1 Tuesday, 11 December 2001
2 [Private session]
13 Pages 3941 to 3972 – redacted – private session.
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE HUNT: We are now in public session.
5 MR. GROOME: And just one other matter, Your Honour. The
6 psychiatrist is requesting the ability to sit and observe the accused
7 during this testimony. Mr. Domazet has no objection. She is just
8 standing outside. If security could just escort her to the room, I would
9 appreciate that.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. And I should tell you that I ran into Mr. Rohde
11 in the corridors after you raised this issue of getting the accused back
12 to the Detention Unit as soon as possible, and he said he would do
13 everything he could to make that happen.
14 MR. GROOME: The Prosecution appreciates that, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Right. Now, who do we have? The investigator, do
17 MR. GROOME: Yes. The Prosecution calls investigator Garry
19 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
20 I'm sorry, Mr. Domazet. You're still standing up.
21 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour. I'm waiting your permission that
22 Mr. Tanaskovic can come here.
23 JUDGE HUNT: It's not a question of our permission. He's entitled
24 to come in. Whatever arrangement you've entered into in relation to him
25 is a matter between counsel, not the Court. But thank you for asking.
1 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Now, sir, would you please make the solemn
3 declaration in the card which the usher is showing you.
4 WITNESS: GARRY SELSKY
5 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
6 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Sit down, please, sir.
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
9 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I promised
10 Mr. Tanaskovic that I would inform him as soon as the previous witness is
11 finished with the testimony. Since I can't go and inform him personally,
12 could the usher go and inform him? Mr. Tanaskovic could not join us
13 before this because we were in closed session. So he is now waiting in
14 the Defence counsel's room, and I wouldn't want him to miss the testimony
15 of this new witness. I don't think there is any need for that. I think
16 that we avoided any potential problems by not having him present during
17 the testimony of previous witness.
18 JUDGE HUNT: He will have to be escorted here, so the usher is
19 obviously the appropriate person.
20 Thanks, Tomas.
21 Yes, Mr. Ossogo.
22 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Examined by Mr. Ossogo:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Selsky. Will you please
25 introduce to the Chamber -- will you tell us your name, please.
1 A. My name is Garry Paul Selsky.
2 Q. Could you tell the Chamber about your professional experience in a
3 few words? What kind of professional background do you have?
4 A. I'm from Canada. I spent from 1972 to 1998 in the Royal Canadian
5 Mounted Police as an investigator, investigating serious crimes. I worked
6 in immigration, drugs, internal affairs.
7 Q. And you joined the Office of the Prosecutor when?
8 A. In September of 1998.
9 Q. Did you take part in the investigation in the case of the accused,
10 Mitar Vasiljevic [as interpreted]?
11 A. Not specifically.
12 Q. Were you responsible for the preparation of the case against
13 Dragan Nikolic?
14 A. I am so.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Just one moment.
16 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
17 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. There is a problem with the translation there.
18 Was your question: Was he taking part in the investigation of Nikolic,
19 another accused, not Mr. Vasiljevic?
20 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, Mr. President, but there
21 is a delay with the translation, and I am waiting for it.
22 JUDGE HUNT: We're hopefully very conscious of the delay that is
23 necessary, but you were mistranslated. It's been recorded as having asked
24 the witness whether he took part in the investigation of the accused Mitar
25 Vasiljevic, and his answer is, "Not specifically." Now, may I suggest you
1 ask the question again, and this time hopefully it will be translated as
2 referring to Nikolic, not Vasiljevic.
3 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. So I will
4 repeat my question.
5 Q. Did you take part in the investigation concerning Mr. Dragan
7 A. Yes, since his arrest April 22nd, the year 2000.
8 Q. Can you tell us: Who is Mr. Dragan Nikolic?
9 A. Mr. Dragan Nikolic is an indicted person by the Tribunal, the
10 first indictment to take place. He is charged as a commander of Susica
11 camp, in the municipality of Vlasenica, and he has many counts against his
12 activities, his alleged activities, between April of 1992 to September of
14 Q. Can you give us the date of his arrest, please?
15 A. He was arrested on the 22nd of April, 2000
16 Q. Can you tell us which representative of the Tribunal was present
17 at his arrest?
18 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Ossogo, I think, if I may just issue a word of
19 caution here. The circumstances of Mr. Nikolic's arrest are very much in
20 issue in a motion which he has brought seeking to be released as a result
21 of the circumstances of his arrest. Now, if you need to go into them, by
22 all means do so but I suggest you do so with some care.
23 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. This is a
24 case involving quite specific details, so let me get to the next question.
25 Q. When Mr. Nikolic was arrested, Mr. Selsky, did you find on
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Mr. Nikolic's person identity cards?
2 A. No. I wasn't present when his effects, his wallet, was taken from
3 him, but his wallet was turned over to me at the Tribunal on the 25th of
4 April, 2000, by Bob Reid, acting chief of investigations.
5 Q. And the wallet that you were given by Mr. Bob Reid, did you have
6 an opportunity to see whether there were any identity cards there that
7 were confiscated at the time of Mr. Nikolic's arrest?
8 A. Yes. I went through the wallet and looked at the contents, and
9 seized them or put them into plastic bags, each piece of -- item that I
11 Q. Were there any identity cards there that could serve as evidence
12 of Mr. Nikolic's identity?
13 A. Yes. There was three pieces of identification in the names of
14 Vidovic and Petric. Both are -- some of the identification had
15 photographic pictures identifying or showing the picture of Dragan
17 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have here
18 photocopies of those identity cards with photographs on them depicting
19 Mr. Nikolic. We will distribute them to the usher so that he could give
20 it to the witness and the witness could proceed with identifying them.
21 Q. Is this a copy of identity cards that were confiscated and turned
22 over to you?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Is that what you have before you?
25 A. This appears to be a copy of the identification that I examined
1 and processed and put the originals in a clear plastic bag.
2 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have now here the
3 three plastic bags containing identity cards of Mr. Nikolic.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Let's wait and see if there's some challenge to it.
5 You tender these documents that were found on Mr. Nikolic.
6 Is there any objection to them, Mr. Domazet?
7 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much. They will be Exhibit P144. Is
9 that right? No. I'm sorry. They --
10 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE HUNT: They are Exhibits P111.1 and 111.2 and 111.3.
12 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm proposing, just in
13 order to see these identity cards clearly, to distribute these three
14 originals that are in plastic bags.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Do you mind if we just get on with it, Mr. Ossogo?
16 This is a very straightforward issue. Do we need to see them? They are
17 photostats. May I suggest you ask the witness, "Do they bear photographs
18 of Mr. Nikolic?" and then we can him ask what was said to Mr. Nikolic
19 about it. We don't really need to do this unless there is some challenge,
20 and there hasn't been so far.
21 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Are these the originals that you mentioned previously, Mr. Selsky,
23 that had been put in plastic bags and are in fact identity cards of
24 Mr. Nikolic?
25 A. Yes. These are the identity cards that we retrieved from
1 Mr. Nikolic's wallet and made photocopies as you have before you.
2 Q. Thank you, sir.
3 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] We will not tender these documents
4 because the purpose of them was simply to get a clear picture of the
6 Q. Mr. Selsky, could you please tell us whether Mr. Nikolic gave any
7 kind of statement to the OTP investigators?
8 A. Between the 27th of November and the 23rd of March, I spoke to
9 Mr. Nikolic for nine days and interviewed him throughout those nine days.
10 Q. This statement that you mentioned, was it recorded? Was it
11 recorded on a videotape?
12 A. Yes. The interview took place in regards to the -- or in
13 adherence to the policies of the Office of the Prosecutor. Mr. Nikolic
14 was present and represented by his lawyer, Mr. Howard Morrison. He was
15 represented by his own interpreter. The interview was videotaped, and he
16 was warned at the beginning of the interview and subsequently at each
17 break. He cooperated through the interview and understood the
18 English-to-Serbian translation.
19 Q. Have you asked him about the identity cards that were found on
21 A. Yes. The first day he was asked about the contents of his wallet,
22 and he indicated that this identification was obtained by himself, and it
23 was used for two purposes: one was to carry a pistol, and the other false
24 documents were used to obtain health care.
25 Q. So he therefore admitted having those three identity cards on him,
1 didn't he?
2 A. Yes, he did.
3 Q. And he admitted using all those three identity cards, didn't he?
4 A. Yes, he did. He had back problems of which he had to get X-rays
5 and different treatments, and it was used for that purpose.
6 Q. You have told us that the video recording was done during the
7 interview. We would ask that the part that was videotaped be shown here
8 so that you can see whether this is indeed the man that you mentioned and
9 whether this was the situation described by you.
10 So I will now ask our technical audio booth to show us this tape.
11 This is Prosecution evidence P114.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Ossogo --
13 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] We also have a transcript of this
15 JUDGE HUNT: -- is this really necessary? Surely the transcript
16 will do. If there is some challenge to what is said, we can play the
17 tape. We are not trying Mr. Nikolic here. We are trying --
18 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] Very well, sir.
19 JUDGE HUNT: -- to get in a very simple piece of evidence. And
20 let's get to it. What did he say when he was asked to give an innocent
21 explanation for his possession of these cards? Now, have you got the
22 transcript? Let's get the relevant part of it in.
23 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President. We thought
24 that perhaps we could show the video and to give then the extra -- the
25 excerpts from the transcript, from pages 26 to 31, and which deal with
1 questions relative to these identity cards. But now could the usher
2 please help me to distribute this transcript? It is 114, Prosecutor's
3 Exhibit 114.1. And we thought we could read as we watched the video.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Is there any objection to this transcript,
5 Mr. Domazet?
6 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. It will be Exhibit 114.1 for the English
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters be given some copies,
10 too, please.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Domazet. Wait a minute.
12 Would you give a copy of the transcript, please, to the
14 Yes, Mr. Domazet.
15 MR. DOMAZET: I have only English version. I don't know if we
16 have a B/C/S version.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Do you have a B/C/S version, Mr. Ossogo?
18 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] No. I'm sorry, but we do not have a
19 version in B/C/S.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then let's play the tape. You'll get it in one
21 way or the other, I suppose. Let's do it. Play the tape, please.
22 Have the interpreters got copies of the transcript?
23 THE INTERPRETER: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Let's play the tape, please.
25 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] [No translation]
1 [Videotape played]
2 "Q. I can assist here, if it helps.
3 A. Yes. They were --
4 Q. Yes. There's been a trial in Serbia and it should have
5 come up yesterday. Sorry. I've forgetting we have a weekend in between.
6 Friday. You stated you produced identification to the police. Who were
7 the police?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What -- what type of identification and in what name did
10 you produce it?
11 A. A personal identification card which we have, with a
12 photograph of me, issued in Republika Srpska.
13 Q. And in whose name was that card?
14 A. It was not in my name.
15 Q. Okay. I will show you some identification that was taken
16 from you. This is item number 2. It's Republic of Srpska identification
17 in the name of Zoran Petric.
18 A. That's not the photograph that I showed you.
19 Q. Okay. Is that your identification?
20 A. No. I showed a personal ID card. This is different from
21 the refugee pass. I had health problems, and I had to produce this when I
22 was making payments. I had a back injury.
23 Q. I will produce an identity card for the army of the
24 Republika Srpska, numbered DO-60/95, in the name of Dobrica Vidovic. Is
25 this what you produced?
1 A. It's not that. This was issued as a permit for carrying
2 a sidearm, a sidearm. I had my own personal pistol, and you -- this
3 permit allowed a person to carry it around through the entire territory of
4 the Republika Srpska. If you went to Banja Luka or Sarajevo or any other
5 place, you would be able to carry an excess and it says that there was a
6 pistol registered.
7 Q. Okay. For identification purposes, this is item number
8 3. Item number 4 is the Republika Srpska ID card, number PC-00054220, in
9 the same name of Dobriza Vidovic.
10 A. This is the ID that I showed.
11 Q. This one?
12 A. This is what I showed them. And the other two documents
13 were both in the wallet together with the money, the German marks that I
14 had. I don't know if I had any dinars along with that money in the
15 wallet. And also there was an address book in there.
16 Q. Why was this in somebody else's name, this identification
17 marked number item 4?
18 A. You mean this identity card?
19 Q. This identity card. Why was it in somebody else's versus
20 your name, Dragan Nikolic?
21 A. Because that is the name under which I had registered,
22 and I asked that such a document be issued to me.
23 Q. Okay. When did you start using this name, sir?
24 A. 1996. I believe it was in 1996.
25 Q. And the other name, Zoran Petric, when did you use that
2 A. I used it only for the health care purposes. As a
3 refugee, you were entitled to free medical examinations and you paid some
4 symbolic amount for any treatment or medication. For instance, if I had
5 to have an x-ray taken, that would have cost something between 100 pension
6 payments that my mother would get, just the one x-ray of my spine. And
7 refugees had free health care.
8 Q. Okay. Was this identification used at all to protect
9 your identity, to protect it, keep it secret that you weren't Dragan
11 A. In a way, yes, even though I stayed with my family and in
12 a small circle of friends who knew me.
13 Q. So when did you know that there was an indictment against
15 A. I think that it was immediately after the indictment had
16 been issued. Some people who were listening to the Muslim radio had heard
17 some soldiers who were in the signals corps. They told me how they had
18 heard about it, that an indictment had been issued. And in some areas,
19 one could watch Muslim television; in others, one could not. For
20 instance, in Vlasenica, people in one part of town could catch the
21 programming; the others could not. It was on television once. I did not
22 watch it, but someone told me who had watched it. I don't know -- a
23 relative. I don't know if my brother ever saw it, because I think he was
24 in the part of town that could not watch that programme.
25 Q. What year was that? Do you remember?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. I believe late 1994, maybe early 1995, but I believe it
2 was later 1994, perhaps around this time of the year. I don't know.
3 Sometime in November.
4 Q. Okay. Did the authorities assist you with this
6 A. I don't know if I can -- I don't know if we can call it
7 authorities. I was assisted by a man who had connections with the
8 authorities, but no, I couldn't say that I was assisted by the
9 authorities, if you look at it as this hierarchical structure.
10 Q. So you didn't go officially to the front door of the
11 refugee identification centre and get the identification? This man helped
12 you with it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you paid this man for helping you?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you know who this man is and who he represents?
17 A. I know this man, yes, and a friend of his did it. He
18 just said that this would be done.
19 Q. Was this man from the police or from the secret service,
20 or from which organisation is he from?
21 A. This was -- he was a member of the reserve civilian
22 police, and the man, I don't know about his friend, the man who actually
23 did it, but as far as the weapons permit is concerned, that was done
24 through another unit. I was not a member of that unit. There was an
25 incident in which I was involved. There were some ethnic Serbs who had
1 attacked me. I had not known them before, and there were four or five of
2 them. And I still have a scar from it, a permanent scar on my head from
3 the blows from the pistol.
4 Q. This attack happened why?
5 A. We were sitting in a coffee bar not far from my home.
6 They walked in and they were fairly inebriated. They said that everybody
7 should leave the coffee bar. I was facing away from the entrance. There
8 was a mirror. Some people started leaving. There weren't that many
9 patrons at the time. There were maybe 10 to 15 people inside. They asked
10 me what I was waiting for and they cursed me, and I sort of started
11 rising. I had a pistol on me at the time. Without a reason, they just
12 simply attacked me. Then one of them hit me. I still have a dent here
13 from that blow. And a couple of my teeth were knocked out and so . Then
14 some friends of mine showed up. These people ran away. They just
15 scattered. And then later on they were captured and I think that there
16 was a trial. I haven't been following it. I don't know what the outcome
17 was, but they were charged with attempted murder. And as I said, there
18 was a ban on people carrying weapons. And you had to be a member of a
19 special unit in order to be able to carry your sidearm, and if you wanted
20 to go, let's say, to another municipality just 10 kilometres away, you
21 needed a special permit for that, and this is why I got the permit. And
22 so I got this from someone whom I knew who had a unit. It was a unit of
23 -- a special police unit, and they were able to carry weapons in the
24 entire territory of Republika Srpska. Not heavy weapons, but they could
25 carry sidearms.
1 Q. Okay. You have identification in Dragan Nikolic and then
2 you have two in different names here as well, Zoran Petric and Vidovic.
3 A. Dobriza Vidovic.
4 Q. Yes. Why have two different names with other names as
6 A. This ID issued to Zoran Petric, I completely forgot about
7 it. I learned that this man is originally from Banovici and he was killed
8 during the war. I don't know him. And then there was a man from Banovici
9 who lived in Vlasenica as a refugee, and he told me that he could provide
10 me with this document for medical reasons. And as I said, I mean, I
11 mentioned how expensive these things were, medical things, and if they
12 check your identity, if they wanted to verify it, this is why I had this
13 identity card. My mother's pension was about 10 German marks, 10 or 15 a
14 month. And the image that I had developed is something called - I don't
15 know - electromiography --
16 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] We can stop the tape now.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Now, is that tape P114?
18 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Domazet?
20 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE HUNT: It will be Exhibit P114.
22 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] I would just like to remind that the
23 transcript is numbered as Exhibit 114.1.
24 Q. Mr. Selsky, when you look at the transcript in front of you and
25 when you see the transcript of the videotape, does it corresponds to what
1 was taped in your presence?
2 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Ossogo, there's no need for that. We've got the
3 tape, and we've got a transcript of it. You don't need to get the witness
4 to verify it. It's either right or it's wrong, but we've got the original
5 in evidence.
6 Now, please will you proceed with any further questions you want
7 to ask him?
8 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] This was just in case there are any
9 minor differences regarding this but, Mr. President, we're almost finished
10 with this.
11 Q. Mr. Selsky, we will now show you a map. This is a map of Bosnia
12 and Herzegovina, and we will ask you to point to some things on it.
13 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, could you please assist us
14 with it.
15 JUDGE HUNT: To save time, Vlasenica appears to be just above the
16 "N" and the "A" in "Herzegovina," and Visegrad we know the position of
17 very well. Is that what you want to get from him, the relationship
18 between two areas?
19 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] That's exactly so, Your Honour,
20 Visegrad and Vlasenica.
21 Q. So please can you just mark with a circle these places on the
23 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, do you object to the tender of this as
24 Exhibit 115?
25 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour. No.
1 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. The map will be Exhibit P115. Thank
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should it be marked in red or...
4 JUDGE HUNT: Any colour you like, sir.
5 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet.
7 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] We have now finished with this
9 Cross-examined by Mr. Domazet:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Selsky, good morning. I would like to ask
11 you a few questions regarding what was shown here today and what we heard
12 from you here today.
13 The transcript from Dragan Nikolic's interview, on page 27, line
14 9, provides his explanation concerning the ID card. Well, it says here
15 "personal ID card." Is that the exhibit that you have in front of you
16 which is marked as 111.3?
17 A. The first one I showed Mr. Nikolic was item number 2. That shows
18 up as 11.1 [sic].
19 JUDGE HUNT: 111.1.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me.
21 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Does that mean that this is what he had in mind when he said that
23 he needed an ID card because of the health problems he had?
24 A. I'm not sure what he had in mind.
25 Q. This ID card that you mentioned as the second one shown, the one
1 marked as 111.1, can you tell when it was issued? Or if this can be of
2 assistance: Was it done on the 28th of September, 1998? Was it issued on
3 that date?
4 A. When I say "the second one," this is referring to my numbering
5 system I used when discussing with Mr. Nikolic at my interview. So it's
6 not the second one I showed him. It's just -- it's actually the first one
7 I showed him, but it's my number 2, just explaining that. And there is a
8 date on the right-hand lower corner of the identification showing the 28th
9 of 09/98.
10 JUDGE HUNT: And the English translation describes that as the
11 date of issue, Mr. Domazet, if it will save some time.
12 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Your Honour.
13 Q. So this is the date of issue. So this refugee ID card could be
14 put in use from that date on; isn't that so? So if this ID was used by
15 Mr. Nikolic in order to obtain medical services and he did not show any
16 other refugee ID to you, that means that starting from the end of
17 September 1998, it was possible to use that ID. Do you agree with me?
18 A. It is a false document, and after that date it could have been
19 used, yes.
20 Q. Yes, I know it's a false document, but if he used it at all, he
21 could have only used after this day; isn't that so? Was there any mention
22 of the fact that some other ID, personal ID, had to be shown in addition
23 to other documents such as this refugee card?
24 A. I don't know exactly which document Mr. Nikolic presented when
25 he -- when he presented these multiple documents to authorities he used.
1 Q. Yes. But if there was a need to show a personal ID in addition to
2 the refugee card and if he were to show such personal ID card, isn't it a
3 fact that the two ID cards that you have in front of you are bearing
4 different names but same photograph? And now I mean by Exhibit 111.3.
5 A. Yes. This is identification in the name of Vidovic.
6 Q. Yes. So if he had to show a personal ID card together with a
7 refugee ID card, then he wouldn't have been able to do so because these
8 two cards are issued in two different names; isn't that so?
9 A. Yes, but I don't know what documents he did produce, sir.
10 Q. When he spoke about the fact that he needed medical assistance and
11 that he used one of these documents for those purposes, did he tell you
12 where he obtained this medical assistance?
13 A. I can't recall that.
14 JUDGE HUNT: We do not know, Mr. Domazet, where he was living at
15 the time of his arrest. All we know is that he was -- he's been charged
16 with events that happened in, if I can get the pronunciation correct,
18 MR. DOMAZET: Vlasenica, yes. [Interpretation] Vlasenica, yes.
19 Well, this is why I'm putting this question, in order to comprehend the
20 relevance of questioning of this witness as it concerns Mr. Vasiljevic.
21 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, I'm only trying to assist you to get to
22 the real issue. Why don't you simply ask him where was he living at the
23 time of his arrest?
24 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Do you know, Mr. Selsky --
1 A. I was told --
2 Q. -- where --
3 A. I was told during the interview the exact name, and I cannot
4 recall that name, but it's in a smaller village on the east side of
6 Q. Could I be of assistance and ask you whether that place perhaps is
8 A. Yes, that's correct, sir.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, that leaves the question: "Who are the
10 issuing authorities of these ID cards?"
11 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, can it be gleaned from this refugee ID card
13 who are the issuing authorities, whether this is a refugee ID card issued
14 by Republika Srpska or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
15 A. I cannot tell from the original.
16 JUDGE HUNT: At least two of them are shown as Republika Srpska.
17 I don't know about the third.
18 How is your Cyrillic reading, Mr. Domazet?
19 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] The seal of this refugee ID card
20 says "Republika Srpska," and then underneath it says, "CSB," which should
21 be the public security centre in Sarajevo. Then beneath that it says,
22 "Vlasenica," and yet beneath that there is something, "Public security,"
23 but I can't see what it is in front, and then it says, "Ministry of the
24 Interior." This means that this is the ID -- refugee ID of Republika
25 Srpska and that Mr. Nikolic identified himself as the refugee in Republika
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 Q. Do you know that Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had special
3 refugee cards, which means that refugees went through a special
4 registration process in Yugoslavia and obtained their refugee ID cards
6 A. I'm not aware of that.
7 Q. Based on an interview conducted with him, did you find out where
8 he obtained medical treatment? Was it in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
9 or in Republika Srpska?
10 A. I didn't specifically ask him that question, I don't believe.
11 Q. And when he spoke about very expensive X-rays which he said cost a
12 hundred monthly retirement benefits of his mother, do you know which
13 country he had in mind? Was it Republika Srpska or the Federal Republic
14 of Yugoslavia?
15 A. It wasn't an issue at the time, and I didn't ask him that
17 Q. What do you mean it wasn't an issue at the time, Mr. Selsky? As
18 regards what?
19 A. From my perspective, it wasn't an issue where he received some
20 medical treatment. It was my understanding -- I was more concerned of the
21 fact that he was using this identification, as an indicted person, not to
22 be apprehended.
23 Q. That's what I think, too, Mr. Selsky, but you are here to
24 demonstrate that he used these documents in order to provide free medical
25 care. I don't think this to be the case. I think that he said this on
1 purpose, for reasons known only to him. Do you know whether his mother is
2 alive, the one that had 10 to 15 Deutschemarks in monthly retirement
4 A. The last time that I spoke with him, it's my understanding that
5 she's still alive.
6 Q. Yes. But did she live in Republika Srpska or in Yugoslavia?
7 A. She previously lived in Vlasenica. And where exactly she's living
8 at present, I'm not aware of that, sir.
9 Q. Do you know or did you check whether this claim that at the time
10 one X-ray could have cost 1.500 Deutschemarks, as stated by Mr. Nikolic,
11 is true?
12 A. I didn't check, no.
13 Q. And did he ever discuss the period in 1992 when he described those
14 medical services?
15 A. It's my recollection that he wasn't referring to the period of
16 1992 during this time.
17 Q. Thank you. And just one more question. Do you know when was this
18 indictment issued and when did he find out that there was an indictment?
19 JUDGE HUNT: He dealt with that in the record of interview. You
20 may not want to accept it, but he said it was issued in 1994 or 1995, and
21 he heard about it because somebody else in the town had seen it on
23 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] It's not a question of accepting
24 it. I just wanted to verify whether this indeed is that period of time or
25 perhaps a time prior to that. There is a possibility that Dragan Nikolic
1 misstated this on purpose.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Well, the proceedings bear the number, from memory,
3 95-2. There was a second indictment filed. It was actually the first one
4 that was issued, I believe. It was certainly the second one filed.
5 MR. DOMAZET: Thank you. My last question.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Did he ever tell you that he received medical
7 treatment in Visegrad or in Uzice in Serbia?
8 A. I explained that to you before. I can't recall. I don't think he
10 MR. DOMAZET: Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further
12 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Selsky, a number of people, when they're
13 arrested, have incriminating evidence or evidence which may be
14 incriminating upon them, don't they?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE HUNT: And these false identity cards were just such
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 JUDGE HUNT: On the face of them, they are incriminating.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 JUDGE HUNT: And you asked him, in effect, did he have an innocent
22 explanation for having them.
23 THE WITNESS: Indirectly, yes.
24 JUDGE HUNT: And he gave these explanations about needing them for
25 medical attention.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Is it still part of the Prosecution case that his
3 possession of these ID cards was incriminating?
4 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE HUNT: It's not. Have you accepted his explanation?
6 THE WITNESS: On the face of them, yes.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. And that is because of the dates that they
8 bear, is it, that they related to sometime more recently? 1998, I think
9 one of them was.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. It -- in comparison to what he stands before
11 the Tribunal for, it's minuscule, and we really didn't look at it in any
12 other light, and we didn't compare it to any other sources or we didn't
13 investigate his side of the story. We just took it as face.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
15 Do you want to ask any questions about that, Mr. Domazet?
16 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour. Thank you.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Any re-examination, Mr. Ossogo?
18 MR. OSSOGO: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much, sir, for coming along to give
20 evidence. You're now free to leave.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
23 JUDGE HUNT: We'll resume at 2.30.
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: Sir, would you please stand and make the solemn
4 declaration in the form of the document that is being handed to you.
5 WITNESS: CEDOMIR VUCETIC
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
8 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Sit down, please.
10 Mr. Domazet.
11 MR. DOMAZET: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Examined by Mr. Domazet:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Doctor. Today I will be asking
14 you some questions on behalf of the Defence, and I'd like to ask you one
15 thing: When I ask you my questions, and when my learned friends start to
16 ask you questions, to always make a short break in order to facilitate the
17 work of the interpreters, all the more so as there will no doubt be very
18 many medical terms which are of high relevance and yet are difficult for
19 interpretation. But let us begin with my first question.
20 Could you please give some particulars about you.
21 A. I am Cedomir Vucetic. I am a specialist in orthopaedic surgery
22 and traumatology. I come from Belgrade. I am the head of the orthopaedic
23 team of surgeons at the emergency centre in Belgrade, and the team has
24 five doctors, orthopaedic surgeons. I'm also head of that department at
25 the Institute for Orthopaedic Surgery and Dermatology in Belgrade, and I'm
1 a docent or, if you like, assistant professor at the faculty of medicine
2 in Belgrade.
3 In my clinical work, I engage in the treatment of lower-leg
4 injuries and all the consequences, which means very complicated surgical
5 interventions, the compensation of the replacement and implantation of
6 soft tissues and cartilages, that is, all that is involved in
7 microsurgical interventions. In other words, I have by now acquired
8 considerable experience in this particular area.
9 That, I think, would be enough.
10 Q. Thank you. You have attached your C.V. to your finding, but I
11 should nevertheless like to ask you to tell us: How many years of service
12 do you have behind you?
13 A. I specialised in orthopaedic surgery and traumatology, and I
14 started doing it since 1988 at the Institute for Orthopaedic Surgery and
16 Q. And now, although you teach at the faculty of medicine and you are
17 head of all these departments, but are you still an active surgeon? Do
18 you still perform operations?
19 A. Oh, yes, definitely, because that is my primary concern, my
20 principal role. This is my job. And it involves the treatment of the
21 most complex injuries, of the severest injuries, and since I also do
22 microsurgical interventions and amputation of lower legs, of foot, of
23 hands, replantations, and all possible complications, that is, the
24 infection, the emergence of ulcers, defects, or muscular defects, I also
25 apply complex surgical -- microsurgical interventions; that is, I
1 transplant tissues and I apply Ilizarov's method, which is a special
2 method applied in the treatment of complex lower-leg injuries and other
3 injuries. I mention that in particular because I have considerable
4 experience in the treatment of lower-leg injuries and effects of lower-leg
6 Q. Yes. The lower leg, because in this case this is very important.
7 As you could see from the material that you were supplied with, we are
8 dealing with a lower-leg injury.
9 Now, on the basis of your finding, I'd like to ask you, but I
10 think you are talking -- you are a speaking a little bit too fast for the
11 interpreters. So will you please, when you give your answers, will you
12 then try to speak a little slower, just a little bit slower.
13 In relation to Mitar Vasiljevic's injuries, you were given the
14 documentation, and you also wrote your finding and your opinion. Is that
16 A. Yes. I can confirm it, yes. Yes. I had it at my disposal. I
17 had x-rays, one dating to 1992, and six x-rays made in 2001. I analysed
18 them, and in view of the problem, the consideration here, I studied them
19 and I submitted my report on them.
20 Q. You explain it at the very beginning of your finding under items A
21 and B; isn't it?
22 A. Yes, that's right.
23 Q. But did you answer the questions -- rather, did you analyse the
24 finding of Dr. de Grave, and --
25 JUDGE HUNT: Let's get the report into evidence, shall we? It's
1 going to save an immense amount of time.
2 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Is there any objection to the tender of his report?
4 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
6 What is your next number? According to me, it's either 35 or 38.
7 There seems to have been some sort of change of numbers.
8 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may have skipped
9 one. If 35 is free, then I think we could use 35, but I believe 37 was
10 the last marked exhibit on our part.
11 JUDGE HUNT: To be safe, let's make it 38, shall we?
12 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
13 JUDGE HUNT: So that the doctor's report --
14 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HUNT: -- which is dated the 22nd of November, will be
16 Exhibit 38, D38.
17 Now, you may take it that we've read it. If you want him to
18 highlight matters or to expand upon them, do so, but we don't want him
19 just to read it out.
20 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, I believe you have your report in front
22 of you, and I'd like to ask you, therefore, to ask you some things about
23 the most important parts of this report. There is no need for you to read
24 out this report or to comment on the body of it. I will only invite you
25 to answer my questions, and I possibly will be inviting some comments.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 As for this chapter entitled "Knee," I have no questions in regard
2 of that one, but I will have some questions to ask you about your finding
3 regarding the lower leg.
4 At the very beginning when you say that the x-rays were somewhat
5 deficient, that they had certain shortcomings, could you please explain
6 what it is that is missing and what, according to you, should have been
7 done technically better so that results could be more precise?
8 A. The certain technical shortcomings in the x-rays can be referred
9 to both when we -- it comes to the x-ray performed in 1992. However, the
10 same holds true of the x-rays made in 19 -- 200 -- 2001. Excuse me.
11 The x-rays of 1992 do not show the upper third of the lower leg or
12 the upper end of both the tibia and fibula. It is not visible on these
13 x-rays. One can understand that up to a degree, because very often the
14 length of the lower leg makes it difficult to include its full length in
15 the standard x-ray formats.
16 The x-ray of the knee done in 2001, I observed that it is not
17 indicated anywhere which leg it is, that is, whether it is the left or the
18 right leg. Likewise, the ankle is not marked on one of the x-rays of
20 These shortcomings, however, are insignificant and basically
22 Q. Could you please give us your explanation first with regard to the
23 lower-leg x-ray of the 14th of June, 1992? You had available the copy
24 which I received from the Prosecutor and sent over to you, and you also
25 could see indicated what leg was concerned, because that seemed to be in
1 dispute. Perhaps it would be best if you had before you this x-ray so
2 that you could explain to us what this is all about.
3 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have x-rays which the
4 expert studied, those that I was given by the Prosecution, and I believe
5 they have already been tendered and marked.
6 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, that's right.
7 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] So may I give them to the doctor so
8 that he can have them in front of him? Perhaps we could have it on the
9 ELMO. Will you try to do that?
10 JUDGE HUNT: We did try it once before and it didn't work, but it
11 may this time.
12 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if I may be of assistance, Prosecution
14 Exhibit 151 and 21.2 are positive images of that, which will show up on
15 the ELMO.
16 JUDGE HUNT: That's --
17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.
19 MR. GROOME: 151 and 21.2.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
21 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Doctor, so you will have those x-rays in front of you and you will
23 have the positives on the ELMO, which I believe will also be of help.
24 Now, Doctor, will you please explain: Where did you find on this
25 x-ray, say, which leg it is?
1 A. Yes, of course. I now observe on the monitor that even this mark
2 which I am referring to can be seen on this reproduction which we are
3 using to explain this fact. This mark is in the lower right corner. On
4 the initial x-ray it is marked by a black marker against a black
5 background, so it's poorly visible. And we can see here a circle, and in
6 the circle, the letter "L." Now, part of that "L" is visible here on this
7 light surface, on this light linear surface. I'm pointing at it right
8 now. So that there's no longer a fact in dispute that the initial x-ray
9 was marked indicating that this was the left leg.
10 Q. Dr. Vucetic, you are saying that we can see this part, but on the
11 x-ray that you have, can one see this whole circle and letter "L"?
12 A. Yes, one can see it, but one must really have a close look and
13 look at it at a particular angle to light. Light has to fall under a
14 specific angle.
15 Q. Very well. Will you then briefly describe to us what you see here
16 on this x-ray? What kind of a fracture is this, according to this
17 fracture [as interpreted]?
18 A. This was the initial x-ray made after the injury, and it shows, it
19 represents, a so-called spiral fracture between the lower and the middle
20 third of the tibia. It is characteristic of this fracture that the line
21 of the fracture is S-shaped and that it is drawn out. The effect of such
22 a drawn-out S-shaped fracture is the shortening of the leg at the site of
23 the fracture and a certain dislocation. The leg can be 5 millimetres or
24 more shorter.
25 Q. Will you explain, Doctor, how does this shortening mean [as
1 interpreted], and what does it mean in practice? How does it happen and
2 what does it mean in practice?
3 A. The shortening is the common phenomenon in most of the fractures
4 of long bones, and that is the lower leg. That is, the mechanism which
5 leads to the shortening should be sought in the fact that the muscles tend
6 to contract, and since the muscles are joined to the bones and the bone is
7 fractured, the length of the muscles is also reduced, and therefore,
8 because of the attachments, the length of the bone as well.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, you can go just a little bit more quickly if
10 you wish. It's being taken down very speedily by the typists, and the
11 interpreters are more than keeping up with you, so if you'd like to go
12 just a little bit more quickly, I think it would be easier for us to
13 listen to.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
15 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Doctor, when you say this, what I'd like to know is if this is
17 perhaps the reason for the extension as the method of treatment, or is it
18 not necessarily the case?
19 A. The extension is a conventional and simple method of treatment of
20 lower-leg fractures, and it was also applied in this case, precisely
21 because of its simplicity and efficiency.
22 Such a fracture can always be treated in different ways. The
23 extension, what was achieved with the extension was to offset the
24 shortening and the dislocation. And after a certain period of time, of
25 course, it provided for the rest of the immobilisation of the site of the
1 fracture so that the bone could begin to heal.
2 Q. And if I ask you the following: When extension is applied to a
3 fracture like this one, would then such an x-ray following the extension
4 look rather different than the x-ray that you have before you? And if
5 these two x-rays were different, how? In what way would they be
7 A. Doubtless the changes are quite noticeable before and after the
8 application of extension. The change can be in the complete correction or
9 perhaps not quite but almost full correction, but improvement is very
10 visible. The effect of the extension is the improvement of the position
11 or full correction. That is the range.
12 Q. Yes. I understand that. That is a medical answer which explains
13 what are the results of the extension. But as far as the x-ray is
14 concerned, would that x-ray be substantially different from the one that
15 was made on the 14th of June, 1992?
16 A. Yes. We could say that it would be definitely different in the
17 sense that it would show a correction of the position of fragments.
18 Q. Would it be possible to establish the beginning and the end of the
19 fracture? Could we establish the dimensions of the fracture, and would
20 that be different on an x-ray after the extension treatment or several
21 weeks after such treatment had begun?
22 A. The changes are definitely visible. There is a general problem
23 here when comparing x-rays after the consolidation of a fracture, namely,
24 nine years after it healed, when we compare these x-rays to the initial
1 Q. Doctor, you have used a term "remodelling" or "rebuilding" in your
2 report. Can you tell us what does this term pertain to and what is it
4 A. I would like to give several important facts in that regard. One
5 thing is that we use the extension to correct the length and the
6 interrelation of fragments. The other thing is that the healing was
7 completed, which in turn led to forming of new bone tissue at the location
8 where there used to be a fracture line, and in this manner, the line of
9 fracture became either invisible or more difficult to see. The healing
10 itself is supposed to erase the line of fracture.
11 After the bone healed, then there is either an invisible line on
12 fracture or one that can be seen with difficulty, and we also have new
13 bone tissue which can be seen as a thickening not only at the area where
14 there used to be a fracture, and it can perhaps be -- its dimensions could
15 be from several millimetres to perhaps a whole centimetre, and this
16 thickening should be somewhere near the line of fracture.
17 And I would like to add a third fact which has been mentioned by
18 Mr. Domazet and that is the rebuilding process or remodelling process
19 which typically takes place and lasts years after the healing of the
20 fracture. The essence of this process amounts to reabsorption of the bone
21 and reforming of the bone tissue simultaneously, which leads to a change
22 in architecture or in the form of a bone and its structure in the area
23 where there used to be a fracture which had healed.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, there's another word there used in his
25 report very shortly after the word "remodelation" in which I'd be grateful
1 for some assistance on --
2 MR. DOMAZET: "Rebuilding."
3 JUDGE HUNT: -- "morphology." You see on the last page? I've got
4 the English version. Perhaps I'll just ask the doctor directly.
5 What do you mean by "morphology," Doctor?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the basic sense, that is the
7 appearance of the fracture that has healed.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
9 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Doctor, before we proceed any further and speak about changes that
11 can come with time, I would like to go back to the x-ray that was made on
12 the 14th of June, 1992 and ask you the following: In your report, you
13 said something that you've also repeated here, and you said that there was
14 a fracture of tibia and, namely, a spiral fracture. In your report, you
15 said that part of the fibula visible on this x-ray is without any x-ray
16 indication of a fracture, and you said that it is not typical for such
17 fracture not to be visible in two different x-rays; however, this is
18 possible or it's possible that there should be a small fracture. So could
19 you please clarify this? It is possible that there could be a crack. So
20 could you please explain this further to us?
21 A. Strictly medically speaking, such type of fractures are possible,
22 and they're usually called fissures or cracks. What is typical for them
23 is that there is no movement at the spot where there is a fissure. And
24 also, there is a barely visible or even invisible line of fracture. But I
25 should say that the fracture of fibula that can be observed here and that
1 is seen as something that had healed - this can be seen on the x-rays made
2 in 2001 - can be directly linked to the fact that Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic had
3 an injury, a fracture of the same leg in 1993.
4 Q. Are you trying to tell us, Doctor, that on an x-ray from 1992, in
5 a spot where in current x-rays from 2001 there can be seen a trace of
6 fibula fracture, is not something that can be seen from the x-ray from
8 A. The fracture is not visible. The fracture is not visible on the
9 x-ray from 1991, although theoretically we cannot exclude it. However, it
10 is not visible on the x-rays.
11 Q. Sir, you just said in your previous answer "1991." That was
12 probably a slip of tongue. Did you, in fact, mean 1992?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Would it be possible, Doctor, that in 1992 there was either a
15 fracture or a fissure of fibula, but in an area that cannot be seen on an
16 x-ray which is in front of you, meaning on the upper part of the leg, and
17 that is not shown on the x-ray? Since this injury is indisputable, would
18 it be possible to have that kind of a fracture of fibula?
19 A. Well, that is quite possible. That is a realistic possibility, in
20 view of the spot where there was a fracture. However, the x-rays made in
21 2001, showing the upper part of fibula, do not have any signs of a
22 fracture which used to be there and perhaps healed. So I would like to
23 point to another valuable fact, which is that the patient had an injury in
24 1993, namely, a fracture of the lower leg, and I would be more inclined to
25 link this injury of fibula to the injury from 1993.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. So let us just be completely specific. When you mention injury
2 from 1993, do you mean the injury that can be seen on x-rays from 2001,
3 indicating that there was an injury of fibula?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, would it be possible, since you have said that theoretically
6 it is possible that there was a fracture of fibula in the upper part, when
7 we are talking about the injury of tibia, so would that be possible that
8 that fracture or fissure has healed in the meantime but due to the passage
9 of time - and we are talking about nine years - it is now invisible in the
10 x-rays made in 2001? Would there be a possibility for this explanation to
11 be realistic?
12 A. Yes, certainly. This very fact that nine years have passed can be
13 a significant influence on the visibility of such a fracture, especially
14 if it's a fracture that represents a minor dislocation.
15 Q. Could you also explain to us what changes can take place during
16 nine years and what can acquire a different appearance in current x-rays
17 as compared to the x-rays of the same leg from 1991?
18 A. Well, these changes can be caused by a number of factors. One
19 group of factors have to do with the fact that nine years have passed, and
20 that is a significant period of time for anyone. Changes occur
21 naturally. There are some degenerative changes that take place and also
22 those in the structure of bone. There could be osteoporosis, which is to
23 say there can be a change in the amount of calcium, and this is a
24 substance that can be clearly seen in x-rays.
25 The second group of factors has to do with the process of
1 remodelling. This process leads to changes in the bone that are such that
2 the morphology or the form of the bone is adjusted to the functional
3 requirements, or, simply speaking, certain curves or rough spots can be
4 corrected after a number of years have passed. The process of
5 remodelation is very intense in a young person, so that the adolescents,
6 their fractures become invisible after several years due to the very
7 process of remodelation.
8 Q. Dr. Vucetic, you have examined several x-rays of the same leg made
9 in 2001, and based on what you wrote in your report, you also described
10 this fracture as a spiral one. Am I right? And could you comment on
11 these x-rays from 2001, and if there is -- and tell us whether there is
12 any difference when we compare these x-rays to the ones made in 1992. And
13 please specify what kind of differences can be observed.
14 A. This healed fracture of the lower leg seen on x-rays from 2001 can
15 definitely be described as a spiral fracture. The outline of the fracture
16 is clear, and it corresponds, in view of its shape and location on the
17 tibia, to the x-ray from 1992.
18 Q. Dr. Vucetic, in view of this, do you believe -- do you believe
19 that these x-rays, meaning those from 2001 and 1992, are the x-rays of the
20 same leg of the same patient? Are the signs of fracture compatible, in
21 view of the changes described by you?
22 A. Yes. I don't think this is something questionable at all.
23 Looking at the fracture line seen in the X-rays from 2001 as well is
24 something that we can use to support this view. We can also compare this
25 with the form and structure of this bone and other bones that are seen on
1 the x-rays.
2 Q. Before we proceed any further with this, I would like to ask you
3 the following as regards your opinion of these x-rays: The possibility of
4 this spiral fracture is something that I would like to investigate. How
5 does this kind of fracture come about, and how does it differ from other
6 types of fractures which are also common?
7 A. The spiral fracture occurs when there is a twisting. One part of
8 the lower leg is -- either the lower part or upper part of it has to be
9 fixed, and there also has to be some twisting when the fracture occurs,
10 the fracture that has this type of line. When there are direct or
11 indirect blows in the lower leg, then the fractures that we call
12 perpendicular fractures usually occur, or transversal fractures, although
13 fractures can involve the ones where there are a number of fragments, and
14 we can also have a fracture with an oblique line.
15 Q. Dr. Vucetic, would it be possible for the fracture that can be
16 seen on these X-rays and in the absence of any incompatibilities, as you
17 have stated, to occur when there is a fall as described by Mr. Vasiljevic,
18 which is to say a fall from a horse on the side when the horse also falls
19 down on the victim? Would this kind of fracture be compatible with the
20 described situation? Would it be common in that situation or would it be
21 something not typical? Could you give us opinion regarding that, please?
22 A. This type of injury would be possible.
23 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, I'm afraid the doctor has been led into
24 the use of that word "possible" by your question. You changed your
25 question towards the end of it, but it has to be something which is
1 reasonably possible to start with. It is a significant difference. But
2 then you asked him, was it compatible, was it typical. I think those were
3 the two words you used, was it "compatible" and "not typical."
4 May I suggest you ask him again and use the word -- if you again
5 use the word "possibility," that you add the word "reasonable" to it,
6 because it has to be a reasonable possibility for there to be a failure to
7 prove something beyond reasonable doubt.
8 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Dr. Vucetic, you heard the Honourable Judge. So is it reasonably
10 possible to have this type of an injury, and how likely is it under these
12 A. I understood the Judge's comments and your question as well. I
13 think that it is very probable that that is how the spiral fracture
14 occurred, and I base this on the fact that the fracture occurred when
15 Mitar was moving. And then as he was moving and fell, it is very likely
16 that there could have been some kind of a rotational movement which led to
17 this twisting, which in turn led to this type of injury.
18 If we also knew that the foot was in fact fixed in the stirrups,
19 then that would even further confirm that there was some twisting there.
20 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
21 JUDGE HUNT: There weren't any stirrups, as I recall.
22 MR. DOMAZET: No.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Yes. That is what I was going to ask.
24 So we did not have a stirrup in this case so the leg was not
25 fixed. If I understand you, if there is a stirrup, then there is a
1 greater possibility to have twisting. However, could there be twisting
2 regardless of whether the horse fell to that side as well over that leg?
3 And do you think that this is relevant in view -- this would be relevant
4 even if the fracture took place before the horse fell on him?
5 A. Well, we have to stick to the presumption that something fixed,
6 most probably the foot, and I believe that that was the horse, or his leg
7 was stuck somehow. But his body, that was moving together with the horse,
8 continued this movement, this rotational movement, and this is the
9 mechanism that led to a spiral fracture.
10 Q. Doctor, when you say that the foot was fixed, would that be in the
11 case when that foot touches the surface onto which the body is falling,
12 and in that case the leg can rotate, and leading, conducing, to such a
14 A. Well, one can make such an assumption, yes, but it is hard to say
15 how reasonable that assumption is. But such a mechanism is definitely
16 possible. It depends on the speed of the movement, the bone structure,
17 and so on and so forth. But any kind of resistance when the body is
18 rotating - that is, that the lower leg, with the foot, follows the
19 rotation of the body -- can, under certain conditions, can lead to such a
20 spiral fracture.
21 Q. When you speak about movement, that the body is in motion, did you
22 also remember that the fall takes place while the horse is still moving
23 and that it is therefore shifting the rider? That is, did you also take
24 note of the form of -- of the type of movement involved?
25 A. Well, all this plays a role, but it is really difficult to make
1 any conclusions with any certainty as to what happened in reality. I
2 mean, it cannot go beyond speculation. However, it is quite a realistic
3 assumption that we can make, that is, that the injured person and the
4 horse were in contact at the moment when the fracture took place. It is
5 quite realistic to say that there was a contact between the injured person
6 and the horse and that that is the reason for the fracture of this type.
7 Q. And as regards the ground onto which the person is falling, does
8 it play a role? Does it determine anything? If we are dealing with a
9 completely flat surface, would there be any difference if this surface
10 were not completely flat?
11 A. Basically, regardless of the surface onto which one is falling,
12 the fact that the injured person fell from a certain height, at a certain
13 speed of movement, must have produced a fracture.
14 Q. Do you mean that such a fracture could occur both on a completely
15 flat surface and on a rough surface?
16 A. Yes, precisely.
17 Q. Would such a fracture be possible if a vehicle hit a pedestrian?
18 That is, in the case of a traffic accident, when a vehicle hits a
19 pedestrian, is such a fracture possible, too, or isn't it?
20 A. One could not exclude that possibility, but it is a fact that it
21 is quite atypical. It is characteristic that when fractures are due to a
22 vehicle hitting the lower leg, that the bone is split into several
23 fragments, that is, that it is a multi-fracture, or these are usually
24 oblique or transversal fractures. Spiral fractures are not characteristic
25 fractures in such cases.
1 Q. Would this cause --
2 A. No. A spiral fracture does not occur in such cases. One can take
3 it as a fact. The spiral fracture is not due when a vehicle strikes,
4 hits, the lower leg of a person.
5 Q. Now, Doctor, I'd like to ask you something else, and that is the
6 part on which you also commented in your report, even though in your
7 introduction you did not say that you also had this kind of
8 documentation. But nevertheless, I'd like to ask you if you also
9 had -- when you were writing your report, did you have the findings
10 of Dr. Yvan de Grave before you?
11 A. Yes, I had Dr. Yvan de Grave's report at my disposal.
12 Q. You addressed this in the part of your report headed "Discussion,"
13 in which you make a comparison between those x-rays and give your reasons
14 as to what can be the cause for the discrepancies between the x-rays. So
15 could you please explain a little this? Could you please explain what you
16 meant by this?
17 JUDGE HUNT: Well, he's really done that, has he not? He's
18 explained about the healing process, and that's why the one from 1992 is
19 shorter than the one in 2001. I don't know what more he can do except
20 repeat what he's written. If you want him to explain a particular part of
21 it, by all means go to it, but he's made it very clear his explanation for
22 the fact that the 1992 x-ray and the one that is taken in 2001, the
23 difference in the length can be disregarded because of the healing
24 process. At some stage we're going to have to deal with the fact that the
25 one in 2001 is longer than the one in 1992.
1 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Yes. Perhaps it is best to directly address the
3 results which are represented here by Dr. Yvan de Grave. You saw some of
4 the x-rays and some of the charts that he drew regarding the injury and
5 comparing the fractures, or rather, the x-rays of 1992 and 2001. Could
6 you please tell us if that was possible, and was that done in a manner
7 which you would consider medically reliable?
8 A. This is a very important question, and it needs to be cleared up.
9 With all the sensitiveness involved in comparing x-rays taken at a
10 nine-year interval, one must bear in mind that considerable methodological
11 mistakes were committed in the definition of the fracture line, or rather,
12 fracture plane. On this occasion, I should like to point at these errors.
13 As we can see on the monitor, the first x-ray, the initial x-ray,
14 has marked certain lines, which would be the lines of fracture, or rather,
15 the plane of the fracture.
16 Now, I would like to start my explanation with a fact that a
17 spiral fracture looks like a drawn-out letter "S". In some of its
18 segments, this line has a different angle, a different inclination. And
19 we can see here that the median part of this fracture line was used to
20 define the plane of the fracture or, rather, the inclination, and that the
21 final point of the line of the fracture in the upper part of the lower leg
22 and the lower part of the lower leg were disregarded.
23 Now, the x-rays of 2001, we have a poorly visible fracture line,
24 and the callus or, rather, the new bone tissue, it fills in not only the
25 fracture line and appears not only at the place of the fracture but it
1 starts quite far away from the fracture itself, and that is how a bone
3 And this radiographic sign that we are dealing with, that there is
4 new bone on the tibia, that there is new osseous tissue on the tibia is
5 indicated as the upper point, the upper end of the fracture line, hence
6 this methodological error in determining the fracture line and subsequent
7 erroneous conclusion that these are two different fractures.
8 Q. Doctor, when you say an error in determining the line in this
9 conclusion, what is it that you mean and whom do you mean? Whose error do
10 you think it is?
11 A. The error which appears or the explanation which is provided in
12 the report of the expert de Grave.
13 Q. Could we -- could you possibly indicate it, point at the drawing
14 that he did, and could you use it to explain what you've just told us but
15 unfortunately could not show?
16 JUDGE HUNT: That is Exhibit P21.3, the schematic one. Is that
17 the one you want?
18 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE HUNT: You see, my problem, and we might as well face up to
20 it, I want an explanation. There may well be one. I'm not so concerned
21 about the error that could well have been made in the plane of the
22 fracture. What I'm concerned about are the measurements which
23 Dr. de Grave took above the dome of the heel as to where the fracture
24 began and where it ended. We are not talking about the length of the
25 fracture. We're talking about the difference in the height above the dome
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 of the heel. And the one in 1992 was shorter than the one in 2001.
2 Now, the doctor has explained very well, if I may say so, that one
3 would expect a fracture to become shorter when you look at it in x-rays
4 taken many years after the event because of the healing process, but
5 that's not this case. It appears to be longer. And it may be that
6 Dr. de Grave made an error in where the fracture lines began and ended,
7 but that's where I think, if I may say so, you should direct your
8 questions, because that is the issue in the case. There's also an issue
9 which this doctor has not referred to in his report and that was the shape
10 of the heel, the calcaneum, I think you call it, which Dr. de Grave placed
11 some emphasis on.
12 Now, those are the two issues that Dr. de Grave pointed, and I
13 think this doctor has to deal with them, and he doesn't, if I may say so,
14 in his report. So that's what we're really after. And we really want
15 some assistance, because it's a very fascinating and a difficult problem.
16 I should add there's no way we're going to finish this by 4.00,
17 but at some stage, I would like you to take it, because I'm sure
18 Mr. Groome is going to take him to it as well, and I've gone around the
19 report in great detail and it's been of assistance, but at some stage we
20 have to face up to these real issues in the case.
21 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. And I never
22 thought that this problem of the heel and what Witness de Grave explained,
23 to leave it out, and that is included in my questions and we shall
24 eventually get there. Whether it will be today, I doubt that. But I
25 nevertheless go by the report provided by the doctor rather than the
2 Q. Could you please place it on the ELMO and point at it?
3 A. Yes. I understood your question and the question posed by the
4 President of the Chamber. But perhaps I could start from here. Yes. I
5 wanted this x-ray somewhere here.
6 It is pretty arbitrary really, that is, we can pick out any point
7 here because there are a quite a number of lines here. Now, on this
8 diagram, I cannot really show it. I can do it on an x-ray. There are
9 several lines in the structure of the bone which may be considered as the
10 trace, as the remnant of the fracture line in these x-rays.
11 It is fact that Dr. de Grave took the lowest point as the end
12 point of the fracture line, and that again is a matter under question. I
13 mean, one can wonder really whether that is indeed so. It is a matter for
14 personal view, for a personal opinion. That was his personal impression.
15 When looking at this fracture line, I couldn't really fully agree
16 that that is indeed the fracture line.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Just one moment, Doctor.
18 Seeing that we're going to have to stand this over at some stage,
19 I wonder, Mr. Domazet, if you could ask the doctor to draw a similar
20 diagram to 21.3 and have him mark where he says the fractures began and
21 finished so that we can get his schematic representation of the -- where
22 each fracture began and finished. Now, it may be difficult to do, I don't
23 know, but it is this which Dr. de Grave relies upon, and if this witness
24 can demonstrate that there is a reasonable possibility that Dr. de Grave
25 was wrong, well, then that's a fundamental point in your client's case,
1 and it will assist us, I think, if we have a similar diagram by him.
2 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I presume when he
3 resumes his testimony that he should draw this sketch by then.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I'm only asking. I'm not ordering. It may be
5 difficult for him to do, I don't know. But if he'd like to take the
6 x-rays to do it, we would be very grateful for his assistance. At some
7 stage, of course, the Prosecution will probably want to show those X-rays
8 and his diagram to their specialist.
9 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes. I believe that Dr. Vucetic
10 understands what he's asked to do.
11 Q. And of course, Doctor, if you can, because we shall have to
12 adjourn today and your testimony will be resumed after some time, after a
13 rather long break, so do you think you would be able to draw a similar
14 sketch so that it will be easier for you and everybody to make
16 A. Yes. Very well, I'll do that.
17 JUDGE HUNT: And one final point that I have in my mind: We've
18 had some rather vague evidence about the injury which your client says he
19 had in 1993, and I would like to know whether there's anything on the 2001
20 x-rays which demonstrates that there was another injury, that is, two
21 injuries in roughly the same spot. At one stage, we were told that it was
22 some centimetres above or below the other fracture - I'm not sure when it
23 was - but then we've had different descriptions. But I want to know if
24 there's anything on the more recent x-rays which shows another fracture
25 there, which may in itself explain the length, the additional length of
1 the fracture shown on the 2001 x-ray.
2 But there are a lot of problems arising out of this, and I am
3 hoping that your doctor will be able to give us some assistance on it.
4 Well, now, I don't know whether you've got some other questions to
5 ask him now. There are a few housekeeping matters we've got to deal with
6 before we finish this afternoon.
7 MR. DOMAZET: I agree, Your Honour, yes.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Doctor, I'm very sorry we can't finish with
9 you. We're having a lot of trouble getting the evidence finished in this
10 case. I can assure you it is not for want of trying by the Trial
11 Chamber. In fact, you may ask your counsel here to show you some of the
13 witnesses to finish their evidence.
14 We will have to resume again with you on the -- in early January.
15 I'm sure Mr. Domazet can sort out with you which will be the most
16 convenient time for you. So we'll let you go now. We will see you back
17 here, I'm afraid, next year.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Well, you can go now, Doctor, whilst we deal with the
20 few remaining things that we have to before we go.
21 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, may I ask you, first of all, when you
22 read those statutory provisions, you were clearly not reading from this
23 opinion that you've now provided us with because they're not quoted in
24 there. I think you said you had these provisions in Serbo-Croatian - I'm
25 sorry. We must be more politically correct - the B/C/S name, which we've
1 checked our library edition. It's not as modern as yours. We do have an
2 English translation of an earlier version, but are you able to provide us
3 with the statutory provisions in B/C/S and we can get them translated?
4 That's about the recording.
5 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I've got it
7 Doctor, perhaps you could take with you these x-rays. You might
8 need them, and we will not be needing them.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE HUNT: We will need them back.
11 MR. DOMAZET: Yes. These are copies of the x-rays that I was --
12 that the Prosecution disclosed to us.
13 Your Honour, I have here a photocopy of that page of the Official
14 Gazette which carried the Criminal Proceedings Act of 2000, if that is
15 what you meant, in B/C/S.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, that's right.
17 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, I have it here in some ten
18 copies, and I can leave it with the Tribunal.
19 JUDGE HUNT: I have in mind that we have not yet admitted the
20 tapes and the transcripts. The evidence of the witness is sufficient to
21 get it in. Whether we accept her evidence in the end is a different
22 matter and what we make of the tapes is a different matter, but the actual
23 evidence of the witness that it was an accurate transcription of what was
24 said would be a sufficient basis for getting the tapes into evidence. So
25 in those circumstances, we will admit those tapes.
1 What is your next number, Mr. Groome? You jump all over the
2 place, I'm afraid.
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I don't have the --
4 JUDGE HUNT: The last one that we have -- the highest number of
5 yours that we have is 165.
6 MR. GROOME: They were already numbered. If we can just take a
7 look at -- if you can just give me a minute to get the exhibits.
8 JUDGE HUNT: You mean the tapes and the transcript.
9 MR. GROOME: Yes. We're all pre-numbered. I think it was 109,
10 Your Honour, but I'm a little reluctant to -- I see the court -- 109.
11 JUDGE HUNT: 109.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me, Your Honour. It's 109.4A.
13 JUDGE HUNT: And 4B.
14 THE REGISTRAR: And 4B, yes.
15 MR. GROOME: And just if I might add to that, that's the copy of
16 the original tape, audio cassette. 109 one was the CD itself of the
17 enhanced version.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Yes.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.
20 THE REGISTRAR: 109 is the CD.
21 JUDGE HUNT: And the transcripts?
22 THE REGISTRAR: I have --
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, 109.1 was the B/C/S transcript and 109.2
24 was the transcript in English.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Well, Mr. Domazet, as I have explained, the
1 witness's evidence was sufficient to make them admissible. The weight to
2 be given to them is a matter which we'll have to resolve later. Is there
3 anything you want to add about that?
4 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand, Your Honour.
5 However, I'd like to seize this opportunity to see if I can do something
6 with these cassettes, that is, to subject them to expertise. Of the two
7 cassettes that I was given, one has about 20 minutes and the other one
8 only 5 minutes are used up, and Mr. Groome told me that it was twice
9 an-hour-length recordings. So perhaps I wasn't given the right cassettes,
10 or perhaps not the fully recorded cassettes, or perhaps there is an error
11 there, and I'd like to avoid any future problems with that. So perhaps
12 I'll be able to resolve it with Mr. Groome when we adjourn, or perhaps
13 there is an explanation why this difference in the length of the
15 JUDGE HUNT: There's also this point, Mr. Domazet, which you might
16 like to resolve with Mr. Groome. If you want to have this checked to see
17 whether there are stoppages on it, whether it's been stopped at any time
18 or whether there's been any interference with it, you would have to have,
19 would you not, the original tape? Because copying it masks this sort of
20 problem, from my perhaps peripheral experience of these sorts of cases. I
21 gather you should have the original tape.
22 Is that available, Mr. Groome?
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm sure, if Mr. Domazet identifies the
24 expert he wishes to examine, we'll make arrangements to have that securely
25 sent to that person.
1 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Can I leave it to you to deal with between
3 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Well, in the meantime, those tapes and transcripts
5 will be Exhibits 109, 109.1, 109.2, 109.4A, 109.4B, each of them with a
6 "P" for Prosecution in front of them. But I think that must be so,
7 Mr. Groome. The original is necessary, I'm afraid.
8 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. The Prosecution has no objection
9 to providing that, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
11 Mr. Domazet, you had undertaken during the break to find out from
12 the nearest meteorological records what dusk or what sunset would have
13 been in Visegrad at the relevant time, and you will look after that, will
14 you, over the break?
15 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I will do that,
16 and as soon as I get it, I will send it, regardless of the recess. I will
17 send it for the Judges and for the Prosecution, even though in the Muslim
18 calendar for 2002, which the - for 1992, excuse me - which the Prosecution
19 had tendered, I believe there is also the calendar for sunrise and sunset
20 in 1992, except that one cannot see which part of Bosnia-Herzegovina is
21 involved. But I would not say that the differences would be all that big.
22 JUDGE HUNT: You have introduced a new terror. I didn't realise
23 we were working on the Muslim calendar, what with the Serb calendar being
24 different as well.
25 MR. DOMAZET: No. [Interpretation] That is the calendar of Muslim
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 holidays, the calendar for 1992, but with Muslim red-letter days, and I
2 was given it by the Prosecution. And for every one of these days, it
3 shows the sunrise, the sunset, and the same for the moon. So it's not a
4 Muslim -- it's not following Muslim recording, but just the calendar with
5 Muslim holidays, and also just as I have given the Prosecution a calendar
6 with Orthodox holidays.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Bosnia-Herzegovina is a very large area, and this is
8 on one side of it. I think that we would appreciate a more exact
9 indication of when sunset was so that we can attempt to work out when dusk
11 Now, the final thing that I say will only be repetition, but I
12 want to repeat it so that you go from here with it ringing in your ears.
13 You will have to spend time during your vacation preparing your final
14 addresses. We are under a very, very tight schedule for next year. And
15 what I suggest is that you deal with the evidence which comes next year
16 orally during the course of your final submissions, and you prepare your
17 written submissions on the basis of the evidence as it presently stands.
18 We will be commencing on Wednesday, the 9th of January, to enable
19 Mr. Domazet and his team to spend the Serbian Christmas, Orthodox
20 Christmas, with their families, but that comes at a price, I'm afraid, and
21 that is working during the vacation. We have to finish the whole
22 hearing - and I'm talking now about courts administration - to enable
23 another trial to start on the 21st. Now, that is fairly immovable, as I
24 understand it. There was a Pre-Trial Conference yesterday, and the
25 Pre-Trial Judge apparently said that, without any doubt, it would start.
1 Now, one of the Judges in this particular Trial Chamber is sitting on that
2 case, so it has to be -- we have to finish by that time. That gives us
3 eight sitting days.
4 Now, with all of the evidence we have to go, as I understand it,
5 there are a number of specialists whose reports, of course, would go in as
6 their evidence in chief, with a brief expansion on those parts which are
7 important, and cross-examination. But you'll see that we are very, very
8 pressed for time. I would like to say that we will hear the final
9 addresses on the Thursday and the Friday of the week before the 21st, so
10 that would be the 17th and the 18th, I think, of January. So you'll see
11 where we are next year.
12 Well, with that, may I wish you all a happy Orthodox and
13 non-Orthodox Christmas, and we'll see you in the new year.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.08 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of
16 January 2002