1 Thursday, 10 January 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.

6 JUDGE HUNT: Call the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number

8 IT-98-32-T, the Prosecutor versus Mitar Vasiljevic.

9 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Domazet?

10 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour.

11 WITNESS: ZORKA LOPICIC [Resumed]

12 [Witness answered through interpreter]

13 Examination by Mr. Domazet: [Continued]

14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mrs. Lopicic. We shall continue

15 where we left off yesterday. If you remember, we were talking about your

16 final opinion in your expert report. And my next question would be

17 related to the following fact. In these proceedings, a large number of

18 witnesses said that Mitar Vasiljevic, consuming alcohol in large

19 quantities, was in a state when he talked a lot, frequently in a

20 disconnected manner but they also said that in that state, he was not

21 aggressive. If that is true, does that correspond to what you established

22 during your examination or is that in contradiction with what you

23 established during the examination?

24 A. In my opinion, and in the course of my interview, I had no

25 information whatsoever and no evidence of any kind of aggressiveness on

1 his part. On the contrary, he himself described himself as a person that

2 was not prone to any outbursts of an aggressive nature. In fact, he said,

3 and I refer to this in my opinion, that he liked to crack jokes, even at

4 his own expense, and also to talk about -- to brag about things that he

5 never did, in order to amuse others. As for what you said, that other

6 people did not see him as an aggressive person, is another piece of

7 information that supports this assumption. One might make a psychiatric

8 assumption as to his aggressiveness, if it is possible to talk about that

9 at all. On the basis of all the findings that have been collected so far,

10 it might be said that his aggressiveness may be auto-aggressiveness, if we

11 interpret his alcoholism as an act of destruction of himself. So I don't

12 see any evidence of any aggressiveness towards others.

13 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry, Mr. Domazet, I think we will need some

14 explanation of the second last sentence of that answer. "It might be said

15 that his aggressiveness," of which she says she has found no evidence,

16 "may be auto-aggressiveness." What does that mean?

17 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour.

18 Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Lopicic, I hope you understood Judge Hunt's

19 question. So could you please explain what you meant by

20 auto-aggressiveness and aggressiveness towards others? Would you

21 elaborate on that a little?

22 A. Aggression as a dynamic factor is a component part of the

23 personality. All of us have this instinct for survival and for

24 aggression, and it is still not clearly defined as an instinct but it is

25 something that we do carry, a dynamic, psychodynamic and psychoanalytical

1 interpretation of alcoholism interpreted as an act of auto-aggression or

2 self-aggression. That is why I said this chronic alcoholism of his could

3 be an unconscious act of aggressiveness towards himself. Now, why I am

4 mentioning this as an assumption for consideration? Because we have this

5 evidence of hereditary -- of the hereditary factor, which tell us that his

6 mother and his aunt destroyed themselves, and that is what has prompted me

7 to make these comments.

8 Q. So, Mrs. Lopicic, when you refer to auto-aggression, what you mean

9 is that due to excessive consumption of alcohol and by becoming an

10 alcoholic he's destroying himself, and you see that as an act of

11 auto-aggression. Thank you for your answer.

12 My next question is something that you have already answered in

13 part, and it has to do with his aggressiveness towards third persons in

14 view of his mental disease, but as it is important, could you be a little

15 more specific?

16 A. I have no information, autoanamnestic information, which would

17 relate to aggressiveness against others, and you yourself told us about

18 what witnesses have said, describing him as a person who was prone to

19 making jokes and amusing others rather than being aggressive toward

20 others.

21 Q. Yes, but my question was whether that corresponds to what you

22 yourself found regarding his condition.

23 A. Yes.

24 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, she can only rely upon what the accused

25 has said to her. Now, if he has said something to her which contradicts

1 what he has said here in court, it's worth referring to. But I don't

2 think, if I may say so, it assists us at all to have this witness give us

3 an opinion based upon what she has established during the course of her

4 conversation with the accused if all that she has got is what the accused

5 has told her. She can interpret it, but this is just sort of trying to

6 bolster your client's evidence. The fact that he repeated it to the

7 psychiatrist doesn't seem to me to take that very far. So can we get on

8 to matters upon which the doctor can help us on.

9 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I just

10 wanted to verify whether what the witnesses have said - and of course it

11 will be up to Your Honours to judge that evidence - whether it was in any

12 way in contradiction with what Dr. Lopicic established during her

13 interview. But I've done with that, and I will go on to my final question

14 regarding her opinion and that is the question of responsibility, mental

15 responsibility.

16 Q. It emanates from your opinion that Mitar Vasiljevic, while being

17 treated in hospital in Uzice, was completely irresponsible and that in the

18 period covered by the indictment. So could you explain what period you

19 had in mind his accountability was considerably reduced, of course on the

20 basis of the classification we have in Yugoslavia. So could you elaborate

21 on that a little?

22 A. The period of hospitalisation and the period of psychosis which

23 was evident from the clinical findings, from the case history, and the

24 anamnestic information we obtained was a period when the patient was

25 unaccountable as he had no orientation. He was disoriented. He was

1 outside reality, as we put it. As I explained yesterday, psychosis is a

2 condition when the patient is out of touch with reality.

3 The period prior to hospitalisation, the so prodromal or

4 introductory period to the psychosis I think can be viewed dynamically,

5 bearing in mind the three factors I spoke about yesterday. And this

6 dynamic relationship with those three factors must not be neglected. So

7 this is something that was of significance at the subjective level for our

8 client. He showed a -- certain signs of unusual behaviour, strange

9 behaviour. That is how he himself describes it, and I heard you mention

10 it here yesterday as well. And what I was told by Dr. Vasiljevic, that in

11 that period - and I think that was at the beginning of June - he was in a

12 condition in which, according to Dr. Vasiljevic, he spoke about demons and

13 angels. He was put in detention because he refused to carry out orders

14 required of him by his superiors. And he told me, with reference to that

15 period, that he was under enormous fear.

16 If we know that fear is a generator of psychopathology and the

17 basis of any psychosis, then it can be said that this was an introduction

18 to his psychosis, and in that condition, we consider the patient to have

19 significantly reduced accountability.

20 JUDGE HUNT: I think you'll have to try and get the doctor to be a

21 little bit more precise. If he was having fear throughout the whole time

22 that he was working near the front, was he having a psychosis from that

23 alone at that time?

24 It's fairly important in this case, from your client's point of

25 view, Mr. Domazet, that this is defined or this period is defined just a

1 little bit more precisely than simply saying, "Well, these are the things

2 which could have caused it."

3 It may be that the doctor was unable to put a period on it, but

4 simply to say that fear is one of three factors which might bring on this

5 psychosis, and if he suffered fear right back many, many weeks before he

6 went to hospital, then he was suffering from a psychosis from that date

7 doesn't strike me as being very logical. He may be psychiatrically sound,

8 I don't know, but I think you have to try and get the doctor to be a

9 little more precise.

10 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Yes. I'm sure you understand Judge Hunt, so will you please try

12 and give an answer?

13 A. When I say that fear is a generator of psychopathology, then I

14 mean that the period prior to hospitalisation was the pre-psychotic

15 period, a period in which Mr. Vasiljevic had certain symptoms and a

16 certain psychopathology which was not so manifest for the surroundings as

17 it was for him. To be more specific, he says that in that period he had

18 this urge to blink involuntarily. He was blinking all the time. This can

19 be considered as a symptom whereby he was relieving himself of fear.

20 It's a physiological mechanism, a way in which one relieves

21 oneself of fear quite unconsciously.

22 Something else that was linked to this blinking, this is an

23 automatic act, and this was linked to certain compulsive thinking, in the

24 form of exaggerated ideas. He said if he blinked and it was dark,

25 somebody would get killed or somebody would die. So he attached symbolic,

1 magical significance to this compulsive blinking. If there is light,

2 then --

3 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, you told us all of this yesterday. I want,

4 if I can get from you, a very straightforward answer to what I see myself,

5 as a non-psychiatrist, to be a very simple question. If he was suffering

6 prior to his admission, as part of his pre-psychosis period is the

7 expression you used, was he unaccountable, within the meaning of the

8 Yugoslav statute, for his actions? Before he went to hospital. That's

9 what we have to determine. We are not interested in the rest of it.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my report, I have stated that

11 very clearly. In our legislation, there is a category of significantly

12 reduced accountability, and I think that we cannot put an equation mark

13 between the pre-hospitalisation and the hospitalisation period, because

14 perception, observation, was still preserved. He gave information about

15 that period which are relevant and which are in line with the information

16 we obtained earlier on.

17 JUDGE HUNT: But, doctor, does that statement by you, "We cannot

18 put an equation mark between the pre-hospitalisation and the

19 hospitalisation period," mean that he was not suffering from a reduced

20 accountability before he went to hospital? That's what I want to know.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He did suffer from reduced

22 accountability before hospitalisation, quite clearly. I cannot say that

23 it is the same kind of unaccountability as it was when he was

24 hospitalised.

25 JUDGE HUNT: Well then, how far was his accountability reduced

1 before he went to hospital?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our legislation, we have this

3 category which is defined as significantly reduced, and reduced. I don't

4 know what you expect me to say. Do you want me to express myself in

5 percentages? But according to our legislation, we have three categories

6 of accountability: reduced accountability, significantly reduced

7 accountability and unaccountability. Those are the three degrees.

8 JUDGE HUNT: Well then, when did he become significantly -- when

9 did his accountability become significantly reduced? Was it before he

10 went to hospital? I'm sorry to try to pin you down, but this is the issue

11 which you are here to discuss and what -- and the issue which we have to

12 determine, and it doesn't help, if I may say so, to keep on describing his

13 symptoms. Can you tell us when you say he became -- his accountability

14 became significantly reduced?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before he went to prison. This act

16 of imprisonment is a moment when his behaviour significantly changed.

17 JUDGE HUNT: Well, we've now got an answer. It's over to you,

18 Mr. Domazet. It's not, if I may say so, entirely a logical one, but it's

19 a matter for you. It's something upon which you bear an onus of proof.

20 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]

21 Q. If I understand you well, Dr. Lopicic, on the basis of the

22 information you have prior to hospitalisation, you are of the opinion that

23 from the period prior to his imprisonment in Uzamnica, shortly prior, you

24 consider that period to be one of reduced accountability. As for the

25 period prior to that, you have no such evidence, if I understand you

1 correctly, and that is why your answer is that this is the period

2 immediately prior to his going to prison.

3 A. According to the information I was given, in this opinion, I said

4 that I was given information as of March, 1992. However, what we find in

5 his statement is that it was precisely that period prior to going to

6 prison, that is when the front line was changed and he had to pass through

7 territory that were very risky and he was frightened, so let me not repeat

8 myself. That is something that leads me to believe that his mental

9 condition started to deteriorate then and that that was an introduction to

10 his psychosis.

11 Q. His Honour Judge Hunt asked, if he was fearful at the front, of

12 what was being done at the front, to what extent could that alone have

13 affected the development of the disease. Did you have in mind all the

14 other factors, the biological ones, the chronic alcoholism, or only the

15 stress factor which you also, I think, attributed to the overall

16 situation?

17 A. To be quite precise, I must say that observing and interpreting

18 the findings of Mr. Vasiljevic, these three factors are dynamically

19 interconnected throughout his life. It is impossible to exclude the

20 significance of any one of those factors, the hereditary factor,

21 alcoholism and stress. I won't repeat what I said. Living conditions,

22 the acute situations he found himself in, the loss of a close relative,

23 the fracture, all these are stressful events biologically and

24 psychologically, and they certainly have a very important role, and the

25 interplay of those factors is such that it is impossible to determine how

1 much each of those factors contribute to the general situation.

2 Q. Finally, you still uphold your opinion that in the period prior to

3 admission to hospital - because this is a significant period for us - his

4 accountability in the legal sense, according to the current legislation in

5 Yugoslavia, was significantly reduced?

6 Finally, since in your report and especially in your oral

7 statement here, you refer to certain documents which you obtained

8 immediately prior to coming to The Hague, and which you referred to

9 yesterday, saying that you would like to give them to the court. You have

10 the originals so could you please hand them over, as we will be hearing

11 the expert opinion of another doctor called by the Prosecution, who has

12 not been able to see these documents, so I hope he will be able to review

13 them before coming to Court, as, regarding the hereditary factor, we heard

14 no prior information.

15 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] So could I ask the usher to take

16 over these documents? I have also distributed copies to the

17 interpreters. And I would like to ask Mrs. Lopicic to comment on these

18 documents. As her report has been admitted under D43, I think that these

19 documents, as a component part of that report, could be D43.1 onwards.

20 The first of those documents is a decision of the municipal court.

21 JUDGE HUNT: Just one moment. Have you got these, Mr. Groome?

22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, yesterday when I heard about

23 Mrs. Vasiljevic's death certificate, I asked for a copy of that and

24 received a copy. It's being translated now. I have not received any of

25 the other documents.

1 JUDGE HUNT: I see. Well, then, you better reserve your position

2 about their admissibility until you've heard about them.

3 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE HUNT: Is that the way of dealing with it?

5 You proceed, Mr. Domazet. I think that the -- it would be safer

6 to leave their marking as an exhibit until after we've heard something of

7 them, because Mr. Groome is in a position -- he can't say he objects to

8 them or not.

9 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 JUDGE HUNT: Do we all have copies? Are they in English or are

11 they in B/C/S? Give us the copies.

12 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, all these documents

13 were shown to me for the first time here, so they are all in B/C/S, and

14 that is why I have given them to the interpreters for us to be able to

15 understand each one of them more easily. Of course it would be better to

16 have a translation in the meantime.

17 The first three documents relate to the death of Mitar

18 Vasiljevic's mother. One is a decision by the court proclaiming her dead,

19 and the other two are a report from the registry regarding -- producing a

20 death certificate and a marriage certificate as confirmation of the fact

21 that this was his mother. And the others -- the next document is a

22 discharge document with epicrisis.

23 JUDGE HUNT: Just a moment. Does the decision of the court

24 identify the cause of death? If not, I'm not sure what the relevance of

25 all this is.

1 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Your Honour. In the

2 explanation for the decision, it says that on the basis of the statements

3 of witnesses, and I can quote: "It has been established that Vojka

4 Vasiljevic, on the 4th of July, 1963, went in an unknown direction," and

5 they consider that she committed suicide. According to their statements,

6 she was mentally disturbed so that she frequently repeated that one day

7 she would leave and that no one would know anything about her. And so

8 they believe that she most probably jumped into the Drina and died, the

9 Drina River.

10 That is from the explanation of the decision which was issued five

11 years after death. Following the normal legal procedure which was binding

12 according to the law, a notice was issued in the Official Gazette, and

13 after that, the court heard witnesses and proclaimed her dead. And the

14 decision is dated 1969.

15 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.

16 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] The other two documents were taken

17 out of the registry quite recently as a death certificate.

18 The fourth document has to do with Stojanka Blagojevic that

19 Dr. Lopicic spoke of. It is the discharge paper from the Uzice hospital

20 from 1984.

21 And all the other documents relate to Mitar Vasiljevic's niece. I

22 would rather not mention her name, because in that case we would need to

23 go into private session. And all the other documents have to do with the

24 treatment of that niece.

25 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then, is the discharge statement relating to

1 the aunt the one -- does that refer to the fact that she drank some sort

2 of poison? Vinegar, yes, very strong vinegar. Is that the one? It's

3 just that we've got to know what these documents are, and Mr. Groome has

4 no opportunity of --

5 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I think it would be best

6 for this discharge document to be read out by Dr. Lopicic as it is in

7 Latin and if she could translate it, the Latin terms for us.

8 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, please, Doctor. And remember, please speak

9 slowly.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I will. It is the last period

11 in hospital, though we know that she was treated before, but I have no

12 other case histories or discharge documents except this last one from

13 which we see that she was admitted on the 30th of September, 1984 to the

14 general hospital in Uzice, to the psychiatric ward with the diagnosis

15 depressive psychosis, attempted suicide, intoxication with this strong

16 vinegar. And as a consequence of that, her kidneys were affected. And in

17 an attempt to restore them because there was kidney insufficiency, they

18 did laparotomy and peritoneal dialysis. This is an attempt to overcome

19 the problem with means of a dialysis machine. This was not successful and

20 the patient died on the 25th of October, 1984 at 2100 hours at the urology

21 ward where the dialysis was done at the hospital in Titovo Uzice.

22 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Is that all, Mrs. Lopicic, from this document?

24 A. Do you wish me to translate the description as well? [In English]

25 The patient was accepted to the neuropsychiatry department as an urgent --

1 as an urgent case because of intoxication of some amount of

2 [Interpretation] [No translation]. [In English] Yes. She was removed to

3 the urology and there was done the lab analysis. Because of the general

4 renal dysfunction, peritoneal dialysis was done. And this was functioning

5 for a few days. It seems that the -- her -- her case was improving. But

6 the last few days it was a [Interpretation] deterioration, deterioration.

7 [In English] Then the esophagoscopy was done as of -- yes. And --

8 [Interpretation] [No translation]. Yes, I have some problems to translate

9 the -- this sluznica jenjaka [phoen].

10 JUDGE HUNT: Don't worry about it, Doctor. We can have the

11 original translated into English by the interpreters.

12 THE WITNESS: Yes.

13 JUDGE HUNT: But it was the Latin, Doctor, that we wanted you to

14 translate, because none of us know the Latin terminology used by doctors.

15 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] This is actually the only document

16 relating to Mr. Vasiljevic's aunt, and the others relate to his niece.

17 And perhaps Dr. Lopicic could explain what those documents are. But I

18 think there is a danger of identification, so I would prefer us to do that

19 in private session, with your permission, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. We'll go into private session.

21 [Private session]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 4161 - redacted – private session.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 4162 – redacted – private session.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 4163 – redacted – private session.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [Open session]

4 JUDGE HUNT: We are back in public session.

5 MR. GROOME:

6 Q. Doctor, I'd like to begin by asking you a few more questions about

7 your findings regarding whether or not Mr. Vasiljevic is an aggressive

8 person, and I guess the first question I'd like to ask you is: The fact

9 that other people may believe that a person is non-aggressive when they

10 drink, or is non-aggressive generally, that doesn't mean that that person

11 is incapable of committing a violent act, does it?

12 A. There is something that is quite significant when we talk about

13 the propensity to aggression. We also have to mention an ability to

14 control these tendencies. All of us have some aggression within us, but

15 within normal limits. When we talk about normal tendencies, that means we

16 should be able to control these tendencies, propensities for aggression.

17 I have no information indicating that Mr. Vasiljevic had -- did not have

18 an ability to control his propensity for aggression.

19 Q. And it's possible that people who are normal psychologically and

20 can control their aggression, they are in fact capable of committing

21 violent acts if they so choose to do so; correct?

22 A. If it is beyond control, and conditions that can lead to us to

23 lose control can be different, depending on the motive.

24 Q. Well, I'm just -- let's take the most basic case of somebody with

25 no history of mental disease, whose friends and family agree that they are

1 not aggressive, they are not aggressive whether they are sober and they

2 are not aggressive when they are drunk. You would agree with me that that

3 person is capable of one day deciding to kill another person and then in

4 fact kill that person? You would agree with that, wouldn't you?

5 A. Well, all of us have different capabilities within us. This is a

6 hypothetical situation that we are discussing now.

7 Q. Yes. So the fact that somebody says that somebody is not

8 aggressive isn't evidence that they are incapable of committing a violent

9 act; correct?

10 A. Well, we have to discuss absolute evidence and relative ones. If

11 you wish to put this in the sphere of relative evidence, then you are

12 right, but if we are to trust the person making the statement, then it

13 will be different. The more information there is that is -- that

14 corresponds or that goes together well in the description of one's

15 personality, then that is further evidence that that is a correct

16 description.

17 Q. Thank you. That brings me to -- something else I want to ask you

18 is, you have done some work here to try to corroborate some of the things

19 that you were told, and I commend you for that, but will you agree with me

20 that primarily your findings are based upon information that was provided

21 to you and you accepting that information as true, and then rendering your

22 opinion based on that information that you were provided; is that

23 correct?

24 A. I mostly relied on my own findings. In this case, I relied on a

25 finding made by me during an interview I had with Mr. Vasiljevic in the

1 detention unit on the 23rd and 24th of November. I didn't know him prior

2 to that, and I had no information on him except for the medical

3 documentation I was given prior to coming here. Information I received

4 from others, if you have in mind Dr. Vasiljevic and Dr. Simic, those are

5 the only two medical professionals I had an opportunity to meet and

6 consult, and the information given to me by them was just something I used

7 to verify some presumptions and some details that I obtained based on my

8 interview with Mr. Vasiljevic.

9 Q. Let's take the example of Dr. Vasiljevic. Isn't it a fact that

10 you used information from Dr. Vasiljevic to come to a rather significant

11 conclusion about his relative, Mr. Vasiljevic here in court? It wasn't

12 simply to verify but it was -- you drew some rather significant

13 conclusions based on what Dr. Vasiljevic told you happened in the

14 beginning of June? Is that not correct?

15 A. My conclusion -- my presumption, rather, because conclusion is

16 something that is given at the end after all the information has been

17 processed, my presumption at that time, since I processed some relevant

18 information about his psychosis, every clinical specialist that follows

19 patients has to assume that there is a period during which when a patient

20 experiences some subjective disturbances can be visible only to a

21 psychiatrist or somebody who is an expert.

22 What I obtained from Dr. Vasiljevic simply confirmed the

23 assumption that I obtained through anamnesis of the patient indicating

24 that he had certain disturbances during that period.

25 So what Dr. Vasiljevic told me was not a decisive factor in

1 creating my opinion that -- my conclusion that this was a pre-psychotic

2 period. This simply confirmed my thoughts or my thinking.

3 Q. In response to, I believe, a question from the bench regarding

4 when you believed this psychotic disturbance began, you use as evidence of

5 when it began your conversation with Dr. Vasiljevic, who told you, in the

6 beginning of June of 1992, he began to talk about certain things, and it

7 was that conversation with Dr. Vasiljevic which you cited as evidence of

8 when his mental condition deteriorated; is that not correct?

9 A. I will repeat that this simply confirmed my assumption that I

10 obtained through the findings, and I will quote --

11 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, you've quoted it before.

12 Mr. Groome, I think you can accept that she really is relying upon

13 it as evidence. It may not be initial evidence, but it is evidence, so

14 you can proceed on that basis.

15 MR. GROOME:

16 Q. Doctor, is there any other evidence, aside from what

17 Dr. Vasiljevic told you, that you used to fix a date as to when you

18 believed Mr. Vasiljevic -- his accountability was severely [sic] reduced?

19 A. Yes. That is that period prior to his arrest or, rather, the mere

20 reason of arrest. To me, as someone who views the patient in that

21 condition and in that period of time is further proof that something was

22 wrong with him. Not only because of the fear that he said he had suffered

23 but also due to a very relevant fact that when somebody in the time of war

24 refuses to carry out an order risks being held accountable under martial

25 law. So he was not critical with respect to the risk in which he found

1 himself. He refused to carry out an order. And only a person who has

2 not -- no knowledge of the consequences that would follow could do

3 something like this, like that.

4 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome, just one moment. I'm sorry, it may have

5 been wrongly typed, but your question was that she had fixed a date as to

6 when his accountability was severely reduced. She used the word

7 "significantly," as I understand it, which is not quite the same as

8 "severely."

9 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry. I think it's -- I probably misspoke, Your

10 Honour.

11 JUDGE HUNT: But the terminology from the statute to which the

12 doctor referred was "significantly."

13 MR. GROOME: "Significantly," yes.

14 Q. Doctor, let me ask you a hypothetical question. If I were to come

15 to you for treatment and express some concerns about my mental condition,

16 and I said to you I felt fine, I've had no sense that I have anything

17 wrong with me mentally up until about six months ago when my mother

18 tragically died, and ever since then I've been suffering from -- and I

19 give you the symptoms I'm suffering from and my belief that I have a

20 psychological problem, would you use that information to help you

21 determine that probably the tragic event of my mother's loss was the

22 starting point of my mental difficulties?

23 A. [In English] If you want, we can discuss hypothetically, but first

24 I want to ask you -- [Interpretation] Pardon me.

25 If we were to discuss hypothetically, then my first question would

1 be -- my first question to you would be: "Why did you come?" When

2 somebody comes to a psychiatrist, that person has to have a reason behind

3 it. The mere fact that a person came to see a psychiatrist has a certain

4 significance.

5 If in the anamnesis we receive the information that you indicated,

6 then we have to take it into account. We have to analyse that

7 information. We cannot ignore it. We cannot say somebody is feeling well

8 now but something happened in their childhood, they'd lost a parent, or

9 ignore this. I did not say -- I did not discuss yesterday the simple fact

10 of a loss. I mentioned an example of a two-month old baby who had lost a

11 mother.

12 Q. What I'm getting at, and I want to see if you'll agree with me,

13 that my own perception of what it was that caused me to have difficulty is

14 an important fact, is it not?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And if I were to tell you that prior to my mother's death I

17 have -- I've had no psychological problems and there's no evidence to

18 suggest otherwise, would a doctor such as yourself presume that the person

19 was in good mental health prior to the mother's death?

20 A. We would always look into that. We have to take that into an

21 account -- into account because it's a factor of risk. It doesn't mean

22 that it was a provocative factor in that particular situation, but it's a

23 certain risk that we have to keep in mind.

24 Q. Now, doctor, you spoke to Mr. Vasiljevic about two different

25 crimes that he's been charged with. Did you ask Mr. Vasiljevic during

1 your interview, "Mr. Vasiljevic, what do you think your mental state was

2 at the time those men were killed at the river?" Did you ask him that

3 question?

4 A. I didn't ask him that question when we discussed that event. I

5 asked him that question much before that when we discussed alcoholism.

6 What is evident is that Mr. Vasiljevic did not realise that he was an

7 alcoholic, nor did he realise that he had mental problems. I asked him

8 whether in May or beginning of June, when he started blinking, whether --

9 and when he had certain thoughts whether at that time he was aware that

10 some -- that he was going through a certain situation. He told me that he

11 only realised that that was fear at the time, and he didn't think further

12 about it. He didn't know if it was a mental problem or something from God

13 at the time. He simply was not aware of his mental condition.

14 Q. Doctor, over a year ago, Mr. Vasiljevic was interviewed over the

15 course of two days in great detail about the events which you also

16 discussed with him, and he was asked a specific question regarding his own

17 perception of his mental health. I'm going to read his answer to you, and

18 I'm going to ask you whether or not it changes your opinion about when you

19 believe his mental capacity was significantly reduced.

20 He was asked the following question: "Okay. What I'm interesting

21 now is at the time of the incident by the river," that's the killing of

22 the five men by the river, "was your mental state -- were you having any

23 kind of mental problems or psychiatric problems at that time?"

24 Mr. Vasiljevic's answer was: "No. I had problems after that

25 incident, especially since a colleague of mine was killed there. So I

1 felt bad. I felt sorry for what had happened, and I started developing a

2 problem in the back of my head."

3 That was his answer to his own assessment of his mental condition

4 at the time that those five men were killed. Knowing that now, does that

5 change in any way your opinion regarding when his capacity became severely

6 reduced -- significantly reduced?

7 A. It doesn't change it, because I have to say that I speak on behalf

8 of the information I received. These are authentic -- this is authentic

9 information that I received based on my interview with Mr. Vasiljevic.

10 But perhaps I have an explanation for what you quoted.

11 My experience and our clinical experience says that we do not

12 receive all of the information from our patients at the same time.

13 Sometimes it happens that we see our patients that we follow regularly who

14 all of a sudden subsequently start telling us about some of their problems

15 that they had three years ago, five years ago, sometime in the past. What

16 is a big question for me as a professional is what and how it happened

17 that Mr. Vasiljevic gave me all of this information pertaining to heredity

18 factors through his mother. I don't know whether it was a moment when we

19 psychologists say he was in regression, a deep regression, and had a need

20 to give this information to me. I couldn't tell you. I just know that

21 this information was provided to me.

22 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, you are being asked to consider that evidence

23 now. That is what he said. He may not have said it to you, but you are

24 being asked to consider that piece of information now. Does it change the

25 view that you have expressed?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

2 JUDGE HUNT: All right.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it doesn't change.

4 MR. GROOME:

5 Q. In the case history of the accused which you had and reviewed in

6 preparation of your report, a doctor at Uzice hospital said the

7 following: "The patient shows signs of a pre-delirium state." Can you

8 describe or tell us what the doctor meant when the doctor wrote "shows

9 signs of a pre-delirium state," if you can tell us?

10 A. First of all, I have to say that this information that exists in

11 his anamnesis was given by a colleague of mine. I don't know if it was a

12 general practitioner or an orthopaedist who worked at the orthopaedic

13 ward. So this is information that didn't come from a psychiatrist.

14 What I believe to be important is that we cannot ignore alcoholism

15 as a factor in development of his psychosis and whether this was a

16 pre-delirium. I couldn't tell you.

17 Q. Doctor, could you just tell us what are the symptoms of a

18 pre-delirium state? What would be the observable symptoms?

19 A. One of the visible symptoms prior to delirium is a psychomotor

20 anxiety, lack of sleep, an abundance of somatic symptoms, and perhaps an

21 appearance of deceptive hallucinations. When we talk about delirium,

22 usually those hallucinations are optical ones. Now, whether he showed

23 these symptoms, I couldn't tell you.

24 Q. And in your professional opinion, how soon after an alcoholic

25 stops drinking do we first see the signs of a pre-delirium state?

1 A. The -- when a person stops drinking, it can produce two

2 reactions. The first reaction can be an abstinence symptom and the second

3 one could be a delirium. Now which one will emerge, we don't know.

4 Mr. Vasiljevic had a trauma, and we should not disregard it, because he

5 was suffering great pain, and delirium could have -- this could have

6 contributed to his delirium. And this can develop 24 hours, 48 hours

7 after a person stops drinking.

8 Q. How much time would transpire, in your experience, between the

9 initial onset or observation of this pre-delirium state and the actual

10 onset of delirium tremens?

11 A. This can develop within a few hours or 24 hours. What is

12 significant here, and I think that I need to stress this because I

13 received this information from Mr. Vasiljevic during our interview in

14 Detention Unit, is that he started experiencing, and I think it's very

15 important, in the toxic stage of drinking that a person develops an

16 addiction to alcohol and this person needs to consume alcohol. He told me

17 that he was able, within a few days after admission, to obtain certain

18 amounts of alcohol.

19 Of course, we are talking about small amounts of alcohol here, but

20 he was able to obtain it, which means that, while hospitalised, he was

21 still able to obtain alcohol.

22 Q. Doctor, before I leave the medical records or the case history,

23 you testified, in response to a question by Mr. Domazet, that you had no

24 information before you that Mr. Vasiljevic had ever been aggressive.

25 Isn't it a fact that in the case history itself, there are at least one if

1 not more reports by medical staff saying that Mr. Vasiljevic had engaged

2 in aggressive behaviour?

3 A. Yes. That information is contained in a medical history, the

4 last, the third medical history, given to us, but it says that he showed a

5 psychomotor agitation. However, he wasn't aware of it. He wasn't aware

6 of this condition. This wasn't under the control of his consciousness.

7 Q. I want to move to a different subject now. Yesterday, when you

8 described some of the methods that you employed to come to your

9 conclusion, you talked about trying to get documentation. Now, with

10 respect to the death certificate of Mrs. Vasiljevic, Mr. Vasiljevic's

11 mother, you stated, "I asked an attorney from Visegrad to get me the death

12 certificate." Who was the attorney that you asked to get you this death

13 certificate?

14 A. Mr. Rade Tanaskovic. He was the one to obtain this document.

15 Q. And perhaps you're not the best person to answer this but you're

16 the person who has had the document longer than any of us. I want to ask

17 you a couple of questions regarding the document. In your experience, if

18 somebody simply disappears and there is no recorded history that they had

19 ever been treated for any mental illness, would a death certificate

20 contain the assertion that they committed suicide and that they were

21 mentally ill? And there is no evidence that any physical trace or any

22 physical evidence of a suicide was found, just the fact that a person

23 disappeared. In your experience, would a death certificate contain that

24 information?

25 A. These type of death certificates have to be issued based on

1 evidence and based of witness statements. This couldn't be issued just

2 based on the fact that somebody came to the Court saying, "Well, this

3 person has been missing for five years. We believe this person has

4 committed suicide," and so on. There have to be witnesses who give

5 statements based on which this disappearance is classified. This

6 disappearance has been classified as suicide based on evidence produced

7 that she had tried to commit suicide previously in the past. We have this

8 as a data that was obtained through anamnesis, when Mr. Vasiljevic told me

9 that his grandfather had already saved his mother once from the Drina

10 River before. What we should not disregard either is that suicides are

11 usually committed at dawn. We have an information --

12 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, please, you are not answering the question.

13 The question doesn't ask you to put yourself in the place of the Court and

14 whether you would have made those findings. The question is simply that

15 in an ordinary death certificate, would you normally expect to have a

16 reference to the fact that the death was caused by suicide? Is that your

17 experience?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. That kind of information

19 can be obtained. It could be noted in that document, that there was a

20 suicide. However, this has to be based on witness statements.

21 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, please don't try and force this upon us. The

22 question is: Is this what you would usually find in a death certificate?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

24 MR. GROOME:

25 Q. Doctor, this document that you've given us here in Court, was it a

1 public document or did you have to get some type of Court order to lift

2 the seal or lift the privacy of this document?

3 A. I couldn't tell you. This document was procured by the attorney,

4 but I asked for this document because I know that these documents are

5 normally issued. Now, what the procedure for their issuance is, is

6 something that Mr. Tanaskovic can tell you about.

7 Q. Now, doctor, again on this death certificate, although it appears

8 that Mrs. Vasiljevic or Vojka Vasiljevic simply walked away on the 4th of

9 July, 1963 and was never seen again, the day of her death was determined

10 to be or fixed at the 16th of July, 1963. Is there any explanation given

11 to you as to how somebody knew that she committed suicide on the 16th of

12 July, if she had not been seen since the 4th of July?

13 A. I couldn't tell you that.

14 Q. Now, in Yugoslavia, if I am legally married to someone and I wish

15 to marry somebody else, would I have to prove either that I was legally

16 divorced from my wife or that my wife had died? Would I have to prove one

17 of those two facts before I could legally marry a second time?

18 A. According to the legal procedure, yes. I couldn't tell you what

19 the rules are for marriages concluded in church but as far as civil --

20 the institution of civil marriage is concerned, then yes.

21 Q. The last paragraph of your report says the following, and I'd ask

22 you to explain what exactly you mean by it: "The permanent duration of

23 psychopathology in the first place, the drinking habit since 1973,

24 surpasses the level of the reactive disorder and has permanent

25 consequences of damaged personality." Can you briefly explain exactly

1 what it is you mean by that paragraph?

2 A. I apologise but I only have a version in B/C/S so let me just take

3 a look, please. You are talking about the English version. Which page,

4 please?

5 Q. I'm assuming the English is just a translation of your original

6 report in B/C/S, so please just look at the last paragraph of your

7 original report.

8 A. Yes. That's on the last page, yes. What I had in mind when I

9 said this, what I had in mind is the following, that alcoholism dating

10 back to 1973 and the psychosis could not be a transient situation or a

11 transient psychosis that had not left any -- [no interpretation].

12 JUDGE HUNT: We are getting no translation at all into English for

13 this. Not since the words "transient psychosis that had not left any" --

14 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English booth now?

15 JUDGE HUNT: Just now, yes, just those last few words. Are you

16 able to reproduce it or would you like the witness to repeat it?

17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat, please?

18 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, I'm sorry, the interpreters lost you.

19 THE WITNESS: I can try it. [Interpretation] I was saying it was

20 not just the psychosis but drinking ever since 1973 led to certain organic

21 changes. These are not of a reactive type. This cannot be viewed only

22 within a certain fixed period of time during the psychosis, but they led

23 to certain changes which are certainly quite evident in Mr. Vasiljevic's

24 case, in the structure of his personality, and that is what we referred to

25 yesterday, that psychological tests would be required to ascertain those

1 changes, as well as an examination of his head by electrical procedures.

2 MR. GROOME:

3 Q. And even if we were to conduct those tests and find damage, there

4 would be no way of us telling when that damage or physical changes in his

5 head first manifested or first occurred; correct?

6 A. No. There is something that would be significant for us. If we

7 could -- we would be able to speak about a premorbid structure. Those

8 tests would tell us the profile of the personality, and then if we had the

9 specific tests indicating damage, then we would be able to make certain

10 conclusions.

11 Q. Doctor, yesterday, you testified - I just want to clarify what

12 exactly you meant, and I'm quoting from the record: "If he is psychotic,"

13 and the record says, "I can," "he doesn't remember anything, and if he's

14 not psychotic," again, "I can," "he does remember." Am I correct in

15 believing that what you are saying is that the amount of memory he has and

16 his ability to talk about and to recollect certain events that happened is

17 an indication to you of whether or not he was psychotic?

18 A. Not just recollection. It is not the only indicator for psychotic

19 condition.

20 Q. I'm not saying it's the only one but is it one indicator?

21 A. It is one of many, yes, one of, yes.

22 Q. Now my next question to you is --

23 A. But there are other indicators as well.

24 Q. My next question to you is: Is this memory as an indicator, is it

25 all or nothing or would a person's nearness to a psychotic state be

1 evident by how good their recollection is? In other words, can a person

2 have -- lie somewhere between no recollection and full recollection and

3 will that also indicate to you the state of their mental health?

4 A. Even the most psychotic patient can recollect some things, so we

5 can't talk about this those categories, either/or. We can just say that

6 for certain areas or certain periods in time, can there be clear

7 recollection or gaps in memory or traces of recollection, but we can't

8 simply put it either/or.

9 MR. GROOME: Thank you, doctor.

10 JUDGE HUNT: We will resume at 11.30.

11 But Mr. Groome, it may be better, if I may suggest this to you, if

12 you asked whether it affects his severe reduction in accountability rather

13 than whether it affects his state of psychosis. They may not be exactly

14 the same. The doctor has expressed herself differently at different times

15 about that, and we are really concerned only about a reduced

16 accountability.

17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE HUNT: Right. 11.30.

19 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.

20 --- On resuming at 11.30 a.m.

21 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome.

22 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. Doctor, before the break we were talking about what conclusions

24 you were able to draw from the quality of the accused's memory regarding

25 certain events around this time, and the question I want to ask you is:

1 Based on his recollection of the events, do you have an opinion regarding

2 whether his capacity was significantly reduced when he began to talk about

3 what happened on the 14th of June?

4 A. His capacity was reduced but not on the basis of disturbed

5 recollection. His accountability was significantly reduced on the basis

6 of certain other psychological conditions that he was in at the time. I

7 cannot say that his recollections were disturbed in that period. He

8 showed far more serious memory disturbance during the period of acute

9 psychosis, that is, during his hospitalisation.

10 Memories about the 14th of June are such that it is my impression

11 that he is providing authentic information as to how the events took

12 place, and if necessary, I can tell you what he told me.

13 Q. Doctor, when you spoke about the standard in Yugoslavia, you said

14 there were three standards. I want to talk about two of them. Can you

15 differentiate for us the difference between reduced capacity and

16 significantly reduced capacity?

17 A. When talking about capacity, we are talking about the intensity of

18 fear felt by the person. That is one of the criteria affecting capacity.

19 A second criterion affecting capacity is this feeling of fear as one

20 psychological phenomenon, and another is will, somebody who has reduced

21 will, who is suggestible. If his will is disturbed, that also affects

22 capacity.

23 Q. Doctor --

24 A. Of course, the state of consciousness also affects capacity, but

25 in this case, it is not measured because incapacity is -- is attributed to

1 the state of consciousness.

2 Q. Doctor, how did you make the determination that Mr. Vasiljevic was

3 not suffering from just a reduced capacity but of a significantly reduced

4 capacity? What is the criteria you used and what are the observable

5 symptoms that you found?

6 A. What I have already said, a feeling of fear, intensive fear that

7 he felt in this period.

8 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, I'm sorry to interrupt your answers, but I

9 don't know whether you're listening to the question. What you are being

10 asked is this: What are the criteria for differentiating between somebody

11 who has a reduced capacity and somebody who has a significantly reduced

12 capacity?

13 Now, that doesn't relate to any particular matter to do with the

14 accused in this case at the moment. You may be asked about that later.

15 This is simply how do you determine that he was suffering from a reduced

16 capacity or a significantly reduced capacity? What's the difference

17 between the two?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of what we consider to

19 be disturbances of affective conditions and conditions of will. Those are

20 the two criteria. But how these are measured, that depends on the

21 intensity and the quality of the symptoms.

22 MR. GROOME:

23 Q. Doctor, if I understand you correctly, reduced and significantly

24 reduced categories, you would expect the person to have some problem with

25 fear and will, something that you could --

1 A. [In English] With affect, with affect. But in this situation it

2 is fear.

3 Q. With affect regarding to fear --

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. -- and will.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Let's take fear first. Can you distinguish the difference between

8 a person who has a problem with affect and fear that would be just reduced

9 capacity and a person who would have significantly reduced capacity? What

10 is the difference?

11 A. [Interpretation] The intensity of fear. Mr. Vasiljevic said that

12 he was constantly in fear. He was fearful for a long period that he

13 refers to. In the case of significantly reduced capacity, this is

14 constant fear. In the case of reduced capacity, it is not a continuous

15 feeling of fear. In his case, he felt fear throughout and especially at

16 night-time.

17 Q. Now let's talk about changes in affect regarding will. Can you

18 give the same thing, give us an example of how you would distinguish

19 between the two categories?

20 A. With regard to will, the patient is suggestible. He is easily

21 influenced. He is not capable of adopting a critical attitude towards a

22 real-life event, and he cannot resist a situation he finds himself in. If

23 he is also fearful, he cannot fully control himself and he may find

24 himself in a situation when he has to defend himself from this subjective

25 feeling of fear. In the situation he found himself in, he refused to

1 carry out an order and allowed himself to be imprisoned. He could have

2 even been court-martialled and executed. That could have happened to him.

3 Q. Can you give us an example of somebody in the reduced category in

4 this respect?

5 A. If he had not been in this situation to be imprisoned, then he

6 probably could have been in the category of reduced capacity.

7 Q. So you're saying but for this imprisonment, you would entertain

8 the possibility that regarding the affect and will, he would fit into the

9 first category, simply reduced capacity?

10 A. One could put it that way.

11 Q. And you are under the impression that his imprisonment could have

12 resulted in a possible court-martial or an execution; is that correct?

13 A. I am not familiar with the laws, but I assume you can check in our

14 legislation, and under conditions of war, if you do not execute an order,

15 then you are subject to certain rules which envisage very strict

16 sanctions. The punishment is much stricter.

17 Q. Now, aside from these two criteria, the affect regarding fear and

18 the affect regarding will, are there any other categories or indicators

19 that you look for in determining whether a person is -- has a reduced

20 capacity or a significantly reduced capacity?

21 A. It is a category of a critical attitude towards reality. In a

22 real-life situation, we must always know what we can expect or what might

23 be a certain requirement of us. However, in this situation, we see that

24 this critical attitude towards reality had changed. He didn't seem to

25 perceive reality. He was guided by fear in his behaviour, rather than his

1 consciousness or his awareness of his acts.

2 Q. Now, doctor, you keep going back to fear, and it seems that it was

3 a very important criteria, your belief that during this time period, he

4 was suffering from a constant sense of fear; is that correct?

5 A. Now, in this period, not now. At the time, yes, but now, no. I

6 don't think so.

7 Q. Back in 1992 --

8 A. May I explain why I don't think that applies now?

9 Q. We are not very concerned with today. Just 1992. I want to give

10 you a fact that you are obviously unaware of and ask you does it change

11 your opinion regarding whether he was in a constant state of fear. During

12 the very time period that we are talking about, Mr. Vasiljevic turned in

13 his weapon to his superiors and told them that he no longer needed it,

14 even said, I believe, "What do I need it for? I'm just in the town."

15 Does that change your opinion whether or not Mr. Vasiljevic was in a

16 constant state of fear during the time period we are talking about?

17 A. I didn't quite understand what you said. He handed over his

18 weapon to his superior why? Was there an explanation? Why did he hand in

19 his weapon?

20 Q. The explanation that Mr. Vasiljevic gave this Court, he said that

21 he told his superior, "I do not need the weapon. What do I need it for?

22 I am in the town. I'm in the town of Visegrad." Does that change your

23 opinion?

24 A. No, it doesn't. Why should it change my opinion? This could in

25 fact confirm his uncritical attitude towards reality or that there was a

1 fear, this subjective part, that may have existed at the time, and it was

2 not objectively evident for people around him.

3 Q. Now, doctor, you've talked significantly or have spoken

4 significantly regarding the impact of hereditary on mental disease, and we

5 have also heard testimony that a niece of Mr. Vasiljevic's had a

6 schizophrenic disorder, and we've heard about -- I think you've described

7 him as having an affective disorder, and my question to you is: If a

8 particular family is predisposed to schizophrenia, does that also mean

9 that they are predisposed to affective disorders?

10 A. What we are taught and what we teach our students is that the

11 hereditary factor has more percentage-wise influence on affective orders

12 than schizophrenia. As to whether in a family that has affective

13 disorders, will lead to schizophrenia in distant relatives, we may assume

14 that these may be connected but not necessarily so. The hereditary factor

15 is far more dominant in relation to affective disorders. We don't know

16 what the other ancestors of the young woman were like, whether it is just

17 because on the maternal side there is this hereditary factor. Maybe there

18 may be the same factor on the father's side but we don't know that.

19 Q. Doctor, is there any study that you're aware of that would support

20 a conclusion that the fact that his niece was schizophrenic indicates that

21 he is predisposed towards a mental illness, affective disorder?

22 A. I cannot directly link the niece and the mental health of

23 Mr. Vasiljevic. What I am asserting here is that the direct link is

24 through the mother. So we can talk about Mr. Vasiljevic's mother, who is

25 the grandmother of this young woman. So her heredity factor comes from

1 there. So that is the way it has been inherited, on the maternal side.

2 Q. Let me ask you a question about Mr. Vasiljevic's mother.

3 Yesterday you made the statement that his mother suffered from affective

4 psychosis, and my question to you is: Based on the very limited

5 information that we have regarding Mr. Vasiljevic's mother, how are you

6 able to draw such a conclusive diagnosis regarding her mental condition?

7 A. I reached my assumption and conclusion because I obtained

8 information about the way she died, that is, suicide. Then I was told

9 about attempted suicide a year and a half prior to her disappearance and

10 suicide. The type of suicide is something that is an indicator of such a

11 possible disease. Also the fact that she had changes of mood, an affect

12 as a dominant symptom, and all this leads me to opt for affective

13 psychosis. And that it is a psychosis, I need to emphasise once again, is

14 confirmed by the moment when she disappeared. This is two months after

15 childbirth, and this can most probably be considered as a puerperal

16 psychosis, as we call it, that is, post-delivery psychosis. We locate

17 them only in time but not in the contextual genetic sense. They are

18 definitely endogenous psychoses.

19 Q. Doctor, would you agree with me that you are in some sense

20 speculating regarding what Mrs. Vasiljevic may or may not have suffered

21 from? Isn't that true?

22 A. I can't say I am speculating if I have 28 years of clinical

23 experience when I have occasion to hear about such case histories and to

24 read about them in our literature. So this is quite a typical example of

25 depression and how puerperal psychosis is diagnosed and psychosis in that

1 period of life. This is something that I studied and that I teach my

2 students.

3 Q. Doctor, of the family history that we've heard regarding the

4 Vasiljevics, all of the mental illness, aside from Mr. Vasiljevic, has

5 been in the women in the family, and based on your experience and any

6 studies that you have read, is this predisposition towards mental illness,

7 is it affected by the sex of the person?

8 A. Not specifically.

9 Q. Now, doctor, a Prosecution psychiatrist also examined

10 Mr. Vasiljevic. Can I ask you, did you have an opportunity to see her

11 report?

12 A. [In English] Yes.

13 Q. And did you read her report?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Now, I want to ask you about her conclusions and -- do you agree

16 with her conclusions, and if you do not, could you please tell us where

17 you differ in opinion?

18 A. [Interpretation] I agree in my colleague's Vera Folnegovic-Smalc's

19 conclusion which in great detail expressed her opinion as regards the

20 period of hospitalisation and possible diagnosis for that period that she

21 speculates about, and I think that our finding in that respect is very

22 similar. She also speaks about the hereditary factor, about the fact of

23 alcoholism, commenting on the possible diagnostic categories. She speaks

24 about the psychosis as a diagnosis. And what is also something that I

25 underlined as well, that this cannot be observed only from the biological

1 standpoint or only from the standpoint of alcoholism or only from the

2 stress factor but that these are interdependent conditions. And

3 regardless of the etiological factor that we will opt for, whether it is

4 alcohol or psychosis, it is quite evident that in that period he

5 manifested this kind of behaviour. And in that sense, I fully agree with

6 her finding, and I think that our opinions are very close.

7 What I do not see in her report is reference to the period prior

8 to the psychosis. There is no comment as to the evaluation of the mental

9 condition of Mr. Vasiljevic in the period prior to hospitalisation and

10 prior to the psychosis. I think that this should be included.

11 Q. In her report, she describes or compares the Yugoslavian diagnosis

12 with DSM-IV and with the definition provided by the World Health

13 Organisation. Are you in agreement with her that the diagnosis of his

14 condition back in 1992 regarding the DSM-IV, the substance-withdrawal

15 delirium, and with respect to the World Health Organisation, withdrawal

16 syndrome with delirium? Would you agree that that is most probably what

17 Mr. Vasiljevic suffered from at the time of his hospitalisation?

18 A. I interpreted the finding of Professor Folnegovic as her

19 differential diagnostic thinking, and in that sense I agree with her. But

20 she did not opt specifically for one of those diagnoses because it is

21 absolutely impossible to opt for one single diagnosis because none of

22 those diagnoses -- that the criteria for one of those diagnoses have not

23 been fulfilled, because we have symptoms which would speak for delirium

24 and others for psychosis, which only shows that this was a psychosis

25 provoked by multiple factors.

1 Q. Let me be more specific. Let's take the DSM-IV definition of

2 substance withdrawal delirium. Would you agree of the symptoms described

3 in that definition that Mr. Vasiljevic possessed those symptoms?

4 A. Only some of them.

5 Q. Which ones do you say that he did not possess?

6 A. He had them, but he had some others. He had a surplus of

7 symptoms.

8 Q. So it is based on your finding that -- or your belief that he had

9 additional symptoms that makes you diagnose him differently?

10 A. If I were to have to opt for a particular diagnosis, then I would

11 choose the diagnosis of psychosis. It is ICD-10, F1X5, which describes a

12 psychotic disorder which is linked also to alcoholism.

13 Q. Now, doctor, yesterday you, in response to a question by

14 Mr. Domazet, Mr. Domazet had asked you could the stress that triggers this

15 lapse into mental disease, could it be standing and watching some people

16 be murdered and possibly even one of -- and possibly even knowing one of

17 the people that was murdered, and you said yes; is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Now, aside from an event like that, let me ask you -- it may seem

20 like an obvious question, but would you agree that it would also be

21 possible that the triggering event could be standing and watching

22 approximately 80 people put into a house and the house set on fire, that

23 that kind of -- witnessing that type of event would also be sufficiently

24 stressful to trigger a lapse into mental disease; is that correct?

25 A. I have to say that when I said yesterday that this was one of the

1 factors, I wish to emphasise that never for a moment am I talking about a

2 single factor but only multiple factors.

3 So we have to view those factors in a dynamic relationship. But

4 as one of the stress factors, certainly, yes, the answer to your question.

5 Q. And you've made that clear in your testimony. I believe what you

6 were talking about yesterday was - I don't know how this expression will

7 translate, but the event that -- the straw that breaks the camel's back,

8 the final event that pushes the person over the edge and we can then begin

9 to see observable psychiatric symptoms. That is the context that you were

10 talking about this yesterday. So my question to you is: Could witnessing

11 the mass murder of approximately 80 people, would you agree with me that

12 that is a sufficiently stressful event that could trigger this lapse into

13 mental disease that you've described?

14 A. I cannot tell you because I did not get any such information. I

15 spoke only about the information I obtained, and --

16 Q. Doctor --

17 A. And I was not told about any such event, so I don't know what

18 effect it would have had on Mr. Vasiljevic if it had happened.

19 Q. I'm asking you a hypothetical question, not about Mr. Vasiljevic

20 at this time. Would you agree with me that witnessing that type of crime

21 would be sufficiently stressful to act as the type of trigger that you

22 told us about yesterday?

23 A. It depends on the structure of the personality. If he is a

24 hypersensitive personality, yes, but we don't know the structure of the

25 personality in this case.

1 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome, I think that the question you asked was

2 an unfortunate one because it allows the doctor to go off on this sort of

3 a trail. Why don't you ask her, as a truly hypothetical question but

4 about Mr. Vasiljevic, would witnessing the fire in which 80 people died be

5 sufficient to have set him off? That's what you're really after, isn't

6 it?

7 MR. GROOME: Yes.

8 Q. You've heard the Judge's question. Would you answer that,

9 please?

10 A. It is a stress which can trigger such a disease, but it can only

11 contribute to the outbreak of the disease but it cannot cause it.

12 Q. Now, again I want to ask you a hypothetical question regarding

13 Mr. Vasiljevic and to ask you your opinion. That same event, could it not

14 also serve as a trigger if, for whatever reason, Mr. Vasiljevic

15 participated in that crime in some manner? Could that -- could having

16 participated in such a crime not also be a triggering event?

17 A. For a direct answer to that question, we have to have a profile of

18 the personality structure. For such a direct answer, we have to know the

19 defence mechanisms that the patient has.

20 Q. Doctor, let's confine ourselves to Mr. Vasiljevic. You've

21 testified that witnessing -- Mr. Vasiljevic's witnessing of such an event

22 could trigger him. My question to you is: Could Mr. Vasiljevic's

23 participation in the event also trigger the mental disease that you've

24 described?

25 A. I cannot answer such questions directly when Mr. Vasiljevic is

1 named because in the interview I had with him, I was not given any

2 information that could tell me what the -- his reaction would be.

3 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, this is the third time that you've gone off

4 on that particular trail. You are being asked now to consider it.

5 Whether you were told by Mr. Vasiljevic or not, you are being asked

6 whether his participation in that fire would have been sufficient to have

7 set him off.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All we could talk about is the

9 stress factor. Now, whether it would affect him or not and how, I cannot

10 tell you, as I don't have the psychological profile of his personality.

11 MR. GROOME:

12 Q. So, doctor, you are able to tell us that merely witnessing --

13 Mr. Vasiljevic witnessing the event could be the trigger but you're not

14 able to tell us whether his participation in it could be the trigger. Is

15 that what your testimony is now?

16 A. I couldn't tell you that now. I couldn't tell you because it

17 depends -- it would depend on how he would feel had he participated and

18 that is also linked to the structure of the personality, and we also don't

19 know whether he would allow himself to participate in that.

20 Q. Doctor, your findings rely significantly on information provided

21 by Mr. Vasiljevic, information regarding blinking, magical thinking, his

22 thoughts about the importance or the relevance of crows versus doves, his

23 belief that he could subconsciously communicate with his wife, his belief

24 in some prohibition from God, the suicide of his mother. All of these

25 facts, none of your colleagues who treated him in 1992 were aware of, who

1 treated him in the psychiatric ward of Uzice hospital. They had no

2 recollection of him ever telling them those things, nor in reviewing the

3 medical records, they saw no notes regarding any of these things. Can you

4 entertain the possibility, however slight you may believe it to be, that

5 Mr. Vasiljevic could be trying to avoid responsibility for crimes he

6 committed by fabricating some of these symptoms and some of these facts?

7 Can you entertain that possibility in any way?

8 A. I must say that the level of education of Mr. Vasiljevic does not

9 give us the right to assume something like that, because what I learned

10 from the interview is something that fits into the clinical picture of

11 what we can see now and what we could see in the past, so the only

12 remaining question is why did he start talking about his symptoms this

13 late? This is something that I mentioned just recently, that

14 occasionally, some of our patients will give us their symptoms or talk

15 about their symptoms after the passage of time.

16 Q. Doctor --

17 A. I don't doubt that these symptoms exist.

18 Q. Can you --

19 A. I don't think that this was invented.

20 Q. Can you entertain the possibility that some of the facts and some

21 of the symptoms that he described for you may possibly be fabricated? Can

22 you entertain that possibility?

23 A. No.

24 MR. GROOME: Thank you. No further questions.

25 Questioned by the Court:

1 JUDGE HUNT: Doctor, I want to ask you a few questions only to try

2 and clear up my understanding of your evidence. I'm not challenging you

3 in any way, but I have had some difficulty in following the logic of some

4 of your evidence. You told us that one of the triggers to this particular

5 mental state was the fear which Mr. Vasiljevic had during the course of

6 the war. And you drew our attention to what he himself has said, that he

7 was fearful at one stage when he was required to deliver food in dangerous

8 areas. And that he was so fearful of that that he refused to do it and

9 that's what landed him in prison. Now, once that fear that he says he had

10 at that time, or once the cause of that fear that he said he had at the

11 time, has been removed, does this particular psychosis or reduced,

12 significantly reduced, responsibility continue? And if so, for how long?

13 A. The state of fear is a state that a person goes through

14 unconsciously. If a person could control fear, then a person could remove

15 it. So this was provoked by the front line and by the tasks that he was

16 given and could not discharge, which is why he ended up in prison. So it

17 doesn't mean that once we remove the cause, the fear would disappear

18 automatically. It still remained with him, and these symptoms that kept

19 developing are a further proof of the fact the fear remained, this

20 blinking, his thoughts, et cetera.

21 JUDGE HUNT: You see, after he came out of prison, he wasn't sent

22 back to anywhere near the front line. He was given this task of cleaning

23 up the town or supervising the citizens in cleaning up the town. And

24 whilst nobody would suggest that this particular town was free of any

25 trouble, it was nothing like a front line. How long would this psychosis

1 or this significantly reduced accountability continue after the cause of

2 his fear had been removed?

3 A. What I obtained, the information that I obtained, is that upon

4 arriving, coming into town, so once he started cleaning, he started

5 drinking even more, so this other factor that is constantly present was

6 still there, even to a greater degree. He said that he went into town

7 to -- and visited houses where he was sure he would be offered a drink.

8 And this simply contributed to deteriorating his state. It was not

9 improving it.

10 JUDGE HUNT: You also told us that had he not been sent to prison,

11 his condition would only have been one of reduced capacity rather than

12 significantly reduced capacity. So that obviously the fact that he went

13 to prison had some effect upon his mental state; is that right?

14 A. We did not understand each other well, then. What I said is that

15 had he not been sent to prison, had he not been -- had he not put himself

16 in the situation to be sent to prison, then we could describe that

17 condition as a condition of reduced accountability, but his behaviour was

18 already such that he was non-critical, and this is why he in the end went

19 to prison. So the prison is just a form but not the substance of the

20 matter. The substance is his non-critical attitude with respect to tasks

21 that were assigned to him.

22 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that's certainly saying it a lot more clearly,

23 if I may say so, than you said it before. So that once he is removed from

24 being in prison, you say that would have had no effect in reducing the

25 state of his unaccountability or increasing his accountability, I suppose

1 is the best way of putting it?

2 A. It didn't change significantly the level of his accountability

3 because he continued drinking and continued acting in a non-critical way,

4 an irresponsible way.

5 JUDGE HUNT: Do you want to ask any questions, Mr. Groome?

6 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet?

8 MR. DOMAZET: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Further examination by Mr. Domazet:

10 Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Lopicic, as regards this period of time that

11 we have just discussed, which is the time spent in prison that you seem to

12 view as the time when Mitar Vasiljevic's accountability was significantly

13 reduced, the questions you have just answered pertain to the period

14 immediately after that. So this is what I would like to focus on right

15 now.

16 In addition to what you have just stated, could the fact that

17 precisely after leaving the prison, based on his testimony and other

18 testimony here, he attended the funeral of his cousin that same week, five

19 or six days later. Unfortunately, we don't know on what day he was

20 exactly in prison and released, in addition to what took place a day or

21 two later, which is linked to what he described as the execution of people

22 on the Drina.

23 A. Well, these are the stressful moments that I described. I would

24 simply like to highlight that this departure, release from prison, if I

25 understood Mr. Vasiljevic correctly when he described this to me, is one

1 of the reasons why he -- one of the reasons why he was released from the

2 prison was the very fact that he was told that a very close relative of

3 his had been killed, so he needed to go to the funeral. I have to say

4 that there is a special affective link between Mr. Vasiljevic and his

5 uncle, and this -- he's been speaking of this uncle from the very first

6 day as a person who took good care of children after the mother's

7 disappearance. And another fact that evidences this is that there is a

8 physical similarity between the two of them and that people would

9 frequently confuse them in Visegrad when his uncle was younger. So he was

10 especially close to this uncle of his. The uncle had an only son, so

11 Mr. Vasiljevic was certainly affected by the death of this only son of the

12 uncle to whom he was very close. This uncle was the mother's brother.

13 If we can add, this event of the 7th is this very stressful -- is

14 the fact that among those who were executed was his colleague and his son,

15 and he had a very good professional relationship with this colleague of

16 his and this certainly affected him to a great deal.

17 Q. I would like to ask you something pertaining to the 14th of

18 July -- June, which he also discussed. And bearing in mind that you spoke

19 about the quantity of memory as one of the factors, the fact that on the

20 14th of June he drank at Pionirska Street with Mujo Halilovic and that he

21 remembered this and that almost everything described by witnesses he could

22 not remember, and some of the witnesses spoke of him having told them that

23 he was in charge of refugees, that he allegedly worked for the Red Cross,

24 that he even gave some kind of a written statement, certificate claiming

25 that he did not remember this. So he does not remember any of the things

1 that took place on the 14th of June except for this event when he went to

2 get the horse.

3 A. I cannot remember. I don't know how much alcohol he drank on that

4 day. What I was told is he had one bottle of brandy that he started

5 drinking that very morning, and if I remember correctly, in my report it

6 says here that he gave Mujo the remainder of that bottle and then they

7 went to get the horse. So there are some state of acute drunkenness when

8 a person cannot remember a certain event. Now, whether he was in that

9 particular state of acute drunkenness I cannot assert because I have no

10 facts that would pertain to this. But I was given the information that I

11 have pertained to that moment when he had been injured. If he drank more,

12 then --

13 JUDGE HUNT: Both of you, please remember to pause. You're both

14 coming in on top of the interpreter.

15 So, Doctor --

16 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

17 JUDGE HUNT: -- just wait until the question is finished and then

18 pause before you begin your answer.

19 And, Mr. Domazet, you have slipped. You have been very good, but

20 that was very early.

21 MR. DOMAZET: Thank you, Your Honour. I apologise.

22 Q. [Interpretation] I asked you this in context of what you replied

23 when asked by Judge Hunt whether after that period, around June 1st and

24 until June 14th, whether his state improved during that time or not. Now,

25 whether these circumstances; namely, that he does not remember events

1 described by witnesses, providing that the witnesses are telling the truth

2 as well, whether this would influence the reduction of his accountability

3 or not.

4 A. Well, yes, this further confirms this claim.

5 Q. So the fact that he took the horse, after what we just described,

6 and he rode the horse according to what he himself stated, as did the

7 witnesses, without saddle, without any kind of equipment, so he rode the

8 horse without shoes through the town on asphalt roads, and according to

9 some witnesses he was going quite fast, would this contribute to this kind

10 of behaviour of his?

11 A. Well, I have to say that this is to some extent a non-critical

12 attitude acting. We know what can happen if one is riding a horse without

13 shoes, horseshoes, on the asphalt road, et cetera. There's no gripping

14 there. So obviously this is not appropriate. And this further confirms

15 what we've been saying, that he at that time had a non-critical or

16 modified attitude with respect to reality, but not to the degree where we

17 could call this psychotic.

18 Q. Thank you. Now, this pertains to this period, and if you were to

19 say -- to discuss this period of significantly reduced accountability, and

20 in May of 1992, this period that you also at some point described as a

21 period containing one of these indicators, the fear. Now, would it be

22 possible that he had this similar condition during this period or even a

23 more intense condition or you have no facts to base this on?

24 A. What I said is that during this interview, I obtained information

25 on fears that he had during that time at the end of May, but he didn't

1 mention all of these symptoms as being linked to that period. Some of

2 them he mentioned as being linked to a period later than that. So I don't

3 have sufficient information for that period, but it was end of May when he

4 started developing these problems.

5 Q. Now, when we're talking about what Mr. Groome brought up, when

6 Mr. Vasiljevic returned a weapon, based on Mr. Groome's question,

7 Mr. Vasiljevic returned this weapon and said, "I don't need this in

8 Visegrad any more." I think this transpired in a somewhat different way;

9 namely, that he returned the weapon because he did not want to go to the

10 front line. So he refused to be sent to the front line, which is a much

11 more serious set of circumstances than the situation described by

12 Mr. Groome when he allegedly said, "I don't need this any more." So I

13 think this to be the real reason behind this. And would this change

14 anything in your reply?

15 A. Well, this could only be a sign of his fear or once again a sign

16 of his non-critical attitude. I did not receive the information about him

17 returning the weapon, so I can't tell you anything further.

18 Q. Thank you. You've already replied to this, but I simply thought

19 perhaps you had some more information regarding this.

20 Thank you. I don't have any further questions. I think that all

21 of these questions arose based on the questions of Mr. Groome. So that's

22 all I had. Thank you.

23 JUDGE HUNT: Well, thank you, doctor, for coming along to give

24 evidence and for the evidence which you gave. You are now free to leave.

25 [The witness withdrew]

1 JUDGE HUNT: Now, Mr. Domazet, I have -- I understand that you

2 have told the Trial Chamber's legal officer that Dr. Stojkovic is not

3 coming; is that right?

4 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Yesterday --

5 JUDGE HUNT: So this is the end of your case then.

6 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I'm finished with

7 the witnesses.

8 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome, you've got dates here for the 11th, which

9 is tomorrow, of course.

10 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. We have the two experts arriving

11 tomorrow as per our previous arrangement with the Chamber. One is flying

12 in tonight, and the other has a teaching commitment today and he was the

13 professor who was here for a day and a half before the break, but he will

14 be here first thing tomorrow morning. So what the Prosecution is

15 proposing is the two experts tomorrow and then the remainder of the

16 Prosecution rejoinder case on Monday morning. I expect that the

17 Prosecution case will be completed by Monday.

18 JUDGE HUNT: Even the psychiatrist?

19 MR. GROOME: Maybe I'm too optimistic.

20 JUDGE HUNT: I don't know what experience you have of taking

21 psychiatrists their through evidence, but it is difficult to keep them

22 within any reasonable bounds, I'm afraid.

23 MR. GROOME: We will certainly do our best to finish on Monday.

24 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.

25 MR. GROOME: There was -- the Prosecution was going to call

1 Investigator Roy to admit two documents which are now relevant in

2 rejoinder. Mr. Domazet has agreed to their admissibility so there is no

3 need to call him. I have the documents here and marked. If it's

4 convenient to the court, I'll pass them up now.

5 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, certainly.

6 MR. GROOME: They are Prosecution documents, two packages. One

7 is 171 and one is -- sorry, 170 and the other is 171.

8 JUDGE HUNT: What are they?

9 MR. GROOME: The package of 170 is the correspondence regarding

10 medical records of Uzice hospital, correspondence between the Office of

11 the Prosecutor and the government of Republika Srpska as an intermediary

12 with the hospital. The Prosecution document package 171 is a similar

13 request to the Republika Srpska regarding the existence of any complaints

14 made against Milan Lukic or Sredoje Lukic during the time period

15 concerning in this case, and their response.

16 JUDGE HUNT: That's going in as part of your case in reply, is

17 it?

18 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Is there any objection to that,

20 Mr. Domazet?

21 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I have no

22 objection to this being admitted, but I truly regret that I have not seen

23 any of these exhibits previously, especially those pertaining to Uzice.

24 One of them was signed by a witness who came to testify here, in which

25 case we would have had questions for that witness, but unfortunately this

1 has -- was only brought to our attention now, so --

2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, so the transcript is clear, these

3 documents were provided yesterday and I asked Mr. Domazet to review them

4 and let me know this morning whether he'd agreed to their admissibility,

5 which is what was done.

6 JUDGE HUNT: But I'm just a little concerned as to the point that

7 Mr. Domazet has raised. Which particular document is it that has been

8 signed by a witness that you would have asked some questions on?

9 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I saw a document here,

10 a reply from the health centre in Uzice to the municipal court in Uzice,

11 of 17th April, 2001, and it was signed by Dr. Aleksandar Moljevic.

12 Although based on previously exchanged letters, one can see that they were

13 sent to the director of the hospital, and Dr. Moljevic is not even a head

14 of the orthopaedic ward. He gave a reply which pertains to the

15 undisputable confiscation of documentation held by him, on the 1st of

16 November, 2000. However, he did not say, or this document does not say

17 whether there are any other relevant documents which could be used here

18 and which would explain why such a reply was given. I know that as a

19 Defence counsel, I encountered a serious problem concerning the lack of

20 access to the documents in the Uzice hospital after the 1st of November,

21 2000 because they believed that the originals of these documents were

22 confiscated or seized from them, and up until the beginning of this

23 trial. The situation was somewhat improved due to some write-ups in the

24 papers, confirming that Mr. Vasiljevic was in Visegrad after the 14th of

25 June, based on which a number of physicians called and expressed

1 willingness to come and testify. And I am really sorry that this couldn't

2 have been done earlier, and had we known of the existence of these

3 letters, perhaps we could have done something earlier as well. But

4 otherwise, I have no objection to these being admitted.

5 JUDGE HUNT: But Mr. Domazet, my concern is your complaint that

6 you would have asked this doctor some questions about this letter if you

7 had known that the letter was going to be tendered or that you knew that

8 it existed. My understanding is that you were there present when the

9 documents were seized from the doctor, were you not? So you knew they'd

10 been seized. You knew the doctor was being called. What is there in this

11 letter, other than a misspelling of my name, that you could have asked him

12 about, that you haven't had the opportunity to ask the doctor about in any

13 event?

14 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Maybe there is a

15 misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with the 1st of November, 2000.

16 That is, everything is in order. What I consider is not in order is the

17 answer that all the documents were seized on that occasion, because we saw

18 that there were relevant documents in the hospital which were brought by

19 witnesses here in court much later, and that is why I would have had some

20 questions, not with regard to the actual seizure, which I attended, and

21 which was carried out in a perfectly official manner, and I have nothing

22 to say about that. It was based on an order that existed at the time.

23 But there was some talk about Dr. Moljevic refusing to sign because

24 apparently he was promised that he could take back the originals and leave

25 the photocopies, but that's a problem between Mr. Moljevic and officials

1 of the Tribunal.

2 JUDGE HUNT: I remember the doctor's evidence that he was

3 considerably embarrassed by the fact that they had been seized, and when

4 he gave that evidence, he was looking directly at me, I remember. But

5 that's a different matter.

6 I'm still concerned to know what is the problem about this

7 document going into evidence. He says all documents on Mitar Vasiljevic's

8 case were seized. I think what he is saying is simply all the documents

9 he had were seized. I don't read that letter as any assertion by him that

10 all of the documents that the hospital had relating to your client were

11 seized on that occasion, just the ones he had with him. They were the

12 only ones that were seized. Now, if that's the way we interpret the

13 letter, which I don't think is of any particular consequence one way or

14 the other, are you concerned about this letter going into evidence?

15 May I say this to you in addition? You have, as you have pointed

16 out, had access now to a lot of other letters and documents that dealt

17 with your client. Now, have you been in any way prejudiced by your lack

18 of knowledge of the existence of that letter? I notice that the doctor's

19 name is misspelled as well, but that letter of the 17th of April? That

20 doesn't go to its admissibility, I should hasten to add, but have you had

21 some problem in the conduct of your case? I myself can't see it, but if

22 you can point something out to me, I would be very interested to know what

23 it is.

24 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No, no, absolutely no. There is no

25 problem, absolutely not. I just said that I was sorry that I didn't know

1 of this letter, and that Dr. Moljevic didn't tell us about it either,

2 because then I would have had some questions for him in this connection,

3 but it is not all that important for us to need to hear anyone in this

4 connection, including Dr. Moljevic. If the Prosecution received this

5 belatedly, that's another matter. I thought they had it earlier on, and I

6 thought it was a pity that we didn't have access to these documents when

7 the doctors from Uzice came here. But certainly I don't think that it is

8 of great relevance, and I have no objection to them being admitted.

9 JUDGE HUNT: Well, they will be Exhibits P170 and P171.

10 Still, I have to say this, though: I still do not understand how

11 you have been prejudiced in any way by not knowing of the existence of

12 that letter until after the doctor had given evidence, because he could

13 not have given you anything more than what he has said, that all of the

14 documents he had with him were seized, as you knew because you were

15 there.

16 All right. That, then, is as far as --

17 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, but, Your Honour, all the

18 documents that the witness brought with him were seized, all the documents

19 that he brought to Visegrad, but we know that certain witnesses brought

20 other documents that were later admitted into evidence which he didn't

21 bring at the time, and it would have been a good thing if he had said that

22 there were other documents in which Mitar Vasiljevic is mentioned, but

23 this wasn't done. I don't think that I was prejudiced as a result, as

24 those documents have been admitted, but Your Honour, I would like to take

25 advantage of this opportunity maybe now, with respect to -- to say

1 something about future documents tendered by the Prosecution.

2 I'm referring to the expert witnesses that have been planned on

3 the basis of a list that I have received, and I have nothing to say in

4 that connection. I am worried about two witnesses who have been proposed

5 for next week by the Prosecution. I received yesterday, for the second

6 witness, whose name I will not mention, I can just give you the initials,

7 because I'm not sure whether the Prosecution will require protective

8 measures for him, it is a witness who appears for the first time, and

9 judging by what I have received, which is not a statement but rather a

10 summary as to what the witness told the investigators about, I think it

11 cannot be the rebuttal case of the Prosecution.

12 JUDGE HUNT: Is it the witness with the initials BB?

13 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour, yes.

14 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, I see. Well, you're challenging that as a

15 matter in reply or rebuttal? I just want to see what the point is that

16 you're making.

17 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Because according to the Rules of

18 Procedure, the Prosecution may call new witnesses in the rebuttal stage

19 but for very specific situations. I do not see that what this witness

20 told investigators about is something that could serve as reply of the

21 Prosecution to the Defence case, and I fear that the testimony of this

22 witness about quite different circumstances that we have not gone into

23 would lead to me having to try and find rebuttal evidence against it.

24 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then, what you are saying is that you challenge

25 that as appropriate evidence to be called at this stage of the case, and

1 if that's so, then I'll hear what Mr. Groome has got to say about it.

2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, in substance, the witness will testify,

3 and I haven't spoken to the witness, but it's on the 21st or 22nd of June,

4 the witness, with about a hundred other people, were gathered in the

5 Karadzic school, and at the time Mr. Vasiljevic and Mr. Lukic walked into

6 that school. Mr. Vasiljevic set up at a table with a logbook and said

7 that, "I'm working for the Red Cross and I have to list all your names

8 which I will then forward to Geneva and then you'll be sent to a host

9 country." He's not alleging he committed any other crime other than that.

10 JUDGE HUNT: This is an issue as to whether or not he could have

11 been in hospital, is it?

12 MR. GROOME: Well, it's also, Your Honour -- in the Defence case

13 now, we've heard from several witness who have denied, even though they

14 had previous statements saying that he wore the mark of the Red Cross,

15 that he had never represented himself as a Red Cross member, and they

16 denied that in Court that he --

17 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. But, Mr. Groome, that is an issue that you set

18 out to prove in your case in chief, isn't it?

19 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, there was testimony in the Prosecution

20 case that at the time of the crime, Mr. Vasiljevic represented himself as

21 a member of the Red Cross.

22 JUDGE HUNT: Some -- from Red Cross. That's right.

23 MR. GROOME: The only evidence that that was not true or that he

24 had not represented himself came in on the Defence case, the several

25 witnesses who said that at no time did they ever see him wearing a

1 Red Cross emblem, even though in their previous case the information that

2 I had was that they would be testifying here that they -- he had worn the

3 emblem of the Red Cross on a number of occasions.

4 JUDGE HUNT: One witness had in his statement that it was a cross.

5 MR. GROOME: I believe it was three witnesses, Your Honour,

6 that --

7 JUDGE HUNT: One of them precisely said a red cross. The other

8 ones were at least consistent with it. And you've got all of that out in

9 evidence. But it was an issue which you sought to litigate in your case

10 in chief. So -- and this person, BB, let's call him, could have been

11 called in chief.

12 MR. GROOME: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure that's correct, Your

13 Honour, in that --

14 JUDGE HUNT: Oh, yes, he could. Oh, yes, he could. You set out

15 to prove that Mr. Vasiljevic turned up that afternoon sometime and was

16 representing himself as somebody from the Red Cross and directing them

17 into the first of the houses that they were put in.

18 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE HUNT: That was your case. You opened it that way.

20 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. If I can ask what relevance would

21 it have been that at a time later, over a week later when we're not

22 alleging any crime was committed, that he set himself up in an auditorium

23 and gathered these people together to say, "I'm with the Red Cross; let me

24 get your names." I don't see how that would have been relevant to the

25 issue of what happened on the 14th.

1 JUDGE HUNT: It was put to him in the course of the original

2 interview that he was wearing a Red Cross thing, was it not?

3 MR. GROOME: That he was wearing? No. Just he -- he, in his

4 interview, said he wore a red ribbon. That was it.

5 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Was he not asked about the Red Cross in that

6 interview?

7 MR. GROOME: He was asked if he said that he was a member of the

8 Red Cross to the people, did he tell them to go into the house. He denied

9 that he said anything to these people.

10 JUDGE HUNT: That's right. So that he would -- you would have

11 been entitled to show that he had on another occasion represented himself

12 as being from the Red Cross.

13 MR. GROOME: I guess my understanding of what I would have been

14 entitled to do, which is what the Prosecution did do, is to show that on

15 the 14th, when he said he didn't make any of those representations, is to

16 call evidence that on the 14th he did that. I don't think I would have

17 been entitled to call the one or the several or the hundred people in the

18 Karadzic school a week later who saw him taking names on behalf of the

19 Red Cross.

20 JUDGE HUNT: It would have been just as relevant then as it is

21 now.

22 MR. GROOME: I would respectfully disagree with the Court.

23 JUDGE HUNT: I can't see this as a case in reply. You are seeking

24 to contradict his denial by proof that subsequently he did represent

25 himself elsewhere as the -- as being from the Red Cross.

1 MR. GROOME: I am --

2 JUDGE HUNT: And that was a denial that you had from the word go.

3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm seeking to contradict what I tried

4 to bring out with Defence witnesses, their statements that he had worn the

5 Red Cross symbol. All that he denied -- he made a blanket denial of

6 everything that -- that witnesses had -- what he -- when the interview was

7 taken, he was -- "Informed witnesses say that you did these -- you said

8 four things." He made a blanket denial --

9 JUDGE HUNT: That's right.

10 MR. GROOME: -- of that.

11 JUDGE HUNT: So that was an issue from the very beginning of the

12 case, that he was denying that he had ever represented himself as being

13 from the Red Cross.

14 MR. GROOME: On that day.

15 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Well, it doesn't matter on that day or else.

16 If you want to prove that he did represent himself as being from the

17 Red Cross on that day by proof that he had done it some weeks later now,

18 that's what you're trying to do now, you could have done it in your case

19 in chief.

20 MR. GROOME: Well, if the Court is going to rule against this as

21 being appropriate rebuttal --

22 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I'm trying to find out how it is a matter in

23 reply. We are not ruling on anything. But the challenge has been made,

24 and I frankly cannot see how it is in reply. You are seeking to bolster

25 the case that you set out to prove in chief.

1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I've made the Prosecution's position

2 clear or as clear as I can make it. If the Court disagrees with the

3 Prosecution's position, I would then move to reopen the Prosecution's

4 direct case to allow this witness to testify regarding a very important

5 fact in his --

6 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then you have to explain why it is that you

7 didn't call him in chief.

8 MR. GROOME: It was my misunderstanding of what was appropriate in

9 the case in chief.

10 JUDGE HUNT: Ah, Mr. Groome, innocence by counsel is an excuse

11 that is often put forward but not often accepted. You're an experienced

12 counsel. If you think that it is relevant now, then you could have

13 thought that it was relevant then. It's the same relevance to the same

14 issue, his denial that he had represented himself as being from the

15 Red Cross. And if it was relevant -- if it's relevant now, it was

16 relevant then.

17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, in the Pre-Trial Conference, the Court

18 urged the Prosecution to limit our witnesses to the bare minimum.

19 JUDGE HUNT: No, no. I also said very clearly at some stage,

20 either the Pre-trial or at one of the Status Conferences, that this rather

21 lax attitude that some Trial Chambers used to have about allowing parties

22 to have cases in reply, rebuttal, rejoinder, et cetera, was not going to

23 be permitted.

24 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, however mistaken I may have been, that

25 witness was not put into the Prosecution direct case because the

1 Prosecution believed that this witness's testimony about something that

2 happened in this school at a time not associated with the crime would not

3 have been considered appropriate in the Prosecution's evidence in chief.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE HUNT: Is there anything more you want to put?

6 MR. GROOME: On this issue, no, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE HUNT: Do you want to say anything in reply, Mr. Domazet?

8 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] I would like to reply that in the

9 materials I received prior to trial, there were quite a number of witness

10 statements that referred to certain events in the fire brigade centre or

11 somewhere else around the 20th of June or later, and those witnesses were

12 not called for the case in chief, nor were they examined though their

13 statements were known. So I was surprised to see this witness appearing

14 to testify about these circumstances which could provoke some other

15 evidence, because what the Defence has learnt inquiring about people who

16 did work in the Red Cross, we came across a person who physically

17 resembles the accused, who worked in the Red Cross at the time and who may

18 have been in this situation that the witness refers to. But this was

19 evidence that I didn't think we should call because it was not called by

20 the Prosecution. So that I fear that the introduction of this kind of

21 evidence would indeed trigger fresh evidence from us, because if we were

22 to talk about a Red Cross official at the time who took down the names of

23 those people in the school on the 22nd of June, and if it was claimed that

24 that was Mitar Vasiljevic, I would have to provide evidence to prove that

25 it was quite another person.

1 As for this other witness statement, and I had his statement

2 before trial, is he being called for the same circumstances or only for

3 the recording of the tape on which we have already heard a witness? And

4 my understanding is that witnesses will be called who were present when

5 the tape was recorded, which is in dispute here.

6 So if that is what this other witness is to testify about, that is

7 permissible. But if he's being called to testify about something else,

8 since this witness's statement exists and it was disclosed to me by the

9 Prosecution, then in that case, I think it would not be appropriate to

10 examine this witness about any other events either except for those that

11 have already been raised in the proceedings so far.

12 JUDGE HUNT: You're referring there to VG97, are you? The one who

13 is going to give evidence about a conversation with Mr. Savic.

14 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. If --

15 JUDGE HUNT: That particular matter, as we've already ruled, is in

16 reply, but that doesn't mean that the Prosecution can ask him anything

17 else. They can call evidence which is properly evidence in reply. If you

18 go in and ask some questions in cross-examination, of course, that may

19 open up all sorts of issues, that the Prosecution can only call evidence

20 from that witness which is in reply, which is the making of the tape or

21 the conversation which it is alleged Mr. Savic had during the course of

22 what one of the Defence witnesses calls the cocktail party.

23 MR. DOMAZET: Yes. Yes, Your Honour [Interpretation] Yes, Your

24 Honour.

25 JUDGE HUNT: You are not limited in your cross-examination, but

1 anything you open up in cross-examination enables the Prosecution to deal

2 with it.

3 Yes, Mr. Groome.

4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, all of that discussion regarding what

5 you've just talked about on the record has been in private session just to

6 protect that issue regarding that witness. Perhaps just in caution --

7 JUDGE HUNT: It's not in private session at all. What are you

8 talking about?

9 MR. GROOME: About what Mr. Savic -- the tape recording,

10 Mr. Savic. So --

11 JUDGE HUNT: We only referred to them by the pseudonym VG97.

12 That's a different matter. I don't think there's any real problem about

13 that.

14 But, Mr. Groome, that does raise, however, or remind me of an

15 issue that I thought first of all. The fact that you are going to call

16 BB, that something happened on the 22nd of June, that was something which

17 was clearly in issue in the case, that he was not in hospital on the 22nd

18 of June.

19 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. And the Prosecution made a

20 selection of witnesses prior to trial and chose not to choose this witness

21 because this witness was somewhat reluctant and because of where the

22 witness lived. I will not be calling the witness for that but only for

23 the matter regarding the Red Cross.

24 JUDGE HUNT: But it will inevitably get into evidence the fact

25 that Mr. Vasiljevic was not in hospital.

1 MR. GROOME: Well, I'm certain -- Your Honour, that could be cured

2 by limiting what the Court uses as evidence. The Court -- I mean, I would

3 certainly agree to the Court just using the fact that he signed the -- he

4 represented himself and took the -- took the names as being the only --

5 JUDGE HUNT: And represented himself from being from the ICRC.

6 MR. GROOME: Right. And then saying he would send the names off

7 to Geneva.

8 JUDGE HUNT: Well, we'll have to discuss that matter, and we'll

9 let you know. We will attempt to give you a decision either late this

10 afternoon or by tomorrow morning.

11 So we start off tomorrow then with the two -- Ton Broeders from

12 the forensic institute. Is that about documents or about what?

13 MR. GROOME: He is the person who analysed the voice on the tape.

14 JUDGE HUNT: Oh, right. Yes.

15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just before we -- on the other matter,

16 the witness is scheduled to take the plane tomorrow morning, so the

17 Prosecution would certainly appreciate if there was word this afternoon.

18 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Very well, then. We will let you know if we

19 can.

20 So that's all we can do today. We'll adjourn now until 9.30

21 tomorrow.

22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just one simple matter. The Prosecution

23 originally had the two linguists, the one who spoke B/C/S that assisted in

24 the analysis. After a consultation with Mr. Domazet, there's an

25 agreement, or Mr. Domazet agrees that there is nothing he wishes to ask on

1 cross-examination, so the Prosecution will not be calling that witness.

2 JUDGE HUNT: Is the statement in evidence?

3 MR. GROOME: It makes up part of the report.

4 JUDGE HUNT: And that report is not yet in evidence.

5 MR. GROOME: No. It will come in through Dr. Broeders, and the

6 first witness tomorrow morning will be Dr. Raby. He has a plane to catch

7 in the afternoon.

8 JUDGE HUNT: What about the doctor from Gouda, Mr. Domazet? You

9 wanted to ask him some -- you wanted to get his report into evidence -

10 in fact, it's in evidence - but you had to produce him for

11 cross-examination. I forget the doctor's name but he comes from something

12 called Green Heart at Gouda, spelled G-O-U-D-A.

13 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have decided not to

14 call this witness. It would probably complicate things, the whole case,

15 now that we are near the end, for me to call him now. I have not had any

16 contact with that doctor, as he was called by the Prosecution.

17 JUDGE HUNT: But he wasn't called by the Prosecution. The

18 Prosecution obtained the report and disclosed it to you under Rule 68.

19 You have tendered it and it was in evidence upon the basis you would

20 produce him for cross-examination. Now, if you don't want to produce him

21 for cross-examination, then the report must be withdrawn from evidence.

22 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm aware of that, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE HUNT: As long as you're aware of that. Which number was it

24 so that we can note that it's been withdrawn? D41. Exhibit D41 has been

25 withdrawn.

1 All right. We'll resume at 9.30.

2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

3 12.56 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday, the 11th day

4 of January, 2002, at 9.30 a.m.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25