
11 JUDGE HUNT: Page 19 of your report, doctor, under heading:
12 Discussion and answer to the questions. And --
13 MR. GROOME: Page 9, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry, page 9, yes, page 9. And it's the third
15 question: "Can one see whether the leg was fractured one time or more
16 than once?" And Mr. Domazet read out to you part of the paragraph which
17 follows that.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to tell you, and I apologise
19 for saying this, if one reads the question and also my answer [in English]
20 "was fractured one time or more than once." [Interpretation] It's a
21 theoretical question and my answer was a theoretical one, but if we look
22 at the reality, then the question does not arise.
23 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
24 Q. But doctor, you were answering the question regarding this
25 particular case. And later on, on that same page, you can find verbatim,
1 and I quote, "When a second fracturing incident of the lower leg happened,
2 in the not too distant future, and certainly within one year, that
3 fracture shall overcome on the same localization as the first fracture."
4 What does this mean, then, this answer? What does your answer mean?
5 A. What is the question, please?
6 Q. The question is, whether this second incident that you mention, is
7 it a refracture or a repeated fracture of the leg? Because there is no
8 other incident that we could have been referring to.
9 A. You're talking about a second incident. I did not study a second
10 incident. I didn't see a dossier about a second incident. I only saw one
11 X-ray and one dossier, one file. You're asking me questions about
12 something that is quite unclear to me, unknown to me.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, what Mr. Domazet has read to you is under the
14 next question on the same page, "can one estimate in what year," et
15 cetera, and the third paragraph of that is the passage which he read to
16 you: "When a second fracturing incident of the lower leg happens, in the
17 not too distant future." What Mr. Domazet is asking you what do you mean
18 by that other than that there could be a second fracture within the one
19 year at the same point. Is that right, Mr. Domazet?
20 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When one sees an X-ray ten years
22 later, one sees that there was a fracture. One has a picture, and this
23 picture, which I explained a moment ago, has a certain structure. And if
24 we are dealing with a refracturing in the same localisation, it cannot be
25 seen. If it is a fracture that has a certain continuity, without any new
1 elements, the picture will be of a single fracture, so it is very
2 difficult to distinguish. I have pointed to a mark on the X-ray, whether
3 that mark is due to difficulties of immobilising the first fracture or
4 was it a fracture that was reactivated by a second incident, that is
5 something that one cannot see.
6 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I think if we go back to Mr. Domazet's original
7 question, then, is it reasonably possible that there was a second fracture
8 or a refracture at the same point within 12 months? Looking at that
9 X-ray. That's the 2001 X-ray.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is that a question?
11 JUDGE HUNT: I'm repeating what his original question was, and I
12 think we are led back to it. Is it reasonably possible, looking at that
13 X-ray, the 2001 X-ray, that there may have been a second accident and
14 there was a refracture at the same point? Is there anything on the X-ray
15 which prevents that from being a reasonable possibility?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you see, the question is
17 rather rare, because we are talking about the fracture of Mitar Vasiljevic
18 and not the fracture of a hypothetical person. So the X-ray we have is an
19 X-ray of the fracture of a person in good condition regarding the healing
20 of the fracture. When you have another fracture before the completion of
21 the ossification, it cannot be seen. If there is a fracture after the
22 ossification, then one will see it.
23 One should not forget, there are few people who know that a bone
24 when it breaks, it consists of two elements, the structure, a protein
25 structure and cells deposited in that structure. So the protein
1 structure, like all protein structures, heals within ten days. When you
2 cut your finger, that cut is closed soundly after about ten days. The
3 recovery of that lesion, in the case of a cut of your finger, will
4 actually last weeks. And for the bone, there are deposits of calcium,
5 phosphates, et cetera, that need to be recovered. So the process is
6 not completed. It is the protein structure that dominates, which is very
7 soft and flexible, and that is why if a fracture occurs again within a
8 certain period of time, one cannot see it. As soon as the deposit of
9 calcium has developed, and one has another fracture, you see fragments
10 that can be seen. So that is the answer to the question.
11 Also, the difficulties that I described in my report, because the
12 time limit is two years, the bones in the case of Mr. Vasiljevic, was a
13 good quality bone, with a capacity of restoration that was of high quality
14 as well. So a period of two years applies generally, but I think in this
15 case, it should be much less. Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic is not a hypothetical
16 person. He's a man of flesh and bones, a real man, in front of us.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Can I just ask one question arising out of that? I
18 feel like a politician when I ask that question. Doctor, ossification,
19 that is the new bone developing where there has been a fracture, is it?
20 And that is the process which takes 12 months or two years?
21 A. Not two years, a few months. In normal conditions, the time limit
22 is three months.
23 JUDGE HUNT: Because you said in your previous answer, if there is
24 a fracture after the ossification, then one should see it. So it's a few
25 months, the ossification process? I'm asking that because I thought you
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 had originally said two years.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you see, I don't know how to
3 put it. Ossification, the restoration of a bone, is one element, but
4 ossification of a fractured leg is achieved by a swelling, a callous, as
5 it is called, and this callous is additional calcium deposited around the
6 fracture, and this calcium may be remodeled, among other things, by
7 muscular activity, and this activity is achieved on an average, it is not
8 restrictive, after two years. After two years, one can say that the
9 calcium has been deposited and the fracture has been remodeled and it is
10 completed. So that would be the date, time limit.
11 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Have I understood you correctly, then, doctor? It is within this
13 period of two years that that is possible, that is to say the time limit
14 within which we speak that a refracturing was possible?
15 A. Yes, we can say that. We can put it that way.
16 Q. One more question, Dr. De Grave: In view of the concrete
17 situation, this fracture with traction, fracture plus traction, which is
18 the case in hand, on the basis of your report, in a hospital of that type,
19 traction would have to last six weeks, and after that period of six weeks,
20 after a plaster cast has been worn, the fracture can be reduced and then
21 you use a word, you use a term, which is probably not English, and all
22 this is accompanied by a six-week recovery period. Does that mean that
23 you consider that six weeks were necessary, six weeks of traction, plus
24 six weeks of wearing a plaster cast and at least six weeks of
25 rehabilitation after that? Did I understand you properly?
1 A. I listened to you, but the question eludes me. Could you repeat
2 the question, please?
3 Q. On the basis of your written report dated the 26th of August, you
4 state the following: "In regional hospitals, and when there is a shortage
5 of medical materials, a traction throughout six weeks, followed by six
6 weeks in a plaster cast, can replace the reduction of the fracture by
7 means of a," something I can't read, "Kuntchner nail," you say, whatever
8 language that is. Then it says: "This all will be followed by six weeks
9 revalidation at least." Do I understand you properly that in a fracture
10 of this kind, traction lasts six weeks, plaster cast is a further six
11 weeks, so six plus six weeks for a plaster cast, and finally at least
12 another six weeks for rehabilitation? That was my question.
13 A. Well, let me say at the outset that this is a question, an empty
14 question, in a vacuum, asked in a vacuum. Had I not had the other
15 documents, I wouldn't have known. I couldn't answer that. But as I have
16 had all these documents at my disposal - and I mention all the documents
17 that I have - if I don't mention the documents, it means I haven't seen
18 them, so I mention the exact number. What you're asking me is a
19 theoretical question. Now, if we decide, if we look at the traction, the
20 traction needed for a good result, then we would say you need six weeks.
21 But looking at the file that you sent me, I see that it was actually done
22 for three weeks. That is the half of six weeks. But this would be a
23 theoretical answer. And I'm interrupting you here to say that in
24 medicine, the question of dates and measurements is an aetherial one. We
25 don't deal with dates and measurements. We look at the medical entity,
1 the object, and if we start discussing dates and measurements, centimetres
2 and so on, in a void, in a vacuum, we can't get the right answer. But if
3 you wish to obtain a result with the application of a Kuntchner nail, then
4 that takes a long time and that is the important thing to note. That Mr.
5 Mitar had six -- three weeks of this, I am not surprised. I know of some
6 cases where it took even less time. So there we have the differences.
7 But that wasn't the question that you asked me.
8 Q. One more point, Dr. De Grave, although this might be common
9 knowledge to laymen as well, but I think it would be a good idea for you
10 to tell us. When we deal with traction in cases of this kind, does that
11 mean immobilisation, that the patient has to lie in bed immobile with
12 weights on their legs, with the impossibility of any kind of movement even
13 within a hospital room or a room?
14 A. That is our goal, the goal we wish to attain, immobilisation, to
15 immobilise somebody, but not only to immobilise them but to keep the
16 different elements in the proper position. For example, very few people
17 know this, but if you have a fractured leg, and we decide to place a
18 Kuntchner nail on it, before we place the Kuntchner wire or nail we
19 introduce a Kirschner nail in your heel to position the leg properly, and
20 once we have placed the Kuntchner nail, we withdraw the needle. So this
21 is not only the case for immobilisation purposes but to keep the leg in
22 the proper position.
23 I read in the file that the gentleman liked to drink alcohol, and
24 I am fully conscious of the difficulty this presents with people who like
25 drinking, who are very thirsty. To keep them in a bed, immobilised, I
1 think this would be martyrdom, both for the patient and his physician. So
2 we try to keep him in bed for as short a time as possible.
3 Q. Apart -- unless the therapy does not include alcohol as well. Is
4 that possible for the therapy to include alcohol?
5 A. I don't know. There are poseotox medicaments, that we call, and
6 they contain a certain amount of alcohol in them. So that would be an
7 alcohol intake of sorts. And I see in the papers that I have before me,
8 and I'm leafing through them very quickly, that he had an abstention
9 crisis three or four weeks afterwards, which means that he's not going to
10 wait three or four weeks to drink alcohol. He must have had some alcohol
11 intake in the first or second week, because he used up all his reserves.
12 So he would have entered into a delirium -- delirious state, and doctors
13 would have been able to see that very easily.
14 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Thank you, Dr. De Grave. I have no
15 further questions.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, I don't know whether you are going to
17 call evidence on this issue about the interpretation of the X-rays, but if
18 you are, you have an obligation to put the nature of the case you propose
19 to make in your evidence to Dr. De Grave to enable him to deal with it. It
20 shall save having to call him in reply.
21 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, Your Honour. If I
22 decide to do that, I will inform you on time.
23 JUDGE HUNT: Well, you're not able to do it at this stage?
24 MR. DOMAZET: No.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Very well, then. Thank you.
1 Yes, Mr. Groome?
2 Re-examined by Mr. Groome:
3 Q. Dr. De Grave, Mr. Domazet has asked you or put to you some
4 information regarding a possible injury of the accused in 1993. And the
5 question that I have for you is, just looking at the X-rays that were
6 taken in August of 2001, are they as -- are they also consistent with a
7 single fracture to the -- Mr. Vasiljevic's leg occurring from an injury in
9 A. [In English] Please repeat.
10 Q. Let me rephrase the question: Is it possible for you, simply
11 looking at the X-ray taken in 2001, to tell us whether that fracture
12 occurred in 1992 or 1993? Are you able to tell, just looking at the
13 X-ray, the date at which the fracture occurred?
14 A. Well, it's like this: I think that the file, document 62, is
15 quite clear. It describes a victim that was admitted to the emergency
16 ward with a tibio-fibulary fracture. So I think that your answer is
17 contained in that document, the answer to your question. It is a
18 tibio-fibial --
19 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, you are being asked from the X-ray alone, the
20 X-ray in 2001. Forget about this case history, what happened to somebody
21 in 1992. From the X-ray, are you able to say whether the fracture you see
22 there occurred in 1992 or 1993? That was the question.
23 THE WITNESS: [In English] No.
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. Thank you. One final question. Assuming Mr. Domazet's
1 proposition that Mr. Vasiljevic may have broken his leg two different
2 times, assuming that proposition, would it change your position whether
3 the leg shown in X-ray from 1992 is not from the same person as the 2001
5 A. The X-ray of 1992 is another -- of another person. We can't
6 compare something that doesn't belong to him.
7 Q. So even if what Mr. Domazet is saying were to be true, that the --
8 Mr. Vasiljevic's leg was broken two times, is it still your opinion that
9 the leg depicted in X-ray 1992 is of a different person than the leg of
10 Mr. Vasiljevic?
11 A. The 1992 X-ray shows a fraction of a tibia not of a fibula and the
12 2001 fracture shows a fracture of two legs. Two legs. No. I'm sorry, I
13 meant two bones. 1992 there was one bone, not two. In 2001, there were
14 two bones, two fractured bones.
15 Q. So it is still your opinion at this time that the legs depicted in
16 or the leg bone depicted in the X-ray from 1992 is that of a different
17 person than that of Mr. Vasiljevic? Is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. GROOME: Thank you, doctor.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, I wonder if you could explain some of the
21 terms you've used because I'm afraid like all doctors, you forget that we
22 do not speak the same language. I mean medical and legal. A refracture,
23 a refracture does that mean a fracture in exactly the same spot and along
24 the same fault line, if you could use that expression?
25 A. The same place or almost the same place. There is a slight nuance
2 JUDGE HUNT: Well, now, if there had been one in almost the same
3 place, would it have shown up on this X-ray?
4 A. We could see it. Now I'm going to answer by giving you an
5 example. You take an object, for example, and it is a plastic object,
6 hard plastic, and you break it, and you stick it back together again with
7 glue, stick it back together again with glue, and for some other reason
8 it breaks again, you're going to have it break in the same place. You can
9 have the same fracture. But after you stick it with glue, you will see
10 these glue fragments, supplementary glue fragments on the spot where the
11 fracture has taken place. I don't know whether I'm being clear. The same
12 thing happens with a bone. If it is fractured and restored, and let me
13 take it a step further, if it has been restored more than 72 hours later,
14 we -- you will see those same small fragments when it is restructured.
15 Does that answer your question? I could of course go into the reasons why
16 that take place.
17 JUDGE HUNT: I'm not sure that we want to know the reasons at this
18 stage any way. What I'm concerned about is the meaning of this word
19 refracture, which was a very careful word used by Mr. Domazet in his
20 question. Is -- if a refracture does not break along the same general
21 direction as the previous one, but it is somewhere close to it, would that
22 be shown on the -- would you expect to see that on this 2001 X-ray?
23 A. On a standard X-ray that we usually use, you could hardly see it,
24 barely see it, but if we suspect that it is there, then we can adapt and
25 calibrate the machinery used to have it reappear. That is why, when
1 giving an expert opinion, experts do not content themselves with
2 radiograms, X-rays in general. Usually they ask for new X-rays and say
3 very precisely what they are looking for in fact. So if we suspect that
4 there might be certain difficulties or errors, then we start to research
5 into them and we ask for more data. And if we look at the heel that we
6 took up and we took, made several X-rays of the heel. Those X-rays were
7 taken under different conditions. We changed the voltage, for example,
8 and we changed the exposition time, exposure time. And then we looked at
9 the legs and the X-rays taken in March, for example, in the detention
10 unit, which were of poor quality, but they were taken in different
12 We took our own X-rays. And then we looked to see if there were
13 any irregularities that -- and if you don't -- if they don't come out on
14 one X-ray, they might come out on another. One X-ray will show the
15 structure of, how shall I -- what is the term, let me see, the bony
16 structure, the direction of the crystals. You can see that on certain
17 X-rays and not on others. Which means that if we suspect something is
18 there, if our attention is drawn to something, then we pay special
19 attention to the details. And that is the difference between X-rays taken
20 by the treating physician, he wants to know what the fracture is, and what
21 is the best way to treat and restore that fracture. What we are dealing
22 with, it is not our job to restore the fracture. We are researching into
23 the structure of the fracture. And I did not see any irregularities that
24 would be suspect. So that is -- brings me back to the question.
25 Refracturisation, refracturing, if there is something that draws
1 our attention and we are suspicious then we would go into it further, as I
2 described a moment ago, when giving the example of the object that was
3 broken and stuck together again. There is always some debris or fragments
4 from the glue at the place of the fracture, of the rupture, and we can see
5 that debris, if you will, or fragments.
6 JUDGE HUNT: You mean if you had been warned that this was an
7 issue, you would have used a more sophisticated form of X-ray? Is that
8 what you're saying?
9 A. Among other things, among other things, but it's not necessary
11 JUDGE HUNT: Well, now, if you had been told that Mr. Vasiljevic
12 was asserting that on the 6th of May 1993, he fractured his leg again
13 about three centimetres below the old fracture, would you have done some
14 different form of X-ray investigation?
15 A. Certainly, certainly.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Even without that different type of X-ray
17 examination, would you have expected to see on the X-rays you took in 2001
18 another fracture three centimetres below the old one?
19 A. I would be somewhat surprised to be able to see -- to encounter
20 that. It would require special techniques. We would have to go to
21 Professor Zingoff in Brussels or Dr. Blaka [phoen] in Blaskat [phoen]. I
22 don't think it can be done here. That is the first point. My second
23 point is that I would be a little bit surprised.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Surprised about what? You would be surprised that
25 you had not seen it or that you would be surprised to see it?
1 A. To be quite frank, we didn't look at the X-rays and I can say that
2 for seven days they were on my apparatuses, on display, and I looked at
3 them several times at different times, to see anything that could possibly
4 be on them, and I consulted Dr. Bollen and two other physicians. We
5 studied the X-rays together. And we described in our reports what we saw
6 on those X-rays, and we didn't see any elements which would lead us to
7 suspect refracture. Other elements that were there, we did describe. We
8 mentioned -- make mention of them but there were no elements that would
9 lead us to think of that, to suspect anything like that. There was
10 nothing on the basis of which we would say, "Well, look, there is
11 something here," which would alert us to any such situation.
12 JUDGE HUNT: I'm still trying to ascertain what you mean that you
13 would have been surprised. Are you saying that if there had been another
14 fracture three centimetres below the old one, within a year of the old
15 one, you would have been surprised that you had not seen it on the X-ray,
16 or that it could have happened and you had seen it?
17 A. We would have seen slight irregularities. We would have seen
19 JUDGE HUNT: Now the next thing you raise, you said he only
20 received three weeks' traction according to the case history. I'm just
21 wondering where you got that from. You see, on the 15th of June, it says
22 that the Kuntchner wire was pulled through the heel and a device with a 7
23 and a half kilo weight is attached to it. I would assume that that was
24 the beginning of the traction.
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 JUDGE HUNT: Well, where do you say the three-week period ends?
2 A. It was put under traction on the 15th of June, and then it was
3 taken off on the 7th of July -- discharged, sorry, discharged on the 7th
4 of July, and I don't believe that one would discharge somebody under
5 traction. He wouldn't be able to walk with traction, walk home with the
6 traction. And this is the 7th of July document.
7 JUDGE HUNT: I see, yes. The date of discharge is the 28th of
8 July. 28th of July, 15th of June? That's more than three weeks, isn't
9 it, doctor.
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, he's referring to an entry on the second
11 page dated the 7th of July.
12 A. [In English] Wait a minute.
13 JUDGE HUNT: The only entry I have there is a discharge order on
14 his way out out, and it goes on to say on the 17th he had a cast fixed,
15 this is all still in hospital, and according to the front page of it, the
16 discharge was the 28th of July.
17 MR. GROOME: I believe the doctor was referring to that entry but
18 we can ask him.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Okay. Now, doctor, for those who have not had any
20 experience of hearing orthopaedic issues, what exactly is a Kuntchner nail
21 or wire?
22 A. Kirschner, yes. We make the same mixture between Kuntchner and
23 Kirschner. It's in a U-shaped nail, a U-shaped nail. A real Kirschner is
24 a very special device, but it is very often reproduced because the real
25 one, the real Mccoy, is an expensive one. So the real one is in the form
1 of a U, and you bend it slightly when you place it inside, into the body.
2 And then under the effects of bodily pressure, it opens up. So it is a
3 way of fixation. It pulls the bone together on the leg, and it is enough
4 to use a Kirschner to fix the upper and lower portion, and it will remain
5 in the same place. It is a fairly long nail, 35 to 40 millimetres in
6 length. And I have photographed, for example, a kneecap, a knee. And you
7 can see this on the photograph, and I have a reason for which I took these
8 photographs. For example, here, you can see a promontory, and if you bend
9 your knee, if you bend your knee, you will see this, you will see that
10 there is a protrusion of some kind. Now, this protrusion can be taken off
11 with a device, you can make a hole and introduce the Kirschner. But once
12 you've placed the Kirschner there, or once you try to place -- to
13 introduce the Kirschner, you can see that because there is a swelling.
14 That is to say the swelling disappears, the protrusion disappears.
15 Whereas we have the Kirschner needles as well, and they are four
16 millimetres in diameter, of different lengths. You can have shorter ones,
17 longer ones.
18 JUDGE HUNT: I was more concerned with the one we had here and I'm
19 sorry if I mispronounced it. Now, finally, doctor, in your answer to Mr.
20 Domazet, when he was asking you about a refracture at one stage, you said
21 something along the lines that you would have expected there to be
22 operative treatment after a second fracture or a refracture, and that you
23 saw no signs of that. Now, what did you mean there?
24 A. In that case, refracturing, for that, one would have to nail --
25 screw in a piece of metal from the outside, using nails, screws. You
1 would screw it in and fix it in that way.
2 JUDGE HUNT: This is after a refracture, that's what you would
3 expect to happen?
4 A. Yes, yes, after refracture.
5 JUDGE HUNT: I see.
6 Now, Mr. Domazet, do you want to ask any questions out of my
8 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Not really, Your Honour, except in
9 connection with this case history. It shows that during treatment, Mitar
10 Vasiljevic was transferred to the psychiatric ward. So it is true there
11 was no indication whether traction continued in that ward, and that is
12 probably why Dr. De Grave mentioned three weeks, because that would
13 roughly correspond up to the date when he was transferred to the
14 psychiatry ward, where he remained until the 28th of July. But I hope
15 that we will be able to clear that up through Defence witnesses.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Do you want to ask any questions, Mr.
18 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you, Dr. De Grave, for your attendance and for
20 your evidence. You are now free to leave.
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
22 [The witness withdrew]
23 JUDGE HUNT: We will adjourn now until 2.35.
24 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.05 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.34 p.m.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE HUNT: Now, after the difficulties we had getting Dr. De
4 Grave to answer the questions, it's obvious we are running a bit behind
5 time. It's important we finish today so that we can get Mr. Domazet off
6 to prepare for his case to begin the week after next. How much do you
7 think is left in this witness's evidence?
8 MR. GROOME: I would anticipate 15 minutes of
10 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Will you be very long with him in
11 cross-examination, Mr. Domazet?
12 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour, very short.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then, there is only Mr. Roy left.
14 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour and then introduction of some 92 bis
15 statements and some other documents on consent.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, that won't take long. If I might make a small
17 plea or warning whatever you like to the people in the booths and the
18 Court reporters, it may be necessary just for 15 minutes or so if we can
19 sit on this afternoon so that we will not lose a whole week's hearing.
20 But we'll see how we go. Thank you. Yes.
21 Well, sir, you're still bound by the oath you took before. Do you
22 understand that?
23 WITNESS: WITNESS VG84 [Resumed]
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 MR. GROOME: Before we start with this witness there is just one
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 matter coming from Dr. De Grave's testimony. Prosecution tender and it
2 was accepted into evidence the original X-rays Exhibits 21 and 151. As we
3 all is saw, it was more appropriate to use the photographic version of
4 those, so I am suggesting that perhaps a consent with Mr. Domazet that we
5 substitute the actual photographs of those X-rays. So for Exhibit 151,
6 that we substitute the photograph that Dr. De Grave had, and that's page 4
7 of his first report, and the photograph of Exhibit 21 was entered into
8 evidence as 21.1. I would suggest that the Prosecution at this time
9 withdraw the actual X-ray, Exhibit number 21.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. I was a little surprised to hear the doctor say
11 that he had had access, he had had custody of Exhibit 151 all of this
13 As I understand it, the order was that they be made available to
14 the Defence if they wanted an expert to view them.
15 MR. GROOME: And they were, Your Honour. They were available any
16 time Mr. Domazet requested them.
17 JUDGE HUNT: All right. But why did Dr. De Grave have them? He
18 lives outside Antwerp somewhere and you can't go and pick them up easily.
19 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. It was just in his custody until
20 one of us could go down there.
21 JUDGE HUNT: Obviously they weren't needed in this time, but it's
22 just as well.
23 You proceed, Mr. Groome.
24 Examined by Mr. Groome: [Continued]
25 Q. Witness 84, I apologise for the delay in resuming your testimony.
1 Yesterday, you concluded your testimony at the point in time when you're
2 inside the house by the creek. I want to draw your attention to a
3 particular time when you were in that house. Did there come a time when
4 you were aware of a fire inside of that house?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can you tell us what first brought your attention and what first
7 made you aware of such a fire?
8 A. The flame coming from the door and spreading towards the house,
9 the interior of the house. The only thing I could do was to make those
10 three steps to reach the window. Once I reached the window, my mother was
11 at the window. She was breaking the window. I pushed her into the creek,
12 a shrapnel from the bomb hit me in the forehead. I have a little scar
14 Q. Where were you at the time the fire broke out?
15 A. In the middle of the house. I was sitting on the kitchen table.
16 Q. Can you characterise for us the intensity of that fire?
17 A. It was very high intensity and it was spreading fast.
18 Q. Was there much smoke from that fire?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did there come a time -- or you testified about receiving an
22 from shrapnel. Was there an explosion inside of the house?
23 A. Yes. I was already at the window.
24 Q. And what happened when you were at the window?
25 A. The explosion occurred when the bomb was thrown into the house and
1 the shrapnel hit me on the forehead. I have a scar on my forehead.
2 Q. Were you able to see who threw that bomb inside the house?
3 A. No, no.
4 Q. What happened after the bomb exploded?
5 A. I jumped out with my mother into the creek.
6 Q. How far was the creek from the house?
7 A. About three metres approximately. Very close by.
8 Q. And where did you go from the creek?
9 A. We went along the creek. There was a big tree, and we hid behind
10 that big tree.
11 Q. Were you aware that anyone else jumped out of that same window
12 behind you?
13 A. Yes. I knew of person under number VG38, that she was at the
14 window next to me. But when exactly she jumped into the creek, I have
16 Q. Now you mentioned going to a big tree. What did you do at that
18 A. Yes. We hid behind it. We were in hiding there, because
19 immediately they came round to the side where the window was and started
20 shooting, so if anyone were to jump out, they would kill them. And they
21 shone their flashlights on them.
22 Q. Were you able to see the house from this tree, where you were
23 hiding by this tree?
24 A. Well, one could see the house, but I was hiding from those
25 flashlights so I didn't look at the house.
1 Q. But you were able to see the light from the flashlights?
2 A. Yes, yes, the flashlights.
3 Q. For what period of time did the gunshots last at that time?
4 A. Well, we had moved forward some 20 metres along the creek, so that
5 the shooting was still going on.
6 Q. And approximately how long did the shooting last?
7 A. Well, it lasted quite a bit.
8 Q. Did you see any other people attempt to get out of the house at
9 that time?
10 A. Yes. People were trying and they were killed straight away.
11 Q. What could you hear from this tree?
12 A. We could hear crying, smoke, explosions, gunshots.
13 Q. Was there much smoke coming out of the house?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did there come a time when you left this hiding place by the
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And where did you go?
19 A. We went 20 metres, some 20 metres, further along the creek.
20 Q. And how long did you remain at this location?
21 A. We stayed there until the early hours of the morning, around 5.00
22 a.m. Of course, roughly, because I didn't have a watch.
23 Q. From this vantage point, were you able to see the house?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Were you able to hear any sounds coming from the house?
1 A. Yes. One could still hear crying, shooting.
2 Q. From this location, can you estimate for us how long the shooting
4 A. It continued for about perhaps two hours, again I'm giving an
6 Q. And the crying that you've just mentioned, how long did that
8 A. As long.
9 Q. Did you eventually leave that place and go to a village?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And what village did you go to?
12 A. The village of Gostilja. First we wanted to go to Babin Potok but
13 because there were houses there, we went on to Gostilja.
14 Q. And how long did you remain there before leaving?
15 A. In the village of Gostilja, you mean?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. Two days.
18 Q. And where did you go from there?
19 A. We went to Zepa.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour at this time I'm going to ask that the
21 witness be shown a black and white copy of Prosecution Exhibit 17.3.
22 Q. Witness 84, there is a blue pen to your right in this device to
23 your right. I'd ask you to take that blue pen -- actually I'd ask you
24 just to make the markings on the desk in front of you.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I'd ask you to write VG84 at the bottom of Exhibit 17.3.
2 A. [Marks]
3 Q. I'd now ask to you write the number 1 on the Memic house.
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. I'd ask to you write the number 2 on the house which caught fire.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. I'd now ask you to draw a circle and inside it put the initials MV
8 to show where Mitar Vasiljevic was at the time he said that he was a
9 representative of the Red Cross.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. Now, you've testified about hiding behind a big tree. I would ask
12 you to approximate the location of that tree and put a circle with the
13 number 84 to indicate where you were when you were hiding behind that
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. And finally, I would ask you to put a X to indicate where it was
17 you saw people with flashlights.
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. Okay I'm going to ask that that now be placed on the ELMO and that
20 the witness be given a pointer. Could we slide up the picture a little
22 Would I ask you, with the pointer, to indicate where you marked
23 the house with the number 1.
24 A. This one.
25 Q. And the house that you marked number 2?
1 A. [Indicates]
2 Q. I'd ask to you point and hold the pointer on the circle with MV to
3 indicate where it was you saw Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic.
4 A. [Indicates]
5 Q. I'd ask you now to point to the circle containing the number 84,
6 to indicate where you were hiding behind the tree.
7 A. [Indicates]
8 Q. And finally I'd ask you to point or indicate the X where you
9 testified you saw somebody or people with flashlights?
10 A. [Indicates]
11 Q. Thank you. I'd ask that this now be tendered into evidence as
12 Prosecution Exhibit 17.3.VG84?
13 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
14 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, no.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. That will be Exhibit P17.3.VG84.
16 MR. GROOME: I'd now ask that Exhibit 17.7 be placed before the
18 Q. Witness 84, I'd ask you once again to put VG84 at the bottom of
19 Exhibit 17.7.
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. And I'd ask to you circle the window that you pushed your mother
22 out of and you jumped out of?
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. And I now ask that that be placed on the ELMO. I would just ask
25 to you indicate with the pointer the window you've just circled.
1 A. [Indicates]
2 MR. GROOME: Thank you very much, witness 84. I have no further
3 questions, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet?
5 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, I tender that into evidence as Prosecution
6 Exhibit 17.7.VG84. I apologise.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
8 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. It will be Exhibit P17.7.VG84. Yes,
10 Mr. Domazet.
11 Cross-examined by Mr. Domazet.
12 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Good afternoon. Sir, I have -- I'm going to ask you about a few
14 details as to what you saw regarding the encounter between (redacted)
15 and Mitar Vasiljevic.
16 On that occasion, did you notice that Mitar Vasiljevic was holding
17 a bottle in his hand? Did you see a bottle at all?
18 A. I don't remember.
19 Q. Did you see him holding a megaphone? I assume you know what that
21 A. Yes, I do. I don't remember that either.
22 Q. Would you be kind enough to tell me once again, to the best of
23 your recollection, what he was wearing? Because you gave two alternative
24 descriptions. Could you repeat what he was wearing?
25 A. Yes, I can. He had a suit on. And a hat on his head. The suit
1 was black in colour.
2 Q. Do you remember what he had on his feet?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Were you looking at the time he was writing the certificate you
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Was that in the street outside the house?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So if I understand you correctly, he was writing this certificate
10 in the street while he was standing with Mujo?
11 A. And he handed it to Mujo.
12 Q. Wasn't it raining at the time?
13 A. It was cloudy, overcast. Those days and those evenings, it did
14 rain. At that moment, it wasn't raining.
15 Q. Do you remember that on your way there, you got wet because it was
16 raining when you were coming from the centre of town?
17 A. I don't remember.
18 Q. What did (redacted) do with that certificate?
19 A. He kept it on him. Whether he showed it to someone, to any of the
20 people, to the other people, I don't know. I just know that he took it.
21 Q. So you didn't see him show it to anyone but you know that he took
22 the certificate?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you see where he put the certificate?
25 A. I don't remember.
1 Q. Just one further point: Do you remember whether Mitar Vasiljevic
2 had any kind of ribbon on one of his sleeves?
3 A. I don't remember that.
4 Q. When you were describing the three soldiers who were in the house,
5 and you identified two of them as being Milan and Sredoje on the basis of
6 what others told you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The third soldier, did he have a mustache?
9 A. I don't remember.
10 Q. If you can remember, when you jumped out of this house, you
11 mentioned that after that, you saw these flashlights and you were afraid
12 of being discovered, if I understood you correctly?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Without those flashlights, could one see? Was there sufficient
15 light? Could you have been seen without the flashlights? Or were you
16 afraid that the flashlights would light you up?
17 A. You mean after the fire? This is something you can't describe.
18 There were bombs falling. Shots. The fire was spreading. There was
19 smoke. You could -- you couldn't see that there was a house there at
21 Q. So when you say that, that you couldn't see, does that mean that
22 you couldn't see from the smoke or was it because it was dark?
23 A. No, because of the smoke, the bomb explosions and everything
25 Q. Yes, but you haven't answered my question; that is, you were
1 afraid of these flashlights lighting you up but was it possible to see
2 without the flashlights or was it so dark that it was not possible to see
3 without flashlights?
4 A. I don't know whether you could see or not. Any way, they did
5 shine the flashlights.
6 Q. Could you see who was holding the flashlights?
7 A. I couldn't recognise them.
8 Q. Why?
9 A. I wasn't able to recognise the individual holding the flashlight,
10 and the flashlight moved around. It flashed around the tree I was hiding
11 behind. And I could see this light flashing in my eyes so that ...
12 Q. A moment ago on the photograph, you drew a circle around the
13 window you jumped out of and according to the photograph, it is the second
15 A. Yes, that's right, the second one.
16 Q. What was on the window before you jumped out, before anybody
17 jumped out, in fact?
18 A. There was glass, reinforced glass, so when I came up to the
19 window, I saw that VG18 was struggling to break the window. And
20 actually, the window had already been broken but there was this netting so
21 I just pushed that person out into the creek.
22 Q. What about the first window? Was that the same?
23 A. I don't know. How should I know that?
24 Q. Well, I'm asking if you know.
25 A. Well, I don't.
1 Q. Did you happen to see anyone jumping out of that other window?
2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. At the point at which you yourself jumped out and fled towards the
4 creek, were there any soldiers there shooting at you? There weren't. I
5 understand you to say that there weren't any soldiers shooting at you?
6 A. That's right and the flashlights had still not gone down by the
7 back of the house.
8 Q. When you said that some people were shot at and hit and killed
9 underneath the window, below the window, did you see that personally
10 yourself? Were you able to see that personally or did you assume that or
11 hear it from somebody perhaps?
12 A. Well, we went to hide behind the tree across the creek, and the
13 flashlights were there and we passed underneath -- below them where the
14 two windows were and we heard shooting at the windows and the screams of
15 people at the windows. The people who had survived the explosions from
16 the bombs and managed to jump out.
17 Q. My question was: Did you see this yourself directly or do you
18 assume that that's how it was?
19 A. No, I saw that from behind the tree, at one point. At one point I
20 managed to see this. It was a split second.
21 Q. What did you see in that split second?
22 A. I saw the flashlight lighting up the windows, flashing on the
23 windows, and that there was shooting at the windows as well. They are
24 moments that I can't even describe.
25 Q. Yes, of course I understand. I do understand. But I'm interested
1 in one more thing, if you can remember. On the photograph a moment ago,
2 you drew in the spot where you saw the flashlight throwing light on this
3 area. Now, that individual or individuals, if there are more of them, how
4 far away were they from that other room -- window where you saw the people
5 jumping out of?
6 A. I don't remember.
7 Q. If you take the corner of the house, the edge of the house, could
8 you determine the point where the flashlight was? You drew it for us a
9 moment ago.
10 A. No. Well, maybe I could give you an approximation.
11 Q. Well, you don't have to, if you're not sure.
12 A. No, I'm not sure. I can't say with certainty.
13 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further
14 questions for this witness, thank you Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Re-examination.
16 MR. GROOME: No Your Honour.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you, sir, for coming along to give evidence.
18 You've finished your task here and you're now free to leave.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 JUDGE HUNT: Whilst your next witness is coming, Mr. Groome, have
22 you filed that clearer and better response to the argument by Mr. Domazet.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I apologise, I didn't get a chance to
24 complete it last night. I will complete it this evening and have it filed
25 the first thing in the morning. I can fax Mr. Domazet a copy as soon as I
1 finish it.
2 JUDGE HUNT: If you would, please.
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, before the next witness is called, one
4 of the items that I was going to discuss with this witness and perhaps we
5 can come up with an alternative given the time constraint, is part of the
6 investigation of this case there was a videotape made of the surrounding
7 area between the two houses, the Memic house, some of the other houses and
8 the house that caught fire in the creek. Perhaps if Mr. Domazet will
9 agree to its admissibility the Court can look at it at its own disposal
10 rather than taking up time now. It will take about ten to 15 minutes to
11 show it here in court and we are prepared to do that.
12 JUDGE HUNT: That would be a very good idea. What do you say, Mr.
13 Domazet? Have you seen it?
14 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour, I have this tape.
15 JUDGE HUNT: We will fill in our time whilst you're busy
16 elsewhere, seeing it ourselves, if you're happy with that. Right. Well,
17 then you can tender that. What exhibit number is it.
18 MR. GROOME: It's Exhibit 18 it was tendered in part on the 13th
19 of September. At this point we would tender the entire contents of
20 videotape 18 into evidence.
21 JUDGE HUNT: I hadn't realised it was admitted only in part, but
22 that's all right. We will admit the rest of it. Where is your witness?
23 MR. GROOME: The Prosecution calls Yves Roy. He should be outside
24 the courtroom.
25 Your Honour I'm passing what I guess is best described as a
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 pseudonym sheet. The investigator will you testifying under his own name
2 but will be referring to a number of people who have pseudonyms so for
3 handy reference --
4 JUDGE HUNT: What number is it?
5 MR. GROOME: We are up to 92, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE HUNT: Very well, the pseudonym sheet will be P92 and it's
7 under seal.
8 MR. DOMAZET: Your Honour, my co-counsel, Mr. Tanaskovic, can he
9 be with me now?
10 JUDGE HUNT: Oh, yes most certainly, yes.
11 MR. DOMAZET: But he's in different room if somebody from security
12 -- he's waiting.
13 JUDGE HUNT: We will get a message to him somehow. Just wait a
14 minute. We have to get the witness sworn in.
15 Sir, would you please take the statutory declaration in the
16 document which the court usher is showing to you.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
18 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 WITNESS: Yves Roy
20 JUDGE HUNT: Sit down, please, sir.
21 Examined by Mr. Groome:
22 Q. Investigator Roy, the Prosecution number 92 has given to you and
23 it contains the names and numbers of protected witnesses. I would ask you
24 during the course of your testimony to please refer to those witnesses by
25 their number.
1 A. Yes, Your Honours.
2 Q. Investigator Roy, would you please begin by describing for the
3 Court your background?
4 A. I joined the ICTY, the International Criminal Tribunal for the
5 former Yugoslavia, as the investigator for the Office of the Prosecutor in
6 June 1998. Prior to that, I was a police officer with the Royal Canadian
7 Mounted Police in Canada for 25 years. The bulk of my work with the RCMP
8 was investigating international drug traffickers.
9 In 1993 I was assigned with the United Nations Civilian Police,
10 better known as UNCIVPOL in the town of Dunvar [phoen] Croatia, for seven
11 months. I was responsible for a group of investigators, the investigation
12 that our task was to investigate from petty theft to war crimes, location
13 of mass graves, murders and basic human rights, investigation of basic
14 human rights.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness slow down, please.
16 MR. GROOME:
17 Q. In your work with the RCMP, would it be fair to say that you were
18 involved in investigations in numerous countries outside of Canada?
19 A. Absolutely, Your Honour. All the continents in the world from
20 South America to Asia, to Europe, to Africa, everywhere in the world,
22 Q. Pursuant to your duties with the Office of the Prosecutor, were
23 you assigned to investigate some of the crimes alleged to have been
24 committed in the town of Visegrad?
25 A. Absolutely, Your Honour. I started, like I said earlier, started
1 in June 1998 with the Office of the Prosecutor. Right from the start I
2 was assigned working on numerous cases but mostly the Visegrad cases. We
3 had to do more investigation after the arrest of Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic on
4 the 25th of January 2000.
5 Q. In connection with this case, the case against Mr. Vasiljevic, did
6 you show photo arrays to several witnesses?
7 A. Yes, I did, Your Honours.
8 Q. Can you please describe briefly the general procedure that you
9 followed when you showed photo arrays to witnesses?
10 A. It's a really simple matter, Your Honours. When we meet
11 witnesses, we take a full statement of the witnesses, and at the end of
12 their statement, I show them a photo array. Usually it's from 10 to 12
13 pictures, of 12, 10 or 12 different men. Without telling them who I'm
14 looking for, ask any witness if they recognise any of the men on these
16 Q. And if a witness is able to recognise somebody, what procedure do
17 you then follow?
18 A. The procedure is again very simple. I ask the witness to sign her
19 name on the face of the individual that they recognise.
20 Q. Did there come a time when you showed VG80 such a photo array
21 according to that procedure?
22 A. Absolutely, Your Honours. I did, on the 19th of January 2001.
23 Q. Did you show such a photo array to VG81?
24 A. Absolutely. On the 18th of January 2001.
25 Q. And how about to --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could you make pauses between questions and
2 answers, please?
3 MR. GROOME: Yes.
4 Q. And can you tell us with respect to VG38 did you also show a photo
5 array to that witness?
6 A. Yes, I did, Your Honours, on the 21st of June of this year, 2001.
7 Q. Now, can you describe for us how it is that you locate witnesses
8 or how did you locate witnesses in this particular case?
9 A. Well, like in all cases, usually we get information through
10 witnesses. They could write to the Tribunal. They could send faxes with
11 their names on it during this period the alleged war crimes and the Office
12 of the Prosecutor takes all these information and we -- we investigate.
13 So that's one of the ways that we get names of witnesses when they send
14 some information. Another way is after receiving the information from
15 witnesses, we check our data bases here at the Tribunal and most of the
16 time we already have received some kind of information alleging exactly
17 the same war crimes, so at that point, we get other names of witnesses.
18 When we go and meet witnesses, it is very seldom that they were the only
19 witness of the alleged crime, so at the time when we take a statement,
20 they are telling us, "Well, I was with so and so on such a date," so we
21 learn other names of witnesses. So -- and that's -- and we made some
22 requests to local government, it could be government from Serbia, Croatia,
23 or Bosnia, to inquire if they have any information on these alleged crimes
24 and most of the time they already have some information, witness names or
25 witness statements, that they already have in hand that they provide the
1 Tribunal with. So in a nutshell, that's the way we find witnesses
3 Q. I want to ask you specifically about witnesses VG78 and VG101,
4 was it you that located those witnesses?
5 A. Well, it was through investigation with our team, team at the
6 Tribunal. The first time we heard about these two witnesses were from
7 VG18. VG18 was mentioning that two girls have survived a fire without
8 mentioning names. At the time VG18 didn't want to mention any names. So
9 what we did, we made a request through our people in Bosnia to try to find
10 the survivor of these -- of this fire on Pionirska Street and they found
11 one of the survivors so they provided us with the name.
12 Q. Now, did there come a time when you met and interviewed both VG78
13 and VG101?
14 A. That's right, Your Honours. The first time when we met VG78, VG78
15 provided the name of VG101 so after that we went to see VG101. VG78 was
16 interviewed on the 23rd of January of this year.
17 Q. Sorry?
18 A. VG78. And VG101 on the 21st of March this year.
19 Q. VG78, did she have the same name at the time you located her as
20 the name that she had at the time of the fire in 1992?
21 A. No, at the time VG78 wasn't married, Your Honour, in 1992. After
22 that she got married.
23 Q. I ask you the same question regarding VG101?
24 A. VG101 in 1992 wasn't married, Your Honours, and she got married
25 after June 1992.
1 Q. Now, I've given a person's pseudonym --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, could you please ask the gentlemen
3 to slow down a bit? Thank you.
4 JUDGE HUNT: We are all very anxious to finish but not if we kill
5 the interpreting staff on the way. And I think that you will find if you
6 pause, the witness will pause, and we will get along a lot more quickly in
7 the end. Just remember what I say to all of the B/C/S speaking witnesses.
8 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
9 Q. There is a person at the bottom of that pseudonym sheet who we've
10 arbitrarily assigned the number VG999, one of the victims in the fire.
11 Could you describe for us what is the relationship between VG999 and VG101
12 and VG78?
13 A. VG999 is the mother of VG78 and VG101.
14 Q. In the original interview of VG13, did she describe seeing VG999
15 and her children as being victims of the Pionirska Street fire?
16 A. Absolutely, she mentioned VG1 -- 101, VG78 and VG999 as being --
17 as dying in the fire on Pionirska Street.
18 Q. And did she identify them by the name that they had or used at
19 that time?
20 A. She did. VG13 identified the three of them by the name that they
21 had in 1992, Your Honours.
22 Q. And did she identify, did she identify them both as sisters?
23 A. Yes, Your Honours.
24 Q. Now, just to clear up some confusion, I draw your attention to
25 VG79. Are there two individuals connected with this case that have the
1 same name?
2 A. Absolutely, Your Honours.
3 Q. Without telling us who they are, we'll leave it to the Court to
4 figure that out.
5 During the course of your investigation, did you become aware that
6 Mr. Vasiljevic had represented himself to be some type much official or
7 have some official relationship with the Red Cross?
8 A. Absolutely, Your Honours.
9 Q. And did you investigate that aspect of the case?
10 A. Absolutely, Your Honours. What the investigation team did at the
11 time when we learned that some of our witnesses were saying that
12 Mr. Vasiljevic represented himself as being a representative for the ICRC
13 International Community for the Red Cross, we sent an official request to
14 their representative in Geneva to inquire if Mr. Vasiljevic was ever a
15 member of the ICRC.
16 Q. And did you receive a reply?
17 A. Absolutely, Your Honours.
18 Q. And what did that reply indicate?
19 A. That Mr. Vasiljevic was at no time a representative of the ICRC in
20 Geneva working anywhere in Bosnia or former Yugoslavia.
21 Q. I Would ask at this time that the witness be shown Prosecution
22 document 51.
23 JUDGE HUNT: You should have that framed in a golden frame. It
24 must be the first time the ICRC has ever sent anything, at least in
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. Investigator Roy, do you recognise what Exhibit 51 is?
3 A. Absolutely, Your Honours.
4 Q. What is it?
5 A. This is the response to the request that we sent to the Committee
6 International de la Croix Rouge, ICRC.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection to it being entered as Exhibit P51, Mr.
9 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you it will be Exhibit P51.
11 MR. GROOME:
12 Q. Investigator Roy, did you also attempt to contact governmental
13 authorities of the Republika Srpska to ascertain whether he represented
14 any local branch of the Red Cross?
15 A. Absolutely, Your Honours.
16 Q. And did you in fact attempt to ascertain whether he had any type
17 of official position for refugees or otherwise with the government of the
18 Republika Srpska during the time period concerned in this case?
19 A. Absolutely, Your Honours, I did.
20 Q. And at that time, did you also make inquiry into the existence of
21 any criminal record for Milan Lukic, Sredoje Lukic and Mitar Vasiljevic?
22 A. Absolutely, Your Honours. It was on the same request.
23 MR. GROOME: At this time I would ask that the witness be shown
24 Prosecution document number 69 and 69.1, 69 being the English translation
25 of 69.1.
1 Q. Investigator Roy, I'd ask to you look at Prosecution document
2 number 69. Do you recognise what it is?
3 A. Absolutely, Your Honour. It's the translation of the response
4 from the Republika Srpska government.
5 Q. And does it indicate whether or not Mr. Vasiljevic held any type
6 of position with the Red Cross, the local red cross in the Republika
8 A. Yes, it does, that Mr. Vasiljevic was never a member of the Red
9 Cross of any humanitarian representative.
10 Q. And does it indicate whether or not he had any position of
11 appointment by the government of the Republika Srpska to any official
12 duties in the time period concerned in this case?
13 A. Exactly, Your Honour. They say that Republika Srpska authority
14 did not appoint him to any official duty for their government.
15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour at this time I would tender Prosecution
16 documents number 69 and 69.1 into evidence.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
18 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you they will be Exhibits P69 and P69.1.
20 You do not need to get the witness to read out bits or confirm
21 them. We can read them.
22 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
23 Q. Did there come a time when you were involved in taking a statement
24 from Mr. Vasiljevic in the matters concerned with this case?
25 A. Yes, I did, Your Honour, on the 16th and 17 of November 2000.
1 Q. And did Mr. Vasiljevic make any statement to you regarding any
2 activity or anything he did after the killing of the man at the Drina
4 JUDGE HUNT: Look, we've already got this in evidence. We've got
5 the video in evidence.
6 MR. GROOME: Yes.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Let's get on with it. Let's not double check
8 anything. There was no objection to any of it. Then let's get on with
9 what you have to prove from this witness.
10 MR. GROOME: To understand the next question, Your Honour, I would
11 need an answer to that.
12 JUDGE HUNT: All right, go on.
13 MR. GROOME:
14 Q. Let me ask you this way, Investigator Roy: Did there come a time
15 when you investigated whether or not Mr. Vasiljevic went to the police
16 station and filed a report claiming that Milan Lukic had committed murder
17 at the Drina River on the 7th of June?
18 A. Yes, Your Honour, I did send a request to the Republika Srpska
19 government asking them for the report that Mr. Groome mentioned earlier.
20 Q. Did they have any record of any criminal report being filed by
21 anybody against Milan Lukic during the time period that we are concerned
23 A. Absolutely none, Your Honour.
24 MR. GROOME: I would now ask the witness be shown Prosecution
25 documents 162 and 163. 163 being the original and 162 being the English
1 translation of that document.
2 Q. Investigator Roy, I'd ask to you take a look at Exhibit number 162
3 and 163. Do you recognise what they are?
4 A. Absolutely. The original version from the government of Republika
5 Srpska and our official translator here at the Tribunal.
6 Q. Did there also come a time during the course of this investigation
7 that you attempted to investigate whether or not Mr. Vasiljevic was a
8 member of the Territorial Defence of the military and whether or not he
9 was injured in performance of those duties?
10 A. Absolutely, Your Honours.
11 Q. What did you do to investigate this aspect of his account?
12 A. On the 5th of April of this year, I sent a request to the
13 Republika Srpska government inquiring about the military files of
14 Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic. His time of mobilisation, if he was injured during
15 the war, everything relating to military aspects. Since the sending of my
16 request, I never have any answer, never received any answer from the
17 Republika Srpska government.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome, this document, 162, doesn't tie up in any
19 way. What does file 06-01/94 deal with? This is, as I understand it, an
20 attempt to check whether he went to the police station and spoke to a
21 subsequently deceased police officer to report what had happened.
22 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE HUNT: Well, where do we see that here?
24 MR. GROOME: This letter states that after checking the --
25 JUDGE HUNT: I've read it and it talks about a file number
1 06-01/94 not existing.
2 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. That is the file related to
3 incidents involving Milan Lukic.
4 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry. File 06-01/94 for all we might know
5 might relate to a robbery of the local corner store.
6 MR. GROOME: Well, it says, Your Honour, after that related to
7 incidents involving Milan Lukic.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. It still doesn't tie it in with what the
9 accused said during the course of his interview.
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I will find the request, the specific
11 request and enter that.
12 JUDGE HUNT: I think you'll have to to make any sense of that
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, so that we do not delay, I will have the
15 actual request brought down and perhaps on my re-examination, after cross,
16 I can enter that in through the investigator.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Well, subject to cross-examination, but any way, yes.
18 MR. GROOME: I'd ask that the witness be shown Exhibit number 64,
19 Prosecution document 64.
20 Q. Investigator Roy, do you recognise what Prosecution document
21 number 64 is?
22 A. Absolutely, Your Honour. It's the request that I sent on the 5th
23 of April 2001 to the RS government inquiring about military files for
24 Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time I have no further questions
1 of the investigator. Will Mr. Domazet agree to permit me to inquire
2 about --
3 JUDGE HUNT: What are you going to do with this? Was there ever
4 any reply might be an important thing to make it admissible?
5 MR. GROOME: Yes, I'm sorry, Your Honour. Prosecution tenders the
6 Prosecution document number 64 into evidence.
7 JUDGE HUNT: But we still don't know whether there was any reply
8 to it.
9 MR. GROOME:
10 Q. Investigator Roy, was there ever any reply to that request?
11 A. There was never a reply, Your Honours?
12 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Any objection to the document marked 64
13 Mr. Domazet?
14 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. It will be Exhibit P64.
16 MR. GROOME: I will now conclude my examination if Mr. Domazet
17 agrees I may inquire about that.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Well, we will give you leave to do it later on any
20 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Domazet.
22 Cross-examined by Mr. Domazet:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Roy, do you remember investigating this case
24 in the course of this year, having had a conversation with a person of
25 Muslim ethnicity, who was a patient at the Uzice hospital in May, June and
1 July 1992, in connection with Mitar Vasiljevic?
2 A. Yes, I did, Your Honours.
3 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] I wouldn't like to mention his name,
4 at least not at this stage. I think he has the pseudonym VG113, and could
5 the witness be shown the list to confirm whether that is the witness in
7 A. The name of the witness is not on the list that I've got here.
8 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, it's true. You have another other list?
9 A. The name of the witness is not on this list either, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Would you like to write out a special piece of paper,
11 Mr. Domazet?
12 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, I can --
13 JUDGE HUNT: You have not yet sought protective measures so far as
14 I'm aware so we haven't given you any numbers yet.
15 MR. DOMAZET: But I'm sure that this witness had his -- I think
16 that he is 113.
17 JUDGE HUNT: You write his name out and show it to him.
18 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
19 A. If you're telling me, Mr. Domazet, that this name is 113, I'll go
20 along with it.
21 JUDGE HUNT: But is that name on that piece of paper the witness
22 that you spoke to or the person you spoke to and whose name was
23 subsequently given to the Defence?
24 A. Yes, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Right. Now we will mark that as a document under
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 seal for you. It will be Exhibit D5 and it's under seal.
2 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Roy, do you remember this person giving you some documents?
4 The discharge, his discharge paper, from that hospital, as evidence as to
5 the time he spent in hospital?
6 A. If I recall, Your Honour, I've seen documents and I made a
7 photocopy of the documents. They should be with this VG113 statement.
8 JUDGE HUNT: You mean the person whose name was on that piece of
10 A. Yes, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Because he may not turn out to be 113?
12 A. Well, that's --
13 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
14 Q. I have here this statement in English and in B/C/S, and it says on
15 it, that the witness is 113. But that witness hasn't been called.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Let's not worry about it.
17 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Do you recall showing to that person this photo spread which you
19 also showed to other witnesses as you just explained to us?
20 A. I would have to refer to the statement. Usually it's written in
21 the statement if we show a photo spread or photo array of someone.
22 Q. Yes. In the statement, it says that it was shown to him, and that
23 he identified Mitar Vasiljevic as person number 9 and signed it.
24 A. Yes, Your Honour, it could be. I have to see if my signature is
25 on it, on the --
1 JUDGE HUNT: Have you got it there?
2 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Show it to him, please.
4 A. Yes, Your Honours, my signature is on.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
6 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Do you remember, Mr. Roy, that this person confirmed that Mitar
8 Vasiljevic was in the Uzice hospital at the same time as he was there?
9 MR. GROOME: Objection.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Yes?
11 MR. GROOME: It's hearsay, Your Honour, and it's an available
12 witness that could be called to testify.
13 JUDGE HUNT: I'm not sure what weight we would give to it,
14 Mr. Domazet. It's a matter for you. If you want to secure his credit in
15 advance, that's one thing, I suppose, to save Mr. Roy being recalled, but
16 it's certainly nothing that's going to be given any weight as evidence of
17 the facts stated. You've got the witness to be called. You were given
18 access to him. And as I understood from something that was said during
19 the Pre-Trial Conference or it might have been in your pre-trial brief,
20 you are going to call him. So I don't know what the purpose of getting
21 this evidence in is.
22 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm afraid that this
23 witness may not come at the request of the Defence and in my view, he is a
24 very important witness, but if there are objections of this kind, I shall
25 simply try and tender this discharge document into evidence, given by the
1 witness, which I have had translated into English and I have sufficient
2 copies of it. But we shall try to bring this witness as a Defence
4 JUDGE HUNT: I'm not sure that we are talking about the same
5 thing. When you say a discharge document, do you mean your client's
6 discharge document or your prospective witness's discharge document?
7 MR. DOMAZET: Potential witness, Your Honour, yes.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Well, you can do that. That's not hearsay. It's
9 just a means of proving it, but if you have some concerns about being able
10 to get the witness, then hearsay may have some weight. But you would
11 have to establish why you are unable to call the witness.
12 Mr. Groome, I hesitate to let in unnecessary evidence in, but if
13 there is a problem, we then have to get Mr. Roy back again to prove the
14 statement that was taken.
15 MR. GROOME: Mr. Roy works in the building and would be available
16 any time Mr. Domazet --
17 JUDGE HUNT: He wasn't last week, if I may say so.
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, other than an emergency he would be
20 JUDGE HUNT: That lovely phrase that the OTP uses, "he may be on
21 mission," but if that's so, then we can recall him.
22 Well, Mr. Domazet, may I suggest you tender your prospective
23 witness's discharge document if this witness is able to identify it in
24 some way. Otherwise you'll have to get it in some way later on if your
25 witness does not come.
1 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I agree, Your
2 Honour. And I would like to ask the witness to look at it. He did
3 examine the whole statement taken, to which this document is attached, and
4 I am also submitting it in the English translation.
5 JUDGE HUNT: What I suggest is that you tender the discharge
6 summary, because that's original evidence, and we'll have the statement
7 which this witness is able to identify marked for identification. And
8 then it may then be proved without having to recall Mr. Roy. What do you
9 say to that, Mr. Groome?
10 MR. GROOME: I would agree to that, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Very well. We have no pseudonym for him yet. Shall
12 we call him Witness D1? Or that may be confused with exhibits.
13 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, yes, why not?
14 JUDGE HUNT: How about VGD1? We will call him VGD1 for the moment
15 and his discharge summary will be D6, and the statement that you say the
16 witness took from him, that will be marked for identification 1. And then
17 that won't be in evidence but at least it will be proved without having to
18 recall Mr. Roy if it becomes necessary. Yes. You proceed. You better
19 get the documents admitted.
20 MR. DOMAZET: Yes. [Interpretation] May I give this document to
21 the witness, please?
22 A. Yes, Your Honours. The B/C/S original is the one that was
23 attached to the statement. First time I see the translation of the
25 JUDGE HUNT: Is the other document the statement which you took
1 from this witness who we will call VGD1?
2 THE WITNESS: Well, it's only a photocopy of his release paper.
3 If I look at the translation --
4 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry, you haven't not got it yet. The usher
5 will pick it up for you.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours, this is the statement that I took
7 from VG13.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Or VGD1?
9 THE WITNESS: VGD1.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Domazet, you proceed.
11 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Roy, do you recall that this witness handed over to you or
13 told you that he had given a written statement to the police in
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
15 A. I recall, Your Honours, that this witness did, yes.
16 Q. Do you recollect roughly when that statement was given, in
17 relation to the time when you took your statement?
18 A. If I recall, Your Honours, I think it was in 1997, but I have to
19 look at the document. I've seen the document before, but I would have to
20 look at the document.
21 JUDGE HUNT: Have you got it there, Mr. Domazet?
22 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
23 JUDGE HUNT: Well, show it to the witness, please.
24 A. Yes, Your Honours, it was taken in 1997, the 7 of June 1997.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
1 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Just one more question: As the investigator, Mr. Roy, did you
3 talk to a Muslim woman who eye-witnessed Mitar Vasiljevic's fall from a
5 A. Yes, I did, Your Honours.
6 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I only have her name
7 but not her pseudonym, so perhaps I should write it down too, to remind
8 the witness.
9 JUDGE HUNT: And then write beside it VGD2, would you?
10 A. Yes, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that document will be Exhibit D7 and it is
12 under seal.
13 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your
14 Honour, and if I understood you correctly, it is not necessary for me to
15 provide several copies, because we have to wait to see whether these
16 documents will be admitted or not.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Well, the real documents, if I may so describe them,
18 the two reports, have become part of the evidence, but the statement by
19 the witness has not. That's the statement to the investigator.
20 Yes, Mr. Groome?
21 MR. GROOME: Just one question of the witness, Your Honour.
22 Re-examined by Mr. Groome:
23 Q. Mr. Domazet has just asked you about whether you interviewed a
24 woman who stated that she observed Mr. Vasiljevic fall off a horse. Did
25 this woman tell you the date on which she observed this?
1 A. Yes, Your Honours. It was between the 22nd and the 24th of June
3 MR. GROOME: No further questions.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you, sir. Your task is finished. You're free
5 to leave. Thank you for coming to give your evidence.
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 JUDGE HUNT: Right. Now, you've got some 92 bis?
9 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Ms. Bauer will take care of the
10 introduction of those documents.
11 MS. BAUER: Your Honour, as you recollect, we took up your
12 suggestion to mark the binders and with a sort of -- to make a decision on
13 what portions of the statements the Prosecution intends to rely. We
14 undertook that. We have multiplied all the binders. They are here and
15 ready. We have undertook also another exercise. We redacted some names
16 of protected witnesses in both the English and the B/C/S version, and in
17 addition, we took out some English versions of statements that seemed not
18 to be relevant to that case. In the B/C/S version, I have to add, since
19 it was the original version, this certified statements were taken, I just
20 put a note in, "Irrelevant," because I didn't want to tear those original
21 certified statements apart.
22 JUDGE HUNT: Those names you've redacted, the names themselves
23 have been made known to the defence?
24 MS. BAUER: I would say the names were known throughout the
25 proceedings. They were protected witnesses throughout the proceedings and
1 they are referred to with their pseudonyms.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
3 MS. BAUER: And we marked the binder as document number 143.
4 JUDGE HUNT: How many statements are in there?
5 MS. BAUER: Six statements, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE HUNT: Perhaps you could just read the names or pseudonyms
7 of them on to the record.
8 MS. BAUER: They were not protected witnesses, so I think I can
9 read the names out for the record. It is a statement of Simeon Vasic,
10 including the affidavit provided in the United States. It is Fikret
11 Cocalic, (redacted), Mehmet Tabakovic, and Mehmet Turkovic.
12 JUDGE HUNT: You'll do a kindness if you give those names to the
13 Court reporters.
14 Any objection to those, Mr. Domazet?
15 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no, except for what I
16 already stated, and that is that my only objection was that witness --
17 regarding witness Simeon Vasic.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Remind me. I remember you raising an issue about one
19 of them. You put some documents in in response, as I recall.
20 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I relied on the
21 documents attached to his statement, in fact, in which it was stated that
22 at the time he had been mobilised and was a member of the army for the
23 period when he says he worked at the dam and that he received orders about
24 the release of the water from the dam. I do not have any evidence here to
25 say that he never held that position, because I have not been able to get
1 hold of that document, but I might be able to do that subsequently.
2 However, I thought this witness should not be heard under Rule 92 bis. As
3 for all the others, I had no objection and I have no objection now.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Under which part of the Rule 92 bis do you say he
5 does not qualify?
6 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Are you referring to the statement
7 of the witness, the part of the statement that I'm referring to?
8 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I'm worried about the formalities of Rule 92
9 bis, first of all. Now, does the evidence, or the material in it, do
10 other than go to proof of a matter other than the acts and conduct of the
11 accused as charged in the indictment? That's the first qualification that
12 has to be satisfied. In other words, does it deal at all with the facts
13 relating to your client's conduct as alleged in the indictment?
14 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. My client is not
15 mentioned at all in his statement --
16 JUDGE HUNT: All right.
17 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] -- in any way whatsoever.
18 JUDGE HUNT: And it deals mainly with the alleged attack upon the
19 civilian population by the look of it.
20 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE HUNT: About which there has been no substantial issue
22 taken. The declaration that is attached to it, a notary public is
23 certainly a person who is authorised to witness statements in accordance
24 with the law and procedure of any state, even the United States.
25 The declaration seems to satisfy the terms of the rule. So the
1 only issue is whether it goes in in whole -- the statement goes in in
2 whole or in part and whether he is required to appear for
3 cross-examination. Now, you want to challenge one of the statements in
4 it, as I understand it, because you say you have some document to prove
5 that he, as I recall you said, did not hold the office which he says that
6 he holds inside the statement.
7 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, because in his
8 statement, he says that he was employed at the hydro power plant and that
9 he received orders from the municipal staff from the autumn of 1992 until
10 October 1993 and he has attached a certificate of the command of the
11 second Podrinje Brigade showing that he was engaged in a unit of that
12 brigade of the army of Republika Srpska, from the 9th of May 1992 to the
13 16th of September 1993.
14 As far as regards the certification --
15 JUDGE HUNT: Wait a moment. I see no certificate attached to the
16 statement at all. Are we talking with the same person Simeon Vasic?
17 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour. I have his number 6613524.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that's not the number I've got on mine. He
19 says, according to the statement that I have, that he started working at
20 the hydro plant at Visegrad in 1985. He worked as a supervisor. He was
21 the only Serb in the office. Whereabouts in the statement is there about
22 receiving instructions?
23 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the document I have
24 received, it is to be found on page 645516, in the second paragraph.
25 JUDGE HUNT: I see. Now, you want to challenge that he was
1 employed at the hydro plant at that time, do you?
2 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, because he has provided a
3 certificate showing that he was in the army at the time, and even when he
4 was employed at the power plant, he did not hold such a position.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Who has provided the certificate? Mr Vasic himself,
6 has he?
7 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] I assume so, because I received it
8 from the Prosecution in the binder of exhibits attached to his statement,
9 together with some other written documents which he probably provided.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Well, none of those have been tendered. What's the
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I am unaware of the certificate. I
13 would agree that if Mr. Domazet shows us the certificate and it is a
14 certificate that was connected with the statement, that I would agree that
15 it be introduced as a Defence exhibit on the Defence case. I'm not in
16 possession of the certificate at the moment and I am unaware of it.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Well, now, Mr. Domazet, is that the only challenge
18 that you wanted to put to this person if he had been called as a witness?
19 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Well, if we were to call him as a
20 witness, we would have things to ask him, although the individual never
21 mentioned Mitar Vasiljevic anywhere.
22 JUDGE HUNT: But --
23 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] And if I can be of assistance, if
24 that is a problem, then perhaps not to make it a problem, I can withdraw
25 my objection and exclude that as a piece of evidence.
1 JUDGE HUNT: I do not want you to withdraw any of your objections
2 or your client's rights. The whole purpose of Rule 92 bis is to reduce
3 the time taken by giving the evidence. There is at the very end of the
4 Rule a provision that the Trial Chamber may decide whether a part of the
5 transcript can be rejected or whether to require the witness to appear for
6 cross-examination. In general, you will not get a ruling from the Trial
7 Chamber that a person should attend unless there is some real issue that
8 you want to put to the witness.
9 Now, if you would have put to the witness, had he been called as a
10 witness, this certificate, which challenges a statement which he's made
11 and which appears on the face of it to be relevant to the Prosecution
12 case, we would have brought him along for cross-examination so you could
13 do so. What Mr. Groome has offered is, well, he'll agree to you putting
14 the statement in if you can show him that it's in some way associated with
15 the statement. He appears to have no knowledge of its existence and I can
16 assure you we have no knowledge of its existence. There is no reference
17 to it in the statement itself, for example.
18 May I suggest that you speak to Mr. Groome about this? We can
19 deal with it informally if there is an agreement between you, in the
20 morning. And I mean not in Court but there can be, if you write a consent
21 to this being dealt with, we'll deal with it in the way which you've
22 agreed to.
23 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this certificate is in
24 B/C/S. It wasn't translated. And that is why it was appended to this, so
25 possibly that was the reason, that was why Mr. Groome was not aware of
1 it. But I don't wish to insist upon this because one of my objections was
2 precisely with respect to the certification of that statement, and at that
3 time, I didn't have proof and evidence that in the -- his certificate
4 was -- statement was certified, so I think -- and I don't think that the
5 statement has any great bearing on the Mitar Vasiljevic case. So I would
6 like to withdraw my objection and we can follow along Rule 92 bis.
7 JUDGE HUNT: If you're satisfied with that, Mr. Domazet, you're a
8 very experienced counsel and I wouldn't try to persuade you one way or the
9 other. Very well, then, there is no objection to these documents going
10 into evidence.
11 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. But I would like
12 to ask, if possible, in view of the fact that I'm not here tomorrow, if we
13 have VG81 left over, some business left over, and if we could agree and
14 harmonise our views, that is to say me and Mr. Groome, and that it be
15 recorded in the transcript. There were several points that do not stand
16 in the statement that Witness VG81 gave here in court.
17 JUDGE HUNT: This is the one that you wanted to deal with
18 yesterday? I'm sure that we can get an agreement about that. You want to
19 have noted in the evidence that her statement did not contain a number of
20 matters to which you referred to in her evidence; is that right?
21 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome, you can deal with that, can't you, and we
23 can have that agreement noted at the Pre-Defence conference on Monday
25 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, that would be sufficient. There is
1 one other matter related to this witness. If you recall, this witness
2 refused to identify a number of people from the village of Kosovo Polje
3 and the Court stated that it would credit her evidence less if she did not
4 state those names. I spoke with her and I spoke with Mr. Domazet and
5 offered to make those witnesses available for counsel to interview should
6 he wish to do so and he has declined to do that. So I think that's
7 important that the transcript reflect that those unnamed witnesses were
8 made available to the Defence.
9 JUDGE HUNT: You mean their names were.
10 MR. GROOME: Their names and the Prosecution, not their names,
11 Your Honour, the Prosecution offered to have those people to meet Defence
12 or Defence investigator in the Sarajevo field office at a time convenient
13 to the Defence, to further their investigation on that matter.
14 JUDGE HUNT: So that they would ascertain who -- what their
15 identity was.
16 MR. GROOME: Yes. And what they could contribute to information
17 about this case.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that can be noted. Is that the end of the bits
19 and pieces, if I may so describe them?
20 MS. BAUER: I'm sorry to say not quite.
21 JUDGE HUNT: The folder of 92 bis witness statements will be
22 Exhibit P143.
23 MS. BAUER: Prosecution and the Defence have agreed on some
24 additional exhibits which have not been introduced throughout the trial,
25 and we collected them. They are mainly official UN documentation or from
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 UN organisations talking about Visegrad and also other parts of Bosnia and
2 the persecution campaign in the form of widespread and systematic. There
3 is one exhibit which probably I assume might shock in volume, which is the
4 first exhibit, number P-- marked as number P5. Actually, the Prosecution
5 would only intend to rely, and I can put this on the record, on pages 23
6 and 24 in the English translation of that document. So which would reduce
7 the reading amount quite substantially, but we didn't want to tear apart
8 the whole transcript.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Were you going to take these one by one or
11 MS. BAUER: I could simply read out the numbers and if Mr. Domazet
12 has still an exhibit list, he could follow and simply say whether he would
13 agree or object on the record.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.
15 MS. BAUER: And we have them globally put together in folders.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. What's the next document?
17 MS. BAUER: The first document would be P5. It's the minutes of
18 the 12th session of the assembly of the Serbian people dated on the 24th
19 March 1992.
20 As outlined, we would only rely on the pages 23, 24 in the English
21 version of that transcript, which is a decision on the verification of
22 decision on the proclamation of newly established Serbian municipalities
23 passed by the municipal assembly.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
25 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE HUNT: That will be Exhibit P5, pages 23 and 24 only being
3 MS. BAUER: And the B/C/S translation of this exhibit is P5.1.
4 JUDGE HUNT: P5.1, yes.
5 MS. BAUER: P6 is a telex message by the Assistant Minister of
6 Internal Affairs of the Minister of Interior Internal Affairs of the
7 Serbian Republic of BiH, dated the 31st of March 1992.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
9 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Exhibit P6.
11 MS. BAUER: 6.1 is again the B/C/S version.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Exhibit P6.1.
13 MS. BAUER: Prosecution exhibit numbered 7 is a telex from the
14 Visegrad Municipal Assembly declaring a state of emergency due to the
15 deterioration of the political situation dated on the 6 April 1992. The
16 B/C/S version is 7.1.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
18 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Exhibits P7 and P7.1.
20 MS. BAUER: Next exhibit is only an English report, prenumbered
21 document P12, a report by Tadeusz Mazowiecki on the situation of human
22 rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and dated 10 February 1993. However, we
23 only have certain passages relating to Bosnia, and not Croatia, Macedonia
24 or any other parts of the former Yugoslavia in that report.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
1 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you, Exhibit P12.
3 MS. BAUER: Document marked prenumbered 13 is Council of Europe
4 document, a report by Colin Kaizer on the war damages and cultural
5 heritage in Croatia, BiH, dated 19th of January 1994, only related to the
6 portions related to the municipality of Visegrad.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
8 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Exhibit P13.
10 MS. BAUER: Another report, document prenumbered 40, ICRC special
11 report, the issue of missing persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia
12 and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by the ICRC in Geneva, done in Geneva,
14 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection?
15 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Exhibit P40.
17 MS. BAUER: The two final documents are P48, annex to the final
18 report of the UN Commission of Experts, established pursuant to the
19 Security Council resolution 780. In particular, the pages are 162 and --
20 to 165, dealing with the situation in Visegrad.
21 JUDGE HUNT: Are those separate pages or all the pages between
23 MS. BAUER: Pages between them.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
25 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wasn't quite able to
1 find the page we are talking about.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Pages 162 to 165 in the document numbered 48.
3 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] 162 to 168; is that right?
4 JUDGE HUNT: 162 to 165, according to the transcript.
5 MS. BAUER: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I gave away all my copies so I
6 can't check whether I actually have -- that might be a typo on my list,
7 so --
8 JUDGE HUNT: It's only a three-page document.
9 MR. DOMAZET: Yes. No objection.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Exhibit P48.
11 MS. BAUER: And the last number is prenumbered document 49, as
12 well an annex to the final report of the UN Commission of Experts
13 established pursuant to SC resolution 780, dated 27 May 1994, relating to
14 activities of paramilitary forces in Bosnia, in particular the White
15 Eagles, et cetera.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, the UN commission report.
17 MR. DOMAZET: No objections, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. That will be Exhibit P49.
19 MS. BAUER: Thank you, Your Honour. That will conclude it.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the only remaining matter is the
21 transcript of the accused's statement. There were some minor redactions
22 and some minor corrections that Mr. Domazet and I have not yet had an
23 opportunity to correct.
24 JUDGE HUNT: That's the only matter outstanding?
25 MR. GROOME: It's the only matter outstanding. All the witnesses
1 have been called and all the exhibits have now been tendered.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Well, will you be able to speak to Mr. Domazet about
3 it before he goes?
4 MR. GROOME: I'm not sure we will be able to -- it's up to
5 Mr. Domazet. I'm not sure that it's something that we can complete this
7 JUDGE HUNT: Well, may I suggest this: That you close your case
8 subject to that particular issue, and that at the Pre-Defence Conference
9 on Monday the 22nd, I think it is, you can tender it then.
10 MR. GROOME: Okay. That's acceptable to the Prosecution.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Are you happy with that, Mr. Domazet?
12 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Domazet, as we indicated to you, we will
14 require your compliance with Rule 65 ter paragraph (G), that's the list of
15 witnesses and things, on or before Friday, the 19th of October. It can be
16 faxed to us. The Pre-Defence Conference will be held on Monday morning,
17 the 22nd of October. Hopefully that should not take long. The only
18 matter I can see there should be any discussion about will be the attacks
19 by Muslims upon the Serb civilian population. And then we would expect
20 the Defence case to open on Tuesday, the 23rd of October. I remind you
21 the Trial Chamber will not be sitting during the week of the 29th of
22 October, but otherwise we will sit continuously, subject to any request by
23 either of the parties for time out, or perhaps even a request by the Trial
24 Chamber for time out if we are all exhausted.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution at this time rests its
1 case against Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Subject to that matter.
3 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
5 Anything you want to raise, Mr. Domazet, before you go off to do
6 your work?
7 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour, except to know hours of beginning
8 on Monday 22, or --
9 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I'm happy to fit in with you because I don't
10 think the conference should take long. Is 9.30 not convenient? I don't
11 know what time the plane gets in from Belgrade.
12 MR. DOMAZET: I hope to be on Sunday here.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Well, then, if we can start at 9.30 on Monday
14 morning. We are very grateful to everyone concerned, the interpreters and
15 the Court reporters and the Court staff, for sitting on. We will see you
16 all here again on Monday, the 22nd of October.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
18 4.20 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 22nd day
19 of October, 2001, at 9.30 a.m.