Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20712

1 Wednesday, 5 March 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus

7 Stanislav Galic.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Madam Registrar.

9 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, with your

11 leave, only two words before the witness is brought into the courtroom.

12 May I?

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. The witness who

15 will be called after this witness will be General Radovan Radinovic. The

16 Prosecution has the expert opinion of General Radinovic, and I think that

17 we disclosed it in November last year. We hope that the Prosecution has

18 read the document because they had enough time to do that. But the

19 Prosecution sent us, a few hours before General Radinovic's testimony, a

20 fax of which they said that they were surprised that a large number of

21 documents have not been -- had not been disclosed, referring to footnotes.

22 This was done a few hours before we hear this witness, even if they had

23 plenty of time to do that if they really wanted to do that. We think that

24 there are certain things that can be done on occasions and others no. We

25 think that if the Prosecution had wanted these documents, then they

Page 20713

1 practically had a whole six months to do that. And we think also that the

2 Defence does not have to disclose indirect references to a particular

3 work - I'm referring to footnotes - and especially to respond to a request

4 which happens a few minutes before such an important testimony. I do not

5 think these are hard words, but I think that this -- such a request is not

6 acceptable in our opinion. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think the words are too hard, perhaps a bit

8 too many in order to say what you had to say.

9 Mr. Ierace, would you please respond.

10 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. To say that there are some

11 problems with the disclosure of documents in relation to General Radinovic

12 would be an understatement. I can assure the Trial Chamber that we have

13 not delayed in making this request to the Defence. There have been

14 exhaustive searches done by staff of the Office of the Prosecution of the

15 documents cited in the footnotes to Dr. Radinovic's report. And by this

16 morning it was apparent that we were unable to match many of the

17 documents. We did discover by experimentation that some of the references

18 to the documents were incorrect and by doing searches of neighbouring

19 numbers, we were able to discover some.

20 This letter which I think you have a copy of, Mr. President, is

21 the -- lists the documents that we were not able to locate. Rather than

22 raise it in the first instance with the Trial Chamber, having regard to

23 earlier requests by the Trial Chamber, we thought it appropriate to first

24 give the Defence an opportunity to respond to see if they could find the

25 documents. I can only agree with my learned colleague that this matter

Page 20714

1 should not arise a matter of hours before such an important witness is

2 called. I don't think it's the fault of the Prosecution. Thank you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. The Chamber will consider the

4 matter. If, however, there would be mistakes in the references, of

5 course, that would make the job, I would say, both for the Defence and the

6 Prosecution very difficult. Primarily the expert witness himself is

7 responsible for the correctness of his citings. But if the parties can

8 compare, especially those footnotes where there have been problems, I take

9 it that both parties would have been confronted with it.

10 We'll consider the matter, and we only got the letter five seconds

11 ago.

12 Ms. Pilipovic.

13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Your Honour, I merely wanted

14 to say that I checked some of the footnotes before I came into the

15 courtroom now, and I have told my colleagues that the footnotes 73 and on

16 were all the documents that the Defence was referred by the Prosecution.

17 These are the documents of some of the units. The only problem with this

18 is that General Radinovic when he used them did not indicate ERN numbers,

19 but it is a problem for us since these documents were not in chronological

20 order. It is a problem for us now to find them. But he used them when he

21 made references to them.

22 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just reading.

23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] So I said 73, 106, 112, 169, 179,

24 180, 181, 182, 187, 188.

25 JUDGE ORIE: That was exactly -- what did you say about these

Page 20715

1 documents? Because that's not clear to me. Are there errors in the

2 footnotes?

3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] There are no ERN numbers, so it is

4 difficult for us to find them quickly. And there are -- these are

5 documents of the BH army which the Prosecution disclosed to the Defence

6 but these documents are not put in chronological order, that is, by dates

7 and by years, which would help us to find them quickly. But -- and there

8 are only dates marked, and I told my learned friends that that was a

9 problem because the general did not write address the document with ERN

10 numbers.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand on the basis of this letter you

12 started searching these documents in order to assist the Prosecution.

13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...

15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I also --


17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honour, I also

18 would like to seize this opportunity, since I am on my legs, and I hope

19 you will allow me to do that. I wanted to inform you, but I believe you

20 already know about General Galic's request with regard to a period between

21 the 14th and the 23rd of March.

22 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think that I'm aware of these dates

23 specifically, but it might have been that I missed something.

24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

25 JUDGE ORIE: Since I was not in the building this morning, I

Page 20716

1 missed that message. I do understand that it has been -- that it has been

2 raised with the legal staff and the registry.

3 The 14th and the 23rd of March.

4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] The time between the 14th and

5 23rd, because the visit of General Galic's family has been approved. He

6 hasn't seen his wife for quite some time and they have some family

7 problems, so he's asking if during that period of time we could have a

8 short break. It is all within the context that we already discussed.


10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] So that we would have a short

11 interval.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think I explained to the parties what the

13 Chamber has in mind. That means after finishing the Defence case that we

14 would have a break of a couple of days so that the Prosecution could

15 immediately express itself, the Defence could then respond, and then we

16 could start with any rebuttal evidence if we -- if it -- if there's any

17 application to present rebuttal evidence. That would be a couple of days.

18 The same would be true for the week when the rebuttal evidence has been

19 presented so the Defence, for any evidence in rejoinder, can apply for

20 leave to present any evidence in rejoinder. That would create a couple of

21 days as well.

22 Then finally, before we -- the parties will be allowed then - I

23 think I did not yet mention that - will be allowed two weeks to prepare

24 for their final briefs, and then we'll have the closing argument.

25 When -- I think I did not tell this part of this schedule yet, but that's

Page 20717












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20718

1 what the Chamber has in mind to do. If it fits within these breaks, of

2 course, there's no problem. But the Chamber would be very hesitant to

3 introduce other breaks. So it partly also depends on the parties itself,

4 how we proceed, whether this will be possible. But I have to look closer

5 at the tentative schedule we have drafted until now so that we see whether

6 this fits in in March, between the 14th and the 23rd.

7 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, very well. It

9 is wonderful that you are telling us now about this week when we shall not

10 work and for the following reasons. The first one, that we've answered

11 the question that you asked us, Mr. President, concerning the necessary

12 record about our request for the disqualification.

13 Mr. President, we've talked to the registrar, but we believe that

14 the file has to be presented to the Appeals Chamber. We have presented

15 our direct observations to the Appeals Chamber, of course with a copy for

16 your Chamber, of course. So this is the first question, because we still

17 insist to request the suspension of this hearing.

18 Secondly, we wish also to -- we have officially a document, a

19 motion which seems to derive from a non-governmental organisation in the

20 United States and which makes a reference to a number of -- to a very

21 large number of decisions and situations, and we are -- want to ask, do

22 you want us to answer that? What are we supposed to do? I do not know

23 that. Secondly, for this type of intervention, are there any standards

24 which would apply to the Defence, the number of pages that such an

25 intervention, such a response could take? And it depends on your

Page 20719

1 decision. And if now we ought to also to respond to numerous arguments

2 which come from another part of the earth. We believe that all this would

3 take a lot of time, but it depends on the length of the answer that we are

4 allowed to provide.

5 JUDGE ORIE: In answer to what exactly, Mr. Piletta-Zanin? To

6 the -- to the Martin document or ...?

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, exactly. Yes. Francisco

8 Forrest Martin.

9 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has received a document which applies for

10 leave to be admitted as an amicus curiae because without leave you can't

11 serve as an amicus curiae. In Rule 74, it reads that, "If the Chamber

12 considers it desirable, that the Chamber can invite or grant leave to a

13 state and organisation or a person to appear before it and make

14 submissions on any issue specified by the Chamber."

15 It seems that Mr. Martin attached already whatever he would like

16 to submit to the Chamber on his request for leave. The Chamber has

17 considered whether it would invite the parties to submit their views on

18 whether Mr. Martin should be granted leave to appear as an amicus curiae.

19 The Chamber has decided that it would not invite the parties but at the

20 same time if the parties would like to submit their views on it, the

21 Chamber will then receive whatever the parties would like to bring to the

22 attention of the Chamber, and then we'll have to decide whether leave will

23 be granted or not.

24 So the first question is not, I would say, to respond to the full

25 argument set out, but the first question would be whether leave should be

Page 20720

1 granted or not. If leave will be granted, then of course we have the

2 opinion, the legal opinion - it's more or less a legal opinion, I would

3 say - on certain issues, and then of course the parties could respond but

4 then more in -- to the content and not to the question of whether leave

5 should be granted or not.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the parties, however, would like to submit

8 something, this application has been made in a very late stage of the

9 proceedings. We would then like to receive your submissions, well, let's

10 say, within a couple of days.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Impossible practically. Do

12 you think our position regarding the procedure, that is, whether such a

13 leave should be done or what?

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that if you read through this

15 document, that the first question would be that -- whether it would be

16 desirable for the proper determination of this case to have this opinion

17 of the amicus curiae only if a positive answer would be there and if the

18 Chamber would decide that it would grant leave, then of course the next

19 matter would be that perhaps the parties would like to address the matters

20 raised in the amicus curiae document. Yes?

21 Then, Mr. Usher, if the Defence is ready to continue for another

22 15 minutes the --

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It was 20, Mr. President,

24 yesterday.

25 JUDGE ORIE: If it was 20 yesterday, it's 20 today,

Page 20721

1 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I -- you're right. It's my recollection.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Dr. Kuljic.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

7 JUDGE ORIE: May I remind you that you are still bound by the

8 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.

9 You'll now further be examined by counsel for the Defence.

10 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.


13 [Witness answered through interpreter]

14 Examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin: [Continued]

15 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, witness.

16 A. Good afternoon.

17 Q. Now we are going to have a look at, in particular in relation to

18 terror, other ulterior confirmations that you have found on the Internet.

19 First of all, the site of the national library of medicine, is that a

20 professional, recognised site; yes or no?

21 A. Yes, as this is stated on the site, and it is used as such. My

22 colleagues use it.

23 Q. Very well. Doctor, with respect to the post-traumatic stress

24 disorder that you said you knew professionally, this syndrome, what can

25 you tell us about this in relation to Sarajevo and in relation to the

Page 20722

1 articles that you have found, particularly with respect to percentages as

2 to certain groups of population of military personnel and with respect to

3 some groups of civilians?

4 A. Well, I can say that there are many articles that were published

5 in a number of countries. People who dealt with refugees and people who

6 assessed the post-traumatic stress disorder in refugees. What was very

7 interesting for me was a recent publication by a group from Munich who did

8 a residential sample, that is, in Sarajevo itself, they found that from

9 the people who they questioned on the ground --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

11 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd be grateful whether it

12 could be clarified, firstly whether this article in particular is one of

13 which we have a photocopy. And if not, I have a further -- I have an

14 objection.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you tell us, Dr. Kuljic: The study you

16 referred to, a publication by a group from Munich, is this in the

17 documents you gave to us yesterday?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a document which I gave -- I

19 can't quite remember, because I had loose copies, and I later on found

20 this copy in my notebook. So it may have remained in the room, if it's

21 not among the documents. What I mean, it's strange that I'm just talking

22 about this, because I have a lot on my mind. It's quite hard for me to

23 tell you everything, but I can later on forward these documents.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The problem is that the Prosecution should also

25 be in a position to prepare for cross-examination. So therefore, all

Page 20723












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20724

1 sources should be known to them. But do you have a name? Because you say

2 you're not quite sure whether it's in this material or not? You referred

3 to a group of Munich and --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Usually the source named, I don't see at this moment

6 any Munich.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think, but I don't know

10 whether this was a mistake, but I believe that this is not in among the

11 documents that we were given yesterday.

12 Q. Doctor, is this a study by a certain gentleman called Rosner?

13 A. Yes, that's correct. Here in some of my notes I can see that I

14 have handwritten that I wanted to mention Rosner's study and to compare it

15 with the other study.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just -- is Rosner mentioned anywhere in your

17 report?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, this is a new study which I

19 found.

20 JUDGE ORIE: And there is no mention made of Rosner in the

21 documents you gave to us yesterday. So then we are in a situation where

22 Mr. Ierace wanted to raise an objection.

23 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, my objection is that this evidence

24 should not be permitted. It's a rather rhetorical question, but how am I

25 to respond without having at least a copy of the publication and time to

Page 20725

1 read it?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I think

4 that it is not always necessary to have a document, a written document

5 before oneself, when we are speaking to an expert. To make an example, I

6 can remember that I had a client who was a star of the dance, who was over

7 70 years old and was telling me, "this is very simple, I make movements

8 with my hands and everyone understands." Now, this is a good example to

9 use here. If the doctor knows certain things, if he knows figures, he can

10 formulate them without us needing to read the text to know what we're

11 talking about.

12 JUDGE ORIE: We don't need the text to be read, but the

13 Prosecution needs the text to prepare for cross-examination. That's the

14 issue. Let me just confer.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is partially sustained. No questions

17 at this moment about this source and the subject covered by this specific

18 study. The Defence is invited to provide a copy of the Rosner, if there's

19 an excerpt, if there's a summary, to the Prosecution. And we always then

20 can see, not knowing at this moment what the study is about and perhaps

21 the Chamber could be provided with a copy as well so that we can see what

22 the study is, whether it's a summary that could be read easily, whether

23 it's something entirely new. We are not aware of that. And then the

24 Chamber can always reconsider the position upon the request of the

25 parties, either to allow the -- the Prosecution may --

Page 20726

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] If the doctor has this

4 document on him at this very moment in order to save time, can we propose

5 that the usher can have a copy and make a copy so that we can have it as

6 soon as possible and we'll know about it?

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, what I have to say relates to that.

9 The Prosecution -- I don't mind saying this in front of the witness. The

10 Prosecution has made every attempt to obtain the articles referred to by

11 the witness yesterday and the synopses of which are in the document

12 provided to us. We're unable to get access. They're not obtainable

13 through the Internet. We're told by the library it would take some seven

14 days to get the articles. What we've been provided with are simply the

15 synopses. And it may be that it's a synopsis that the witness is

16 referring to in relation to the Munich study.

17 I'm mindful of the Trial Chamber's interest in allowing in as much

18 relevant material as possible, I wonder whether an appropriate course

19 might be for us to obtain these articles. I'm happy as soon as I get

20 them. If I can obtain them from other sources more quickly, and I may be

21 able to, to circulate them, and the witness be re-called, perhaps during

22 the evidence of General Radinovic, for further questioning. That's a way

23 which would enable all of these issues to be ventilated.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course there's -- I should then first ask

25 one thing to you, Dr. Kuljic: The document you provided yesterday, these

Page 20727

1 are synopses, these are abstracts. Have you read the originals or not? I

2 mean, if you -- well, let's say the first page, the article of Jensen. Did

3 you only read the abstract or did you also read the ...?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read the abstracts here because

5 it's a large number of cases. But the point of the abstract is to give a

6 very concise information. It is a digest and the essence of the abstract

7 cannot differ from the essence of the actual document, of the paper.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, usually it's not, at least the purpose of an

9 abstract is that it gives precise information. But I do understand you

10 have not consulted any of the original articles underlying these

11 abstracts. Is that a correct understanding, or did you?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These that I have attached

13 yesterday, I hadn't read them in the original, no, not those.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore, both parties and the expert

15 witness himself only have available at this moment as a source the

16 abstract of the article. Yes.

17 MR. IERACE: That doesn't overcome the problem, Mr. President.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Not entirely perhaps, not your problem. But of

19 course we are now in a situation where at least all the parties have the

20 same information and the expert has the same information as well. We'll

21 consider whether it will be necessary to have all the underlying

22 documents. But if they are found, of course, I expect the parties to

23 disclose it to the other party. Whether this would be a reason for a

24 re-call of a witness is something still to be considered, Mr. Ierace, and

25 we'll consider that.

Page 20728

1 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, so not --

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.

3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Please

4 proceed.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. But I'd

6 ask just one question to your Chamber: Could we give the original of the

7 Rosner document to the usher so that it can be copied in the meantime?

8 And you said yes but --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although, it would have been really

10 appropriate, having seen that it was not among the material distributed

11 yesterday and since you had, it seems in mind, to -- you have the article,

12 and you even did not have to consult your papers to refer to the name of

13 Rosner. That means that you were perfectly aware that questions would be

14 put in respect of this article, which was nowhere in the sources. So it

15 would have been appropriate, first of all, to copy it prior to this

16 hearing; and second, then do it yourself. But we'll now ask whether we

17 can get the assistance of the usher.

18 If you'll please proceed to -- --

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... And we'll see

21 whether --

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Perhaps the doctor would be

23 good enough to hand the document over, the Rosner document, if you have

24 it, Doctor? Do you have this extract from the Rosner article, please?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to check here.

Page 20729












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20730

1 Yes, this is Rosner's article.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, if there would be a possibility

3 perhaps with the assistance of the usher that it could be copied six,

4 seven, eight times. It's just one page.

5 Then please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

7 Q. Thank you, Doctor. What can you tell us, still in relation to

8 terror? Can you tell us about the indicators that could be given in this

9 field, in terms of weight of children at birth, nutrition, good or poor,

10 of mothers in Sarajevo this time, and the scientific studies that were

11 recently produced about the subject?

12 MR. IERACE: I object, Mr. President. I'm not aware of any

13 evidence so far to the effect that the weight of children at birth is an

14 indicator of terror, so to that extent it's a leading question.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any evidence presented at this moment

16 that ...?

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President. You

18 authorised me to ask the questions about the articles that were found by

19 the doctor in the reference that he gave us, which was an Internet

20 reference, and I can see that we have this before us so I'm asking

21 questions in relation to this. I can see an article which is entitled

22 "Nutrition and -- [In English] Of women and children in Sarajevo during

23 July 1993."

24 JUDGE ORIE: So what you're saying is that I'm putting questions

25 to the witness in respect of documents he presented yesterday. That's

Page 20731

1 what Mr. Ierace --

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Absolutely. Absolutely,

3 Mr. President.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Since we have had an opportunity to read the

5 documents, that questions could be put to the witness in this respect.

6 MR. IERACE: I have no difficulty with that, Mr. President.

7 Simply that the -- the --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's still leading.

9 MR. IERACE: Yeah, there's no mention of terror in the article,

10 and that's the connection that the learned counsel makes in his question.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So would you refrain from leading and put

12 questions to the witness if --

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.


15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, very well.

16 Q. Witness, in relation to your report and also in relation to your

17 experience, what can you tell us which would be of assistance for this

18 Chamber or the Prosecution or the Defence about the problem that I

19 mentioned, please?

20 A. I would say this data that was mentioned is in relation to the

21 report of Dr. Turner. In his report, he gives a statement of one of the

22 witnesses who said that the population was going hungry, and I gave this

23 data here and you can see that this is a report by the officials of the

24 World Health Organization and they say that there was no famine. There is

25 a number of articles. I said that these articles were all grouped in

Page 20732

1 several groups, that they were all attached together. I'm sorry that

2 during the photocopying these articles were scattered. So if they were

3 all put together, it would have been easier to understand. This article

4 about the nutrition of children, it is mentioned that there was no

5 registration of a large number of children who were suffering

6 malnutrition, that they were of very low birth weight, and that even

7 children who were older, there was no percentage that was higher found in

8 relation to any other group of population because we can see that 2.6 per

9 cent of children who were suffering malnutrition, this is an article

10 Dzumhur Zec Buljina, this was from the paediatrician's clinic in Sarajevo

11 up to March 1994. And what is also mentioned here, this is Robertson,

12 Fronczak article on nutrition saying that there was no data saying that

13 there were children that were -- there were more than 2.5 per cent of

14 children who were suffering from malnutrition. What's very interesting

15 for me here as a psychiatrist is that also in this article what was found

16 is that women in Sarajevo were not breastfeeding their children

17 sufficiently, and because of that what was confirmed in further articles

18 is that there was a promotion of breastfeeding following that, as this was

19 pointed in Moro work about the Dobrinja hospital, as it says here, and it

20 is well known that women under stress have a problem with breastfeeding.

21 So because of a lap of dopamine and prolactine they suffer lack of breast

22 milk, which is why children cannot be fed. What was so interesting for me

23 is that in situations of extreme stress and war, as this is given in the

24 Turner expert report, the population continues to have the same level of

25 nutrition as well as children and women continue to breastfeed their

Page 20733

1 children. So this is all in relation to the nutrition of children.

2 Q. Very well. Doctor, what can you tell us, what was the conclusion

3 of this article in relation to the possibility for mothers, first of all

4 in Dobrinja, to normally breastfeed their children?

5 A. Yes. Here in Cemerlic-Zecevic paper in a conclusion by the end, I

6 had underlined it, fortunately, so you can find it immediately. It says

7 that "War and suspension of nutrition didn't produce any negative effects

8 in the growing of children and occurrence of anemia. What can happen is

9 that there could be more breastfeeding instances and also there would be

10 additional food, additional nutrition that was given and also with

11 additional good parental care. But I also have to stress that the

12 prolactine hormone which influences breast milk, production of breast

13 milk, because it is also influencing the brain, as well as the care for

14 the children. .

15 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Now, the figures that you were able to find,

16 in relation to the problem of suicide in Sarajevo, if we compare it to

17 other republics in the former Yugoslavia, what can you tell us according

18 to these articles?

19 A. First of all, I'll tell you my train of thought. Why I came to

20 that is because in Turner's report it is mentioned that in one of the

21 statements of one of his witnesses what was said, that he had heard that

22 there was talk in the hospital that there was an increased number of

23 suicides. The comment of Dr. Turner's was that he did not find an

24 increased number of suicides but that if we consider chronic stress during

25 this period, this could be expected. So this was his expectation.

Page 20734

1 Now, I can show you the findings by Jensen and the World Health

2 Organisation was that they supposed that there would be an increased

3 number of suicides throughout the time and there were other factors which

4 are relevant for this debate, and there was an expectation there would be

5 an increased number of suicides. Now, very frequently in medicine we find

6 that there is some expectation which sometimes is not confirmed. In the

7 work of Slodnjak from Ljubljana he compared a group of Bosnian refugees

8 with Slovenian adolescents.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.

10 MR. IERACE: The witness is jumping from source to source. We've

11 heard a reference to Jensen and suicide rates, and now to someone else in

12 relation to Bosnian refugees with Slovenian adolescents. I'd be grateful

13 if we could have the source each time the witness refers to one in terms

14 of whether it's an Internet abstract or -- whichever document it is which

15 has been tendered.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please in such a way -- I take it

17 that when you refer to Jensen, it might have been to one of the articles

18 from the Internet you gave us yesterday. But could you please indicate as

19 precise as possible so that both Prosecution and the Bench can follow in

20 more detail what you tell us.

21 Please proceed.

22 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. President, could the witness be asked to

23 speak more slowly.

24 JUDGE ORIE: I also have to ask you on the request of the

25 interpreters to slow down your speed of speaking. I tried already with my

Page 20735












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20736

1 hands once to ask your attention for that because you're speaking really

2 very quickly.

3 Please proceed.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Microphone not activated]

5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Doctor, please, could you please continue the moment when you were

8 talking about an increased figure of suicides. Was that in Sarajevo or

9 was it elsewhere? Thank you.

10 A. To start with, I'd just like to say that the Prosecution probably

11 failed to hear what the Presiding Judge said to speak just about the

12 articles that are only here. So the articles are all here. But I don't

13 mind continuing with this new observation.

14 Now, one of the articles that I gave you yesterday, this is

15 Jensen's article, "Mental health in war conditions." And I don't have to

16 give you the entire title. And this article, I have also underlined the

17 relevant parts, that it says here that, "Complications that are linked to

18 war trauma and that are causing stress and problems to do with stress, and

19 they can cause an increase in alcoholism, criminal behaviour, and

20 suicide." Now, the point was suicide. After that, I mentioned the paper

21 that was given yesterday. That was Slodnjak, "Depression and parasuicide

22 in -- depression in Slovenia." I hope that you were able to find it.

23 They were put one after the other.

24 I've also underlined the important -- the relevant parts. This is

25 about a comparative study done between Bosnian refugees. Again there was

Page 20737

1 an expectation also for former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia. This is a

2 comparative study between Bosnian refugees and Slovenian adolescents. In

3 relation to suicide, this was --

4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just trying to slow you down. Yes, please

5 proceed.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. And in this study, it

7 says that it was precisely the Slovenian adolescents, that they were

8 likely to more frequently express their desire to commit suicide when we

9 compare this to their Bosnian refugees of the same age who had suffered

10 war.

11 Now, if we continue, as Mr. Turner expressed, his expectation that

12 there would be an increase in the suicide rate, but he did not state the

13 reference which would confirm this. It can happen that these expectations

14 are not met, as it happened here in this study I gave as an example. So I

15 am still trying to what we expect we give references for. The main

16 problem with Dr. Turner's report is that things were not concrete enough.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Doctor, thank you.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Have you received the Rosner

20 abstract? Mr. President?


22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, do you have

23 Rosner?

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Rosner is there, but I think no questions were

25 allowed before we -- before the break or -- I'm listening to the witness

Page 20738

1 and not reading Rosner at the same time. It was not a matter of putting

2 it on our desk and then the way to Rosner was open. No, it was that the

3 Prosecution would have an opportunity to read the -- yes.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well. Very

5 well. Of course. Very well.

6 Q. Let's forget Rosner. What can you tell us, Doctor, about the

7 figures which - let me check it - that you were also able to analyse

8 concerning the problem of the -- I'm referring to -- by the authors of

9 Begovic and others. What are the conclusions that you can draw from it?

10 A. I'd like to mention this text because that is where we started

11 yesterday, that is, the first group of the three articles, where I

12 mentioned what Turner says in his report about 119 killed or wounded a day

13 in Sarajevo, so that I could find Begovic's, Mazlagic's, and other's

14 article, having to do with the state hospital, One of the two largest

15 hospitals in Sarajevo, mentioned in the previous article. So now we are

16 talking only about what exists in photocopies, and here he gives us 3.215

17 war injuries over a certain period of time. That is when one calculates,

18 one when divides it by the number of days, we shall have 13 a day or 18.

19 I cannot say precisely. I know that it's 13 for one and 18 for the other,

20 but I do not think it is all that relevant because I will immediately now

21 move on to mention another article, and this author is Drnda, it's the

22 next one after which I've mentioned who says "40 months of Sarajevo." And

23 when one calculates how many injured were admitted and we add those two

24 figures up and so we get the figure of 31, which is at significant

25 variance with the figure of 119.

Page 20739

1 But I also have to mention that none of these three papers covers

2 fully the period covered by General Galic's indictment, so that all this

3 is an approximation, and it indicates a discrepancy between these figures

4 and Turner's reports.

5 Q. Thank you, Doctor.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have two more

7 questions, and then I will have finished.

8 Q. You spoke about figures, and I'd like you to explain to us what

9 are the relations that one can establish between the general -- the

10 overall figure of persons who were victims of the war, that is, wounded

11 and killed, during the period under consideration? Do you know these

12 figures, at least approximately, and the idea, the notion of terror?

13 A. To begin with, I'd like to say what I objected to in the

14 beginning, as to how we are to distinguish the war in Sarajevo and beyond

15 Sarajevo. I told you yesterday that we had -- that we had to -- when we

16 talked about the number of injuries on a war day in Sarajevo, and

17 Mr. Turner spoke about -- said that that number was high and that that

18 gives rise to fear and terror in all inhabitants of Sarajevo. And he also

19 says that all inhabitants of Sarajevo, day in, day out, fight to survive.

20 To my mind, this lacks precision, because all of us who are in this

21 courtroom daily fight to survive. And the question is, what Dr. Turner

22 said, whether this is applicable to all respondents, and I can tell you on

23 the basis of my personal research how many people were injured and how

24 they were injured, that those facts need not mean that they are suffering

25 from such a severe mental trauma, that is, the mental trauma need not

Page 20740

1 correspond to the bodily injury. According to my research, I concluded

2 that the degree of their mental trauma depends on the -- on their

3 subjective assessment of their injury, and if their subjective

4 assessment -- although, their subjective assessment need not be realistic.

5 Q. Thank you. My second question has already been answered in part,

6 but I'd like -- and this is a difficult exercise; however, I'd like to ask

7 you to sum up for us if possible in what way Dr. Turner's analysis was

8 especially correct or especially incorrect or both -- for the Serb booth.

9 Thank you.

10 A. Dr. Turner's analysis was not governed by the principles of

11 systematical research, wasn't governed by the rules which lead us to a

12 truthful conclusion. In other words, the sample was not adequate, it

13 wasn't a random sample. Psychiatric instruments or interviews were not

14 used. The witnesses during the hearing could be brought in a mental state

15 which significantly changes, affects, the veracity of their statements.

16 And so not even a verification scale was applied, that is, no control

17 questions were used. The scale of socially correct, desirable answers, or

18 truths and lies, as it had to do with the investigation of responsibility

19 of a particular man for something. There was no analysis of factors which

20 could have been significant for the evolution of terror and not what he

21 stands accused of, because we know that fears are often learnt, and that

22 is a known phenomenon in psychiatry, so that the media role was of -- the

23 media role was significant, as well as all the preceding or following

24 events or the events that followed the period for which General Galic

25 stands accused of.

Page 20741












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20742

1 All of this could have affected the subsequent cognitive

2 processing of the information and affect the perception of the overall

3 wartime situation, which would be different than it actually was.

4 Likewise, I wanted here -- I am doing my best not to be biased but to shed

5 more light on the subject, and I've also brought findings from literature

6 which shed a different light on the period of Sarajevo, when -- that is,

7 according to the reports, there was no purposeful starvation, when the

8 courses were still held at the school of medicine. People studied,

9 graduated, defended their doctoral thesis, experiments with animals were

10 being conducted. And since I was also engaged in this, I know how

11 demanding all this is, how expensive all that is, and how technical and

12 difficult it is if you do not have adequate conditions.

13 I also supplied an article which refers to CT scanners and which

14 according that paper -- and we know how sensitive that equipment is, how

15 it functioned with the same frequency during that period of time.

16 Q. Thank you, Doctor.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Ierace, is the Prosecution ready to

18 cross-examine?

19 MR. IERACE: Ready to start, Mr. President. Thank you.


21 Cross-examined by Mr. Ierace:

22 Q. Dr. Kuljic, your report is dated, I think, the 14th of January,

23 2003, and you say in it that you were engaged "to give my opinion on the

24 report of Dr. Turner." When did you receive Dr. Turner's report?

25 A. I received Dr. Turner's report at a moment when I was engaged, and

Page 20743

1 that was -- I cannot give you the date, but it was in December, I think.

2 It was the former part of December.

3 Q. December of 2002; is that correct?

4 A. It is.

5 Q. When you read Dr. Turner's report, did you look at the references

6 that he listed? I think it's the last two pages. Did you look at them

7 and did you read them?

8 A. I saw the references indicated. Some of the references, I

9 was -- even I was familiar with some of these references, having learnt

10 about them when I studied stress.

11 Q. My question is - yes or no - did you read them?

12 A. As I have said, yes, some of them, those which I had read

13 previously, and yes, I was familiar with the author's names.

14 Q. Whether you read them before you were given this task or whether

15 you read them after you were given this task, do you tell this Trial

16 Chamber that you have read not just the abstracts but the various articles

17 and other publications that Dr. Turner refers to in his report; yes or no?

18 A. I've said that I had read some articles. I don't understand the

19 question. Could you repeat it, please.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether there's any confusion,

21 Mr. Ierace, but I did understand your answer to be that some of the

22 references you had read already, and I took it then that you didn't read

23 others. Is that a correct understanding of your testimony?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you've understood me perfectly.

25 I was familiar with some of them, but I did not search for the references

Page 20744

1 indicated. I did not read them again.


3 Q. Dr. Kuljic, I want to know whether at some stage in your life you

4 have read each and every one of the articles and other publications that

5 Dr. Turner referred to in his report. Could you answer that question with

6 a yes or no.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.


9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] If we're talking about page 2,

10 I see that I have the literary bibliography in Serb and the Oxford

11 dictionary. If you want -- when one uses that, does that mean that one

12 has to read all the Oxford dictionary? So that is a question. Could this

13 be made more precise.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I think the question is quite clear. Mr. Ierace

15 seems not to be satisfied with the answer, which is not in a direct yes or

16 no.

17 I think you said that you did not read all the references

18 mentioned by Dr. Turner.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you understood me well a moment

20 ago. I don't know -- I don't see what the problem is.

21 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... The answer

22 has been given, Mr. Ierace.

23 MR. IERACE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...

24 Mr. President.

25 Q. Now, a few moments ago you gave some evidence in relation to some

Page 20745

1 calculations that you did based on the abstracts. Would you please go to

2 the abstract from the article by Mr. Drnda, I think it is pronounced.

3 Now, firstly, this refers to the Centre for Emergency Medicine of

4 the University Medical Centre in Sarajevo. Have you ever been to that

5 centre?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Do you know whether that centre is attached to Kosevo Hospital?

8 Do you know whether it is independent -- it is independently located, that

9 is, not in the Kosevo Hospital complex, or what?

10 A. I put that question to the Defence, and they told me that it is

11 related to the Kosevo Hospital.

12 Q. I see. Now, could you explain to me how you arrived at the figure

13 of 31. Firstly, what did you understand to be the relevant number of

14 patients and what did you understand to be the figure of the relevant

15 number of days? Perhaps you could give us those figures and explain where

16 they appear in the abstract.

17 A. I said that when one adds up two papers, one gets 31. So I'm

18 talking about the first paper, Drnda, which says 42.075 injured and sick.

19 Of them 37 per cent were injured.

20 Q. All right. Now, in the next sentence, that is, two sentences

21 further down, do these words appear, "In this period of time, 107.453

22 patients were treated hospitably with an average of 2.108 hospital beds.

23 Do you see those words?

24 A. I do.

25 Q. What period of time do you read the author of this abstract as

Page 20746

1 referring to?

2 A. All I can do is read you the first sentence, in which he says,

3 "Over 40 months."

4 Q. All right. Now, would you accept from me that -- well, first of

5 all, do you accept that 40 days [sic] is the equivalent of 1.217 days?

6 Would you accept that?

7 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you are referring to a month,

8 Mr. Ierace, 40 months. You said "40 days."

9 MR. IERACE: 40 months. Thank you, Mr. President.

10 Q. Would you accept that that is the equivalent of 40 months?

11 A. Well, if you give me a calculator, I'll be able to tell you

12 exactly. But, say, 40 times 30 or 31, that would be the number of days.

13 Q. All right. Now, you can check this later if you like, during the

14 next break, perhaps, but by my calculations when you divide the figure of

15 107.453 by the number 1.217, the result is 88.something. If that

16 calculation is correct, does it appear from the abstract that over a

17 40-month period of the war, there was an average of 88 patients per day

18 treated hospitably?

19 A. I'd merely like to remind you that this is the number of admitted

20 which embraces both the injured and sick, and there are percentages

21 referring to what are injuries, then what are acute, that is,

22 surgery-requiring conditions, appendicitis or whatever, and that is a per

23 cent of emergency cases.

24 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... The time, Dr. Kuljic. In

25 question I asked you was in relation to the result of a mathematical

Page 20747












12 Pages blanches insérées aux fins d’assurer la correspondance entre la

13 pagination anglaise et la pagination française.













Page 20748

1 calculation of 88 per day. Perhaps we'll leave it at that until you have

2 a chance to check the maths.

3 Let's now look at the point you raised and let's see if we can

4 correlate the first sentence with the third. In the first sentence, is

5 there a reference in relation to that figure of 42.075 to them being in

6 the primary care unit and a reference also to the emergency department?

7 Do you see that?

8 A. Yes, it is mentioned.

9 Q. And in the third sentence, we see a reference to hospitalisation,

10 as opposed to primary care or attendance at an emergency centre. I

11 suggest to you that that is a possible explanation of why there are two

12 different figures, noting, of course, that we don't have the full article.

13 Do you agree that that is a possible explanation as to why there are two

14 different figures in those two sentences?

15 A. I'd be happy if you allowed me to explain to you certain things,

16 since I'm a physician, on the basis of common practice of admission into a

17 hospital. So, patients come to the admission room, to the reception room,

18 and that is this figure of 42.000. After that it is established how many

19 injuries there were and after that they were admitted into different

20 wards, except that we do not have this 107 [as interpreted] statistical

21 breakdown into sick and injured, I mean with war injuries.

22 Q. Let me stop you there, Dr. Kuljic. You've told us you haven't

23 been to this place. Your answer, I take it, is based on your experience

24 in hospitals. Do you agree with me that it would be very helpful if you

25 and I and others had this article, which is abstracted on this piece of

Page 20749

1 paper, so that we could learn more about what these different figures

2 represent? Do you agree with that?

3 A. Well, my agreement with you or not should be tantamount to saying

4 that we should all go to Sarajevo.

5 Q. Doctor --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please -- Dr. Kuljic, would you please

7 answer the question.

8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I don't --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Instead of --

10 MR. IERACE: I don't require further answer to that question.

11 JUDGE ORIE: No. But would you refrain from commenting on what

12 the consequences of your answer not yet given would be.

13 Yes, please proceed.


15 Q. Doctor, you offer yourself as an expert in this trial, don't you,

16 an expert in relation to terror; is that correct?

17 A. It is.

18 Q. You come here offering an opinion as to the report of Dr. Turner;

19 is that correct?

20 A. It is.

21 Q. As an expert, do you not think it appropriate to read the articles

22 that you give evidence about before you get in the witness box?

23 A. Yes. But an abstract is also a part of an article.

24 Q. This article, according to the piece of paper we have, was

25 published, it would seem, in a journal in 1997; is that correct?

Page 20750

1 A. It is.

2 Q. You've told us that the site from which you obtained this abstract

3 is, I think it was suggested to you, a professional site, a site for

4 professionals. When did you first discover this abstract on that site?

5 A. I found this abstract after I submitted my report, because I

6 continued working.

7 Q. No, Doctor, when? Not was it before or after you did your report,

8 but when? Was it last week, last month?

9 A. It was, well, in January, say, the latter half of January.

10 Q. So you've had time, if you wanted to, to read the report or the

11 article in its full version; is that correct?

12 A. I said that it was a large number of articles. Besides, to get

13 this article, I would have to pay a certain, say, due or a tax. But this

14 was accessible and this is what I used.

15 Q. All right. Was there any reason which prevented you from

16 obtaining a copy? I appreciate you would have had to pay a fee, but I

17 assume that's something you could have done. If you'd wanted to, could

18 you have read the full article? That's my question.

19 A. I'll tell you that with us there is a problem with paying such

20 fees and dues, since Internet articles, when you want to gain access to

21 them, in extenso, then you have to pay it with your credit card. I don't

22 have one, and a large number of people in Yugoslavia don't. It simply

23 does not work in there, so that we are forced to --

24 Q. Very well.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

Page 20751

1 MR. IERACE: Is that a convenient time, Mr. President?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the first question is that

3 this would be a convenient time. And --

4 But before having a break, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what did you want to

5 bring to your attention?

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. If this

7 line of questioning is to continue, with regard to some personal -- I'd

8 rather --

9 JUDGE ORIE: We will have a break anyhow. Is it something that

10 would be proper to address in the presence of the witness that you would

11 like to say, or ...?

12 MR. IERACE: To save time, Mr. President, I don't intend to pursue

13 this line of questioning any further at this stage.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, would that still make your

15 intervention necessary?

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Just a

17 comment. Every one of us should look at the end of the pointer when he

18 intends to speak because we are otherwise all speaking -- because there is

19 a cacophony there of different voices. Thank you.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll adjourn until quarter past 4.00.

21 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 4.25 p.m.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please escort the witness into the

24 courtroom, Mr. Usher.

25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

Page 20752

1 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Ierace.

2 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

3 Q. Dr. Kuljic, I take it that you speak and read English, given that

4 the abstracts are in the English language. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Did you read the English version of Dr. Turner's report?

7 A. No. I read the Serbian version.

8 Q. Did you check the English version of your report?

9 A. I did.

10 Q. And do I take it that you are satisfied with the accuracy of the

11 English version of your report?

12 A. There were some minor observations. In one place, instead of

13 "delusions," it was "madness" and some other things that would have

14 changed the meaning significantly.

15 Q. Did you make appropriate corrections to the English version of

16 your report?

17 A. I thought that there are no errors that should be corrected,

18 significant errors that should be corrected.

19 Q. In the English version of your report, you refer sometimes to

20 terror, sometimes to anxiety, sometimes to fear. What is the Serbian word

21 for terror? And I'd like you, please, to spell it.

22 A. Which word? Could you please repeat. Which word do you mean

23 exactly?

24 Q. Yes. The word is "terror."

25 A. That is extreme fear, but in Serbian we frequently use the actual

Page 20753












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20754

1 word "terror."

2 Q. You mean the English word "terror"? Is that correct?

3 A. Yes. For the word "terror," in many translations it is translated

4 as "terror," although sometimes there could be some confusion with

5 "fear."

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I do not wish to interrupt,

9 but to the extent that the Prosecution wishes it, perhaps the word "Strah"

10 S-t-r-a-h, should be transcribed. This is what the Prosecution wanted and

11 spelled by the doctor.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Did he -- I take it then that he did pronounce that

13 word, because I cannot see that, of course, in the translation.

14 You were asked, Dr. Kuljic, to give the Serbian term for what is

15 called in English "terror," and from the transcript we only see that the

16 word "terror" could be used as well. We were just informed that you also

17 used the word "Strah." Is that correct? A Serbian word.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be extreme fear. "Strah"

19 is fear. But extreme fear is terror. It is in that sense. But the other

20 meaning, for "terrorise," to terrorise someone, in some legal term, that's

21 a different meaning.


23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, suddenly I do

24 not have the interpretation from the French booth. Perhaps because of the

25 panel.

Page 20755

1 Well, I was informed fully. I thank the booth.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I did not have in my transcript the response of

3 the French booth. Could you -- could the French booth repeat what I just

4 said so that it will be translated in English and that Mr. -- that the

5 Prosecution also can understand it.

6 Perhaps I could solve it in a different way. I do understand

7 that - but I just switched to the French channel - that the French

8 interpreters explained to Mr. Piletta-Zanin that sometimes you need some

9 reflection before you translate. Is that a correct understanding?

10 THE INTERPRETER: Precisely.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You should --

12 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honours, we cannot know that because we do

13 not hear the French booth.

14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... At this

15 moment, and I have -- yes. Thank you. So that is now clear, what was

16 said.

17 Yes. Then please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

18 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

19 Q. You said earlier that terror was used in Serbian with either the

20 English word "terror" or by using the words meaning "extreme fear." Was

21 the Defence correct in saying that you used "Strah" to indicate extreme

22 fear or not?

23 A. As extreme fear, extreme fear is not the same thing as ordinary

24 fear. I think that is clear.

25 Q. All right. Spell, please, the Serbian words to convey extreme

Page 20756

1 fear.

2 A. E -- I'm spelling. E-k-s-t-r-e-m-n-i; second word, S-t-r-a-h.

3 Q. All right. Now, you said that "strah" means fear. Does it also

4 mean anxiety?

5 A. I will now explain a little further, perhaps from the linguistics

6 we could go on to psychiatry, which is why I was summoned here. So anxiety

7 would include the state of tension --

8 Q. Let me rephrase the question. In your report, would you agree

9 with me that by comparing the English word "anxiety" with the Serbian

10 original, one can see that you sometimes translated "Strah" as "anxiety"?

11 Is that correct?

12 A. Perhaps you could show me specifically. Then I could explain on

13 the basis of that. Could you give me a concrete example, please.

14 Q. We'll come to that when we go through your report. Do you agree

15 with Dr. Turner's definition of "terror"?

16 A. The definition of "terror", as "extreme fear," as given by

17 Dr. Turner, this will depend whether we are talking about the linguistic

18 aspects of this meaning or psychiatric or legal aspects. And I would like

19 here for us to discuss psychiatric aspects of fear, its extreme form --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness have his microphones adjusted,

21 please.

22 MR. IERACE: The interpreter's booth asks that the witness's

23 microphone be adjusted.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

Page 20757

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that

2 here we have a very clear example where the witness has to be authorised

3 to respond, to respond in his domain. He was going to give an answer, and

4 he was interrupted by the Prosecution. We think that this should not be

5 accepted. Thank you. I'm referring to the transcript, Mr. President,

6 line 13 of the current page.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm just reading it. The question was whether

8 you agree with Dr. Turner's definitions of "terror," and you said it

9 depends on whether you're talking about linguistic aspects or the meaning

10 of this meaning or the psychiatric or legal aspects.

11 You may explain to the Chamber whether you agree with the

12 definition of "terror" in the psychiatric sense of this term, Mr. --

13 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, would you hear me on that before --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I should have done so, Mr. Ierace.

15 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. The relevant part of

16 Dr. Turner's report is paragraph 4. I'll read the sentence: "The Concise

17 Oxford Dictionary, 1976, gives a number of definitions for "terror" but

18 the first and simplest is "a state of extreme fear." That's the

19 definition given by Dr. Turner. I haven't asked the witness for a

20 psychiatric definition, a medical definition, but I've drawn his attention

21 to that as the simplest definition of "terror."

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course you may ask the witness to express

23 himself on the -- I would say the ordinary meaning of what a dictionary

24 says, which is the simplest way of understanding this term. But if the

25 witness could like to explain whether he agrees with psychiatric -- you

Page 20758

1 just want to concentrate on this part.

2 MR. IERACE: Yes. And that's -- that's why I cut the witness

3 short. And at that point before I could rephrase it, Mr. Piletta-Zanin

4 intervened.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It -- yes. Please first answer the question of

6 Mr. Ierace, as we understand it now to be, that is, the understanding of

7 "terror" as a state of extreme fear, whether you would agree with that

8 part of the report of Dr. Turner, as being the simplest definition of

9 "terror."

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is indeed a very brief

11 definition of "terror," but it's rather simplified, particularly after

12 that we can have a look at the meaning what is a terrorist. So the

13 extreme fear does not have to be felt only in the cases that are

14 later -- which is later defined in the definition of terrorism -- of a

15 terrorist, so this is a very important question.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The terrorist issue is not the issue Mr. Ierace

17 wants to raise.

18 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace. If you would need, at any further

19 stage, for a better understanding of your testimony, that you would

20 consider it of importance to explain your psychiatric view on that, you'll

21 be given an opportunity to do that. But at this moment, would you please

22 answer the questions of Mr. Ierace, which are just limited to the

23 definition mentioned by Dr. Turner.

24 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

25 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 20759












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20760

1 Q. In your report at paragraph 2.1, you purported to repeat --

2 A. I'm sorry.

3 Q. At paragraph 2.1, you purported to repeat the instructions given

4 to Dr. Turner, and in so doing, I take it, you set out what you understood

5 to be the objective of his report; is that correct? Is that what you

6 understood to be the objective of his report?

7 A. Yes. I am just rereading it once again, just so that there is no

8 confusion, just like I waited for you to read the abstracts and I didn't

9 rush you, so I'm just asking you to -- not to rush me.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So --

12 JUDGE ORIE: If you have such a request to one of the parties,

13 would you please address me so that I can -- if you have any problem with

14 the way you're examined, please address me.

15 You may proceed.

16 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

17 Q. So that's what you understood to be his objective; is that

18 correct?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First, I'd like to apologise to the

20 President, and then I would like to answer. Yes, that is correct. That

21 is how I understood. That's what was written.

22 Q. Now, you've told us that you checked the English version of your

23 report. I'd like to suggest to you that you have misstated his

24 instructions and in so doing misstated the objective of his report.

25 Firstly, I will read to you from Dr. Turner's report in English what he

Page 20761

1 said. And as I read it, please follow your words in your report.

2 On paragraph 3 of Dr. Turner's report, last sentence, and the last

3 sentence follows an outline of the essence of the charges against

4 General Galic. "I have been instructed to prepare a report dealing with

5 the relationship between events of this type and the production of

6 terror."

7 I suggest to you that those words do not appear in their entirety

8 in your restatement of Dr. Turner's instructions. Instead we read: "I

9 was given instructions to prepare an expert --"

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do not answer yet the question.

11 Could you finish the question, unless the objection would be such

12 that --

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.


15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object because now one is

16 based on something which is a translation of a document which was written

17 in Serbian, where one reads the text in Serbian, and that is the gist of

18 my objection.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is a comment to the question, as a matter

20 of fact, and part of a possible answer. It is a matter that might be

21 quite understandable to come up in your mind, but it's not an issue, it's

22 not an objection against the question. So it's denied.

23 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

24 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the witness was asked specifically by

25 me whether he had checked the English version of his report, which makes

Page 20762

1 the intervention doubly inappropriate. I'd be grateful if the time taken

2 by interventions would not be detracted from my period. Thank you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.


5 Q. I'll reread the words which appear in your report: "I was given

6 instructions to prepare an expert opinion on the manner in which such

7 events are influencing a creation of anxiety." I suggest to you there are

8 two differences between what Dr. Turner has written and what you wrote.

9 Do you agree or disagree?

10 A. I'd first like to say that I was unable to follow you. It was too

11 fast for me. And that after that I managed to look at Dr. Turner's

12 introduction, that is, his translation into Serbian and my version in

13 Serbian, and they fully overlap. Now, tell me which versions should I

14 compare? Which Serbian version and which English version?

15 Q. Do you have with you an English version of Dr. Turner's report?

16 A. I don't.

17 Q. Did you ever ask for one?

18 A. I did not think it necessary because it was a certified

19 translation into Serbian. What would have happened had I not -- if I

20 didn't know any English? And that is why I accepted this version in the

21 Serbian language.

22 Q. All right. So is it fair to say, is it accurate to say that you

23 have at least until this minute always been under the apprehension, you

24 have always understood that Dr. Turner --

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

Page 20763


2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'd like to say something, in

3 the absence of the witness. I'd like to say something in the absence of

4 the witness.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort Dr. Kuljic for one

6 moment out of the courtroom.

7 I have to ask you to leave for a second, Dr. Kuljic.

8 [The witness stands down]

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No. It's Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. I was looking in your

12 direction and -- please proceed.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] There was no possible error.

14 Mr. President, what I wanted to say is the following: I have in

15 front of me the translation of Mr. Turner's report done by the

16 Prosecution's service itself, and its number is ERN 03054237. I've

17 checked, and Dr. Turner quotes very exactly, as of page 2, to the -- at

18 the end of page 2 to the beginning of page 3 the passage which is in

19 inverted commas, in inversions, on page 2 -- I'm not going to read it in

20 Serb. I can do it if necessary. But the word used is exactly this word,

21 "Strah" which the Prosecution objects to. So if the Prosecution did this

22 translation and if the expert based his opinion on that, then the witness

23 cannot be reproached for that, for taking literally a document which was

24 supplied by the Prosecution. So that is clear.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are commenting both on what the Prosecution

Page 20764

1 does and intends to do. And what became clear from the testimony of the

2 witness is that he said that he copied the Serbian language as it appears

3 in the translation in his own report that subsequently was translated in

4 English as well. So, therefore, I -- what Mr. Ierace then did is, I

5 would -- at least how I understood that Mr. Ierace was proceeding, that he

6 wanted to verify that because of perhaps a bad translation, perhaps a good

7 translation - I do not know - I do not know whether Mr. Ierace objected

8 against "Strah" or not. I didn't hear him say -- I didn't hear him

9 object. He was just trying to find out what words were used. But then he

10 tried to find out whether the expert witness might have had a wrong

11 opinion, whoever were to be blamed for that, but a wrong understanding of

12 what the report of Dr. Turner was about. This is how I understood that.

13 And I do not understand what -- why it is at this moment necessary, it

14 becomes first of all quite clear from the testimony the way the expert

15 witness proceeded in preparing his report. And you introduced a few

16 things that are, as far as I understood the position of the Prosecution,

17 were not said nor intended. So I think we could have just continued

18 without this intervention but -- yes.

19 But Judge Nieto-Navia would have a question for you.

20 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I will request to Mr. Piletta-Zanin to read

21 the Serbian translation of Turner's report, the sentence. And I will ask

22 the -- I will ask the interpreters not to translate that.

23 The second time -- you should read that twice, please.

24 The second time you can interpret that. Just to check -- I am

25 checking, page 2 of the Serb original report of Mr. Kuljic.

Page 20765












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20766

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I should be

2 happy to do that, but I apologise to everybody for my pronunciation of

3 Serbian. But I'm happy to do that it.

4 I understand first you want me to read first point 2.1, which

5 Mr. Kuljic quotes. Is that it?

6 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: No, no. I would like you -- Mr. Kuljic is

7 quoting something from Turner's report. I would like you to read, or

8 Ms. Pilipovic if you want, the quoted sentence in the Turner's translation

9 in Serb. That's what I would like. I have here page 2 of the Serbian

10 report. What I would like is to check that. I don't speak Serb, of

11 course. So if you read slowly, I can follow that.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I should be happy to do that.

13 And I quote, Mr. President, the last sentence of item 3 of the

14 Turner report translated into the Serbian by the Prosecution, 03054237 is

15 its ERN number, and 38. Now I'm quoting in Serbian. And we shall not

16 have the interpretation of this.


18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [B/C/S spoken], [In English] End of quote.

19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Yes. Now we can get the interpretation if you

20 read that again, just for the transcript, because -- of course.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I should be happy to do that.

22 So that same quotation, the same place: "I received the instructions so

23 to prepare an expert opinion on how such events affected the production of

24 fear." I apologise for my accent, but that is how it was translated, end

25 of quote.

Page 20767

1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you very much, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into

3 the courtroom again.

4 MR. IERACE: Just while he's coming in, Mr. President, for the

5 record Mr. Piletta-Zanin has twice said that it was the Prosecution's

6 translation. I think he well knows it's CLSS that does the translations.

7 [The witness entered court]

8 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Ierace.


10 Q. Dr. Kuljic, up until now, at least, has it been your understanding

11 that the objective of Dr. Turner's report was to prepare an opinion on how

12 such events affected the production of fear or anxiety?

13 A. Yes, as I have written it, on how they affected, whether they

14 resulted in the production of fear.

15 Q. Now, did you read the transcript of the evidence of Dr. Turner?

16 A. Yes, I did.

17 Q. As you read that evidence, did it not become clear to you and

18 indeed as you read the other parts of Dr. Turner's report, did it not

19 become clear to you that he was concerned with terror rather than fear or

20 anxiety?

21 A. You didn't ask me when is it that I read the transcript. I did

22 that after I'd written my report.

23 Q. No, that's irrelevant for my question, Dr. Kuljic. If you could

24 please respond to my question. Do you want me to repeat it?

25 A. Repeat it.

Page 20768

1 Q. As you read the transcript of Dr. Turner's evidence and the other

2 parts of Dr. Turner's report, did it not become clear to you that

3 Dr. Turner in his report was concerned with terror rather than fear or

4 anxiety?

5 A. His interest in his report lay with how -- what are the origins of

6 fear, what are the mechanisms leading to fear. And at the end of the

7 report it is said that the objective -- that the reasons behind all these

8 objectives was to produce terror, to cause terror. That is what I thought

9 having read his report and having read the transcript later on.

10 Q. Do you have with you a copy of Dr. Turner's report in Serbian?

11 A. I do, yes, in Serbian.

12 Q. Would you please turn to paragraph 3.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Would you please read slowly out aloud the second sentence.

15 A. "Because of that, charges were laid against him which, among other

16 things, charged him with unlawful terrorisation of civilians."

17 Q. All right. You can stop there.

18 A. "Punishable by article -- under article --"

19 Q. Thank you for that. Would you now please read the next heading,

20 that is the heading above paragraph 4.

21 A. "Definition of terror."

22 Q. And I think the first sentence under that heading is the

23 definition of "terror" according to a particular English dictionary; is

24 that correct?

25 A. It is. In the dictionary several definitions, and the first

Page 20769

1 definition is quoted.

2 Q. Dr. Kuljic, no one would be critical of you for basing your

3 understanding of Dr. Turner's report on the Serbian interpretation you

4 were given, but did it not seem odd to you that the charge against

5 General Galic, which was relevant to the report, dealt with terrorisation

6 and Dr. Turner in his report dealt with terror? Did that not seem odd to

7 you, therefore, that he expressed his instructions to be -- to prepare a

8 report involving fear or anxiety rather than terror?

9 A. I'll explain how did I understand this. So I understood that

10 there was an indictment against General Galic, accusing him of conducting

11 shelling and sniping campaign against civilian areas, and I won't go on

12 reading it, and that the indictment charges him under Article 51 and so

13 on. Then the next sentence said that an expert opinion should be prepared

14 as to how such events, that is, events which seem to be considered as

15 under his responsibility, how -- what is the role of such events in the

16 production of fear. Then reading -- when one reads the report further,

17 Dr. Turner often says that his findings are based on what he knows, and if

18 that is accepted as correct in court. In other words, my understanding

19 was that he wanted to say what degree of fear it was and to say how it all

20 affected the behaviour of people exposed to it. And after that it will be

21 possible to make a decision.

22 Q. Yes. In -- would you please look at paragraph 2.2 of your report.

23 Having stated, indeed having repeated verbatim Dr. Turner's instructions

24 according to the Serbian translation of his report, you immediately

25 observed what appeared to you to be an inconsistency between his stated

Page 20770

1 objective at the beginning of his report and the terms of his conclusion

2 at the end of his report. Have I correctly paraphrased or summarised what

3 you say in paragraph 2.2?

4 A. It is here, under 2.2, that I quoted directly what is written,

5 since after that I concluded that this was the difference between these

6 strict instructions, because my analysis on what could be the objective

7 did not agree with what was a strict instruction, and the instruction was

8 to present an opinion as to how -- what role these events play in the

9 production of fear.

10 Q. Yes. All right. Now, earlier I suggested to you that there were

11 two differences between the critical sentence of Dr. Turner, in which he

12 set out his instructions, between the English version as it transpires and

13 the Serbian version, as it appears in your report. I would now like to

14 take you to a second difference. Firstly, for the sake of completeness,

15 given that you read English, I would like you to look at the English

16 version of Dr. Turner's report.

17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might the witness be shown that

18 exhibit, which is, I think -- excuse me.

19 [Prosecution counsel confer]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Is it a long line that you would like to read,

21 Mr. Ierace?

22 MR. IERACE: It's P3716.

23 It isn't, Mr. President. Perhaps we could --

24 JUDGE ORIE: We could --

25 MR. IERACE: Locate --

Page 20771












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20772

1 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Kuljic, if Mr. Ierace reads one or a few lines of

2 the report, could you please follow on your screen the English text read

3 and take your time to read it. Then we don't need the --

4 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

5 JUDGE ORIE: So would you please first listen to Mr. Ierace and

6 then take your time to read on the screen what he said, English version.

7 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.


9 Q. Dr. Kuljic, as you might expect, the original of Dr. --

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object, and I think my

11 objection is necessary for the possible future for the re-examination. I'd

12 like to know what is in this document, because I do not have it in my

13 memory. I think it is necessary to have it. Perhaps there will be some

14 other things there which will be then quoted by the Prosecution.

15 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. You know the report.

16 You'll see the relevant text on the screen. I take it that you prepared

17 for the examination of this witness, which deals with the report of

18 Dr. Turner, so that you are able to establish the context in which it was

19 written. And of course in re-examination you could ask questions about

20 it.

21 Mr. Ierace, please proceed.

22 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

23 Q. The original version of that sentence, Dr. Kuljic, which was in

24 the English language, is as follows, and I quote:

25 "I have been instructed to prepare a report dealing with the

Page 20773

1 relationship between events of this type and the production of terror."

2 Now --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Kuljic, take your time to read these two lines.

4 Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

5 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

6 Q. Now, the first difference which we have just --

7 A. I'm sorry.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Dr. Kuljic.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I'd like -- I'd like to

10 be given time to read it and then compare it with what it says in the

11 report, if I may. After that, further questions may be asked.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may take your time to read it.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. I've read it. Thank

14 you.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, please proceed.

16 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

17 Q. Now, we have dealt with one of the differences between that

18 sentence and its translation, namely the word "terror" appeared in the

19 original but the Serbian version communicates instead the notion of fear

20 or anxiety but not terror. Do you agree with that?

21 A. Yes. There is a difference between fear, "Strah", and terror,

22 "teror."

23 Q. Okay. Now, I would like to draw to your attention what I suggest

24 is a second critical difference, and that is whereas Dr. Turner's original

25 sentence states as part of his objective to deal with the relationship

Page 20774

1 between the events set out in the indictment and the production of terror,

2 your -- the translation provided to you went a step further and refined

3 the nature of the relationship to being a causal relationship between

4 events of the type set out in the indictment and the creation of a

5 particular state of mind. Firstly, do you understand my question or at

6 least what I'm putting to you is a difference between the two statements?

7 A. I'm now trying to repeat it so as to provide you with an answer to

8 a second question. I'm still looking for a sentence which seems to have

9 disappeared from the screen.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would need it, I will read it again to

11 you. But the question is whether -- where the original report -- the

12 original version deals with the relationship between events of this type

13 and the production of terror. Mr. Ierace puts it to you that in the

14 version on the basis of which you worked, mention is made of a causal

15 relationship.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Now I've got it.


18 Q. All right. Now, do you appreciate that there is that difference

19 between the English original sentence and -- on the one hand, and the

20 Serbian translation that you were given, on the other hand?

21 A. There are some differences; however, it is an issue of language

22 and these language issues could make a difference in translation, in terms

23 of some nuances of the language. Although, I would like us to discuss the

24 Serbian version, my Serbian version and the Serbian version of the

25 translation. That would make it a lot easier for me. And other issues

Page 20775

1 can be discussed with translators. Otherwise, I need some specific

2 questions that are to do with my opinion.

3 Q. Dr. Kuljic, please understand that I'm not being critical of you,

4 firstly; and secondly, I pursue this matter for this reason, that

5 ultimately I will be suggesting to you that your report and the report of

6 Dr. Turner are at cross-purposes, if that could be translated. But we

7 will do it step by step.

8 Would you please now go to paragraph 3.1 of your report. Do you

9 have that paragraph in front of you?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. At this point in your report you formulate a methodological

12 question based on your understanding of Dr. Turner's objective, don't you?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. In other words, given your understanding that Dr. Turner was

15 required to give an opinion as to how the events in Sarajevo alleged by

16 the Prosecution affected the production of terror, you say that what

17 Dr. Turner should have done was establish this question: "How can one

18 respond to the request for evaluating the state of anxiety in Sarajevo in

19 the period from 10 September 1992 to 10 August 1994?" I'm suggesting to

20 you that is the relationship between your understanding of Dr. Turner's

21 objective and the question you posed to yourself and the reader at

22 paragraph 3.1. Do you agree with that?

23 A. In this, I disagree with you because "terror," if we accept

24 Dr. Turner's definition, is a state of extreme fear, which means that fear

25 as such also includes extreme fear.

Page 20776

1 Q. The English version of your report, no doubt you noted when you

2 checked it, states -- refers to the state being evaluated as the state of

3 anxiety. It does not say "the state of fear." It does not say "the state

4 of extreme fear" or "state of terror." I suggest to you, therefore, that

5 the task you set yourself as the appropriate task was to evaluate the

6 state of anxiety in Sarajevo and that that is understandable given your

7 understanding of Dr. Turner's objective.

8 A. I would like to have some time to have a look at the translation

9 into English so that I can find the sentence regarding what's been implied

10 as being the problem with the English translation.

11 Q. Please do that.

12 A. Perhaps you could help me and tell me which page this is on so

13 that we can save some time.

14 Q. Paragraph 3.1. If you do it by paragraphs, it might be faster.

15 A. Yes, I did, but I was thinking that you could give me a page

16 number. That would be even easier. Yes, I've found it.

17 Q. Yes. In the Serbian version, it is on page 4.

18 A. Yes, it's the same page 4 in both Serbian and English.

19 Q. And I think the word you use is "straha." Do you agree with that?

20 A. Yes. Yes. Here the word "fear," "strah" is mentioned and in the

21 English version that's anxiety. So I'd like to explain the different

22 between these two words, psychiatrically speaking. May I do that?

23 Because I'm waiting for the authorisation to do that.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, could you please -- is the issue that you

25 say the English text reads "anxiety" where the witness has testified that

Page 20777












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20778

1 terror is extreme fear? Is that the issue?

2 MR. IERACE: No, Mr. President. It's whether -- whether it is

3 translated into English as "fear" or "anxiety," there's still a -- a

4 failure to connect, for lack of a better phrase, between -- going on the

5 report the understanding of the writer compared to the contents of

6 Dr. Turner's report. So it's not just linguistic. Perhaps I could --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said that you would like to explain

8 something to us. What exactly would you like to explain? So before doing

9 it, tell us what you would like to explain. The relation bet between

10 anxiety and terror, or -- what would you like explain to us?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I wish to explain is anxiety,

12 fear, and terror, what we're talking about here. First of all, anxiety

13 can be --

14 MR. IERACE: That's not the issue. That's not the issue.

15 JUDGE ORIE: That's not the issue Mr. Ierace wants to raise at

16 this very moment. So if at a later stage the Prosecution or the Defence

17 would like to raise this issue, you'll certainly get an opportunity to

18 explain. If you find it that vital for your opinion, you always can ask

19 at the end of your testimony whether you can explain that.

20 Please Mr. Ierace.

21 MR. IERACE: Thank you.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Just for

24 the transcript, I can see that on page -- line 22 of the previous page and

25 the following, let us say until page 56, the Prosecution explained very

Page 20779

1 clearly what they wanted. And I think this is a way of saying things in

2 front of the witness that should have been stated in his absence. I'm

3 stating this for the record.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It is in the record.

5 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.


7 Q. Dr. Kuljic, from that point onwards, your report, not entirely but

8 in a large part, is devoted to the proposition of a study which would

9 achieve the, or respond to the methodological question that you set

10 yourself at paragraph 3.1. Would you agree with that? It sets the

11 direction for your report.

12 A. Yes. What I said was that what has to be examined was the state

13 of fear and events that caused it, and for both things there are certain

14 psychiatric instruments, also for the events that occurred that caused the

15 fear or its extreme variant, that is, terror. So their existence and also

16 the existence of psychological, mental perception of it as such, more or

17 less extensively, to a higher or lesser degree. So this is a complex

18 issue which goes from -- not from A causing B but apart from that, many

19 other factors can cause it on which I have extensively written.

20 Q. Now, while you did that, Dr. Turner did something very different.

21 Dr. Turner in his report evaluated the literature in relation to terror,

22 didn't he?

23 A. In certain places he quoted literature. In some places he quoted

24 transcript from the trial proceedings, what the witnesses said, that is,

25 witness testimony. And it is on the basis of that that he drew his

Page 20780

1 conclusions.

2 Q. The structure of Dr. Turner's report, I suggest to you, is

3 important to understand, and I suggest to you that that structure is an

4 examination of the literature that exists in respect of terror and a

5 comparison of how the characteristics of different aspects of terror match

6 or don't match aspects of the evidence. Would you agree with me that is

7 the structure of Dr. Turner's report?

8 A. Just a moment. Just a moment, because I have a lot of paper here.

9 Q. Would you prefer I gave you some examples? Would that make it

10 easier?

11 A. There's no need for that. I just want to have a look at it again

12 so that I can answer your question.

13 Here. Now, may I just direct you to item 3 of Dr. Turner's

14 report, where under 3 he gives all the effects and also the instruction on

15 how to prepare findings on how these factors influence production of fear.

16 Now, my observation --

17 Q. Let me just stop you for a minute.

18 A. Have you found it?

19 Q. You said item 3. I don't recognise the contents as you described

20 them at either paragraph 3 or page 3. Can you be -- can you check whether

21 it is item 3 of Dr. Turner's report.

22 A. It is Dr. Turner's report. It says "Introduction," and then after

23 that it says item 3 or paragraph 3.

24 Q. Would you read the first few words, please.

25 A. "I was told that Stanislav Galic as the commander of --"

Page 20781

1 Q. Yes, I see that. Dr. Kuljic, the heading I took you to earlier of

2 "Definition of terror" refers to a simple definition as being a state of

3 extreme fear. Do you see that in your Serbian copy of his report?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Please go to paragraph 11. At that paragraph do we see a

6 subheading "Extreme fear"?

7 A. Just a moment. Let me read it. Paragraph 11, "Extreme fear,"

8 yes.

9 Q. Yes. And thereafter, he refers to the literature as to the

10 components of, firstly, fear. And then at paragraph -- different types of

11 fear, and then at paragraph 14, he refers to factors relevant to the

12 production of a persisting fear response. Do you see that?

13 A. I apologise. I just need to find that page because it seems to

14 have dropped out.

15 Yes, I've found the page. So we've come to this. You said it was

16 item 13. I'm sorry, can you repeat.

17 Q. Paragraph 14, where he discusses Rachman. He seeks out the

18 factors relevant to the production of a persisting fear response, four

19 factors. Do you see that?

20 A. Yes, I can see it. I can see what's been given here.

21 Q. All right. Now, as he goes through those factors, he finds

22 resonance in passages of transcript of evidence given in this trial,

23 doesn't he?

24 A. Yes, as part of Rachman, as part of that, yes. But there is

25 another question though.

Page 20782

1 Q. Yes, indeed. You refer to these passages of transcript as

2 samples, don't you?

3 A. Yes, considering that the indictment is about the whole of

4 Sarajevo. The way I see this is a kind of sample of people from Sarajevo

5 and their testimonies.

6 Q. And you say that as samples they fail basic tests. For instance,

7 they are not representative samples, they do not allow for possible bias

8 of those who come to this court to give their evidence, and so on. Is

9 that correct?

10 A. Yes. I state this because the indictment is for the whole of

11 Sarajevo, and of course for the methodological errors that you have just

12 raised, and I still stand by that.

13 Q. But Dr. Kuljic, I come now to the divergence, if I could put it

14 that way, between your approach and that of Dr. Turner. By seeing these

15 passages as poor samples, you are considering his task in terms of a

16 different objective, an assessment or analysis of the state of anxiety

17 generally in Sarajevo and a particular view to --

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object in relation to ...

21 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't listen to you in French, and I -- I object

22 in relation to ...?

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object in relation to --

24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't understand the counsel.

25 JUDGE ORIE: You are not understood. Could you --

Page 20783

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I apologise. I wanted

2 to be brief so that the witness wouldn't understand me. What I meant was

3 sense, meaning. I meant semantic meaning. So one has to know in which

4 language the witness spoke so that we know what was the meaning, what was

5 the translation, so that we know what the witness meant. So it was on the

6 level of seme, "s-e-m-e" that my objection was. Specifically on the level

7 of seme.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has a problem, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. We do

10 not understand your objection.

11 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, if it will save time, I'll withdraw

12 the question and rephrase it.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.


15 Q. Dr. Turner never suggested that these passages represented

16 representative samples of the population of Sarajevo, did he?

17 A. He did not mention that this was a representative sample, so I

18 presume that he was aware of the limits that I stressed.

19 Q. In other words, I'm suggesting to you that you're criticising him

20 for not doing something he never set out to do.

21 A. I can tell you that on the basis of what was quoted here, these

22 four points, among which there is a factor of personality, when Dr. Turner

23 quotes a proverb, each person has a breaking point. However, this cannot

24 be taken as something that is relevant for giving a scientific opinion,

25 and there are many papers that say that certain people do not develop

Page 20784

1 psychopathology that will bring them to the breaking point, not even in

2 extreme situations.

3 Q. I'll come back to that, but it's not responsive to what I'm

4 putting to you. You're going to a particular comment made by Dr. Turner

5 on that page. See, what I'm suggesting to you is that Dr. Turner's

6 primary objective was to consider the professional literature, the

7 literature in psychiatry and psychology in relation to terror, its

8 characteristics, its causes, and then to look at aspects of the trial

9 evidence to see if it was consistent or inconsistent. Having regard to

10 the English version of Dr. Turner's objective, do you at least concede

11 that that's what he did?

12 A. My objection is precisely about the way that he did it, the

13 method, and that's why I said that such a report was not acceptable.

14 Something that could be called a selective abstraction. When we are

15 talking about Sarajevo --

16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you. Please try to understand the

17 comparison I make. What Mr. Ierace wants you to consider is in a

18 comparison of the following: He says that an expert gives an expert

19 opinion on what a car, on what an automobile is - that is usually four

20 wheels, steering wheel, brakes, engine - and then he gives a few pictures,

21 one of a Renault, one of a Zastava, another of a Plymouth. And then

22 another expert comes and says on the basis of this report you could never

23 establish how many cars are driving on the roads in Paris, one being a

24 description of what the main characteristics are, according to literature,

25 and the other expert concentrating on the distribution of cars in urban

Page 20785

1 traffic. That is as a matter of fact, as far as I understand, the

2 question that has been put to you, whether Dr. Turner is not aiming at

3 establishing whether a state of terror existed in general terms in

4 Sarajevo at that time, which perhaps would require samples and a study you

5 think would be needed in order to establish such a thing and that

6 therefore your report and Dr. Turner's report are dealing with different

7 questions, although there is a similarity and that is that they both deal

8 with, whether it's fear or terror or anxiety.

9 Did I understand your questions to go in that direction?

10 Could you please try to answer whether you would agree or would

11 not agree that you're dealing with a different question as Dr. Turner did,

12 and please try to keep in mind the comparison I made, which reflects more

13 or less the difference suggested to you by Mr. Ierace.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After this explanation, I can say

15 that apart from the distribution that you spoke about -- I'm not asking

16 about how many cars there are in Paris. That could be one thing, one

17 issue. But within that my comment is that if the car has four wheels, a

18 door, and windows, we have to know that in order for the car to drive, it

19 needs an engine. That is why I'm talking about other things that were not

20 taken into consideration by Dr. Turner. That's one side of that.

21 We can also look at my report in this way, that one part will

22 speak about this distribution, as you mentioned, but another part of it

23 will more closely look into cars.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. But I think what Mr. Ierace

25 did put to you is that to some extent, that if you want to know how many

Page 20786

1 cars there are, you have to count them. If you just want to describe the

2 car, you don't need to count them.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We don't have to count them, but

4 we're speaking about cars. We cannot not mention the engine. We have to

5 mention the engine. But if you wish, we can leave it just like that.

6 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's time for a break. We will adjourn until

7 ten minutes past 6.00.

8 --- Recess taken at 5.48 p.m.

9 --- On resuming at 6.15 p.m.

10 JUDGE ORIE: The witness may be brought into the courtroom again.

11 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, just while he's being brought in --


13 MR. IERACE: -- Mr. Piletta-Zanin has requested an English copy of

14 Dr. Turner's report. My case manager is obtaining one. And when she

15 arrives, perhaps it could be passed to the usher so that he can read it.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. And I

17 must have already submitted to the Prosecution the Serb version of the

18 dictionary which gives the definition of terror. Once again, thank you.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

20 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

21 Q. Dr. Kuljic, I would like to move now to a different area. We've

22 referred to the nature of the charges against General Galic, and I'm now

23 talking about the terror charge, the charges which relate to the sniping

24 and shelling of civilians deliberately in N what we might call the

25 indictment period, that is, between the 10th of September, 1992 and the

Page 20787

1 10th of August, 1994. Would you agree that we can accept as a matter of

2 ordinary human understanding that if a person is repeatedly targeted with

3 a rifle or by shelling, that that will induce in them the state of extreme

4 fear that we call terror?

5 A. I'd like you to make your question more specific. Do you mean to

6 say that all the inhabitants of Sarajevo were constantly targeted? So is

7 that the question, whether all the inhabitants of Sarajevo were being

8 aimed at and targeted by snipers all the time?

9 Q. Let me break my question into 1992 separate questions. The first

10 question is: Would you agree that we can accept as a matter of ordinary

11 human understanding that if a person is repeatedly targeted with a rifle

12 or by shelling, that experience will induce in them the state of extreme

13 fear that we call terror?

14 A. I have to say that fear one experiences in a particular situation

15 depends precisely on how that person sees his or her situation, and that

16 is a key point there. So if an individual sees it as a permanent danger,

17 there will be fear. But as time passes by and that individual realise

18 that is he/she is alive and is alive day after day, the fear decreases,

19 because that person understands that he has survived through something

20 that in the beginning was intense fear, so that I cannot give you a

21 spatial answer. I have to do it on the basis of a temporal section of the

22 whole situation.

23 Q. Dr. Kuljic, my question, I suggest to you, was a simple one, and I

24 did not factor into it how that person might respond day after day or week

25 after week. Can I at least have from you your acceptance that the

Page 20788

1 experience of being targeted, being shot at deliberately, will in a person

2 with a normal degree of robustness of mind nevertheless cause the

3 sensation of terror rather than fear?

4 A. That question, you said a person with a normal degree of

5 robustness of mind, if I got your meaning correctly.

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. Right. Well, this is precisely one of the things. As you asked

8 me that question, it is simplification, because we cannot talk about

9 normal or abnormal person and how he or she experiences fear because it

10 covers a whole range of degrees and emotions. But if your question is

11 about an individual who is exposed for the first time in his or her life

12 to targeting and thinks that he/she might be hit, that individual

13 experiences intense fear, but its intensity decreases if that individual

14 is aimed at every day but is not fired at. There is an adage which says

15 don't ever threaten with an empty pistol, and I think that is a reference

16 to Dr. Turner's words in his report.

17 Q. In your report, you refer to the disorder known as the

18 post-traumatic stress disorder. Would you agree with me that its

19 usefulness in relation to this topic of terror is restricted because that

20 disorder refers to a continuing prevalence of fear in individuals who

21 suffer from it which lasts long after the traumatic event which caused it

22 has passed?

23 A. May I just read your question once again, because it sounded

24 rather long-winded, so let me --

25 So if I understand what you mean, you are asking me about the

Page 20789

1 relationship between the experience of fear or terror and the

2 post-traumatic stress disorder. So my answer would be that a person

3 experiences that kind of fear, a certain percentage of people will suffer

4 such a disorder but it varies from one individual to another over a period

5 of time.

6 Q. And many people exposed to the same trauma as that which causes

7 that disorder in some individuals do not develop that disorder - do you

8 agree with that - even though both might be of an otherwise robust state

9 of mind?

10 A. Yes, you're right there. That is, two persons may be exposed to a

11 particular event. One will develop such a disorder and the other one

12 won't.

13 Q. To construct an example: If we have, say, a child who is

14 repeatedly shot at and manages to -- or, say, two children who are

15 repeatedly shot at and manage to survive the traumatic experience, one

16 develops that disorder and the other does not. The fact that one develops

17 it and the other does not does not detract from the fact that both

18 experienced terror. Do you agree?

19 A. If I got your meaning correctly, you mean that they can normally

20 experience an identical situation and one develops such a disorder and the

21 other doesn't. But it is another matter whether one child experiences

22 that situation with intense fear and the other not. It also depends on

23 whether after that the parents of a child keep repeating, "Yes, you could

24 have got killed, you could have died," and the parents of the other child

25 say, "Well, it's okay, it's over." So it can also depend whether an

Page 20790

1 individual will be additionally traumatised and suffer from this disorder

2 or not. I keep saying that it depends very much on one's -- on one

3 individual's perception of the trauma.

4 Q. Dr. Kuljic, in your answer you focussed on whether one child might

5 have experienced terror, whereas the other did not. In my hypothetical

6 example, accept that both children experienced terror but one develops the

7 disorder and the other does not, firstly, is that a scenario which could

8 occur where both children are of a robust state of mind?

9 A. It means, this thing that you asked me now, is whether those

10 children perceive the trauma in an identical way. Perhaps they did not.

11 Perhaps one perceived it as more dangerous and the other one perceived it

12 as less dangerous. And after that this other thing comes that you asked

13 about, the issue of robustness of mind, who will develop -- so it is one's

14 perception of something, whether we perceive something as dangerous. So

15 let us divide it into parts. It is after that that you start thinking

16 about it. So if somebody did not notice anything, he will not start a

17 fear. If he did, then it is his or her robustness will determine whether

18 the disorder will develop or not.

19 Q. Dr. Kuljic, you are required for the purposes of that question to

20 accept the hypothetical basis, and you have not done that. Let me try it

21 a different way. If a study reveals that, let's say, 50 per cent of a

22 population following an event, a traumatic event, experienced by that

23 population, have the disorder, the post-traumatic stress disorder, that

24 does not mean necessarily, does it, that only 50 per cent of them

25 experienced the sensation of terror at the time of the traumatic event,

Page 20791

1 does it?

2 A. True, it does not need to mean that, and I mentioned a moment ago

3 that it doesn't mean that not -- that does not mean that not everybody was

4 afraid. That is what I already said.

5 Q. Yes. Now, a further difficulty with relying on rates of

6 post-traumatic stress disorder is that, with the passing of time, many

7 sufferers of that disorder recover, don't they?

8 A. As regards the time passing by after a trauma, in case

9 post-traumatic stress disorder has taken place, there are two

10 possibilities, at least two possibilities: One is that a person is still

11 exposed to something, for instance, has a traffic accident, and then

12 acquires the post-traumatic stress disorder and constantly has on his mind

13 the picture of the smashed car, and every time he sees that picture that

14 person is traumatised over and over again, which then will exacerbate

15 symptoms and therein the role of the media and subsequent cognitive

16 processing of any traumatic experience. And on the other hand, there are

17 numerous papers speaking about the aggravation of symptoms in holocaust

18 victims --

19 Q. Could you please read my question on the screen. And if you like,

20 I'll repeat it. What I'm asking --

21 A. I've read it. Yes, I've read it.

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. And -- and the answer is that a certain number of people will see

24 the reduction in the number of symptoms and in others that will not be the

25 case. I've just explained it to you, when the symptoms persevere, and we

Page 20792

1 have Dutch [as interpreted] psychiatrists who study people who 30 years on

2 have still had a high degree of psych disorders and PTSD, just as it

3 happens in situations I have mentioned, for instance, this example with

4 the car.

5 Q. Putting it simply, many people who have that disorder recover over

6 time, don't they?

7 A. I would say a certain percentage. I wouldn't say many people.

8 Q. And many studies have been done as to the percentage of people who

9 retain the condition for the rest of their life, haven't there?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Yes. To give one example, Dr. Turner in his report speaks or has

12 written about the experience of rape, how although that is a very powerful

13 experience in terms of trauma, over time the recovery rate from

14 post-traumatic stress disorder is quite good. Do you remember reading

15 that in his report?

16 A. Yes. It is an annex. There is a table.

17 Q. Yes. All right. Now, in your report -- would you please go to

18 paragraph 5.3 and in particular the last sentence of that paragraph.

19 A. I'm sorry, you said 5 ...?

20 Q. 5.3.

21 A. 5.3. 5.3, yes.

22 Q. All right. And you refer there to a particular study, and

23 according to the study almost every man who had a war experience was

24 developing a PTSD. You obviously thought that important to put in the

25 report. Why? What is the relevance of that observation from that report?

Page 20793

1 How does it contribute to your conclusions?

2 A. This comment had to do with the sex, and this was done by Chester

3 and associates. This was a study conducted with American Indians, and it

4 was to show the difference in the way that traumas are experienced and

5 exposure to trauma. There is another item where I speak about the

6 exposure rate and evolution of traumas. And this is a fact which has to

7 do with those respondents. As I have said, every author always makes a

8 reservation and says that he's dealing with a particular population

9 because there are other papers which indicate different rates, and I also

10 mentioned that in my report.

11 Q. Again, would you look at my question. What is the relevance of

12 that observation? How does it contribute to your conclusions? You've

13 mentioned it has to do with the sex. Is there any other relevance in that

14 sentence, that is, other than sex?

15 A. At the time when I was writing this, I had in mind the last

16 sentence, that these differences show that it is indispensable to bear in

17 mind the sex structure of the population under consideration.

18 Q. Well, could you tell us, what does it matter, if sex is the point,

19 as to what the traumatic event was that caused the disorder? Why do you

20 mention that almost every man who had a war experience was developing that

21 disorder? Why don't you just point out what the percentage of men was

22 with the disorder compared to the percentage of women?

23 A. What I mentioned, is that almost every man with a war experience

24 developed the PTSD, addresses only that paper. It was up to me to clarify

25 the difference between men and women. So that was the gist of it, not the

Page 20794

1 to emphasise something else, that every man reacted like this. There are

2 also cultural differences regarding the perception of trauma in every

3 society. I could also quote to you some of the researches done in that

4 regard.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, may I ask you how much time you'd still

6 need. We're coming close to two hours, even if we deduct many moments,

7 especially the moments where the witness had to leave the courtroom.

8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, at least 20 minutes and beyond. The

9 Defence took much longer than the time they were allocated. There have

10 been fresh matters. In fact, I've just now, while I've been on my feet,

11 received some copies of the relevant materials which I'll need to read

12 overnight. But perhaps I could review it overnight, Mr. President, after

13 I finish tonight.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber compared the times taken by the Defence

16 and by the Prosecution. You may proceed if there's -- we'll indicate at

17 the end of this hearing how much time would still be available, but you

18 can continue until 7.00.

19 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since we are

21 speaking of time passing. I don't know what is the position of your

22 Chamber in relation to the Rosner papers. I think it's Rosner papers.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would there be any objection, Mr. Ierace, from

24 the side of the Prosecution having in mind the abstract given of the

25 article of Dr. Rosner that questions would be put to the witness in

Page 20795

1 respect of that abstract?

2 MR. IERACE: Well, Mr. President, my position remains the same:

3 That when we're dealing with expert psychiatrists on such a critical

4 issue --


6 MR. IERACE: -- The least we could expect are copies of the full

7 articles. And at this stage we have an extract which has been provided to

8 us.


10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will allow questions on the Rosner

12 abstract, but could you please keep in mind that it is an abstract, which

13 of course could create some problems. And you took already far more time

14 than granted, so it is not a subject for extensive questioning, but a few

15 questions will be allowed.

16 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

17 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

18 Q. How big was the --

19 MR. IERACE: Excuse me, Mr. President.

20 Q. Do you have a copy of that paper with you, the copy that you read?

21 A. Which paper do you mean?

22 Q. I mean the paper by Robin and Chester that you refer to in your

23 report.

24 A. I don't have it on me.

25 Q. How is it that you come to give evidence and don't bring with you

Page 20796

1 the reports that you quote or summarise passages from in your report?

2 A. If I took with me all the papers, then I would have to bring all

3 of my literature from psychiatry and on stress, so I would need a lot of

4 time to gather that in my home in Belgrade.

5 Q. All right. How big was the sample of men in that study, just

6 approximately?

7 A. I cannot recall now exactly what the sample was.

8 Q. I'm not asking you exactly. I'm asking approximately.

9 A. I think it was not a large study, an extensive study with a large

10 number of persons questioned.

11 Q. Dr. Kuljic, would you disagree with me if I told you that in fact

12 ten men had a war experience in that study? Does that accord with your

13 recollection?

14 A. That would correspond to what I said, that it was not an extensive

15 study.

16 Q. It would not surely have been wise to repeat in this report a

17 conclusion as to the percentage of men who had a war experience who went

18 on to develop this disorder where the sample, where the group, was only

19 ten, I suggest to you.

20 A. I mentioned that as one of the references, not as a key reference.

21 Q. I suggest to you that the report also made clear that the study

22 was on a particularly troubled community in North America, troubled in the

23 sense that its members had experienced a number of different traumatic

24 events. Does that accord with your recollection of the article?

25 A. Yes. Yes.

Page 20797

1 Q. And is it not the case that it becomes difficult to discern which

2 traumatic events, where a person has experienced a number, have

3 contributed to the disorder?

4 A. There is a cumulative effect of events bearing on the symptoms of

5 psychopathology, starting from the earliest childhood days from the moment

6 when a key event occurs and following that, even events after that key

7 event can influence and influence the appearance of symptoms of

8 psychopathology which is what I stated in my report.

9 Q. Yes. In the interests of saving time, I think you would agree

10 with the proposition that I put to you; is that correct?

11 A. Yes. Shall I ask you that many traumas can have cumulative

12 effect? Was that your question?

13 Q. Yes. Well, specifically, that it can become difficult to discern

14 which traumatic events, where a person has experienced a number, have

15 contributed to the disorder. And I think you agree with that. Is that

16 so? If you can answer with a yes or no, please do.

17 A. Unfortunately I can't answer. I have to explain psychiatric

18 practice. Every time we ask a person which one was the key event --

19 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... I withdraw the question.

20 And if you wish it, I have copies of this report. But does this

21 conclusion ring a bell with you? Do you remember this conclusion from the

22 report: "The high prevalence of PTSD in this community is therefore more

23 likely due to a high rate of exposure to trauma and the types of traumatic

24 events than to any specific vulnerability to PTSD." Do you remember

25 reading the conclusion of the report?

Page 20798

1 A. I read the report in its entirely a while ago, which is why I

2 cannot tell you about each one. But there is something which is key and

3 sometimes we assess whether there was some that was less significant or

4 some more significant causes that would have triggered this.

5 Q. But Doctor, this was a community that had a lot of problems

6 generating regular traumatic experiences, wasn't it?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Yes. Would you please turn to paragraph 6.1 of your report, in

9 particular the last two sentences. There you refer to Kessler and

10 associates, and you state that in their report they make clear that the

11 life prevalence in the general population of PTSD is 5 per cent for women

12 and 10 per cent for men. Now, stopping there for the moment, first of

13 all, what is the relevance of the percentage between the sexes in terms of

14 terror in Sarajevo in the indictment period? Can you very briefly tell

15 us, if you can in a sentence, what's the relevance?

16 A. In terms of the terror in Sarajevo and any other, so let us assume

17 that there are some differences between men and women and in each medical

18 research it is always stressed how many women there were and how many men.

19 Q. But we already know that the existence of the disorder is not a

20 determinant of whether the individual experienced terror at the time of

21 the traumatic event, don't we?

22 A. Yes. It doesn't have to be that a person had suffered this fear

23 and did not develop the disorder.

24 Q. Now, in any event, I suggest to you that you got the figures

25 wrong. I suggest to you that the figures given by Kessler and associates

Page 20799

1 in that report is the reverse, 10 per cent for women and 5 per cent for

2 men. If you like, I can show you the report. But perhaps you remember.

3 A. I'd like to have a look.

4 Q. Well, perhaps we'll leave that with you overnight.

5 Now, you go on to say that in that report the authors quote the

6 life prevalence for exposure to traumatic experience as 25 per cent for

7 men and 13 per cent for women. Now, firstly, a word of explanation. Does

8 life prevalence mean the percentage of persons who suffer the disorder who

9 retain it for the duration of their life?

10 A. In the second part that you mentioned, for life prevalence for

11 exposure to traumatic experiences, so that's how much people are exposed

12 to traumatic experiences, not how many developed pathological --

13 psychopathological symptoms.

14 Q. So you're saying that 25 per cent of men are exposed to traumatic

15 experiences for the duration of their life. Is that your interpretation

16 of "life prevalence"?

17 A. According to their perception. We can now speculate in relation

18 to this that everybody goes through traumatic experiences. We can

19 speculate in this way. But this is in relation to what is accepted to be

20 a traumatic experience.

21 Q. Now, "life prevalence" is a phrase which occurs repeatedly in the

22 literature in relation to this disorder, isn't it? It's a common

23 indicator in the reports, isn't it?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And you're saying that where we read that term, "life prevalence,"

Page 20800

1 what it means or what it refers to is the exposure to traumatic experience

2 over a lifetime. Is that what you're saying, or have I misunderstood you?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. All right. Again I suggest to you that you got the figures wrong.

5 I suggest to you - and you can read it overnight - that the figures are

6 not 25 per cent for men but 60.7 per cent for men, and not 13 per cent for

7 one but 51.2 per cent for women. If you're not able to answer that

8 without first reading the report, please say so.

9 A. Absolutely. I have to look at the paper again. I have to read it

10 again.

11 Q. All right. Now, perhaps we can just deal quickly with one other

12 small issue. Today you referred to the extract of the study by Jensen.

13 Do you remember that and do you have a copy with you?

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just to indicate to the

17 interpreters. I will need one minute at the end of Mr. Ierace's

18 intervention, but I wanted to say this now while the doctor was looking

19 for his article. Thank you.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.


22 Q. Now, you told us that you had underlined a passage of this

23 abstract and you read out what it said. But in reading it out, according

24 to the English transcript of your evidence, you attributed to the abstract

25 a definite connection between war-trauma-induced stress disorders and

Page 20801

1 increases in suicide. Do you see the sentence beginning with the word

2 "complications"? I'll read from there: "Complications related to

3 war-trauma-induced stress disorders may give rise to significant increases

4 in" and then later "suicides." Do you see that?

5 A. As far as I remember now, I think this is the sentence that I

6 read.

7 Q. Except according to the transcript or the translation, you said

8 "are." Not possible but definite that they -- in other words, that they

9 do contribute to it, it does happen. So my first question is: Do you

10 accept that according to the abstract war-trauma-induced stress disorders,

11 complications related to them, may, that is, not definitely, give rise to

12 significant increases in suicides? Do you agree with that?

13 A. As far as I recall I read "may give." Perhaps this is not entered

14 into the transcript. But it says here and there's no reason for me to

15 read it differently. I've underlined it. "May give." So there is a

16 supposition, an assumption -- we always take an assumption as a starting

17 point in every research.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, I was just informed that we have to stop

19 in time. In fact, we should always, but I have a bad record on that.

20 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you asked one minute for translation issues,

21 those that have to be -- cannot be dealt with in another way, please

22 proceed.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

24 Very briefly: For the English booth, page 28, line 9, certain things were

25 not interpreted to do with coffee, but it doesn't matter. Page 58, line

Page 20802

1 23, French booth, there is a countermeaning. Your report is not his

2 report. Then on page 74, for the French booth interpreter, there is no

3 such a thing as very traumatic, and the same for the French booth

4 interpreter for page 77, there is also a countermeaning, 5 per cent for

5 the women, 10 per cent for the men. In fact, it is the other way around.

6 And the rhythm was rather rapid. On page 70 from the page -- from the

7 French booth was not able to interpret that.

8 There was one other thing which wasn't noted is that I was

9 intervening out of respect for interpreters. Thank you.

10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might I give a copy of those two

11 articles to the court usher to pass to the witness for overnight reading.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Dr. Kuljic, you could read this overnight if

13 there would be any additional questions.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, tomorrow there will be 15 effective

16 minutes of cross-examination available to you.

17 We will adjourn until tomorrow, quarter past 2.00, same courtroom.

18 And may I instruct you, Dr. Kuljic, not to speak with anyone about

19 your testimony. Yes, I instructed you yesterday as well.

20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

21 at 7.04 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,

22 the 6th day of March, 2003, at 2.15 p.m.