Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 2894

1 Wednesday, 24th November, 1999

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 10.10 a.m.

4 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Please be

5 seated. Registrar, would you have the accused brought

6 in.

7 [The accused entered court]

8 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] First, let me

9 be sure that the interpreters can hear me. Good

10 morning to all the interpreters, and I would also like

11 to say good morning to the representatives of the

12 Office of the Prosecutor, and Mr. Nice,

13 Mr. Tochilovsky. And good morning to Defence counsel,

14 Mr. Greaves, Mr. Londrovic, and to the accused.

15 I believe that we can now begin, because the

16 witness, who couldn't testify a few days ago because he

17 was sick, I think can now be brought in. Is that

18 correct? Mr. Greaves? Mr. Nice?

19 MR. NICE: I am only on my feet to explain

20 that the gentleman sitting on my right, if this is

21 acceptable to the Court, is Dr. Duits, the psychiatrist

22 who has prepared a report and who I would be calling, I

23 forecast, with your leave immediately after the next

24 witness.

25 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I would like to

Page 2895

1 ask Mr. Greaves, who is going to call in

2 Mr. van den Bussche -- is he feeling better?

3 Mr. Greaves, is he feeling better today?

4 MR. GREAVES: I haven't actually spoken to

5 him, but I anticipate so.

6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Well, I hope he

7 is the one who can talk.

8 MR. GREAVES: Certainly.

9 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Do you have any

10 problem in having Dr. Duits sitting here?

11 MR. GREAVES: It is a procedure with which I

12 am entirely familiar in my own system, and I have no

13 objection to my learned friend having the assistance of

14 Dr. Duits.

15 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] The Judges see

16 Dr. Duits' presence as an advantage.

17 All right. We can now move on.

18 MR. GREAVES: If we may have the witness.

19 [The witness entered court]

20 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Good morning,

21 doctor. Do you hear me?


23 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] You do. We

24 hope that you will be able to speak today. Do you feel

25 better.

Page 2896

1 THE WITNESS: I feel a little bit better.

2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Not really

3 great?

4 THE WITNESS: Not yet.

5 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] As we say in

6 France, the shoemakers are the ones who have the worst

7 shoes. Well, you are a doctor, and perhaps you didn't

8 take proper care of yourself. Well, we'll try to

9 continue with our work. First of all I am going to ask

10 you to take an oath. You took an oath. All right.

11 You don't have to do that, then.

12 Thank you, Judge Rodrigues, for reminding me

13 of that.

14 You may be seated. Please proceed.


16 Examined by Mr. Greaves:

17 Q. Mr. van den Bussche, I will be as quick as I

18 can, in view of your condition.

19 Can you first of all help us about this.

20 Your full name is Bernard van den Bussche, and you are

21 a forensic psychiatrist; is that correct?

22 A. That's right.

23 Q. Were you initially sworn in 1985 as a

24 permanent judicial expert by the Court in Amsterdam?

25 A. Yes, that's correct.

Page 2897

1 Q. Would you be so kind, please, as to tell

2 their honours what your professional qualifications

3 are?

4 A. Yes. In 1985 I worked for the Forensic

5 Psychiatric Service, Amsterdam, as a forensic

6 psychiatrist --

7 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Speak slowly.

8 Speak slowly. Don't try to fatigue your voice too

9 quickly. Just answer gently, quietly, and also allow

10 the interpreters to do a proper job in interpreting

11 you. Thank you very much.

12 A. The Forensic Psychiatric Service in the

13 Netherlands, all branches of the Dutch Ministry of

14 Justice. And the Forensic Psychiatric Service,

15 Amsterdam is one of the biggest, most qualified and

16 experienced compared with the others. Therefore, we

17 were asked by the Dutch Ministry of Justice to

18 cooperate with this Tribunal.

19 Q. How long have you practiced as a forensic

20 psychiatrist, Mr. van den Bussche?

21 A. Fifteen years.

22 Q. And whereabouts did you qualify as a forensic

23 psychiatrist? Was that at university or medical

24 school?

25 A. University.

Page 2898

1 Q. And which university did you attend?

2 A. The University of Utrecht.

3 Q. Apart from your qualification as a doctor and

4 a forensic psychiatrist, do you have any other medical

5 qualifications?

6 A. No, I don't have.

7 Q. And during the course of your duties as a

8 permanent judicial expert with the court, are you

9 regularly involved in making reports for the courts of

10 the Netherlands?

11 A. Yes, for the court in Amsterdam and the

12 higher court I made in about 15 years about 400

13 psychiatric reports.

14 Q. I'm sorry, you were about to finish. I do

15 apologise.

16 A. And besides that, I do risk assessment

17 reports on behalf of the Dutch Ministry of Justice in

18 special clinics where serial killers or serial rapists

19 are compulsory treated.

20 Q. So is what you are saying that serial killers

21 and serial rapists is, in effect, your speciality?

22 A. Yes, it is.

23 Q. Have you made that your specialty throughout

24 your period of service with the Dutch Justice Ministry?

25 A. The Dutch ministry asked me to do those risk

Page 2899

1 assessments -- risk assessment reports because of my

2 experience.

3 Q. Now, help us about this, please. Did you,

4 during the course of your duties, then go to see the

5 defendant, Goran Jelisic, earlier this month?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And did you, as a result of that, prepare a

8 report?

9 A. Yes, I did.

10 Q. Dated the 8th of November 1999?

11 A. Yes, that's correct.

12 Q. And, Your Honours, I think that's the report

13 which has been filed with the Tribunal, and I hope that

14 you have it.

15 And you can answer any questions from the

16 Prosecution concerning your report.

17 A. Yes, I can.

18 Q. Dr. van den Bussche, would you be so kind to

19 wait there, please, and to answer such questions.

20 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice

21 represents The Office of the Prosecutor and he will ask

22 some questions. Mr. Nice, please proceed now.

23 Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

24 Q. Doctor, in order to save your voice, I will

25 try and ask questions, sometimes compendious questions

Page 2900

1 which may be capable of the yes, no answer, leaving

2 your voice freer for those occasions when you will need

3 to expand. So the questioning, if it works, will be a

4 little unusual, but will be aimed at helping you.

5 First, it's correct, isn't it, that although

6 you had access to the earlier psychiatric and

7 psychological reports on this man, you have not seen a

8 record of his interviews, and you know nothing of the

9 evidence that has been given by witnesses in this case?

10 A. Yes, that's correct. And that's a pity.

11 It's not an usual situation in the Netherlands. The

12 psychiatric interview is only a small part of the

13 complete psychiatric examination. And usually I have

14 to read for about four 'til ten hours all the trial.

15 Q. Again, do feel free to add if you want to,

16 but you've given the answer.

17 The second point is that on this occasion you

18 interviewed the man alone, but for an interpreter?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And again the compendious question is this:

21 With psychiatric examinations you always have to be

22 careful about the subject being dishonest and

23 attempting to mislead or to manipulate the

24 psychiatrist, and it is therefore preferable, when

25 possible, to have two people present at the

Page 2901

1 examination, and not one? Would you accept that?

2 A. Yes, I agree with you.

3 Q. This man is a man who is shown to be both

4 dishonest and manipulative; would you accept that?

5 A. Yes, I would agree.

6 Q. So that you, therefore, suffered the

7 disadvantage, and there's no criticism in anything I

8 say, but you suffered the disadvantage of not having a

9 second expert at your shoulder or by your side to check

10 on what he may have been trying to achieve; do you

11 accept that?

12 A. I agree completely with you. In the Dutch

13 court system it is even a fault if you speak with a

14 severe criminal alone. So I always advise my

15 colleagues to talk with two persons, and then you can

16 choose between two of a kind or two of a different

17 kind. I prefer to talk with a psychiatrist and a

18 psychologist because some of them even can cheat two

19 psychiatrists, and a psychologist, you can better rely

20 on a psychologist because he can do more objective

21 tests to find out the manipulation.

22 Q. Thank you. In the interests, again, of

23 saving your voice and dealing with things in an orderly

24 way, it may be helpful if I ask you to open your report

25 at, I think, page 5, and I will try and deal with the

Page 2902

1 particular questions I have in relation to your report

2 in sequence. Then I'll turn to a few other questions

3 about other reports and a few other general

4 propositions that I'd like you to help us with.

5 Again, many of these questions may be capable

6 of being dealt with briefly. Of course, at the end of

7 it, if there's something you want to add and feel I

8 haven't explored, you will be allowed to do so without

9 any hesitation, I'm sure.

10 On page 5, he tells you, under case history,

11 that his former attorneys, and he names them, wanted

12 him to commit suicide and were contemptible, that they

13 advised him to keep silent and offered him money, and

14 that his family was threatened.

15 He didn't, of course, point to any proof of

16 this. Did he provide any detail beyond what's set out

17 here?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Thank you. Further down, we see that he

20 identifies the offenders who he said were at liberty

21 and goes on to give an account of forming liaisons in

22 prison with Croats and, indeed, with Muslims.

23 Ingratiation is making himself popular with the very

24 group of people who had been his victims consistent

25 with his being both manipulative and narcissistic?

Page 2903

1 A. I found him more childish and immature.

2 Q. Thank you. Three lines up from the bottom of

3 this page, he told you no more than that he had acted

4 under duress, that he shot 15 people, but then he said

5 he saved hundreds. He provided you no detail of the

6 alleged hundreds that he saved.

7 A. No, and I couldn't check it.

8 Q. He, of course, then went on to say that he

9 was being made a national scapegoat. Setting himself

10 in the big picture is consistent with the narcissism

11 and/or the childishness.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Thank you. Over the page, please, to page 6,

14 as you summarise it, just under halfway down, he says:

15 "'I was forced to kill, by my superiors. They gave me

16 the name Adolf. If I hadn't followed the orders of

17 those monsters, I would have been killed.'"

18 You may have other notes, I don't know, but

19 did he give you any more detail of how he was forced to

20 kill than that?

21 A. He told me that some friends of his were shot

22 in front of Muslims when they denied to follow the

23 orders.

24 Q. Did you check whether that was a version he

25 had ever given before or whether this was a completely

Page 2904

1 new version of events, being forced to see others being

2 shot for disobedience?

3 A. I didn't read it in the other reports.

4 Q. No. I'm going to come to just a couple

5 aspects of the other reports and the way his stories

6 change. But since I want to deal with this report in

7 an orderly way, you would accept, would you not, that

8 if this version is new and different and if one can see

9 in the earlier reports a developing series of different

10 stories, then the different stories obviously undermine

11 his reliability, don't they?

12 A. There's a possibility, but he has also other

13 attorneys.

14 Q. He blames the other attorneys at some

15 stage --

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. -- for forcing him to give different stories,

18 but I'll come to that. If we put that on one side, and

19 if somebody gives, first, one account, then a stronger

20 account, then a different account, and, in your report,

21 yet another different account, that obviously goes to

22 show he may just simply be being dishonest.

23 A. There's a possibility, yes.

24 Q. Thank you. Then, just a little further down

25 the same paragraph, he says: "'On one occasion, I fell

Page 2905

1 to my knees and begged to not have to go on any more.

2 I was informed that I shouldn't think, but simply carry

3 out orders.'"

4 I don't know if you have any more detail of

5 the falling to his knees, but the question again I want

6 to ask you is this: Did you find any earlier reference

7 to this form of pleading by him?

8 A. No, I didn't.

9 Q. Do you have any more detail of what he said

10 happened on this occasion, beyond what you've set out

11 here?

12 A. No, I don't.

13 Q. Towards the bottom of page 6, you set out the

14 following, about ten lines up: "When the discussion

15 focused on his upcoming 7 to 8 days of defence, tears

16 appeared in his eyes, and the defendant started to

17 cry ..."

18 MR. NICE: I'm so sorry. I hope I'm not

19 going too fast for the interpreters and that they've

20 got copies. I'll slow down a little. I'm so sorry.

21 Q. "'I hate the idea of seeing and hearing all

22 those people --'"

23 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Excuse me,

24 Mr. Nice. I'm waiting for the French version. It

25 takes a little longer to say it in French.

Page 2906

1 MR. NICE: I'm sorry, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] It was fine up

3 to this point. There it is. I see where you are.

4 Please continue.


6 Q. "'I hate the idea of seeing and hearing all

7 those people who both on request, and also

8 spontaneously are coming to bear witness ...'" and then

9 that paragraph continues.

10 If we go on about another eight or nine

11 lines, you set out this: "Following deeper

12 questioning, it emerged that over the last few months,

13 the defendant has regularly been crying, when alone."

14 Now, my question is this: The first tears

15 relate to his defence witnesses; the second tears, were

16 those also for himself and for his defence witnesses?

17 A. Well, he was crying all the time at that

18 moment, for about four or five minutes, and I really

19 had to relax him, to get himself in a better

20 condition.

21 Q. But were the tears for himself?

22 A. In my opinion, the tears were not for

23 himself, but in my opinion, he was confused between

24 feelings of intimacy to others and feelings of

25 aggression and all kinds of different mixed feelings,

Page 2907

1 and he didn't know until now how to manage them.

2 Q. Thank you. You, I think, will be able to

3 confirm from the material you've read that there is no

4 reference, I think, anywhere else in the material to

5 his showing spontaneous remorse, tearful or otherwise,

6 for his victims.

7 A. Yes, that's correct.

8 Q. So the first occasion of crying is crying

9 which we saw related to his emotion at people coming to

10 give evidence for him; it's not tears about his

11 victims.

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. Thank you. In the English version, I'm

14 getting to the end of this passage which comes on page

15 7, and in the French version, it must be at the foot of

16 page 11, I think. Yes.

17 Two things really. He says that he was

18 arrested and tortured -- I beg your pardon. He says

19 that the account that he was arrested and tortured by

20 the Croat army was untrue, that he'd been under

21 pressure from his former attorneys to make those

22 claims.

23 I'm a little confused as to what page 9,

24 paragraph 2 means in the report of Dr. Duits and

25 Dr. van der Veen, but without doing a paper chase, can

Page 2908

1 you confirm that what he was instructing you to say

2 should be rubbed out completely was the account of

3 torture in Croatia?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Were you aware that by the time of his first

6 psychiatric examination, he was already being

7 represented by the attorney who he says he trusted,

8 even if one of the other attorneys was still involved

9 in his case at that time?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So he says he made these allegations in

12 response to his attorneys, but one of his trusted

13 attorneys was also already on his team.

14 A. Yes, Mr. Londrovic. But -- yes, that's

15 correct.

16 Q. So if we go on now to page 9 in the English,

17 page 12, halfway down page 12 in the French, he says

18 this:

19 "Nonetheless, the defendant wished to state

20 that the previous report writers, Dr. Duits and van der

21 Veen had written down things which he had not said.

22 Once the undersigned had asked why he had not corrected

23 the reports, since he had taped the entire previous

24 examination interviews, there was a moment of silence

25 and the ice appeared to have been broken."

Page 2909

1 What was it, according to Jelisic, that

2 Dr. Duits and Dr. van der Veen had written down either

3 incorrect or untruthfully.

4 A. I asked him, but he didn't tell me. I asked

5 him, I said, "You taped everything." And then he said

6 to me nothing any more.

7 Q. So either he was being dishonest with you or

8 he was being untruthful or dishonest with them? It has

9 to follow, doesn't it?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Can we turn over, please, to page 10 in the

12 English, where in the middle of the page you make the

13 point, and I think you've made it already, that he

14 emphasised his position as a victim in all of this,

15 didn't he?

16 A. Yes, but, in my opinion, a little bit less

17 than in the previous reports. But just a little.

18 Q. And, of course, he had obviously had the

19 advantage of reading the previous reports, because he

20 commented on them, and he was thus in a position to act

21 and to change his behaviour to accord with what would

22 be wanted of him?

23 A. Yes, there is a possibility that he is

24 manipulating, but, on the other hand, I made the report

25 one year later, so a person can change in a year.

Page 2910

1 That's also a possibility.

2 Q. Thank you. This is a person, of course, who

3 is found to have been theatrical in nature in any

4 event, isn't he?

5 A. Yes, that's correct.

6 Q. And a theatrical person is both more likely

7 to and more able to mislead people such as yourself?

8 A. Yes, that's why it was such a pity that we

9 couldn't test him.

10 Q. On the same page in the English, a few

11 paragraphs down, three quarters of the way down the

12 page you say this:

13 "In parallel to these considerations, during

14 his examination the defendant started to show more true

15 remorse and feelings of guilt in respect of his victims

16 and their family members."

17 Do I take it that you are saying that this

18 first demonstration of remorse, of which you are aware,

19 happened in your very examination?

20 A. Yes. Yes.

21 Q. Because there is no evidence of it happening

22 earlier, is there?

23 A. Yes, that is correct.

24 Q. On reflection, and I will probably remember

25 to ask you this question again at the end, but on

Page 2911

1 reflection, this has to be possible, doesn't it; that

2 he was simply doing this because he knew he was the

3 subject of criticism for showing no remorse in earlier

4 reports?

5 A. That's a possibility.

6 Q. Thank you. At page 11 you make this point,

7 and it's in the first complete paragraph. I'll see if

8 I can find the French. Yes, I think it's at the foot

9 of page 14, if that assists, Your Honour.

10 You deal with his having narcissistic traits

11 based on a primarily negative self-image. You then go

12 on to say:

13 "He maintained surface object relationships,

14 was fundamentally uncertain and easily influenced.

15 Unconsciously he was searching for a father

16 identification figure. He tends too easily to identify

17 with people in a power position. For them he can offer

18 little resistance and is easily influenced."

19 Now, the characteristic of being easily

20 influenced by people in power is not something that

21 will be immediately apparent, is it?

22 A. When you see him, not. But he looks around

23 30 years old, but in his emotional life I think he is

24 about 17, 18 years old.

25 Q. Thank you. But the point is that these

Page 2912

1 aspects of the potential to be influenced are something

2 that you are either going to discover at a psychiatric

3 examination or you are going to have to discover by

4 some prolonged contact with the man?

5 A. From the psychiatric interview and his life

6 history.

7 Q. Thank you. Then we can go to the next --

8 well, you do say in the same section, I needn't take

9 you to the passage, you say in the same section that he

10 has had suicidal ideas. This is entirely based on his

11 own account, isn't it?

12 A. It is, yes.

13 Q. We can go to the next section headed

14 Diagnostic Observations. You set out at the beginning

15 of Diagnostic Observations, page 13 and 17 in the

16 French, that he has admitted having killed 15 people

17 under duress. Various conclusions in your report

18 follow.

19 If, in fact, he was not acting under duress,

20 may I take it that many, most, or it may be all of your

21 conclusions fall and come to nothing?

22 A. Which conclusions do you mean?

23 Q. Well, conclusions about remorse, in

24 particular the conclusions about remorse we are going

25 to come to later on. But do those conclusions fall

Page 2913

1 away? Must we disregard them, if he was not, in fact,

2 acting under duress?

3 A. Yes. If it's not true, what he is telling

4 me, then he must have behaved during the crimes in a

5 different way than he is telling me.

6 Q. Yes. I am not criticising you at all,

7 because you had limited material to go on. I just want

8 to understand your report. So that from this moment on

9 you are working on the basis that what he tells you is

10 correct --

11 A. Yes. The only base I have is what he is

12 telling me.

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. And that's the limitation of the report.

15 Q. Of course. And you accept that on findings

16 of facts, it's the Judges who have to decide whether

17 and to what extent he was acting under any duress?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. At the foot of page 13, which will be either

20 the foot of 17 or over to 18 in the French, you make

21 some observations about wars. I pick it up at the foot

22 of 13 where you say that wartime conditions influence

23 personality; that no two wars are the same; that

24 parties to war, in your opinion, behave as if with

25 antisocial, psychopathic borderliners, hiding behind

Page 2914

1 and basing their actions on rational and national

2 motives.

3 Without being critical, doctor, it's fair to

4 say that this is outside your area of special

5 expertise?

6 A. Yeah, in a certain way. What I wanted to

7 make clear was on page --

8 Q. I am going to go on to the next page, so if

9 you want me to read the next bit, I will as well.

10 Shall we go through that and then it will save your

11 voice if I ask the question again.

12 Over at page 14 you say that all parties were

13 active in splitting manipulation and paranoid

14 projection. You say psychiatric primitive defences are

15 characteristic for borderline personality disorder.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you then say this: In a climate of this

18 kind it is adaptive, understandable, and easy or easily

19 empathised with and, given the circumstances,

20 relatively healthy for an individual to develop such

21 personality characteristics with a view to survival.

22 I'll just complete it, then I'll give your voice its

23 free rein.

24 Some individuals are able to handle the

25 situation and do so within normal social standards.

Page 2915

1 Others, often the minority, fail. And if they have an

2 imperfect identity and are sensitive to identification

3 with, for example, an aggressive leader. You then say

4 there are notable psychopaths, who are already

5 psychopaths prior to the war and come into a

6 playground, as it were, to live out their sadistic

7 lust.

8 Now, if I tell you the questions I want to

9 ask, and then you can give a single answer. First,

10 your analysis of warring parties having leaders

11 manifesting antisocial, psychopathic borderline

12 characteristics, and projecting those onto others, is

13 outside your area of expertise and, unless I've missed

14 something or unless we've missed something, not

15 supported by research or learned material. And the

16 second question is: Are you really suggesting that a

17 majority or a substantial minority of people will

18 identify in this way, and that it would be relatively

19 healthy for people to do so?

20 A. What I wanted to make clear is this. In

21 Holland we have much expertise with the victims of

22 concentration camps, and there are some two or three

23 special clinics in Holland where, 'til now, still

24 victims are treated. And strange enough, you see that

25 quite often the survivors, the only survivors of those

Page 2916

1 concentration camps have a borderline personality

2 because the only way they could survive was by also

3 lying, with a little bit of cheating, and not be

4 honest.

5 So if you see somebody with a borderline

6 personality, after a war, it can mean two things. It

7 can mean he was already a borderline before the war and

8 already before the war emotionally disturbed, but it

9 can also be a kind of adaptive mechanism to survive the

10 war.

11 Q. I understand, and am grateful for your

12 explanation. I understand that in relation to those

13 who are true victims. But Jelisic, who now denies even

14 being tortured in Croatia or Serbia, is in no sense a

15 true victim. He is a perpetrator. That's correct,

16 isn't it?

17 A. Yes. Yes.

18 Q. Therefore, whatever learning there may be in

19 Holland about the ability to survive of the victims

20 doesn't really bear on this issue at all, does it?

21 A. Well, there is no -- 'til now, there is no

22 psychiatrist who did research on war offenders, and

23 that that's the point, I have no reference material.

24 Q. Thank you. And then finally on your report,

25 and then I'll just turn to the other questions I have,

Page 2917

1 you make the point right at the end of the report that

2 German perpetrators of war crimes lived for years in

3 South America as diligent family men.

4 Again, there is no learning on this, this

5 question number one. And question number 2 is, even if

6 you are right, that war crime perpetrators lived as

7 diligent family men in South America, they had a real

8 interest in keeping their behaviour good and their

9 profile low, didn't they?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Right. Dealing with the only points that I

12 would need to make on the other three reports, and to

13 some degree I've covered them already, you are aware of

14 the fact that in the first report to Dr. Elsmann he

15 gave an account of being tortured in Croatia and

16 expressing in fairly, I think, straightforward terms

17 that he was put under pressure to kill on the basis

18 that he would be killed otherwise.

19 Do you remember that in the most general

20 terms?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. That can be found, if the Court finds page

23 references helpful, at page 3 of that report. I don't

24 go into it in detail. The point I am going to make is

25 a short one.

Page 2918

1 In the report of Dr. Herfst in April at page

2 3 he gives a detailed account again of his escape and

3 of his being tortured. On this occasion he speaks of a

4 hand grenade around his neck, of being wounded with a

5 knife, and of having red hot cinders on his feet. So

6 that the account is enlarged.

7 On page 4 of the report he sets out how the

8 army commander called him Adolf and said he had to

9 kill, and gave him a list: That he had no choice, and

10 otherwise, if he didn't obey, he would be killed. He

11 was provided with alcohol and pills.

12 In the next report of Dr. Duits we see at

13 page 10 -- well, 9 and 10, we see the account of

14 torture continued, with an account at the top of the

15 page of cutting veins on the back of his feet and

16 putting hot coals on them. But at the foot of page 10

17 we see this: At the police station they threatened him

18 with the words, "This bullet is worth more than your

19 head, if you don't do what you are told. You must obey

20 and ask no questions." He was also threatened that his

21 sister would be raped if he didn't do the job

22 properly.

23 He then had to take a group of people to the

24 station and murder them.

25 We know, from your report, that he has

Page 2919

1 abandoned all suggestion that he was tortured and has

2 produced to you a new and different version of the

3 pressure that was put on him to make him kill. The

4 development and the changes of these accounts show, do

5 they not, that as a historian he is simply not to be

6 relied upon. You would accept that, wouldn't you?

7 A. He is a person who manipulates, that's

8 correct.

9 Q. And as between these different accounts over

10 time, it's impossible to choose between them, or to say

11 any one of them is preferable to the other?

12 A. Yes. That's correct.

13 Q. What it is possible to say is that the way he

14 develops his account, in knowledge of what has gone

15 before, shows that he is responding in a manipulative

16 way to what the psychiatrists have found out about him?

17 A. Yeah, but also it's a very childish way of

18 manipulation.

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. Because you can look immediately through it,

21 like you do now.

22 Q. Now, you haven't heard the evidence and, I

23 repeat, absolutely no criticism in that, but can I just

24 summarise for you a few things that have been given in

25 evidence and may or may not be accepted by the Trial

Page 2920

1 Chamber.

2 The evidence shows that he was enthusiastic

3 to kill; that he killed people on his own account,

4 without any reference to authority; that he swore at

5 victims; that he beat victims; that even after he was

6 stopped from killing by a superior officer, he

7 returned, expressing desires to kill. He even admits

8 returning to look at the prisoners after he had been

9 stopped from killing. He also brags of the numbers he

10 had killed, with such expressions as, "I've done seven

11 today so far and I'll do another eight." Or claiming

12 to have killed either 76 or 86 people, claiming up to

13 150 killings. And speaking of, "Well, that will be 68

14 balijas," which is a derogatory word for Muslims,

15 "less."

16 If he did those things without the evidence

17 of anybody standing behind him making him do and say

18 those things, then that completely contradicts the

19 account he gave to you of acting under duress.

20 A. That's correct, yes.

21 Q. The next thing is this: A preeminent

22 characteristic of the personality disorder that you and

23 all the experts found is manipulation and control;

24 would you accept that? A desire to control events

25 rather than to be --

Page 2921

1 A. No, not completely. In fact, we are saying

2 in all the reports the same thing. We give it another

3 name, the personality disorder, but personality

4 disorders are what we call clustered. So this

5 personality disorder, anti-personality disorder, and

6 borderline personality disorder belong to cluster B,

7 and cluster B, all those personality disorders in

8 cluster B, they have no overlap. So if you see a

9 person with traces of two of those personality

10 disorders, then that's why I choose the name of

11 personality disorder, not otherwise specified, which

12 are the traits of both of those personality disorders.

13 The crucial thing in the personality disorder

14 is instability, instability in feelings, instability in

15 self-judgement, instability in judging others,

16 impulsiveness, et cetera, and not so much the will to

17 control.

18 Q. Very well. But there is within him, and it

19 may be that you and Dr. Duits will not necessarily

20 agree on this, but there is within him manifestation of

21 a desire to control as manifested by manipulation.

22 A. Well, he has some anti-social traits and he

23 wants to be in power, if you mean that by "control".

24 Q. It's also true, and this relates to the issue

25 of danger that you address in your report, it's true,

Page 2922

1 isn't it, that -- the following two propositions are

2 true:

3 Proposition 1: The desire to control is

4 either "the" or "a" principle characteristic of the

5 true psychopath; proposition 2, which is separate from

6 that proposition but linked to it, proposition 2 is

7 that the learning shows that once someone has killed

8 once, his resistance to killing again is substantially

9 reduced, he finds it easier to kill having done it

10 once.

11 A. The second is right, that's correct. The

12 first one is not completely correct. You have to add

13 that a psychopath doesn't feel sorry for what he's

14 done.

15 Q. Indeed, because his sole interest is in

16 control. He starts off controlling people in one way

17 or another; he finds the measure of control

18 unsatisfying; he moves to greater control, typically

19 tying someone up or imprisoning them; his ultimate step

20 has to be to kill them.

21 A. It's almost, for a psychopath, a sexual

22 lust.

23 Q. Yes. So that in this case, it is in truth,

24 at best, impossible to say anything about how dangerous

25 this man is, but there are indicators in his

Page 2923

1 personality and in his history of killing that he will

2 remain a danger.

3 A. I answered that question already in my

4 report. I can't answer that question.

5 Q. Very well. I should have asked you this:

6 You know in his account -- perhaps you don't know, but

7 in his accounts he said he was incapable of looking at

8 his victims when he shot them. If there were clear

9 evidence, and there is from the photographs, that he

10 looks absolutely at his victim as he shoots him, that

11 again would tend to undermine what he says to you about

12 being under duress, wouldn't it?

13 A. That would be a form of manipulation, yes.

14 Q. Now, I come back, I think, to my last

15 proposition, and I'm grateful to you for having had the

16 voice to answer my questions so far.

17 If we set on one side his account of how he

18 came to kill, because it's so varied and he's shown to

19 be dishonest, if we acknowledge that his vulnerability

20 to authority figures wouldn't be manifest on him, not

21 something you wear like a badge, it's got to be

22 discovered, then the problem that may face the Chamber

23 is how he came to kill at all.

24 You're not suggesting in your report that

25 anyone or a large number of people would behave in this

Page 2924

1 way, that is, go out and kill people; you're not

2 suggesting that's a majority human trait?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Accordingly, it comes to this, doesn't it,

5 that the easiest way of finding out if somebody is

6 prepared to kill would be to ask them.

7 A. In fact, it's strange, what happened, if he's

8 telling the truth about his life history. Usually,

9 when you are a psychopath and when you start to kill

10 people, you have already aggression regulation problems

11 in your youth, and I could not find any of them. So

12 what you have to do, you have to interview his parents,

13 his schoolmaster, to find out if the things he's

14 telling me about his life history or his youth is the

15 truth.

16 Q. Yes. But given that you wouldn't know that

17 this man was likely to do what he eventually did, he's

18 the sort of personality, is this not right, who, were

19 he asked to do this sort of thing by authority

20 figures --

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. -- recognising that he would be given power

23 and status if he responded to the request, he's the

24 sort of person who might fall to be a volunteer.

25 A. Yes. In my opinion, he has almost no

Page 2925

1 identity of his own. So that means that if a bad guy

2 passed by in power, he becomes a bad guy.

3 Q. There were a couple of other questions; I'll

4 just deal with them very briefly. If a person is in

5 remorse for what he or she has done, is he or she

6 likely to be compelled in the brain to relive what has

7 happened, to rerun that awful history?

8 A. That's a difficult question to answer,

9 because we are talking about facts that happened six,

10 seven years ago, and in every mind, if I look to myself

11 and I think about facts that happened six or seven

12 years ago, there are always distortions in the memory.

13 Q. I quite understand that, but if somebody he's

14 killed not by mistake but as a result of a crisis not

15 of his making, and he is genuinely in remorse of that,

16 is he likely to relive that experience?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. So a person who turns the corner and faces

19 the reality of what he's done is likely to relive, to

20 whatever degree possible, the awful events that have

21 happened.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Now, this man was always cautious, wasn't he,

24 with you and with the psychiatrists who examined him

25 before you, to limit the number of people he killed.

Page 2926

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What was the number?

3 A. Fifteen.

4 Q. Were you aware -- I think you weren't

5 aware -- that in his interview he speaks of up to 20,

6 and, indeed, he speaks of 20 on occasions.

7 A. He was talking to me about 15.

8 Q. It would be difficult, wouldn't it, if you

9 were genuinely remorseful and being honest with the

10 psychiatrist not to have a reasonably accurate

11 knowledge of the number of people you'd killed.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. His very inaccuracy, changing between 15 and

14 20, may be another indicator that he simply isn't being

15 honest.

16 A. There's a possibility, yes.

17 Q. Thank you very much, indeed.

18 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you,

19 Mr. Nice.

20 Mr. Greaves.

21 Re-examined by Mr. Greaves:

22 Q. Dr. van den Bussche, can I ask you this,

23 please: You've told Their Honours that, yes, he is

24 capable of manipulation but --

25 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Excuse me,

Page 2927

1 Mr. Greaves. I haven't heard your question.


3 Q. You've told Their Honours that the defendant

4 is capable of trying to manipulate during the course of

5 the interview with you, but you also described it as a

6 childish means of manipulation. May we conclude from

7 this that you were able, at all times during your

8 dealings with the defendant, to see through those

9 attempts at manipulation.

10 A. Yes, because I've quite a lot of experience

11 in that field. I have even interviewed people where I

12 didn't feel safe at all in the same room, and I had the

13 feeling that I would be lucky if I could leave the

14 room. So this interview was, for me, quite relaxed,

15 and in my opinion, the worst psychopaths are the smart

16 ones and clever ones, and he was manipulating in a

17 childish way, immature way.

18 Q. May we conclude that the conclusions to which

19 you have come in your report and the evidence which

20 you've given today has taken due account of his ability

21 to manipulate.

22 A. Can you repeat your question?

23 Q. Yes. In coming to the conclusions that you

24 do in your report and the evidence about him which you

25 have given today, have you, as it were, come to those

Page 2928

1 conclusions after giving due account to the attempts at

2 manipulation that he has made with you?

3 A. The way he manipulates is easy to see and not

4 a smart way, in my opinion.

5 Q. If I can just take it a little further, when

6 you conclude something about it, you conclude it after

7 giving allowance for that manipulation; is that right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Yes. At some stage in your report, you refer

10 to him or use the phrase "true remorse." Perhaps I can

11 just refresh your memory as to the page. I'm sorry.

12 I've lost it now.

13 MR. NICE: It's page 10, if that will help

14 you.

15 MR. GREAVES: Thank you very much. I'm

16 sorry. I can't find my own note.

17 Q. On page 10 of the English version of your

18 report, Dr. van den Bussche, you refer to him as

19 having -- or an expression of "true remorse." Again,

20 was that something you were able to conclude about him,

21 having, as it were, factored in the degree of

22 manipulation that he was capable of?

23 A. No. Those feelings were real at the moment.

24 His emotional life is not really mature but those

25 feelings he was showing at that moment were not

Page 2929

1 feelings of manipulation, in my eyes.

2 Q. You've been asked about this by my learned

3 friend, in general terms, about people who have killed

4 before. It is undoubtedly right that this defendant

5 has killed. Did you see in him any particular aspect

6 which gave you cause for concern that this individual

7 would be likely to repeat the experience?

8 A. I can't conclude that. For that you would

9 have to do comprehensive psychological tests. Because

10 in an interview with me, he is not showing any feelings

11 of lust or he is not saying that he likes to kill.

12 Maybe he is manipulating in that, I don't know, but

13 then you have to find out by comprehensive tests or

14 psychological tests.

15 Q. So the remark in general about people who

16 have killed before cannot, one way or the other, be

17 imputed to this defendant without further tests.

18 A. Yes, everybody is different and it's not good

19 to generalise too much.

20 Q. Looking, please, at page 8 of the English

21 version of your report, Mr. van den Bussche. You were

22 asked a question about the defendant saying the torture

23 that he had experienced in Croatia and Serbia, that he

24 was now withdrawing that. Did he mention anything at

25 all about Serbia when he was talking to you?

Page 2930

1 A. No.

2 Q. And so the only reference he made was to

3 torture taking place in Croatia?

4 A. No. No.

5 Q. That was incorrect?

6 A. No. He said to me he had to skip the torture

7 in Croatia.

8 Q. Mr. van den Bussche, sir, I want to ask you

9 this, please. You had put to you a series of pieces of

10 evidence picked out by my learned friend from the

11 Prosecution's case. Can I ask you this, please. We've

12 heard evidence in this case of the defendant, firstly,

13 being friendly towards the Muslim community prior to

14 the war; of him giving assistance, at personal risk, to

15 Muslims during the war and during the relevant time

16 when he was killing people; and thirdly, of him giving

17 assistance, again at personal risk, after the war to

18 Muslims. Can you say anything about how that profile

19 fits with the picture of someone going off and

20 enthusiastically and joyfully killing Muslims at about

21 the same time?

22 A. Those two pictures don't match with each

23 other, in my opinion

24 MR. GREAVES: Thank you. Would you wait

25 there, please, and answer further questions.

Page 2931

1 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I'd like to

2 consult with my colleagues about what we are going to

3 do next.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We are going to

6 take a 20-minute break and ask you to remain available

7 to the Tribunal. And this may give you some time to

8 drink some hot tea in order to answer the Judge's

9 questions. The Court stands adjourned.

10 --- Recess taken at 11.17 a.m.

11 --- On resuming at 11.48 a.m.

12 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We can now

13 resume the hearing. Please be seated. Have the

14 accused brought in.

15 [The accused entered court]

16 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I think we can

17 resume now. And we will move to the Judges questions

18 for Mr. van den Bussche. Judge Riad.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

20 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. van den Bussche. Good

21 morning, Mr. van den Bussche. We were very interested

22 in listening to you, and I am sorry not to be a

23 psychiatrist. I think this is the greatest mission, to

24 know the human -- to go deep into the human soul,

25 perhaps.

Page 2932

1 I just gathered two things, mainly, being a

2 layman, from your testimony, from the reports,

3 especially from -- to start with, from your testimony

4 you said that our accused, Jelisic, his emotional life

5 is -- could be 17 or 18 years.

6 Now, what could this imply? First, would

7 that mean that he hasn't got the full discernment of

8 his actions? Would that mean his discernment is

9 lacking? You don't need -- just tell me "yes" or "no,"

10 the way you did, if your voice is not good.

11 A. Okay. I will try to explain it.

12 JUDGE RIAD: I mean, he doesn't know the

13 dimension of his actions? Is that what you are

14 implying?

15 A. Not completely. A personality disorder is an

16 emotional development disorder. It's always an

17 emotional development disorder. And it doesn't mean

18 that a person doesn't have the capacity of his free

19 will. He still can have -- he still can have the

20 capacity of --

21 JUDGE RIAD: -- and discernment. So he knows

22 the dimension of his actions?

23 A. Yes.

24 JUDGE RIAD: Would that also imply that

25 although he knows the dimension, he lacks the control

Page 2933

1 of a mature person? He can't control himself?

2 A. In a certain way, yes. To a certain degree.

3 JUDGE RIAD: He would feel an unresistible

4 urge to do things?

5 A. Yes. Yes.

6 JUDGE RIAD: And as far as his relationship

7 with people, which you mentioned people have got over

8 higher authority. Would that mean that he would be

9 easily led by them?

10 A. Yes, very easily.

11 JUDGE RIAD: Very easily. Why, because his

12 emotional life is 17 or 18?

13 A. Not only his emotional life, but also his

14 identity is like somebody from 17, 18 years old. He

15 is, in fact, still an adolescent and not a mature

16 adult.

17 JUDGE RIAD: Perhaps the age you mentioned,

18 17 or 18, they have got a strong personality, they have

19 an opinion of their own, they even are sometimes

20 stubborn?

21 A. Yes. Yes.

22 JUDGE RIAD: I mean, I have difficulty

23 understanding that. At that age you are easily led.

24 Is it --

25 A. Yes, you are right. Yes.

Page 2934

1 JUDGE RIAD: They are easily led?

2 A. Yes.

3 JUDGE RIAD: But you have discernment --

4 A. More easily influenced by people in

5 authority.

6 JUDGE RIAD: But you know what you are doing,

7 discernment is full?

8 A. Yes.

9 JUDGE RIAD: You don't question that as a

10 psychiatrist?

11 A. No.

12 JUDGE RIAD: Full discernment?

13 A. Yes.

14 JUDGE RIAD: Now, in your diagnosis too you

15 mentioned the characteristics. One of them is the

16 dysthymic. What is the meaning of dysthymic?

17 A. It's a mild, mild form of depression.

18 JUDGE RIAD: I'll talk slowly. I got here --

19 yes, you would like -- dysthymic?

20 A. It's a very mild form of depression.

21 Slightly depressed.

22 JUDGE RIAD: Would that lead to the actions

23 that he is accused of?

24 A. No. It is related to the circumstances he is

25 in at this moment.

Page 2935

1 JUDGE RIAD: At the moment of the --

2 A. In the detention, that he had to go to his

3 trial.

4 JUDGE RIAD: That he is here, you mean?

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE RIAD: But not when he was killing?

7 A. No.

8 JUDGE RIAD: It does not affect the

9 killing --

10 A. No, no, at that time he wasn't -- he wasn't

11 dysthymic. I am talking in my report about the

12 situation at this moment.

13 JUDGE RIAD: At this moment. But in your

14 report when you say -- in your testimony, that he has

15 got a negative self-image, narcissistic antisocial

16 behaviour; this was not now, this was also before?

17 A. Personality disorder is also -- is already

18 before.

19 JUDGE RIAD: It's continuous and a desire to

20 control?

21 A. But dysthymic is at this moment only.

22 JUDGE RIAD: But others are part of his

23 personality?

24 A. Yes. Yes.

25 JUDGE RIAD: Now, this premise could also

Page 2936

1 make it more or less possible to commit such crimes, if

2 you have got this diagnosis, a person of this

3 character?

4 A. Yes. Yes.

5 JUDGE RIAD: Is likely to commit such crimes?

6 A. Not likely. Some persons with this

7 personality disorder commit these crimes, but maybe not

8 more than with other personality disorders.

9 JUDGE RIAD: Not more?

10 A. No. Except when the antisocial component is

11 very high. But if you look to borderline personality

12 disorder, I think the percentage of total population is

13 a little bit less than one per cent.

14 JUDGE RIAD: The personality disorder?

15 A. Yes, from borderline personality disorder.

16 JUDGE RIAD: You are speaking of the Dutch

17 population or the world population?

18 A. The world population.

19 JUDGE RIAD: World population?

20 A. Yes.

21 JUDGE RIAD: So this one per cent we can

22 expect them to do such things?

23 A. No, that's -- you can't say that.

24 JUDGE RIAD: We would be in real danger.

25 A. Yeah.

Page 2937

1 JUDGE RIAD: But still, suppose -- I mean, we

2 know that they are more likely, if I understood

3 rightly, that they would be -- they would commit

4 aggression and so on. But they still have the

5 discernment; they know what they are doing completely?

6 A. Yes.

7 JUDGE RIAD: That does not interfere with the

8 discernment?

9 A. They know what they are doing.

10 JUDGE RIAD: They know what they are doing?

11 A. Yes.

12 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, doctor.

13 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you,

14 Judge Riad.

15 Judge Rodrigues.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,

17 Mr. President.

18 Good morning, doctor. As you were answering

19 Mr. Nice's questions, I noted down my own. I did that

20 taking into account the assertions -- with the

21 realisation that assertions of that type always have to

22 be somewhat moderated. And I am trying to set up some

23 kind of a structure for an analysis. We have our own

24 ways of looking at reality, of course, and I've used my

25 own.

Page 2938

1 If we take the relationship between authority

2 and obedience, as concerns Mr. Jelisic, how would you

3 say that those two extremes, the two extremes of that

4 relationship, how would they operate; that is, the

5 extremes of authority and obedience?

6 A. I think he will be obedient to people of a

7 higher authority and of an older age because he is

8 looking or searching for a kind of father

9 identification. So he will be, I think, less obedient

10 to people of his same age, and I think he shows more

11 resistance too.

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So if we go

13 beyond discretion, which I think is a key question for

14 understanding Mr. Jelisic's personality, if we go

15 beyond issue of identification, one would be able to

16 say that if he had not completed his process of

17 identification, he would not feel equal in a

18 relationship that he might have. Could we conclude

19 that?

20 A. Yes, you can conclude that.

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Therefore,

22 he isn't capable of having an adult relationship

23 because he had not yet constructed a relationship of

24 authority.

25 A. Yes. He had, in fact, no good relations with

Page 2939

1 his father, and that is, in fact, one of his biggest

2 problems afterwards in his whole life, and he is still

3 looking for a father figure. When such a figure passes

4 by, he is easily influenced.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me,

6 but I've got to wait to hear the interpretation. We

7 are used to some breaks which can get in the way of our

8 discussion.

9 If I look at a different relationship, the

10 relationship between utility and lies, is there a close

11 relationship between those parameters, or does one

12 thing have nothing to do with the other?

13 A. I didn't get the question completely. The

14 relation between lies and ...

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Utility,

16 from the point of view of moral judgement. Perhaps

17 you're familiar with Colbert's work, who raises that

18 question to some extent, the process of moral

19 reasoning, starting from a heteroautonomous

20 relationship to an autonomous relationship. I think

21 that one could make the relationship between lies and

22 utility, because we saw that Mr. Jelisic lied on

23 several occasions.

24 Could we say that lying has something to do

25 with some idea of utility or usefulness from the point

Page 2940

1 of view of moral judgement?

2 A. Mr. Jelisic has a lack or a not complete

3 conscience, and he is, in fact, also in the development

4 of his conscience, still a child who wants to avoid

5 punishment; therefore, he doesn't have a real inner

6 conscience, but if he sees that something is wrong and

7 he's going to be punished, he doesn't do it.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Another

9 question that I have. I think I'm following the order

10 that I picked up from your answers to Mr. Nice's

11 questions. I'm thinking about another relationship,

12 and that is the one of autonomy and dependence. I

13 believe that the fact that Mr. Jelisic had not really

14 structured or completed his own identity could create a

15 certain degree of dependency, specifically in relation

16 to some authority figures. How do you see this

17 relationship, that is, between autonomy and dependence,

18 as far as Mr. Jelisic goes?

19 A. Mr. Jelisic suffers from what we call

20 invaluation separation problems, and that means in

21 simple words that he can't be alone and he can't be

22 together with somebody, both. So in a certain way,

23 he's very dependent, and in the other way, he is very

24 afraid of dependence, and that makes him walk in life

25 as somebody walking on a string.

Page 2941

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What you

2 have just said to me brings to my mind another

3 relationship. You spoke a great deal about

4 manipulation. We could say that this is part of

5 imagining things or representing things. Does

6 representation and compensation, as a psychological

7 defence mechanism, could that be related in this case,

8 that is, representation, manipulation, and control on

9 one side, and on the other side, compensation or

10 possibly projection of a lack?

11 A. There are several types of defence

12 mechanisms. You have the more primitive ones and the

13 more higher ones. Every person has defence mechanisms,

14 but in regard to Mr. Jelisic, you see especially the

15 very primitive defence mechanisms, like, for example,

16 denying or what we call splitting. Splitting means

17 that you look at somebody in black/white terms.

18 Somebody is completely good or completely bad and there

19 is nothing in between. So that's something that

20 Mr. Jelisic is doing quite often in the interview and

21 also when he's talking about his life history.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Another

23 question. We spoke a little bit about Mr. Jelisic's

24 position, not as a victim but as perpetrator, as a

25 criminal, if I could say it that way. In Mr. Jelisic's

Page 2942

1 personality, is there also a victim side, even when he

2 committed criminal acts?

3 A. That's a very interesting question, because

4 as a psychiatrist, we look at the borderline

5 personality disorder as a severe kind of disease, in

6 fact, and if you have a disease, then you are certainly

7 a victim. In my opinion, because of his emotional

8 disturbances, he is, in a way, the victim of those

9 disturbances.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm almost

11 at the end of my questions but I still have a few

12 left.

13 If we accept the fact that from a certain

14 time of behaviour, one could see at least three steps

15 in reaching it, that is, perception or knowledge, from

16 the point of view of trying to get some information or

17 to understand reality, that is, knowledge, and then the

18 emotion which some people call emotional areas -- you

19 spoke a great deal with emotional things -- and then

20 after the final stage, which is action, if we were to

21 put one next to the other, knowledge, emotions or

22 emotionalism, and then action or behaviour, where would

23 you see more problems? At what stage would you see

24 more problems or more illness, in the concrete case,

25 speaking about Mr. Jelisic's personality?

Page 2943

1 A. In his emotional -- in his emotions, but his

2 emotions will lead to behaviour. And a characteristic

3 of his behaviour is impulsiveness. He is a little

4 bit -- in Holland we have a saying, against the wall

5 makes strange jumps. And he is a little bit like

6 that. When he is put on the pressure, he can react

7 very impulsively because he can't cope in a mature way

8 with emotions, especially mixed emotions.

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So if I've

10 understood you correctly, doctor, you didn't see any

11 disturbances that were in relation to taking in

12 information about reality, but more problems of

13 analysing or seeing that reality? You didn't see

14 illusions or delusions?

15 A. Yes. Yes. He has what we call psychotic

16 symptoms. His capacity of seeing the reality is almost

17 one hundred per cent.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] My last

19 question has to do with a question that Mr. Greaves

20 asked you. To kill Muslims or to help Muslims, you

21 said that that was somewhat contradictory, but I would

22 like to ask you the following question: If we have an

23 unstable personality; if we have an unstructured

24 emotional personality, one which is not organised; if

25 we have an individual who does not -- has not yet

Page 2944

1 reached maturity, from the point of view of his

2 personal identity; we end up with a person who is

3 completely dependent on circumstances.

4 And we have also seen that Mr. Jelisic's

5 behaviour was especially manipulative and

6 representative, if I can say that, if I can use

7 theatrical terminology, that he was putting on a

8 spectacle. Could we have a Mr. Jelisic in that type of

9 personality who could kill Muslims, but at the same

10 time could help Muslims under different circumstances,

11 in practical terms, because theoretically it seems to

12 me that there could be some contradictions.

13 But you yourself said that one cannot make

14 generalisations, but for the time being we are speaking

15 about the personality of Mr. Jelisic. Could that

16 happen?

17 A. That can happen, yeah. That's a

18 possibility. But it is a very difficult question to

19 answer because it goes a little bit in what we call

20 insanity defence, and therefore if you really want to

21 ask this question, well, you need, as a psychiatrist,

22 to have far more information. And you need more

23 information about the circumstances during the crimes

24 and, indeed, to have insight and witness accounts to

25 make that picture complete.

Page 2945

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You are

2 more familiar than I am with schizophrenia or in the

3 emotional area where there is always a degree of

4 emotional ambivalence. I think that in this case, in

5 Mr. Jelisic's personality there is a confusion, an

6 emotional confusion?

7 A. Yes.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps he

9 would be completely dependent on the circumstances in

10 order to do what I have always called process of

11 compensation. And as you said, in Mr. Jelisic's

12 personality there is still a childish side. You know

13 that frequently the child -- his behaviour is aimed at

14 calling attention to it. So in light of that, could

15 one still say that Mr. Jelisic behaves in a certain way

16 in order to call attention to himself, in a way of --

17 showing that he obeys or he is obeying his superiors by

18 killing people. But the same behaviour is used to call

19 attention to himself when he helps Muslims in order to

20 compensate for what he had done. That is another way

21 of calling attention to himself. What do you think

22 about that?

23 A. I think you see it correct. That's right.

24 The way you see it, he is looking for compensation in

25 his behaviour and -- but he doesn't -- but that process

Page 2946

1 is unconscious.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I agree

3 with you. I agree with you. Yes, he does that. But

4 not being fully conscious of it, but he does that. And

5 I think that this is a process that can be used in

6 order to understand the results, because we are now

7 dealing with results.

8 A. And specially he has problems with ambivalent

9 feelings.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You have

11 helped me understand a very difficult situation, to get

12 into a human mind, but you have been very helpful to

13 me, and I thank you.

14 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I believe that

15 Judge Riad would like to ask you another question. I

16 myself have a question.

17 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. van den Bussche, this is

18 really a continuation of a question which Judge

19 Rodrigues has asked you. When he asked you if the

20 accused would feel at the same time victimised, feel

21 the victim while committing his acts, and your answer

22 was -- generally you said that he is, after all, the

23 victim of the disturbances of his character. Of

24 course, this is -- of course he is the victim of

25 himself. But then you mentioned the example of the

Page 2947

1 cat, your Dutch proverb, I hope you will give it to us

2 in Dutch. It's called a cat jumps when cornered, jumps

3 when it is cornered. That was perhaps another answer.

4 Does that mean that he, while committing these -- the

5 crimes of which he is accused, he was, in fact,

6 defending himself?

7 A. I think when you put Mr. Jelisic under big

8 pressure, he --

9 JUDGE RIAD: When you put --

10 A. Big pressure, big tension, and he is anxious,

11 then he will react impulsively.

12 JUDGE RIAD: A big pressure. All right. Do

13 you think that this, in this circumstance --

14 A. In a stressful condition, when he is in a

15 stressful condition.

16 JUDGE RIAD: You speak of anybody or of

17 persons of this --

18 A. No, about Mr. Jelisic.

19 JUDGE RIAD: About him?

20 A. Yes.

21 JUDGE RIAD: If he is under great pressure?

22 A. Yes.

23 JUDGE RIAD: Great pressure means that he is

24 attacked?

25 A. For example, but it can also be verbal

Page 2948

1 aggression, not physical aggression.

2 JUDGE RIAD: So if one attacks him verbally?

3 A. Yes.

4 JUDGE RIAD: Or would it be in his mind? If

5 he feels that he is under great threat, he or his

6 community, would that be a way of defence? Is that

7 your answer to the question? Because the question was

8 quite far reaching, that he is committing things as a

9 way of defence. It's almost self-defence?

10 A. No. No. No. I am saying that he is a

11 victim of his emotional disturbance and because we, as

12 psychiatrists, see his personality disorder as a severe

13 kind of disease, in fact, development disease. And

14 most of those people have severe problems in normal

15 life. They have problems with relations. They have

16 problems with what we discussed before, the balance and

17 autonomy. They most of the time have many partners or

18 many jobs. They never finish a job, and they feel

19 themselves empty inside.

20 Some of them start to drink too much alcohol

21 or go into drugs, and all those symptoms has

22 Mr. Jelisic. And in only the last few years it looks

23 like he, for the first time, has a more -- a little bit

24 more mature relation with his wife, although his wife

25 is very young. But I think that's the first normal

Page 2949

1 relation 'til now he has.

2 JUDGE RIAD: But finally, all this -- to what

3 extent does all this impair his discernment and his

4 capacity to judge what he is doing, to know what he is

5 doing?

6 A. He knows what he is doing, but it influences

7 his behaviour and his way of thinking about people.

8 And also it leads to -- it influences his acting.

9 JUDGE RIAD: But he knows the consequences of

10 his acting?

11 A. He knows the consequences.

12 JUDGE RIAD: He is aware of it?

13 A. Yes. Yes.

14 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you, doctor. Thank you.

15 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I spared you --

16 I am going to spare you a long series of questions.

17 Otherwise, your voice is not going to hold out 'til the

18 end. My colleagues asked you some very good questions

19 that I myself would have liked to have asked. So mine

20 will be relatively short.

21 Obviously, if the questions are as detailed

22 and as long as they are, it's because the procedure is

23 set up in that way in this Tribunal. And it was the

24 Defence's choice, we could not hear the accused, but

25 that's how things are. And this is a choice of the

Page 2950

1 Defence, which is a choice that the Defence can make,

2 which explains why we have several questions to ask.

3 In a way mediators in order to get into the personality

4 of Mr. Jelisic.

5 I will be very brief. I have a question in

6 respect of Mr. Nice's relating to duress and remorse.

7 Do you agree with me, or perhaps you don't agree with

8 me, that one can have remorse, whether or not one has

9 acted under duress?

10 A. Yes, that is possible, yes.

11 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. You

12 said that you could not answer the question as to

13 whether he was still dangerous. And we could assume

14 from that, perhaps, could we, that it would be a rather

15 serious risk to society and him if he were to be

16 released or, to the contrary, are you saying that you

17 don't know; that perhaps everything might be all

18 right? What is your tendency? How do you think that

19 you would -- if you don't want to answer, you don't

20 have to, but it's like the bottle which is half full or

21 half empty. That is my question, whether he would

22 still be dangerous. Is there a degree of danger, if I

23 can say it that way?

24 A. Yeah, I really can't answer that question

25 because risk assessment is one of the most difficult

Page 2951

1 things for a psychiatrist to do. And the last few

2 years we are becoming better and better, but we have

3 still the tendency even to overpredict the risk.

4 That's what we see or what we found out by reports and

5 discussions with other colleagues. We psychiatrists

6 have the tendency to see more risks, in fact, and we at

7 the moment -- some colleagues are developing scales,

8 scales for risk prediction, and they do it for every

9 type of crime. But those scales, they are only correct

10 when what they call the base rate of a crime is very

11 high, and the rate of the recidivism has to be more

12 than 50 per cent. And if you know that from one type

13 of a crime, then you can say in a certain way something

14 about the risks.

15 But in this case, in Mr. Jelisic's case, the

16 crimes happened during wartime, and we as psychiatrists

17 have no other reference material. There is in the

18 literature, there is almost nothing to find because all

19 the literature of psychiatrists about war goes about

20 victims and especially the post-traumatic stress

21 disorder. And only in the American literature there

22 are some articles of ex-Vietnamese soldiers who are in

23 a certain way offender and also victim. But they were

24 the only two articles I could find.

25 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I understand

Page 2952

1 your caution, and in my own country opinion looks

2 without indulgence at many criminals who were released

3 from prison too quickly, and then after that committed

4 further crimes, despite the fact that they had the

5 blessing of psychiatrists and psychologists.

6 Therefore, you are right to be careful.

7 But this brings me to another question.

8 After two hours of speaking with the witness, how can

9 you say it so firmly, so assuredly that the accused, at

10 the time that you were writing your report, had real

11 authentic remorse, real feelings? Is this part of

12 psychiatric science to be able to judge not only

13 remorse but the intensity of that remorse? I was

14 struck by that.

15 A. First of all, Mr. Jelisic has a superficial

16 emotional -- has superficial emotions, his emotions are

17 not mature. So what I saw was a slight form of

18 remorse, but not really profound, deep remorse like

19 mature people would have. His feelings were honest,

20 but it was a childish kind of remorse, in fact.

21 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I'm not, of

22 course, going to change what you wrote, but you are

23 nuancing the somewhat preemptory statement. In a way,

24 one might say that given the interview was not very

25 long, given the fact that this is a somewhat childish

Page 2953

1 personality of the accused, it seemed to me that at

2 that time his tears could be sincere and might reveal a

3 degree of remorse.

4 Of course, this is a legal way of saying it,

5 but could you agree with that?

6 A. Yes.

7 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Of course we're

8 not going to rewrite your report; don't worry.

9 I would like to ask you two further

10 questions. I am not familiar with the psychiatric

11 definition of perversity. I only know the definition

12 which is used in ordinary conversation and in the legal

13 profession. In the psychiatric sense, when you hear

14 that word, would you say that Mr. Jelisic's personality

15 is perverse? Correct me if I am wrong.

16 A. I would say his personality is anyway

17 anti-social, in part. Let me say it in this way:

18 Eskimos have 20 words for the word snow; we know only

19 one word for snow. So for a psychiatrist, there are 20

20 types of bad, and in the outer range is perverse and

21 there are other degrees. If you have to find out how

22 bad Mr. Jelisic is, in what kind of degree is he

23 perverse or is he bad because of more circumstances,

24 then you have to do far more research, and especially

25 psychological research, and I'd have to study the

Page 2954

1 witness accounts carefully.

2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I understand.

3 But having said that, I will note that you can't answer

4 questions having to do with the degree of danger, but

5 you said that he is partly anti-social.

6 A. He is partly anti-social, yes.

7 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] My last

8 question, really, my last one, is the following: You

9 have observed many criminals who might be somewhat like

10 Mr. Jelisic, even though they acted under a different

11 conscience. I'm talking about serial killers, and we

12 have examples of that in many countries, including the

13 one I come from.

14 In those examples which come from the legal

15 annals of the Netherlands, could you say that the type

16 of personality like Goran Jelisic, could you say that

17 that type of personality could also be evaluated by

18 judges or psychiatrists as being partially

19 irresponsible?

20 A. Yes, but it is always -- if you talk about

21 responsibility, it's always the relation between the

22 personality disorder and the crime. In the Dutch law

23 system, we only say that somebody is less responsible

24 when the crime is directly coming out of the disorder.

25 There must be a direct relation between the crime and

Page 2955

1 the disorder, and if you can't find that relation, then

2 even somebody with a severe personality disorder is

3 still responsible.

4 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. You

5 haven't really slaked my colleague's thirsts. Judge

6 Riad has another question and then Judge Rodrigues, but

7 we are looking at the clock because we have some other

8 witnesses who are waiting.

9 All right. Judge Rodrigues.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Doctor, you

11 say that we have one word only for snow, whereas

12 Eskimos have at least 20 words for snow. Perhaps we

13 would have only one word for personality, but you are

14 here because you have at least 50 words for

15 personality.

16 This is my question, and I don't want to

17 deduce things so I will go directly to the question.

18 Would you say that the experience of

19 Mr. Jelisic, that is, the murders, what he did in the

20 camps during the war, might he have learned something

21 in the sense of having modified or changed or organised

22 things from his emotional structure? Was he able to

23 grow a little bit in his ideas relating to identity?

24 A. I think he is able to grow a little bit, and

25 in fact, you can see that already, in my opinion. The

Page 2956

1 fact that he has to be here in this trial is a very

2 good way for growth in a positive way for him. What I

3 saw in the detention unit, also there, from what I

4 heard, he behaves like a model prisoner, in a social

5 way. So he has possibilities for growth, but he has to

6 be in good circumstances, with positive identification

7 figures.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So now I

9 could tell you what the point of my question was.

10 Excuse me, Mr. President, but I saw the other

11 half of the bottle. Thank you.

12 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Judge Riad, a

13 final question. We want to begin with the next

14 witness.

15 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.

16 [In English] I just wanted to reach a synthesis of a

17 very interesting, in my opinion, very crucial answer

18 you gave to the President when you said that this

19 personality disorder can be taken into consideration if

20 the crime committed is related to the disorder.

21 A. Yes.

22 JUDGE RIAD: Now, apply this to this case to

23 which you are appointed. Do you think the crimes are

24 related to the disorder?

25 A. I think so.

Page 2957

1 JUDGE RIAD: Which means that such crimes can

2 be committed again as far as this disorder can

3 determine it.

4 A. If the circumstances are the same.

5 JUDGE RIAD: If they are the same.

6 A. If the circumstances are the same.


8 A. I mean, if there would be war conditions

9 again.


11 A. But if there is no war, then it's very risky

12 for me to say this. I can't say yes; I can't say no.

13 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Doctor.

14 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Let me turn to

15 my colleagues once again to be sure that they don't

16 have any further questions. I would like to thank

17 them.

18 We are finished now. Your voice is still

19 there. You could have been asked many more questions,

20 you know, but all the more reason because we had never

21 heard the accused express himself.

22 We're going to work until 1.00, and we'll ask

23 the usher to accompany the witness out of the

24 courtroom. We thank you very much for having come to

25 testify.

Page 2958

1 Mr. Greaves.

2 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, I'd like to have

3 the same opportunity as the Prosecution had, but

4 perhaps Your Honour thinks I shouldn't have that, of

5 having my witness sit next to me.

6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Greaves,

7 without expressing it quite the way you did, I can say

8 that I have never really refused anything you -- you've

9 had your interpreter with you, and I don't think that

10 there's a problem. Ordinarily, I think the Judges

11 conduct themselves politely, unless we are talking

12 about judicial discussions. I would like things to

13 continue to be carried out that way.

14 Mr. Greaves, I see no problem with that. I

15 am sure that in the silence that Dr. van den Bussche is

16 going to maintain, we can hope that his voice will

17 improve.

18 We could bring the next witness into the

19 courtroom and have Dr. van den Bussche to sit the way

20 the Prosecution's witness has been sitting. Thank you

21 very much.

22 MR. NICE: Can I, in the circumstances, call

23 Dr. Duits, please, to give evidence.

24 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, of

25 course.

Page 2959

1 [The witness takes the stand]

2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Good

3 afternoon. First you're going to give us your names

4 and your position, your date and place of birth, your

5 current domicile, and then we're going to ask you to

6 take an oath, and after that, you may be seated.

7 THE WITNESS: My name is Nils Duits. I am a

8 psychiatrist and superspecialist in child and

9 adolescent psychiatry.

10 What more did you ask? You speak -- I

11 understand French, but I didn't hear you.

12 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I just wanted

13 to ask you your age, where you live.

14 THE WITNESS: Okay. I was born in 1955, and

15 I reside in Amsterdam.

16 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Would you take

17 an oath, please.

18 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

19 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

20 truth.

21 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. You

22 may be seated now, Doctor.

23 I will ask Mr. Nice to continue for about 20

24 minutes. Mr. Nice, stop at logical point.

25 MR. NICE: Thank you. I'll do just that.

Page 2960


2 Examined by Mr. Nice:

3 Q. Dr. Duits, you've told us that you are a

4 psychiatrist. Without focusing on the paper

5 qualifications, because they are less important than

6 the experience, can you tell us your length of service

7 as a psychiatrist, the degree to which you're a

8 forensic psychiatrist, specialisation, and

9 publications.

10 A. I am a psychiatrist from 1994. I am a child

11 and adolescent [Realtime transcript read in

12 error "adult"] psychiatrist from 1995. My forensic

13 psychiatric experience is longer than that. Already

14 from 1988, I was working in the forensic psychiatric

15 services. I work in the same service as Mr. van den

16 Bussche as a coordinator of psychiatric reports and

17 supervision of people who do those psychiatric

18 reports. I think I have made some 200 psychiatric

19 reports. I do contract expertise for the Ministry of

20 Justice. I did and do consultations for the Prison and

21 Youth Protection Board.

22 In Holland, I am a leading forensic chart and

23 adolescent [Realtime transcript read in error "adult"]

24 forensic psychiatrist, and I'm the editor and wrote a

25 book about youth psychiatry and law.

Page 2961

1 Q. Thank you. Did you examine --

2 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, I'm just slightly

3 troubled. The transcript keeps on coming up "child and

4 adult psychologist" I had understood him to

5 say "adolescent" on each occasion. Please may the

6 appropriate correction be made in respect of that.

7 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] You're right,

8 Mr. Greaves. I had heard "adolescent" in French. It's

9 adolescent, is it not?


11 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 MR. NICE:

13 Q. Doctor, you examined Goran Jelisic last year

14 in November with a colleague, preparing the report for

15 this Court, and you may take it that the Chamber has

16 read that report and has it available.

17 I have a number of questions to ask you, not

18 too many, but I am going to try and connect the topics

19 that I was going to ask you in any event with the

20 questions recently in mind because the learned Judges

21 have asked them of the previous witness, and it may

22 help us if we focus on those same areas straightaway.

23 You were --

24 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Nice,

25 the Judges would be sensitive to your establishing the

Page 2962

1 relationship with the questions that my colleagues

2 asked as well.

3 MR. NICE: Thank you.

4 Q. You were asked questions by His Honour Judge

5 Riad about the potential of those with personality

6 disorders to commit precisely this type of crime, and

7 you were asked a similar question, but I think

8 expressed in a different way, by His Honour Judge

9 Rodrigues, and you were asked questions about what

10 would happen in the Dutch legal system to those

11 convicted killers who were found to have personality

12 disorders.

13 Question 1: What percentage, if you can help

14 us, of convicted killers who are examined

15 psychiatrically are found to have psychiatric

16 personality disorders?

17 A. I think you have to divide killers or

18 homicide into different categories. First of all, you

19 have the homicide in the family atmosphere, which

20 unfortunately in all countries happens a lot. Those

21 people, a certain part of them do not have personality

22 disorders but have psychotic problems, although often

23 relating to slight or more personality disorders.

24 People who do not kill or commit homicide in

25 family relationships, most of the time, and you asked

Page 2963

1 me a percentage, I think it's in 90 to 100 per cent

2 have personality disorders.

3 Q. So inverting that conclusion, family

4 situations apart, without personality disorders, the

5 number of killings would be dramatically reduced or

6 eliminated? Without personality disorders, if you

7 postulate a society free of personality disorders, and

8 if you exclude the family circumstance, why, without

9 personality disorders you eliminate or drastically

10 reduce the number of victims and the number of crimes?

11 A. Well, that's a theoretical question, but I

12 think it's impossible to answer. But if there are no

13 personality disorders -- it's always related to

14 circumstances also. But virtually speaking, you have

15 less crime.

16 And let me specify the question you asked

17 beforehand. In family life, or in homicide of family

18 circumstances, has to do with other psychiatric

19 disorders, often psychotic problems. But I must say,

20 like from the basis stated, that personality disorder

21 is in all a different degree possible.

22 So if I state 90 to 100 per cent of people

23 who do not kill -- or do kill, not in family

24 circumstances, you have all the spectrum.

25 Q. Dr. van den Bussche, at page 18 in the

Page 2964

1 English version of his report, but we all remember it,

2 postulates how the leaders of the warring parties will

3 themselves have and project psychopathic borderline

4 conditions, antisocial, psychopathic borderliners.

5 Now, we have explored with him whether there

6 is any learning in relation to that, but do you have

7 any view to express about the possibilities of

8 personality disorders being found within the leaders of

9 atrocities committed either in this war or indeed the

10 leaders of atrocities committed in other more famous

11 and graver wars?

12 A. It's always difficult to say, in the sense

13 that they are not psychiatrically examined. But if you

14 draw that on journalistic reports, and I also examined

15 Internet on this, of course, you can say that big

16 leaders often have personality disorders, in the sense

17 that more in the narcissistic and anti-social range of

18 the personality disorders.

19 Q. You were then asked about his age of maturity

20 at 17 or 18. I beg your pardon. You weren't asked,

21 Dr. van den Bussche was asked. And he answered in

22 terms of the defendant seeking a father figure. I want

23 you to comment on those propositions, but to save time,

24 will you also deal with whether on the evidence he has

25 shown any signs of maturing or developing from the 17

Page 2965

1 or 18 year old, or whatever your answer on that is,

2 between the time of the killings and today?

3 A. The first question about maturity at 17 or

4 18. I think Mr. van den Bussche related a certain

5 aspect of the origin of the personality disorder

6 Mr. Jelisic has, seeking a father figure. There is

7 more to that, I think. It's also in his objective

8 relations, like we call it in psychiatric terms, in his

9 early objective relations, and in his attachment

10 problems, there are disorders which reflect themselves

11 in how he relates to other people.

12 Simply said, that like what van der Bussche

13 said also, the reflection finds itself in the splitting

14 phenomenon he explained, like the idealisation,

15 devolution of the people who are before him. And if

16 you go back to his youth, the little we know, because I

17 have to state also, that if you want to make a good

18 psychiatric report, you need the material about his

19 growing up. Not only from his mouth, but also from his

20 close relationships, and a full documentation about, of

21 course, what he has done and how he was beforehand.

22 But what he said about his youth, you can see that the

23 object relation thing I just mentioned is disturbed.

24 The second question, and not only seeking a

25 father figure. That is one aspect of it. The second

Page 2966

1 question, if he has matured, I cannot answer, in the

2 sense that at least not 'til now. Of course I have

3 read Mr. van den Bussche's report, but I didn't examine

4 him. I can only speak concerning my diagnostic

5 examination, which is mostly a present state

6 examination. And maybe you have to specify your

7 question about mature.

8 Q. First of all, are you accepting that the

9 mental age or the developmental age was or is 17 or

10 18. If it was 17 or 18, to what degree has he advanced

11 since?

12 A. Yes. I think that's in a certain way

13 arbitrarily chosen by Mr. van den Bussche in his

14 authority or speaking about his identification

15 problems. Other manifestations of his personality

16 disorder have to do with more childish behaviour, in

17 the sense that how he sees the other person before

18 him.

19 Q. His Honour Judge Rodrigues asked questions

20 about utilities and lies. You may remember the

21 questions. Do you have any comments that you want to

22 make on that?

23 A. Well, yes. I would like to comment, to have

24 one comment. What we saw, Mr. van der Veen and I, for

25 our interview with Mr. Jelisic, is that it was

Page 2967

1 difficult to ask him questions about certain topics we

2 were interested in. In that way, as we described, as

3 you can read in the examination interview, he was very

4 much leading the topics we could discuss.

5 About lies. That's, in a certain way,

6 difficult to -- talking about lies, you have to -- you

7 must control them with other people's statements, and

8 you have to control them. And we did not have,

9 actually, the possibility to control them.

10 Q. Because you didn't have the material

11 available --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. -- on which to act?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And, of course, that is partly from the

16 evidence of the interviews, which you have now read,

17 substantially that's going to depend on the factual

18 findings that the Trial Chamber makes?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. On matters that have been given in evidence

21 and that are the subject of dispute?

22 A. Yes. But I was surprised to read that he

23 wasn't tortured in Croatia. Because that's what he

24 told us.

25 Q. Staying with that topic, that is the way in

Page 2968

1 which he controlled the interview, and dealing with the

2 heading of manipulation generally. To what degree did

3 you find him or do you find him to be manipulative?

4 And to ask you two questions at once, to save time, His

5 Honour Judge Rodrigues asked questions about the

6 potential for Jelisic, theatrically or for other

7 reasons, to help Muslims at the same time as also

8 killing other Muslims. One other possibility that the

9 Chamber will be invited to consider is that at the time

10 of or shortly after killings, he would be creating

11 alibi witnesses or witnesses who would be favourable to

12 him, knowing what was inevitably going to happen to him

13 if he was arrested.

14 So dealing with manipulation, will you

15 comment on his potential, given what we know about him,

16 to manipulate people in that way.

17 A. I find it hard to comment on that, because we

18 did a psychiatric examination. We felt manipulated, in

19 the sense I described beforehand, like we wrote down.

20 If he is able to do that kind of manipulation or

21 steering with other people, it is not excluded of

22 course, because he did it with us also. But that's all

23 I can say about that, I think. Because I don't know

24 the circumstances.

25 Q. Thank you. The Presiding Judge's question to

Page 2969

1 you about remorse and duress -- I beg your pardon, his

2 question to the last witness drew an answer that of

3 course you could act under duress and still express

4 remorse. And I don't think you disagree with that

5 conclusion.

6 A. No.

7 Q. But if the account of duress is itself

8 inaccurate, or dishonest, does one have to enlarge or

9 change the caution with which you approach the man's

10 account of remorse?

11 A. I think it has to do with honesty and, of

12 course, it has to do with remorse. Remorse has to do

13 with, first of all, to understand other people's

14 feelings and behaviour and thinking, to take another

15 regard in perspective. In our interview -- no, let's

16 go further than that. Remorse has also to do with --

17 let's say mental pain, to make and the urge to make

18 that disappear, to make that better, or to undergo

19 punishment for it.

20 In our interview we did not see remorse in

21 those aspects. Especially, we did not see, let's say,

22 the basis for Mr. Jelisic's placing himself in other

23 people's shoes, like to say it simply. But our

24 interview was one year ago.

25 Q. If I may return to a few questions about

Page 2970

1 remorse a little later, but it may be that that would

2 be a convenient moment.

3 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes. That's

4 what I think as well. We'll resume at 2.45 today.

5 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.02 p.m.





















Page 2971

1 --- On resuming at 2.53 p.m.

2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We can resume

3 our work now. Have the accused brought into the

4 courtroom, please.

5 [The accused entered court]

6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I apologise for

7 this delay.

8 We can now resume, Mr. Nice.

9 MR. NICE: Thank you.

10 Q. Doctor, you were dealing with remorse, and

11 you told us a little about the significance of an

12 ability or inability to identify and feel for others.

13 I'm going to ask you to come back and just remind us of

14 the significance of that, but do you recall that in one

15 of the earlier reports of Dr. Herfst, at page 8 in the

16 English version of that, the last page, the doctor said

17 that what is remarkable is that when the subject

18 explained he had to shoot Muslims, he showed little

19 emotion and there was no deep feeling of regret or

20 grief.

21 Can you just expand a little on the

22 significance, not very much but just a little on the

23 significance of this inability to locate yourself in

24 somebody else's shoes?

25 A. Well, I think that before I begin, I'd have

Page 2972

1 to say that we talked with Mr. Jelisic about his youth

2 and adolescence, and there are a lot of failures,

3 failures at school, yes, also fraud with cheques, and a

4 lot of failures like that, and all the time he is

5 blaming that on others. As an aspect of his

6 personality disorder, he is externalising the guilt.

7 Another aspect of his relation to others is

8 that those relations are, in fact, empty. The close

9 relationships, the lasting relationships, also with his

10 parents, are devolutive in -- they only have devolutive

11 aspects. Also, the other relationships he describes he

12 uses other people for his needs, very simply spoken.

13 To have remorse or guilt, it means that

14 you -- well, he has an egocentric stance. To have

15 remorse or guilt, therefore, you need to see other

16 people's feelings, emotions, and thoughts. In the

17 interview we had with him, in the interviews I read

18 about him, I cannot see that, and that's needed number

19 one for feelings of guilt or remorse. If you don't

20 have them, it's very difficult.

21 Q. Apart from the one passage in the latest

22 report, where it is said that the man cried, although

23 it said that he cried when thinking of witnesses coming

24 to speak for him, there's no other evidence you've seen

25 going to show remorse of any kind.

Page 2973

1 A. No.

2 Q. Picking up on something that you touched on

3 there and reverting back to a question from His Honour

4 Judge Riad about him responding by committing these

5 crimes to pressures and tensions of attack -- that's

6 relating to the crimes in the war -- do you find some

7 significance in the commission of these frauds before

8 the war when there was no attack and there was no

9 pressure to commit offences of that or any kind?

10 A. That's right. I think one must be aware of

11 the fact that it's not -- that there are no simple --

12 that his personality disorder is not a simple fact in

13 the sense that it's only pressure that counts. Of

14 course, that counts, and stress is a factor for

15 personality disorder aspects to come out. But what you

16 can see is that he makes his own rules, generally

17 speaking, and also that he does that in grandeur, as I

18 might simply say it. In fact, in the psychiatric

19 examination, the grandeur, the narcissistic aspects of

20 his personality disorder were clearly seen.

21 Q. For his earlier criminal behaviour, he has at

22 different times given a very wide range of reasons,

23 starting with being dealt with badly by his parents,

24 even by his grandparents, his friends leading him

25 astray, his first wife's father coming and dragging his

Page 2974

1 first wife away, drugs and alcohol, reason after reason

2 has been advanced, and they can be catalogued for the

3 Trial Chamber in due course. As against that, the

4 layman might say, "Well, he did these things simply

5 because he wanted to." What are we to make of the fact

6 that he gives all these different accounts for criminal

7 behaviour?

8 A. That's what I said before. That's an aspect

9 of his reality, externalising guilt, externalising

10 responsibility for his own acts.

11 Q. Do you, as a psychiatrist -- do psychiatrists

12 accept that people can commit crimes simply because

13 they want to?

14 A. Well, there you come -- yes, they exist, of

15 course.

16 Q. Thank you. Moving away now from the learned

17 Judges' questions because I think I've touched the ones

18 that I wanted you to deal with, a few more points,

19 please. Control, as an element of personality disorder

20 and also as an element of the psychopath, first of all,

21 in manipulation, do you find evidence of control?

22 A. Of course.

23 Q. Is it right that control is an element in the

24 development of a psychopath, the desire to control?

25 A. Yes, of course.

Page 2975

1 Q. Thank you. We asked questions of the last

2 witness about the significance of a killer being more

3 vulnerable or likely to kill again. Can you deal with

4 that proposition and also with anything you want to say

5 about either his being a danger if released ever and/or

6 about the difficulties of assessing his danger?

7 A. I totally agree about what van den Bussche

8 said about risk assessments and about the frequency of

9 the deed. To be sure about risk assessments, the

10 actuarial instruments we have for that are lacking for

11 these kinds of needs, so what rests is clinical

12 experience and clinical risk opinions.

13 We know, as Dr. van den Bussche said also,

14 from clinical experience, and we treat a lot of people

15 also in prison in Holland who have killed, that once

16 you have killed somebody, it's very easy to do -- or

17 it's more easy to do your next killing, also to commit

18 suicide. That's one.

19 The second is that Mr. Jelisic, as I said

20 before, besides all the aspects of the personality

21 disorder he has, like van den Bussche told us, about

22 identification, about splitting, about idealisation and

23 devaluation is a very egocentric and narcissistic

24 person. Those traits do exist also in this personality

25 disorder.

Page 2976

1 His objective relations are, as I said

2 before, centred in his need and are relatively empty.

3 In the psychiatric interview, we talked four hours with

4 him, with two people, in a non-confrontational manner.

5 Despite that, upon the slightest confrontation, the

6 subject's anger was close to the surface. It's not

7 possible for me, like van den Bussche said also, to

8 foresee the future in this case regarding danger. It's

9 an impossible -- you can't possibly answer that

10 question, but what you can say is what I said before.

11 So if you killed somebody, it's easier to kill next

12 time. The objective relations are empty and anger is

13 under the surface.

14 Q. Two supplementary questions to those, each

15 short. The fact that someone cannot feel for another

16 person, does that disinhibit him? Does that make it

17 easier for him to commit a crime that has consequences

18 in injury and death for another person, because he has

19 no notion of how to feel for another person?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Has there been any material shown to you to

22 suggest that this man has started to feel for other

23 people?

24 A. No, not in our diagnostic exams. No.

25 Q. The second point, the anger. Mr. van den

Page 2977

1 Bussche says that there was no anger there. We know

2 that you recorded your finding of anger in your report

3 and that he had read your report. Is it within the

4 capabilities of a man like this to suppress his natural

5 behaviour in the interests of manipulating a

6 psychiatrist?

7 A. First of all, I have to say that in all

8 forensic psychiatric diagnostic assessments,

9 manipulation is always at hand. Of course, people who

10 are against a psychiatrist, a forensic psychiatrist,

11 want to be better than they are, and do manipulate.

12 Second, and related to his personality

13 problems, there are, of course, fluctuations in his

14 mood, behaviour and stance to another person before

15 him. That changes. So it might well be possible that

16 in our exam he was more paranoid, more ill at ease than

17 with van den Bussche. But it's possible, because he

18 read our diagnostic examination, that he has drawn his

19 conclusions. I cannot say.

20 Q. The significance of having more than one

21 psychiatrist or psychologist in one interview, a quick

22 comment on you from that, and then I am going to ask

23 you a quick question about your report, and then I am

24 going to finish. So two people present at an

25 examination?

Page 2978

1 A. It's our normal procedure in big cases to be

2 with two people. The manipulation risk, when you are

3 alone, is too big. If one takes the questions, the

4 other can lean back and look to the interaction and can

5 concentrate more on things like projection, and

6 idealisation, et cetera. Simply said, can look to the

7 interaction if the colleague is let in or not.

8 And that's what I have to say about that.

9 Q. Thank you. Take your report in the English

10 version, please. Page 5. I don't have the French

11 version immediately at hand. It's the heading

12 "description of himself." Thank you very much. It's

13 page 5 in the top right-hand corner. The French

14 version has the numbers in the top right-hand corner,

15 the English in the bottom, I think.

16 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Excuse me. I

17 have been changing offices and I don't always find

18 things. Excuse me. Page 5 is then what page in

19 French?

20 MR. NICE: It's also 5 in French.

21 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Okay. Thank

22 you.

23 MR. NICE: "Description of himself."

24 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, I see it.

25 Thank you very much, Mr. Nice.

Page 2979


2 Q. We have here this passage of the subject

3 saying he was good and had never been bad, could prove

4 himself, and repeatedly comments on his high moral

5 standards.

6 Now, this is obviously an extraordinary thing

7 for a man who is a multiple killer on any reckoning to

8 say. Can you just explain, if there is any explanation

9 for that, the significance of that? What does that

10 extraordinary passage fit in with?

11 A. It's a mix of reasons, I think. It has to do

12 with, first of all, that he doesn't see his own -- he

13 doesn't see well the reality, simply said.

14 Second, that he wants to convince the

15 examiners about his own ideal perception of himself.

16 And at the same time, and that's a very common

17 happening in the interaction with borderline

18 personality disorder, you get projection identification

19 thing. That means that -- it's difficult to explain.

20 That you -- what you feel, what you want to feel, you

21 project, you see it in the other, and you feel it like

22 you see it in the other.

23 So wishes, manipulation and distorted reality

24 are reasons for these things he says about himself.

25 Q. Thank you. Page 8 in both the English and

Page 2980

1 the French version. Under "Relationships with Others."

2 He made it clear in a couple of occasions, I think, in

3 your interview, that he had been a great success with

4 women and he had tried out women or test driven women,

5 and that he had two or three women at the same time.

6 Is that significant or is that just a

7 reflection of immaturity?

8 A. No. It's again -- there are several reasons

9 again for these statements. In fact, it reflects on

10 how he uses other people, how he doesn't count on their

11 needs, thoughts. But also it has to do with grandeur.

12 He boasts as a macho, as somebody who has power, and

13 again distorts reality.

14 Q. Page 10 in both the English and French at the

15 foot. You are aware, are you, that this version that

16 he gave you of specific threats to kill is something

17 that he's never adopted elsewhere and indeed in his

18 interview, which you've now seen, he makes it clear

19 that he was never threatened. So that this is, on --

20 if his interviews to the investigators is his present

21 case, then this is a lie, and a significant lie,

22 because it's quite specific. And the significance of

23 that for you?

24 A. Well, I am impressed by that in the sense

25 that, like I said, his answer on your questions you

Page 2981

1 asked beforehand about his distortion of reality and

2 also lying to the examiners. To me also.

3 Q. So when we turn over the page, in both the

4 English and the French versions, at the end of the

5 first paragraph he says that he killed people with his

6 head turned away. At the end of the second paragraph

7 he says that he made a confession to a Muslim lawyer

8 about everything he had done and seen.

9 As to the first point, you've now seen the

10 photograph sequence and you realise that that simply

11 isn't true.

12 As to the second, you accept that that's

13 something that doesn't appear, I think, anywhere else

14 in the account that he's given. Thank you.

15 Would you turn over right now to page 16, and

16 I think the translators have very helpfully kept the --

17 pretty well the same pagination, and indeed it is on

18 page 16 in the French version. A few lines down from

19 the top and in the main -- the first full paragraph in

20 the English version.

21 I'm sorry, there was no answer to the

22 previous question. Did you accept the points I was

23 putting to you on the previous question, please,

24 witness?

25 A. I said "yes" to that.

Page 2982

1 Q. Thank you. Right. Page 16 of your report.

2 You had access to the report of Mrs. Petrovic, who, of

3 course, had been seeing him for extended periods of

4 time, and she stated that he couldn't control his

5 aggressive impulses. This was the reason for his

6 behaviour in the war; that he is a primitive who could

7 not defer his needs. He couldn't face his own

8 behaviour, and he couldn't, he claimed, read the

9 statements in connection with the matters charged.

10 Now, first of all, does your assessment fit

11 with or is it contrary to the assessment of the woman

12 who had been treating him?

13 A. Well, the statement that the subject cannot

14 control his aggressive impulses, I already commented

15 upon. I said that his anger was close to the surface

16 upon little confrontation. In our assessment, and I

17 must say that we do not confront very much, to keep the

18 interview going. In such short notice to do a

19 psychiatric examination, needed not a confrontation --

20 normally you confront people with dishonesty or to see

21 what happens if -- with anger and impulse control. But

22 this wasn't possible in this case, so we couldn't do

23 it, due to the short notice.

24 So in our exam we did not see that he

25 couldn't control his aggressive impulses.

Page 2983

1 Q. Does your conclusion --

2 JUDGE RIAD: Excuse me. I want to

3 understand. He could or he couldn't control?

4 A. We, in our examination, in the four hour

5 examination, he could control --

6 JUDGE RIAD: He could control?

7 A. He could. But his aggression was under the

8 surface. That's what I said.

9 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you.

10 MR. NICE:

11 Q. Her conclusions or her opinions, rather,

12 related not just to the process of being examined by a

13 psychiatrist, but amount to a conclusion about his

14 behaviour generally, because she attaches the reasoning

15 to his behaviour in the war. What I want to know from

16 you is this, please: Do the conclusions you were able

17 to draw from the psychiatric and the controlled

18 psychiatric examination you conducted, do your

19 conclusions necessarily conflict with hers or may they

20 be consistent with hers?

21 A. They are consistent.

22 Q. So that there remains the possibility that he

23 is an aggressive person who cannot defer to his needs,

24 and that it was his aggression that led to his

25 behaviour?

Page 2984

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. Thank you very much. You will be

3 asked some further questions, I forecast.

4 Cross-examined by Mr. Greaves:

5 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 Now, the Defence is going to ask some questions.

7 Mr. Greaves, please.


9 Q. Dr. Duits, can we just look a little more

10 closely at what precisely your sphere of expertise is.

11 Can you explain to us what the phrase "superspecialist"

12 means exactly?

13 A. To be a child adolescent psychiatrist, you

14 have to further specialise than a normal psychiatrist.

15 You have a normal -- in Holland it's like this. You

16 become a psychiatrist. You do, in your psychiatrist

17 education, child and adolescent psychiatry. You go on

18 with that. And afterwards you are a child and

19 adolescent psychiatrist.

20 Q. So it's, as it were, a further specialisation

21 within a specialty, as it were?

22 A. Yeah, that's right.

23 Q. Thank you. And help me about this. In

24 dealing with children and adolescents, can you just

25 help us about what the age of criminal responsibility

Page 2985

1 is in the Netherlands?

2 A. Twelve.

3 Q. Twelve. And when you use the word

4 "adolescent," is that a, as it were, a specific phrase

5 that is appropriate for the Dutch legal criminal

6 system? Does it have a specific meaning?

7 A. For the Dutch legal system, no. People can

8 be judged according to juvenile law 'til the age of 21.

9 Q. And so that's, effectively, the age range for

10 which you are dealing for the purposes of the criminal

11 courts, 12 to 21?

12 A. No. No. No. I am also doing psychiatric

13 exams on adults.

14 Q. What proportion of your work is children and

15 adolescents, and what proportion adults?

16 A. I think it's about 80 to 20.

17 Q. And when you are dealing with children and

18 adolescents, is this right that you are dealing with

19 the whole range of criminal activity, not just violence

20 and homicide and things like that?

21 A. All the psychiatric examinations we do have

22 to do with aggressive acts, and not only homicides, no.

23 Q. I was going to say aggressive acts covers a

24 wide range of activities; does it not?

25 A. Of course. It means armed robbery, sexual

Page 2986

1 assault and homicide also.

2 Q. Of those people with whom you've dealt, how

3 many of them have been serial killers, Dr. Duits?

4 A. Contrary to United States and France, we

5 hardly have serial killers in Holland.

6 Q. Next I would like to turn, please, to the

7 examination in which you conducted in November of 1998

8 of the defendant. It's right, isn't it, that there was

9 one specific purpose to your examination of the

10 defendant?

11 A. I don't understand your question.

12 Q. You were being directed to one particular

13 issue, were you not, which was whether or not the

14 defendant was fit to plead, fit to stand his trial?

15 A. Yes, that's right.

16 Q. And help us about this. One understands in

17 the English system what that means, but can you explain

18 to their honours what you understand by the issue of

19 fitness to plead, to stand trial?

20 A. To understand the psychiatric status of the

21 person in question, where he comes from and how he is,

22 and if he is emotionally and rationally able to

23 understand and to undergo a trial.

24 Q. At that time, November 1998, you were not

25 being asked to determine whether or not this defendant

Page 2987

1 represented a risk in the future, were you?

2 A. No.

3 Q. You were not specifically, although it may

4 have been part of some of the assessments that you

5 made, you were not specifically being asked to

6 determine the degree of personality disorder present in

7 the defendant?

8 A. No, but that's -- I was not asked, but we

9 felt it our duty to do so.

10 Q. It's right, isn't it, that you and indeed, I

11 think, Dr. van der Veen, have not seen or examined the

12 defendant since that time?

13 A. That's right.

14 Q. Do you accept that it is possible for an

15 individual to change, develop in the period of a year?

16 A. A person in general, or Mr. Jelisic?

17 Q. Let's deal with it in two parts. People of

18 this kind, in general.

19 A. This kind? What do you mean by "this kind"?

20 Q. Persons with personality disorders.

21 A. Very, very -- like van den Bussche also said,

22 there's a range, a spectrum of personality disorders in

23 severity and different types of personality disorders.

24 It doesn't fall out of the air. People have that from

25 childhood on, and, like van den Bussche said also, it's

Page 2988

1 an assessment, a diagnostic assessment which not many

2 people have. The possibility of change is very

3 limited.

4 Q. But not having seen the defendant since 1998,

5 a year ago, you could not say, could you, whether in

6 fact or not he had changed or developed in any way,

7 could you?

8 A. In fact, we said it beforehand, if you read

9 our examination. There are fluctuations in mood and

10 behaviour which are related to the disorder itself.

11 Q. That wasn't the question that I asked,

12 Doctor. You have not seen him since November 1998.

13 You are, therefore, not in any position at all to say

14 whether or not he has changed or developed, are you?

15 A. That's right.

16 Q. The only person who is allowed to give

17 evidence before this Court who could give such an

18 assessment is, therefore, your colleague, Dr. van den

19 Bussche; is that right?

20 A. But he didn't see him a year ago.

21 Q. But he's the one who's seen him most

22 recently, hasn't he?

23 A. Yes, but you have to make a comparison with

24 your own eyes, I think, not only with the document

25 maybe.

Page 2989

1 Q. Well, he's got your report. Are you saying

2 that your report is not of value to a fellow

3 psychiatrist in coming to such a conclusion?

4 A. No, I don't say that.

5 Q. So he could read your report -- and of course

6 you say that you've got it right about the defendant --

7 he could read your report and determine whether or not

8 there had been any development or change in the

9 meantime.

10 A. Even discuss it with me.

11 Q. He discussed it you with, didn't he? So he's

12 in a position to come to an objective conclusion, is he

13 not, as to whether or not there has been development.

14 A. That is his professional judgement.

15 Q. I want just to ask you a little bit about how

16 you came to make your report, and I'm referring to page

17 4 in the English version. I'm afraid I don't have the

18 French version so I can't help Your Honours as to where

19 it is.

20 You state there, top of page 4, that your

21 examination took some four hours on the 23rd of

22 November and that you had the aid of an interpreter.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And that you, following the examination of

25 the defendant, spoke with the interpreter and asked

Page 2990

1 about her impressions. Did she give you those

2 impressions?

3 A. We asked how -- yes, because we asked a very

4 specific question about -- like we said in the

5 examination, if it's normal to have different women at

6 the same time in Yugoslavia.

7 Q. Did you establish whether she was from the

8 same area as the defendant or the same community as the

9 defendant?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Wouldn't that have been a good idea, to find

12 out a little bit about the cultural background of the

13 person who you were seeking expert evidence on the

14 treatment of women in Yugoslavia? Wouldn't that have

15 been a good idea, Dr. Duits?

16 A. I don't know for this specific question. I

17 couldn't say. I can't say now either.

18 Q. Come, there are, would you accept, cultural

19 differences right the way across the world in the way

20 that individual nationalities treat other people,

21 particularly women, in some countries that the

22 attitudes towards women is more developed than in

23 others, isn't it, Doctor?

24 A. That's right. I know how in the Muslim

25 culture one thinks about having more women.

Page 2991

1 Q. But you didn't think it important when

2 questioning the interpreter about that to establish

3 which culture she represented.

4 A. No, we didn't ask, I believe. I'm not sure

5 anymore.

6 Q. Did the impressions which she gave to you,

7 did those have any influence on the conclusions to

8 which you came, Dr. Duits?

9 A. On the question we asked, we mentioned in the

10 report that apparently it's not normal to have

11 different women at the same time.

12 Q. I'd like to ask you now about the role which

13 Dr. Petrovic plays in the conclusions to which you

14 came. You were able fully to consult with

15 Dr. Petrovic, were you?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. We can see in your report a series of

18 quotations which come from Dr. Petrovic.

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. Were any restrictions placed upon you by the

21 Registry as to whether you could not or could quote in

22 your report the professional diagnosis of Dr. Petrovic?

23 A. There were no restrictions.

24 Q. Did Dr. Petrovic express to you any

25 reservations about you disclosing in your report in a

Page 2992

1 direct quotation manner her diagnosis and treatment of

2 the defendant?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Did Dr. Petrovic ever say to you that because

5 of her professional relationship and professional

6 ethics you could not quote her directly and set out her

7 diagnosis and treatment?

8 A. She never said. We said beforehand that

9 we -- we interviewed her because of the examination and

10 report.

11 Q. If the Defence were told that they were not

12 allowed to quote Dr. Petrovic directly as to her

13 diagnosis and treatment, that would be a different

14 regime applicable to the Defence compared with you;

15 would you accept that?

16 A. I don't understand your question.

17 Q. Well, you've told us that you were placed

18 under no such restriction. If the Defence were placed

19 under such a restriction, that would be a different

20 regime, wouldn't it, being applied to the Defence?

21 A. I still don't understand your question.

22 Q. It's quite simple, Doctor.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You were given no restrictions of any kind as

25 to what you could quote from the diagnosis of

Page 2993

1 Dr. Petrovic. If the position is that the Defence team

2 and the doctor instructed on behalf of the Defence were

3 placed under restrictions as to what they could quote,

4 or whether they could quote at all, that would be quite

5 different, wouldn't it, a quite different regime than

6 applied to the Defence? Would you accept that?

7 A. If that were so, then it's a different

8 regime.

9 Q. Yes. You rely heavily upon the observations

10 of Dr. Petrovic, don't you?

11 A. No. I think -- no. What I want to say here

12 is that, like van den Bussche said, the quality of a

13 psychiatric examination is based on a multi-informant,

14 multi-material examination of somebody. So you have to

15 know -- if you are asked the question if somebody is

16 fit to stand trial, how he behaves in detention, that's

17 why we asked also the doctor and somebody from the

18 guards how he is in detention, that's why we talked to

19 Ms. Petrovic also.

20 Q. Just help us about this, sir, si that we're

21 absolutely clear: In 1998, you were instructed to deal

22 with this matter on behalf of the Registry. Are you

23 now still working for the Registry or are you working

24 for the Office of the Prosecutor?

25 A. I was asked by the Prosecutor to come here as

Page 2994

1 his witness, to be his witness.

2 Q. Can I turn now, please, to the conclusion of

3 your 1998 report, your report of a year ago. You

4 concluded, and this is at page 25 of the English

5 edition, Dr. Duits: "The subject is rationally capable

6 of understanding the nature of the charges against him,

7 including genocide, and capable of participating in the

8 present case with full knowledge of what is being

9 discussed."

10 Would this be right: that you had no

11 reservations at all about his ability to understand the

12 proceedings, to give instructions to his lawyers, and

13 to physically and mentally undergo the process of

14 standing trial?

15 A. Well, we make a difference between the

16 rational part and the emotional part, as you can read.

17 Q. I read out the first bit to you. I'd like

18 you to deal with that.

19 A. The rational part, yes, that's what we

20 answered.

21 Q. The reason I asked you that is because I wish

22 you to -- do you have the report of your colleague,

23 Dr. Herfst, dated the 16th of April, 1998?

24 A. Not in the English version.

25 Q. Not in the English version. It doesn't

Page 2995

1 matter. Have a look, please, at the conclusions to

2 which that doctor came.

3 That doctor said at paragraph B of the

4 conclusions: "Based on the foregoing, the undersigned

5 is of the opinion that further to disorders affecting

6 his judgement and critical faculties, the subject is

7 only partially, i.e., to a limited extent, capable of

8 understanding the consequences of his statements or

9 realising the nature of the charges made against him

10 and, as our participant in the present case, is only

11 partially aware of what is being discussed."

12 You plainly don't agree with that

13 conclusion.

14 A. No. In fact, we artificially divided the

15 rational and emotional aspects, and it's a simple

16 answer to a difficult question, of course. If you look

17 to the psychiatric examination, of course you can see,

18 like I already answered beforehand in other questions,

19 that distortion of reality and about his objective

20 relationships, about his emotional problems, it's an

21 artificial division. So I don't disagree with what

22 Herfst says in April 1998, although we examined him in

23 November 1998.

24 Q. Would you accept that what Dr. Herfst is

25 saying is that his ability to follow the proceedings

Page 2996

1 and stand trial is strictly limited, whereas your

2 opinion was that he was fully able, in the rational

3 sense, to understand what was going on?

4 A. In the rational sense, that's what we said,

5 yes.

6 Q. Dr. Herfst doesn't make the distinction which

7 you've described as an artificial one between the

8 rational and the emotional?

9 A. That's right.

10 Q. Are you saying that Dr. Herfst has got it

11 wrong?

12 A. No, I already answered your question. I do

13 not disagree with him.

14 Q. The defendant, when you saw him, elected to

15 tape-record your examination of him. This is right,

16 isn't it: You weren't very happy about that, were you?

17 A. No, I disagree with that statement. We

18 observed it.

19 Q. You didn't like the defendant, did you?

20 A. I disagree with that.

21 Q. You were irritated about him and the way in

22 which he was answering your questions; isn't that

23 right?

24 A. It's much too simple to say something like

25 that. You must know that in psychiatric examination,

Page 2997

1 of course you use your feelings about somebody to

2 confirm your diagnostic hypotheses, and like we said

3 also in the psychiatric examination, he was at the same

4 time charming also sometimes.

5 Q. Forgive me, Dr. Duits. What you said in your

6 report at page 20 was "The very forceful and egocentric

7 attitude of the subject, his manipulative method of

8 exchange, and his changeable emotional state made the

9 examination difficult and sometimes caused irritation."

10 That's a pretty simple statement that you

11 were irritated by him?

12 A. Of course, but that's normal and an honest

13 way of how feelings of the examiner can lead to --

14 irritation has to do with somebody who is, like I said

15 before, is manipulating, and it's very important to

16 recognise that feeling.

17 Q. And, in particular, you also didn't like the

18 inappropriate, as you perceived them, inappropriate

19 remarks about women, did you?

20 A. They were, indeed, inappropriate.

21 Q. See, what I suggest is that you formed quite

22 a considerable dislike for this man and that dislike

23 somewhat overrode your objective view of him, didn't

24 it?

25 A. No.

Page 2998

1 Q. As far as the material which you had before

2 seeing him and upon which you were able to base your

3 report, none of that material contained either

4 interviews with the Office of the Prosecutor or witness

5 statements upon which the Prosecution were proposing to

6 rely, did it?

7 A. No.

8 Q. And, therefore, your report was effectively

9 prepared in ignorance of the detailed allegations

10 against him.

11 A. Yes, and I totally agree with van den Bussche

12 that you must have all those things to do a better

13 quality examination.

14 Q. Indeed, one upon which you can come to any

15 really solid and reliable conclusions at the end of the

16 day; would that be right?

17 A. Yes and no. I mean, the fitness to stand

18 trial is a present state examination, and I think

19 between the context of what we had, this is a

20 qualitative, good psychiatric examination for that

21 purpose.

22 Q. As far as the issue of the defendant being

23 untruthful is concerned, of course that applies equally

24 to your conclusions as it does to those of Mr. van den

25 Bussche, doesn't it? If he lies to you, your

Page 2999

1 conclusions may be based on uncertain foundations; is

2 that right?

3 A. Can you -- do you ask me something about my

4 own diagnostic examination or what I said beforehand?

5 Q. This is the position, isn't it? If the

6 patient you are examining lies to you, there is a

7 danger that that may undermine the basis upon which you

8 make your report, if you have been misled. Would you

9 accept that?

10 A. Being misled and lied to, of course, yes.

11 Q. That applies equally to you as it does to

12 Dr. van den Bussche, doesn't it?

13 A. Yes. I mean, lies which you cannot control

14 don't seem to be lies, of course.

15 Q. Of course, if you are lied to, or if you are

16 manipulated, any psychiatrist would be alert to that

17 possibility, wouldn't he, or she?

18 A. Yeah, but it's not only -- manipulation

19 doesn't consist only of lying. It has also to do with

20 leading the interview; don't want to discuss certain

21 issues. Yeah, let's keep it there.

22 Q. Well, I put it to you in this way: If you

23 are lied to or if you are manipulated. So I wasn't

24 suggesting to you that manipulation consists only of

25 lies.

Page 3000

1 A. Okay.

2 Q. But the point is this: That, as you've said,

3 the good psychiatrist is alert to that and the good

4 psychiatrist makes allowance for it in coming to his or

5 her conclusions; isn't that right?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And factor it in, and if you are good at your

8 job, you spot the manipulations, you spot the lies and

9 make due allowance for them, don't you?

10 A. That's -- I don't think we can spot every

11 lie.

12 Q. Of course not. I am not suggesting that you

13 should. But what do you say about the proposition I

14 have put to you, that --

15 A. If we spot lies?

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And van den Bussche says, "I was able to see

19 through him." So are you saying that he was incapable

20 of making proper allowance for the lies and

21 manipulation?

22 A. That's difficult. I think, like Dr. van den

23 Bussche said, we had limitations with our psychiatric

24 reports. We didn't have all the material. We did have

25 to do it on a very short notice. Of course, lies and

Page 3001

1 things we don't know, we cannot put properly in our

2 reports. Nor Mr. van den Bussche, nor van der Veen and

3 me.

4 Q. Yes. Let's turn now, please, if we may,

5 Dr. Duits, to the issue of risk prediction. Would you

6 accept the proposition that Mr. van den Bussche put

7 before us, which is that there is a tendency when

8 making risk assessment to play safe, if you understand

9 what I mean by that. In other words, to put the risk

10 at perhaps a higher level than perhaps is appropriate,

11 just in order to be on the safe side. Is that a fair

12 proposition?

13 A. Of course.

14 Q. And that may be common sense, that one

15 doesn't want to underplay the risk in case you make a

16 terrible mistake. It's better to overemphasise than to

17 underemphasise; is that right?

18 A. Yes. And I want to add something on that,

19 because the risk assessments which take place for

20 serious offenders -- I mean, the quality of psychiatric

21 examination, the quality of a risk assessment are more

22 important for serious crimes. And the risk assessments

23 which take place, especially in Holland, but also

24 elsewhere, have to do with, like Jelisic now, with an

25 artificial situation, in the sense that you cannot

Page 3002

1 foresee how somebody is in a psychiatric hospital and

2 afterwards in freedom, because they are not

3 comparable.

4 Q. And, of course, it's difficult to recreate

5 the conditions in which, for example, this defendant in

6 time of war committed these offences?

7 A. Still another difficult aspect, yes.

8 Q. Would you agree with this proposition,

9 Dr. Duits, that in the absence of a proper extensive

10 assessment, it would be wrong to come to any conclusion

11 ultimately as to the issue of risk?

12 A. That's what I said also, and that's what

13 Dr. van den Bussche said. I only made it -- I only

14 made statements about the personality of Mr. Jelisic

15 and the aspects of his objective relations, his

16 aggression under the surface, and his killing

17 beforehand.

18 Q. Would you agree with this proposition,

19 Dr. Duits, that the circumstances of a fairly bloody

20 and fairly savage civil war or conflict of the kind

21 that took place in Bosnia, are very different and have

22 very different restraints from those which operate in a

23 normal, peaceful society?

24 A. Of course.

25 Q. Yes. And there may well be a significant

Page 3003

1 difference between the risk of further offending if a

2 similar war takes place and the risks of further

3 offending if society has become either normal or at

4 least more normal again? Would you agree with that?

5 A. Of course there is a difference.

6 Q. I just want to turn now to a related topic.

7 It's the matter that you raised about percentages of

8 those who are at risk with having personality

9 disorders, at risk of committing further offences. And

10 you quoted a figure of 90 to 100 per cent.

11 A. No. Because you are not stating what I

12 stated. I said it the other way around. It was about

13 people who kill, people who commit homicide, and I

14 stated about those people, not in the family

15 atmosphere, a percentage of 90 to 100.

16 Q. They are at risk, you say, of doing that

17 again --

18 A. No, that's not what I said. It was not about

19 risk assessment.

20 Q. Yes. About those people who are not -- and

21 you use the words "family atmosphere." By that do you

22 mean domestic killings?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Those who are not amongst that group --

25 A. Have in, 90 to 100 per cent --

Page 3004

1 Q. A risk of further offending?

2 A. Well, if you say -- if you make the leap that

3 a personality disorder who killed can kill again, then,

4 yes. But what I stated was that 90 'til 100 per cent

5 of the people who kill, not in a domestic atmosphere,

6 have personality disorders.

7 Q. You make observations about what you

8 described as Dr. van den Bussche's arbitrary choice of

9 age development. What, precisely, do you mean by

10 arbitrary?

11 A. Well, I think as a child and adolescent

12 psychiatrist I am able to speak about child age and

13 cognitive moral and emotional development and what goes

14 with what age. That's exactly my specialty.

15 Q. Of course. But --

16 A. But the point is that, like van den Bussche

17 said, that age, he related that to identification

18 problems, identity. And personality disorder is more

19 than identity alone.

20 Q. But you say that it's arbitrary. Are you

21 saying he's got the age completely wrong?

22 A. No. I think it's -- you cannot arbitrarily

23 say that he's 17 or 18 years old. I think for some

24 aspects of his functioning or defence mechanism he has,

25 he is younger. For some he is older.

Page 3005

1 Q. You were asked about this, and it's been

2 suggested that the defendant, even back in May 1992,

3 was already at the business of creating alibis,

4 creating defences for himself. Do you seriously think

5 that this defendant is sophisticated and intelligent

6 enough to commit a murder in the morning and then

7 immediately set about creating alibis and defences for

8 himself?

9 A. I don't know the circumstances, as you must

10 know, but I do know how he behaves in the interviews

11 and in our exam, and what goes with the personality

12 disorder he has. From there on I made some

13 statements. I cannot go into your question because I

14 don't know the circumstances.

15 Q. Let's assume for a moment that -- well,

16 sorry. Just give me a moment and I'll rephrase that.

17 Does he have the degree of intelligence and

18 sophistication, you having examined him, to plot, from

19 the moment of a killing, how best to make things up and

20 lie about them so that he can avoid responsibility for

21 them? Does he have that level of sophistication?

22 A. Immediately after a murder? Immediately

23 after a killing?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. If I could say -- I cannot answer that. You

Page 3006

1 must know the circumstances to answer that. What I can

2 say is that he is manipulative in the interview and in

3 the other interviews as well.

4 Q. As to the issue of remorse, of course again

5 the snapshot that you are able to give us relates to a

6 period 12 months ago. You couldn't dispute that there

7 may have been some development in the past 12 months in

8 that regard, could you?

9 A. What I can say about that is that Dr. van den

10 Bussche -- in fact, we have the same diagnostic

11 assessment. We've come to the same diagnostic

12 conclusion. We describe the same defence mechanisms of

13 the personality disorder, like psychiatrists and

14 psychologists before. And the statements are made

15 about that, about the necessity for remorse is to have

16 objective relations, is to be able to place yourself in

17 the shoes of somebody else, emotionally, cognitively,

18 rationally, et cetera. And I don't see that with

19 Mr. Jelisic.

20 Q. You didn't see it in November 1998, but you

21 cannot say, can you, that it did not exist in 1999?

22 A. I didn't read it in van den Bussche's report

23 either.

24 Q. It's for the learned judges to decide of what

25 to make of Dr. van den Bussche's evidence today about

Page 3007

1 whether or not there was genuine remorse.

2 A. Uh-huh.

3 MR. GREAVES: Yes. I have no further

4 questions.

5 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice.

6 Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

7 Q. You've been asked about van den Bussche's

8 seeing through the defendant. You will recall that van

9 den Bussche also said, in relation to the passage in

10 his interview where he spoke of the defendant crying

11 and apparently showing some remorse for the first time

12 ever. He also said it was possible that that was a

13 change of personality or it was possible that he was

14 being deceived.

15 In relation to that, what do you think is the

16 value of a two-hour interview by a solitary

17 psychiatrist on his own to assess personality change?

18 A. I don't think van den Bussche claims that he

19 saw a personality change. He made a statement about

20 remorse, which actually he didn't specify, in the sense

21 of how that relates to how Mr. Jelisic relates to other

22 people and his emptiness of feelings.

23 Further, he stated that he had real tears,

24 which he didn't specify either, in the sense that --

25 and what I read in the report of Dr. Van den Bussche is

Page 3008

1 that it was related to the fact that Mr. Jelisic was

2 relieved that the witnesses -- so many witnesses came

3 for him to The Hague. And if tears are related to

4 that, it, for me, it has not much to do with remorse.

5 But it can be about other subjects as well, but in the

6 report it was related to that fact.

7 Q. Two other questions only, I think, that I

8 have for you, possibly three. They can be dealt with

9 quite shortly, I hope.

10 Given the conclusions of all psychiatrists

11 and psychologists, that this man has a personality

12 disorder, question number one of a two-part question is

13 do the pattern of lies and dishonesty that we've heard

14 about confirm or fit in with the diagnosis of the

15 personality disorder?

16 And the second point that I would like you to

17 deal with is this: You have now, I think, seen the

18 interviews of the defendant, although you haven't been

19 told anything about the detail of the evidence. Is

20 there anything in the interviews that touches on

21 dishonesty? Is there anything in the interviews that

22 goes against your initial conclusions or that confirms

23 them?

24 So dishonesty and the interviews, please.

25 A. Dishonesty goes with the antisocial aspect of

Page 3009

1 the personality disorder or the psychopathic aspect.

2 In fact, an antisocial disorder is a classification of

3 DSM IV, which is a euphemistic description of how one

4 relates to other people. In this psychodynamic sense

5 of the word which the interviews took place, the

6 objective relationships, you must state that there are

7 psychopathic traits. So dishonesty goes with that.

8 The second question --

9 Q. Interviews.

10 A. You mean the interviews of the examiner about

11 the facts?

12 Q. With the investigators, yes, about the

13 facts.

14 A. Well, I wrote different explanations about --

15 which he gives in the interviews, in the psychiatric

16 interviews. And that is at least not the same

17 reality. So that must be dishonesty, I think.

18 Q. Did you find anything in the interviews that

19 confirmed your views or that ran counter to your views?

20 A. Well, what I only looked -- I especially

21 looked to what was related to our diagnostic

22 examination, and that was the egocentric extent and his

23 youth past in the former Yugoslavia. And what he does

24 even more than in the diagnostic exam is that he feels

25 no responsibility or guilt or whatsoever. Not about

Page 3010

1 his -- I don't want to go into his statements about

2 what he did in the war, but pre-war all his failures

3 and deeds he did over there, or his fraud also, he

4 relates that to other persons or other reasons and

5 doesn't take responsibility for his deeds.

6 Q. My last question on remorse. Is there any

7 evidence anywhere that this man has seen, in image or

8 in description, the suffering of the people that he's

9 killed, or indeed their loved ones and bereaved?

10 A. I cannot comment on that. I think, as far as

11 I can see, and I didn't examine the interviews on that

12 point, but what he says in our diagnostic examination,

13 and what I wrote about his examinations or the

14 interviews, was that he cannot place himself in

15 other -- in the shoes of somebody else. That's what I

16 have to say about that.

17 MR. NICE: That concludes my questions.

18 Thank you.

19 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you,

20 Mr. Nice. We're going to try to finish now, with the

21 agreement of my colleagues, so that we can release the

22 witness.

23 Let me turn to my colleagues immediately.

24 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Thank you,

25 Mr. President.

Page 3011

1 [In English] You just mentioned, in answer to

2 the Defence counsel, that the qualitative psychiatric

3 examination which was made was good, in answer to his

4 question that apparently you did not have a full

5 knowledge of the facts of the case. So still this

6 examination would be qualitatively sufficient, if you

7 do not know the facts of the case?

8 A. It depends on the questioning we had to

9 answer. The quality of a psychiatric examination has

10 to do, first of all, with the questions you have to

11 answer. Given the context, given the limited context

12 we had, first of all, the fact that we had to do it in

13 several days only, that we couldn't work it out like we

14 do normally, come back again to the one we have to see

15 and confront a person with dishonesty or other

16 statements, or from people we interviewed also, given

17 the limited context, I think we made a good report,

18 especially for answering the questions.

19 JUDGE RIAD: Good. Now, Dr. van den Bussche,

20 when I asked him, and you were present, about the

21 relationship between the acts and between the

22 personality disorder, he said that, in fact, the acts

23 committed would have been more or less motivated by his

24 personality disorder, were related to his personality

25 disorder. Would you go as far as to say that he could

Page 3012

1 not help committing these acts, his personality

2 disorder put him under such a compulsion that these

3 acts were bound to happen?

4 A. It's a balance between circumstances and

5 personality disorder. I think in a certain way they

6 were bound to happen. I think the aspect which we did

7 not talk about today, until now, maybe not enough, is

8 his aspects of grandeur, his narcissistic aspects. He

9 states in his examination, "Give a person a pistol and

10 a Motorola and he thinks he is God." I think that that

11 is a statement that he really felt grandeur, I think,

12 and that aspect made it -- it's not only pressure and a

13 cat against the wall, but also the grandeur, the

14 narcissistic aspect. Another aspect of narcissistic

15 problems is the rage which goes unread.

16 So it's bound to happen, in a certain way,

17 yes, in those circumstances.

18 JUDGE RIAD: Speaking of the rage, I note

19 that you mentioned his rage was close to the surface

20 and his aggression was under the surface. What is the

21 meaning of these terms, "close to the surface," "under

22 the surface"?

23 A. What we do in a psychiatric examination is --

24 in our training, we call that transference and

25 countertransference. You use your feelings which the

Page 3013

1 patient gives you as an instrument. We are trained for

2 that. That was my answer also to Mr. Greaves.

3 What you see -- what we saw and what we

4 discussed as a team is that under slight confrontation

5 or deviating the interview to topics we would like to

6 discuss or to shortcut Mr. Jelisic's monologue, he

7 became irritated. We kept it very polite, but there we

8 felt, both of us, the anger, so we didn't want to

9 confront him further. That's what I meant with "anger

10 under the surface." And the narcissistic rage, that's

11 a whole other item.

12 JUDGE RIAD: I beg your pardon?

13 A. Narcissistic rage, that's a whole other

14 item.

15 JUDGE RIAD: Which is also very quick to

16 come.

17 A. No, in certain circumstances only, with

18 extreme confrontation and in cat-against-the-wall

19 situations, let's say, like that, if you're frustrated

20 in your grandeur.

21 JUDGE RIAD: Not necessarily that you have to

22 defend yourself; you are just proving your grandeur.

23 A. Yes.

24 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.

25 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you,

Page 3014

1 Judge Riad.

2 Judge Rodrigues.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good

4 afternoon, Doctor. I have many questions, but I'll

5 only ask some of them.

6 You divided killers, murderers between

7 homicides and other categories. I'm speaking in French

8 and writing in English, so I'm mixing up the

9 languages. What I would like to ask you is what is the

10 sense of family that you're using here? Is it a

11 restrictive sense or a broader sense? You know, we

12 speak about a more nuclear family -- mother, father,

13 children -- and an extended family. What sense are you

14 using it in?

15 A. Close relationships.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Can one

17 include, in the notion of the extended family, one can

18 see a certain feeling of belonging? Can one speak of

19 an extended family if one is speaking about an ethnic

20 belonging to --

21 A. [In French] Any belonging.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So it was

23 Jelisic's circumstances. The fact that he was a Serb

24 and that he was part of that ethnic group doesn't play

25 any role in that distinction?

Page 3015

1 A. [In French] No, it does not.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] This is the

3 question. You said that you were very surprised when

4 you learned that Mr. Jelisic had lied about the

5 question of torture by Croats. Why?

6 A. Excuse me. I wanted to respond in French.

7 Because it's such a worked-out story, not only in our

8 examination but also in the other things I read, and

9 now that's all not true. So I was surprised by that

10 because it's so worked-out, differentiated.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But if we

12 take into account somebody, say an attorney, who asked

13 them to tell that story, how would you interpret that?

14 A. Well, then he learned his lesson well.

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] This is the

16 other aspect. You said, you said frequently in fact,

17 the objective relations were somehow disturbed. I

18 believe that you spoke about manipulation in that

19 respect, that is, disturbances of his objective

20 relations which was also the cause of the

21 manipulation.

22 This is my question: Is it possible that

23 Mr. Jelisic manipulated people so that subsequently

24 they could come to be defence witnesses for him?

25 A. It might be -- it might be possible. I

Page 3016

1 answer affirmative to that because certain topics we

2 couldn't discuss with him. We couldn't discuss about

3 how he got money for his kiosk, which was his friends,

4 and I think there is a whole area we didn't touch on.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Only those

6 areas that he wanted to touch on; is that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Doctor, I'm

9 going to ask you a question, and then I'm going to tell

10 you a story.

11 Imagine that Mr. Jelisic were to come into a

12 cafe, find a woman there, a woman who works in the

13 cafe, and then after 20 minutes of conversation,

14 Mr. Jelisic asks that woman to allow him to take her

15 son, who I think at the time was four or five years

16 old, to go spend a week's vacation with Mr. Jelisic,

17 and the woman, that woman, that mother, allows him to

18 do that. That was the first time that Mr. Jelisic saw

19 the woman, the first time that the woman saw

20 Mr. Jelisic.

21 What comment do you have, from the point of

22 view of manipulation, whose objective it was to have

23 for himself defence witnesses?

24 A. I think it's impressive -- sorry. Slower?

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 3017

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Would you

2 answer, please.

3 A. I think it's impressive that a woman who

4 talks 20 minutes to a man gives her child away for a

5 week's holiday with a total stranger. For me, it's

6 unimaginable. Two options arise --

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me

8 for interrupting you. Imagine that that's true.

9 A. Imagine? If the fact is there, then it's

10 also impressive that Mr. Jelisic, in an amount of 20

11 minutes, can be so trustful for that lady to give her

12 child to him for a week. That's very impressive.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But from

14 the perspective of what you knew about Mr. Jelisic's

15 personality and that aspect of manipulation, would that

16 be possible?

17 A. He comes very close in his relationships,

18 yes, because he doesn't know the borders, he doesn't

19 know the limits in the relationships.

20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Another

21 question. You said that Mr. Jelisic uses other people

22 to satisfy his own needs. In some way, can killing

23 satisfy someone with Mr. Jelisic's needs?

24 A. I think I have to wait a bit here. We come

25 to the issue of perversity, and maybe narcissistic rage

Page 3018

1 also. It is possible, yes, that the anger, the rage he

2 feels towards others, because they did him harm in his

3 opinion, can reflect itself in doing harm to others.

4 And if he has lust with it, we couldn't examine that

5 because we didn't go for that issue, but it might be

6 possible because Mr. Jelisic externalises and is angry

7 at all those people who did wrong to him.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You spoke

9 frequently about the egocentric nature, the

10 narcissistic nature of Mr. Jelisic. Did you find any

11 idea whether there were any references or ideas about

12 paranoia, specifically in respect of the Serbs?

13 Because he always said that he had to defend himself

14 from the Serbs, that the Serbs were his worst enemies.

15 Along with his egocentrism and narcissism, were there

16 also some references made to paranoia in respect of the

17 Serbs?

18 A. What he said to us was -- I have to wait.

19 What he said to us was that, in fact, he was a hero for

20 the normal people and that he wasn't afraid of the

21 people who were after him. I don't think that's true,

22 the last issue. I think he said that out of his

23 grandeur. If you're a great man, you're not afraid,

24 but I cannot -- because we couldn't go into that issue

25 because he didn't want to discuss it, I cannot comment

Page 3019

1 further on that.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I have

3 another question I would like to ask you. You examined

4 Mr. Jelisic in the presence of another person, so you

5 had a degree of control over the manipulation. Did you

6 also have some control over his body language, his

7 non-verbal communication? That's my first question.

8 If you say that you did, whether that body language was

9 consistent with his verbal language.

10 A. Yes, we did. That's part of our

11 intervention, to do that. We normally discussed with

12 each other the case, and we put our examination

13 together, both of us. Body language was related to the

14 issues he presented. That's why we can state that

15 anger was under the surface. I mean, anger is not

16 only -- transference and countertransference issues are

17 related to body language.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I have

19 another question. In order for you to conclude

20 something about manipulation, do you look more at the

21 emotions and feelings or do you look more at the

22 knowledge itself or objective knowledge?

23 A. I cannot say which one takes the lead. And

24 it's matter of fact what we do, what we discuss now all

25 the time is take issues out of traits of the

Page 3020

1 personality disorder. But they interrelate to each

2 other.

3 If you talk about paranoid traits, it has to

4 do with an objective relationship, it has to do with

5 grandeur also, and that's how you come to a diagnosis.

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me ask

7 the question a different way. Can there be

8 manipulation even when one is telling the truth or part

9 of the truth? And my last question is the following.

10 I laughed a little bit with your colleague when he said

11 that he -- that there is only one word to say snow, and

12 I said that Eskimos had at least 20 words. This merely

13 means that certain people have specialisations in

14 certain areas, with a lot of words to see and to

15 express reality.

16 A very simple question. You can answer it if

17 you like. As a specialist, as a psychiatrist,

18 particularly a forensic psychiatrist, can you see more

19 in two hours than an ordinary person in two years, or

20 are we exaggerating somewhat?

21 A. Two hours and two years, there is a big

22 difference. But I think, yes. In a certain way, yes.

23 I am always impressed about -- and that's why I called

24 it a super specialisation to Mr. Greaves. And it's in

25 fact a super, super specialisation, because I am a

Page 3021

1 forensic child and adolescent psychiatrist. And the

2 expertise you have is related to making contacts, to

3 avoid confrontation first, the facets of the interview,

4 to go around difficult issues, et cetera, to see in

5 body language, as he said before and in certain

6 pronunciation of words or whatsoever what's up in

7 people's minds. And I think, yes, expertise is a

8 big -- enormous advantage. I am always impressed by

9 people not seeing things.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] My really

11 last question. You said that you didn't carry out any

12 tests and that you needed to conduct other interviews,

13 for instance, with his parents or with people who knew

14 him in order to form certain opinions, because I think

15 you always answered with a degree of precaution. You

16 said, "I can go this far, but in order to go further I

17 would need more instruments, more diagnostic

18 instruments."

19 What you said for sure, then, can be said

20 with the amount of time that you had and with the

21 instruments that you had available to you at that time;

22 was that enough?

23 A. Yes, it was.

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you

25 very much.

Page 3022

1 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I am going to

2 ask you to be a little more patient, because through my

3 colleagues questions they have spared me from having to

4 ask you more questions.

5 I am going to ask the interpreters for a

6 little more patience. They have been here almost for

7 an hour and three quarters. A very simple question.

8 I am referring to your report which was

9 prepared a year ago. You were asked to study three

10 questions. Was there was a mental illness? And you

11 said, no, that he had profound personality disorders,

12 that he was a borderline personality. Then, would his

13 mental state allow him to understand the nature of the

14 accusations brought against him. You said yes, that he

15 could reason, and that to some extent emotionally he

16 would be able to understand those accusations brought

17 against him. And the third question: Was he fit to

18 appear? I consider the third question is really now

19 outside of the scope of this trial. The second

20 question is borderline, and the first we have already

21 taken note of.

22 So this is my question: Did you feel any

23 kind of discomfort when you were called to testify here

24 and to speak about a subject that you examined a year

25 ago now?

Page 3023

1 A. In a certain way, yes. But at the same time

2 I tried to, like you stated before, in the context that

3 we did our exams, to stay between the lines of what I

4 can say. And so in a certain way discomfort, but I

5 tried to manage the discomfort.

6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Well, you are

7 satisfied with what you've done. That's fine. You

8 have your own emotions and that's very reassuring. But

9 I am rather surprised, doctor. Can a psychiatrist, a

10 specialist, can he just make an abstraction of the

11 development over the course of a year of a subject,

12 about whom we are not going to say anything in terms of

13 responsibility; who pleaded guilty; who for now two

14 months -- well, even longer who has been in detention;

15 who is very troubled, you saw that through the last

16 psychiatric examinations; can a psychiatrist like

17 yourself make an abstraction of any evolution over the

18 course of -- and you who saw him a year ago, can you

19 say now that he is this or that? He is going to

20 develop this way or that way? Because in the end the

21 Judges have not heard him at all, and you didn't speak

22 to him except for a year ago, and it was only the other

23 doctor that spoke to him more recently. But that's the

24 only question I am going to ask because the other

25 questions that needed to be asked were very well put by

Page 3024

1 the Defence and the Prosecution.

2 A. Between the limitations I already stated,

3 yes. Like I said before, Dr. van den Bussche and I are

4 working in the same office. Dr. van den Bussche

5 discussed the matter with me not only to hear my

6 opinions, which he already had on paper, or our

7 opinions which he already had on paper, but to discuss

8 his diagnostic assessment in a interview situation with

9 us.

10 And at the other end it must be said that, of

11 course, Mr. Jelisic is unique. Of course there is

12 fluctuation. But I made general statements about

13 borderline personality disorder and possibilities of

14 change. And in that context I made comments.

15 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I had said, in

16 fact, that that was my last question. You can go back

17 to your work. The Tribunal expresses its gratitude to

18 the interpreters. Very well. We are going to resume

19 the hearing in 30 minutes.

20 --- Recess taken at 4.35 p.m.

21 --- On resuming at 5.08 p.m.

22 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We will now

23 resume the hearing. Please be seated. Have the

24 accused brought in.

25 [The accused entered court]

Page 3025

1 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Have the

2 interpreters rested? Fine.

3 Insofar as possible, we are going to try --

4 if we can't, we can't -- but we're going to try to

5 finish this evening so that tomorrow -- let me say this

6 to Mr. Nice, perhaps he hasn't had his headset on but I

7 know he speaks French very well -- I just wanted to say

8 that insofar as possible, we're going to try to finish,

9 insofar as possible, let the interpreters be reassured

10 that it's that way so then tomorrow could be devoted to

11 the final arguments.

12 Mr. Nice.

13 MR. NICE: Maybe Mr. Greaves has something to

14 say.

15 MR. GREAVES: I just want to deal with one

16 matter whilst I think about it and while it's in

17 relation to the evidence which has just been heard by

18 the Tribunal.

19 Your Honour will recall that I asked

20 Dr. Duits about restrictions placed on him in relation

21 to Dr. Petrovic. I wish formally to place it on the

22 record that such a restriction was placed on the

23 Defence, and we are not only prohibited from calling

24 Dr. Petrovic but prohibited from making any reference

25 at all directly to any diagnosis or treatment or

Page 3026

1 statement that she had made about the defendant.

2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I'm glad that

3 you said that.

4 MR. NICE: Your Honour, then with the

5 Chamber's --

6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, would

7 you like to respond?

8 MR. NICE: I have nothing to say on that

9 point. That's a matter entirely, I think, between the

10 Defence and the Registry. The Chamber will recall that

11 in relation to Dr. Duits, I sought the Chamber's leave

12 to approach him and to ask him questions, he having

13 been originally relied on by the Chamber, and I don't

14 think there's any complaint to the fact that I have

15 called him or relied on the passages of his evidence.

16 I think it's a different issue entirely.

17 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Greaves, it

18 was appropriate for you to raise that question. I

19 think that we'll take this into account as part of the

20 substantive questions.

21 We'll move to the next witness, Mr. Nice.

22 MR. NICE: Indeed, the last witness is one

23 for whom statements in B/C/S and I think French have

24 now been prepared and served, and it's entirely

25 appropriate, given his much longer acquaintance with

Page 3027

1 this case than mine, that Mr. Tochilovsky should take

2 the last witness, and so he's going to.

3 [The witness entered court]

4 MR. TOCHILOVSKY: Your Honours, the witness

5 asked for the same kind of protection as other

6 witnesses, the pseudonym and facial image distortion.

7 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Very well.

8 Witness S, do you hear me? This is the

9 Presiding Judge speaking to you.


11 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Very well.

12 First, check to see that these are your names on the

13 document that the usher is showing you.

14 Show it to him. Show it to him. Don't hide

15 it that way.

16 Then you're going to take an oath. Please

17 proceed.

18 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

19 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

20 truth.

21 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] You may now be

22 seated, Witness S. You have responded to the summons

23 of the Prosecution to testify in the sentencing hearing

24 in order to determine the penalty applicable to Goran

25 Jelisic, the accused, who is to your left in this

Page 3028

1 courtroom, who pleaded guilty to crimes against

2 humanity, and only within that scope.

3 Let me remind Mr. Tochilovsky that the

4 witness has agreed, insofar as he is going to be a

5 character witness in respect of Goran Jelisic, as you

6 yourself said in your submissions.

7 Having said this, I can tell you, Witness S,

8 that you are being covered by very strict protective

9 measures and that you can speak without any fear and in

10 full serenity.

11 Mr. Tochilovsky, please proceed.


13 [Witness answered through interpreter]

14 Examined by Mr. Tochilovsky:

15 Q. Witness S, you had an opportunity to read a

16 summary of your statement, and is the summary correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You spent some time in Luka camp in 1992; is

19 that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you remember the date when you were taken

22 to the Luka camp?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. What was the date?

25 A. The 15th of May, 1992.

Page 3029

1 Q. Who took you to Luka?

2 A. I was taken to Luka by Goran Jelisic.

3 Q. Can you describe Goran Jelisic's behaviour,

4 his demeanour on that evening, that day when he took

5 you to Luka and when you were in Luka? Can you

6 describe his behaviour?

7 A. Well, it was as if he had been drugged, to

8 put it simply.

9 Q. Did he look like a person who was acting

10 under order, who was reluctantly following any orders

11 when you were in the camp?

12 A. As far as I know, he did not receive any

13 orders; he issued orders himself.

14 Q. Just to have some examples of that, upon your

15 arrival to the camp, did soldiers try to approach you

16 immediately upon your arrival?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. What was Goran Jelisic's reaction to that?

19 A. He said, "Go away. Don't touch him. Do you

20 want me to kill you like the others in the hangar?"

21 Q. When you were interviewed by the

22 investigator, you prepared a sketch of the Luka camp,

23 of the place where you were kept; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. TOCHILOVSKY: May I ask the usher to put

Page 3030

1 this sketch before the witness.

2 A. This is a description of the office where we

3 were.

4 Q. And is it the place where you were kept when

5 you were in Luka?

6 A. Please, could you put your question more

7 specifically. I did not understand it very well.

8 Q. You said it was the office?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Is it the place where you were kept when you

11 were at Luka?

12 A. Yes, temporarily.

13 Q. And were there any guards, soldiers, other

14 camp personnel in that room as well?

15 A. Well, there were a few unknown persons, and

16 there were about four or five persons in the room who

17 were doing their own jobs.

18 Q. Did you hear any orders given by Jelisic to

19 those others present in the room?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And what kind of orders?

22 A. Well, to bring in a man from the hangar.

23 Q. And did soldiers follow his orders?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. With regard to his behaviour, how did he

Page 3031

1 treat those detainees who were brought on his order to

2 the room?

3 A. His behaviour. Well, when he would bring

4 them there into the office, this is the only way I can

5 describe this, he would start interrogating them and

6 then hitting them.

7 Q. And then?

8 A. And then take them out and probably kill

9 them.

10 Q. When he took the second detainee out and then

11 returned without him, did he tell you anything about

12 how he treats those Muslim Croat detainees?

13 A. Yes. He said, "I do not rape. I do not

14 mistreat. I only kill."

15 Q. He say how many people he killed?

16 A. Yes. He said, "This is my 83rd or 93rd from

17 this morning."

18 Q. Did Goran Jelisic tell you what had happened

19 to your friend Mevko?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. In short, what did he tell you?

22 A. First, he asked me whether I knew him and

23 what he was to me. And I answered that I was a very

24 good friend of his, since he did not have many friends

25 and his family did not care about him very much. He

Page 3032

1 said that he had killed the strongest man until then.

2 He had fired two bursts of gunfire into him and in the

3 morning he would go there, shoot him in the temple so

4 that he'd finally be dead.

5 Q. Now, did Goran feel sorry about what happened

6 to Mevko, that he killed Mevko? Did he express any

7 remorse of that?

8 A. As far as I know, no, he did not show any

9 remorse.

10 Q. When you were leaving the camp with Jelisic,

11 did Jelisic give any other orders to soldiers upon his

12 departure?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. What kind of orders?

15 A. When we were leaving the Luka camp, he

16 ordered that this man, who said that a Serb was

17 guaranteeing for him, should be killed before we would

18 come back.

19 Q. Did you have the impression that all these

20 orders he gave when you were in Luka were followed,

21 that others followed his orders?

22 A. No. He carried out the orders himself.

23 Q. And when he ordered to bring those people to

24 take care of them, did those soldiers bring people,

25 follow his orders?

Page 3033

1 A. Could you please put this a bit more

2 specifically? I don't know what you are referring to

3 exactly.

4 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Witness S, I

5 know it's not very easy, but when you answer, if you

6 would please turn toward the Judges. Thank you.

7 THE WITNESS: Fine, fine. Yes. Yes.

8 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I know it isn't

9 easy, but try to do that. Of course when the questions

10 are asked, you listen to the person asking the

11 questions. Thank you.


13 Q. You mentioned that Goran issued orders to

14 those present in the room, to the soldiers to bring

15 detainees to him. Did those soldiers follow his order,

16 obey his orders?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Your Honours, I have a few questions on other

19 detainees, actually some of them were witnesses,

20 protected witnesses. So maybe we can go to private

21 session to mention those names.

22 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] All right.

23 Private session.

24 [Private session]

25 (redacted)

Page 3034















15 pages 3034 to 3036 redacted in private session











Page 3037

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 [Open session]

13 Cross-examined by Mr. Greaves:

14 Q. Witness S, I'd like to ask you just a little

15 bit, please, about how you come to be here in The

16 Hague. When were you first approached with a view to

17 giving evidence at The Hague? Can you tell us that,

18 please?

19 A. About a month ago.

20 Q. I don't want to know where you are living,

21 but the place in which you are living at the present

22 time, have you been living there for some time; if so,

23 for how long?

24 A. I've been living there for a year and a half,

25 in that particular place; for the time being I'm

Page 3038

1 there.

2 Q. Would there have been any difficulty of any

3 kind in finding you, say, in March or April of this

4 year in the area in which you live?

5 A. Could you ask me that in more precise terms?

6 I didn't follow you.

7 Q. Is this right: You weren't making a secret

8 of where you were living; you were living openly in the

9 community in which you live, were you?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And that was the case in March and April of

12 this year; is that right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. If somebody had wanted to come looking for

15 you in that community, they would have had no

16 difficulty in finding you; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Thank you. Can we now move, please, to the

19 circumstances in which you were asked to make a

20 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Is this the case, that one or more

23 investigators came to see you and conducted an

24 interview with you?

25 A. Yes.

Page 3039

1 Q. Before recording your statement, did any of

2 those people tell you what it was they wanted to know?

3 A. If you would, please, be a little more

4 specific.

5 Q. Of course. The people who came to see you

6 and to take a statement from you, did they, before they

7 took a statement from you, tell you about what incident

8 it was that they wanted to speak with you?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did they describe to you the information

11 which they had about that incident?

12 A. No. I just gave them the information,

13 because they asked for it, in connection with Goran

14 Jelisic.

15 Q. Was it a question of them saying, "We want to

16 know about an incident with Goran Jelisic on the 15th

17 of May, 1992," or did they give you more information as

18 to what it was they were seeking?

19 A. They just asked for that piece of information

20 relating to the 15th of May, 1992, what happened there,

21 and that was the kind of statement that I gave them.

22 Q. All right. I'd like just to put a bit of

23 detail onto the account that you've given us this

24 afternoon, Witness S. This is right, isn't it: that

25 you say that you were working at a particular place

Page 3040

1 during the course of the afternoon when Jelisic and

2 another man came to see you; is that right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. The other man's name was Dzole. Is that the

5 correct pronunciation?

6 A. I don't know whether it's correct, but I know

7 that they mentioned that particular name during the

8 conversation.

9 Q. Subsequently, you were taken from the place

10 where you were working to the outside and put into a

11 car; is that right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. In the car, when you drove off from that

14 place, were four people; is that right? Yourself,

15 Goran Jelisic, Dzole, and another person.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Four in all, including yourself.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. The other person was a girl, a woman.

20 A. I wouldn't say woman; I'd say girl. I

21 thought she was probably about 14 or 15 years old.

22 Q. When you got to the house of the (redacted), had

23 anybody else got into the car between the place where

24 you were working and that location?

25 A. No.

Page 3041

1 Q. When you were at the house, was the car

2 parked close to the house and close to its entrance?

3 A. Yes. A car was parked close to the house, at

4 the end of the road, by the asphalt.

5 Q. Perhaps if we can just get it right, was the

6 car within sight of the entrance of the house in those

7 circumstances?

8 A. From the entrance to the house?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Yes, you could see, but you would have to

11 come out of the house because there were some steps.

12 Q. Of course. How far from the entrance to the

13 house and the steps was the car parked? Are we talking

14 about five yards, ten yards, twenty yards? What?

15 A. About 10 to 13 metres.

16 Q. From your position where you were in the car,

17 were you able to see the entrance of the house clearly?

18 A. Not very clearly. I couldn't see properly.

19 Q. At the entrance to the house, did anybody get

20 out of the car?

21 A. Goran Jelisic got out and went up to the

22 front door of the house, and then he called the (redacted)

23 and he went out after that.

24 Q. Again, no other man had joined you at this

25 time, had they?

Page 3042

1 A. Could you be more specific? I don't follow

2 what you mean.

3 Q. Yes. Whilst you were there at the house, no

4 other person joined you. No other man, no other woman

5 joined you, did they?

6 A. I sat in the car, and next to the driver sat

7 Monika. Goran Jelisic went out of the car and went

8 over there, and later on, Dzole went out and took over

9 (redacted). That was all.

10 Q. (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 A. Five people? Just a moment, please. Before

14 that, we went towards the school, and when Goran

15 Jelisic said, "Who's Dzodza?" I didn't understand him

16 very well. When we got to the school, there were two

17 people standing there. He also asked them who Dzodza

18 was, and one of them said that he was (redacted)

19 (redacted), and then he told them to drive him to the house.

20 So perhaps you're thinking about those two

21 individuals. Perhaps they were still there, but I did

22 not notice them. That's the point.

23 Q. One of the people who were with you went

24 eventually to the car belonging to (redacted); is that

25 right?

Page 3043

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Did any of the others who were with you,

3 apart from Goran and Dzole, get out of the car at all?

4 A. Only myself and Monika remained in the car

5 after that.

6 Q. Did Dzole go in towards the house after Goran

7 and (redacted)?

8 A. I wouldn't say so because I didn't see it.

9 So I can't really say; I didn't see it.

10 Q. In order to get back to Brcko, two cars were

11 taken there, is that right, one of which was the car

12 belonging to (redacted)?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And just describe to us the seating

15 arrangements in the two different cars. Who went in

16 which car, Witness S?

17 A. As far as I know, Dzole was in (redacted)

18 car, that is to say (redacted), and in

19 the other car there was Goran Jelisic, Monika and

20 myself. And later on we were joined by another soldier

21 whom I didn't know.

22 Q. You were joined in your car or, sorry, not

23 your car, but the car in which you were seating by

24 another soldier whose name was never given to you; is

25 that it?

Page 3044

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And the only person who was in the car with

3 (redacted) was this man whose name was Dzole? No

4 question of there being anybody called Simo with him?

5 A. Well, let me tell you. I was quite lost at

6 the time, to tell you frankly, so possibly there was,

7 but not really. There are two versions. I can't say

8 that it's the truth or whether it's the truth, because

9 I was very frightened at the time.

10 Q. You travelled to Brcko. The other car only

11 contained (redacted) and one other person; isn't that

12 right?

13 A. Well, I don't know if that's right, because

14 they went off before us.

15 Q. But Monika remained with you in your car?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 A. Well, I suppose that was how it was.

21 Q. When you got to Luka, you were taken to the

22 office and (redacted) was already there. That's right

23 according to your statement; isn't it?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So if (redacted) said that you were already

Page 3045

1 there at the time, not the other way around, that

2 wouldn't be right, would it?

3 A. It's very probable.

4 Q. How many people in all were in the office

5 when you arrived there?

6 A. Well, I can't remember those details. I know

7 that (redacted) was there and probably another man next

8 to him. All I know is that I tried to sit down there

9 and at that time they took my handcuffs off. He took

10 the handcuffs off my right hand so that I was able to

11 sit down. But how many people were there, I can't

12 really say because I don't really -- didn't really

13 notice.

14 Q. I think there was some difficulty in getting

15 the handcuffs off, but you managed to get them off

16 after a short while; isn't that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And was that simply a problem of somebody not

19 being able to get the key in properly and to get the

20 handcuff off?

21 A. I don't know, but they couldn't find the

22 right key to the handcuffs. So that they tried to pry

23 them open with a pin.

24 Q. And eventually they managed to get them off

25 all right, did they, without any further fuss?

Page 3046

1 A. Yes. From one hand. And after some time

2 they got them off the other.

3 Q. Then, according to you, and I'll come back to

4 this in a little while, Witness S, instructions were

5 given to go and fetch one person, who was brought back,

6 a detainee who was brought into the office; is that

7 right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And between your arrival in the office and

10 instructions being given to fetch that detainee, was

11 any interrogation conducted of (redacted)?

12 A. As far as I know, no. I had my head bowed

13 down all the time and I was extremely frightened.

14 Q. And your account is this: That three

15 detainees were brought into the office and taken out

16 again, one after another. It wasn't a question of

17 three detainees being brought in at once, was it,

18 according to you?

19 A. I don't remember that particular detail. All

20 I know is that they would take one by one in. Whether

21 they were all three in there together, I really can't

22 say. I don't remember.

23 Q. So if Witness R said after a short while he

24 brought in three young men between 20 and 25, that

25 wouldn't be right either, would it?

Page 3047

1 A. Could you repeat that question, please?

2 Q. Yes. I'll read to you a short piece of

3 evidence. It's said:

4 Q What did he do with that man? What did

5 he ask of that man?

6 A He said bring those people in.

7 Q What happened to the list with the names

8 on it?"

9 And he then described the particular

10 individual taking a folder.

11 And then this:

12 "After a short while he brought in three

13 young men between 20 and 25 years of age."

14 A clear implication of that being that three

15 people were brought in at once.

16 That can't be right, if you are telling the

17 truth, Witness S, can it?

18 A. That's right.

19 JUDGE RIAD: I'm sorry, what is right? You

20 said, "That is right." I didn't understand this

21 answer. That's right that you are not telling the

22 truth?

23 A. No. As far as I remember. As far as I

24 remember, and as far as I know, they were brought in

25 one by one, one by one prisoner was brought in. I

Page 3048

1 don't remember that they brought in three at the same

2 time. Perhaps I am wrong, but that's what I think.

3 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.


5 Q. Witness S, when you made your statement to

6 the Office of the Prosecutor, it was read over to you

7 in the Bosnian language, wasn't it, at the end of

8 making it? Do you remember that? And we are talking

9 about just four or five days ago.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And you told them and signed that it was --

12 the statement was true to the best of your knowledge

13 and recollection; didn't you?

14 A. Could you please repeat this. What statement

15 are you referring to? In relation to what?

16 Q. How many other statements have you made in

17 relation to this incident, Witness S? A written

18 statement reduced into writing and read over to you,

19 how many other statements have you made?

20 A. Written statements? I don't understand

21 this.

22 Q. I wonder whether he might see the original of

23 the work which has been provided to the Defence,

24 please. Just so we know exactly what we are talking

25 about.

Page 3049

1 Would you be so kind, Witness S, as to look

2 at that document, please. Don't read it yet. You see

3 at the bottom of the first page of that document a

4 signature. Is that your signature?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Is it your signature?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Look at the bottom of each of the following

9 pages. Do those bear your initials?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And don't look at the last page, but look at

12 the last but one page, please, Witness S. Do you see

13 there -- I think you've got the English version, I

14 hope. A short piece of text at the top and then a box

15 with some words in it, and again your signature on

16 there. Do you see that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you remember signing those pages and

19 initialling those pages on the 17th of November 1999 --

20 sorry, seven days ago. I do apologise. I mislead you

21 as to time.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Is that the statement which you made and

24 which was reduced into writing, the statement you made

25 to the Office of the Prosecutor, Witness S?

Page 3050

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And do you accept that it was read over to

3 you in the Bosnian language, at the end of which you

4 signed it?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Do you need to have a Bosnian version put in

7 front of you, because I am quite happy that you should

8 have it so you can follow what I am saying. Would that

9 help you?

10 A. All right.

11 Q. Then please may he have the Bosnian version.

12 Again, if -- I would just like you to look at the page

13 we were just looking at, which I think will be the last

14 but one. And it's the end of that page where it says,

15 I think in your language, "witness acknowledgment." Do

16 you see that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And that witness acknowledgment reads as

19 follows, doesn't it, "This statement has been read over

20 to me in the Bosnian language and is true to the best

21 of my knowledge and recollection." Do you see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Would you accept from me that in the

24 statement that you made, as indeed you told us this

25 afternoon, that the detainees were brought in one by

Page 3051

1 one, and not three at a time? Do you accept that?

2 A. I accept, to the best of my recollection, but

3 I do not preclude the possibility of this not being

4 correct because I was very upset at the time. I was

5 not exactly composed. I had seen and heard quite a few

6 things.

7 Q. You see, the point is this, that the two

8 accounts which you've been given about this incident

9 are in material respects completely different. And the

10 differences which I pointed out to you mean that they

11 cannot both be true. That's right, isn't it, Witness

12 S?

13 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Don't give the

14 witness an answer. The problem with differences under

15 such dreadful circumstances has already been pointed

16 out before to the Court. You are not dealing with

17 scientific experts, what you are discussing. This is

18 May 1992 in a hangar, which is simply hellish. So you

19 can simply point out things, but don't try to give the

20 witness an answer. If you agree, perhaps you might try

21 to move a little bit more quickly.


23 Q. The account of the alleged Russian roulette

24 that you give. Is this right? You said to the Office

25 of the Prosecutor that the gun was pointed at the head

Page 3052

1 or temple of (redacted)?

2 A. Well, that's what I assume. The head, for

3 instance, because he was sitting next to me, and the

4 pistol was right next to me, like this.

5 Q. So you were right close to it at that point;

6 is that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So no question of it being pointed at the

9 chest of (redacted) and the trigger pulled.

10 A. Well, it is very possible, but I imagine

11 somewhere in the head. That's what I assumed, judging

12 by the level at which the pistol was held.

13 Q. When you were removed from Luka and taken

14 back to where you had come from, how many checkpoints

15 in all did you pass through?

16 A. I don't know exactly. I'll give you an

17 approximate number. Perhaps five checkpoints where we

18 did not stop; we stopped only at the first and second

19 one on our way back.

20 Q. So on the way home, only two checkpoints did

21 you stop at.

22 A. No. I said perhaps about five, but we were

23 only stopped at the first and second.

24 Q. That was the question that I asked you.

25 As far as you could see, the incidents

Page 3053

1 involving these three detainees which you claim to have

2 witnessed, you cannot say, can you, if, prior to your

3 arrival, any orders were given in relation to those

4 detainees?

5 A. I could not have seen that or heard that

6 because I was not there, nor do I know of it.

7 Q. So that it's quite clear, and I'll put it

8 quite shortly to you, Witness S, there were no killings

9 that afternoon; there was, I suggest, no game of

10 Russian roulette and no ill-treatment of any person in

11 your presence.

12 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] That is your

13 opinion, Mr. Greaves, and you can argue that tomorrow.

14 Ask questions, please.

15 MR. GREAVES: I'm suggesting to him that if

16 he's saying there were such incidents, that it's not

17 true. He's entitled to have an opportunity to deal

18 with that proposition, and I put it to him so that he

19 may deal with the proposition that it's not true. That

20 is a proper issue which goes to the question of

21 credit.

22 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Challenging the

23 question itself, the credibility of your question. You

24 have a right to ask questions, but I'm simply

25 contesting the way you ask questions. Not by saying "I

Page 3054

1 suggest that" but by saying that you were making

2 assertions.

3 Move to your next question, please.

4 MR. GREAVES: I've made it plain what our

5 position is. I have no further questions.

6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 Mr. Tochilovsky.

8 Re-examined by Mr. Tochilovsky:

9 Q. Just one question in regard to those answers

10 you gave to the Defence about those three detainees who

11 were brought to the room. Do you know what happened to

12 those detainees after they were beaten, as you

13 described, by Goran and interrogated?

14 A. This is the way I'm going to put it: The

15 first one was taken outside. I heard two blunt shots.

16 I could not see that. I did not see that because I

17 could not see that. You could not really see this with

18 your own eyes through that hall.

19 The second one, he took out, and I heard

20 three blunt shots, and after the second one, his

21 trousers had blood stains on them.

22 The third one was returned to the hangar and

23 the fourth one was taken out to wait.

24 Q. That one is the one who Goran, upon his

25 departure, ordered to kill as well.

Page 3055

1 A. No. That one was already at the hangar. The

2 fourth one who was waiting there was a distant relative

3 of mine. Until the present day, I don't know what's

4 happened to him. At that point, while I was there, he

5 was still alive.

6 Q. When Goran took those people out and you

7 heard those shots, did he look like a person who was

8 acting under any order, or was feeling any remorse for

9 or sorry for what he was doing?

10 A. First of all, as far as I could tell, he was

11 totally in charge over there. As for remorse, I did

12 not see anything like that in his face. All of this

13 was in cold blood.

14 Q. Thank you.

15 MR. TOCHILOVSKY: I have no further

16 questions.

17 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you,

18 Mr. Tochilovsky.

19 Judge Riad? Judge Rodrigues?

20 I have a very short question to ask you.

21 When Goran took the pistol in that dreadful Russian

22 roulette game, was the gun loaded? Were there a

23 certain amount of bullets? Was there one bullet or

24 were there several bullets? If you remember. Perhaps

25 you don't remember.

Page 3056

1 A. It was loaded because I know that he was

2 taking bullets out, and how many he returned, that, I

3 don't know. Basically, I didn't even want to see it

4 because the very words, "Russian roulette," made me

5 realise that my life was threatened.

6 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I understand.

7 I'm not really interested in knowing how many there

8 were. I just simply wanted to know whether the gun was

9 really loaded with some bullets, either one or

10 several.

11 A. Several.

12 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Therefore, I

13 wouldn't be wrong when I say that Goran Jelisic took a

14 real risk when he put the gun to his temple.

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Very well.

17 Thank you very much. That's all. It was a bit

18 difficult for you, but thank you for having come. I

19 hope --


21 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] -- you're

22 going to go home at peace and try and forget all of

23 that, if it's possible. You will be taken care of, and

24 once again, my colleagues and I would like to thank

25 you. I know it's difficult. You have the right to

Page 3057

1 have a good beer when you get out of here, if you like

2 beer, a Dutch beer.

3 THE WITNESS: Thank you. May I just add one

4 more thing.

5 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Yes, please.

6 THE WITNESS: I came here and I was welcomed

7 very nicely, but there is just one regret I have: I'm

8 so sorry that this trial cannot last longer because

9 there are so many things to be said. That's all I had

10 to say.

11 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] This is the

12 first time that the International Tribunal hears

13 somebody saying that the trials should be even longer

14 than they are. Thank you very much.

15 We are going to adjourn until tomorrow

16 morning at 10.00, I believe it is; is that correct?

17 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] I hope so.

18 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] What do you

19 mean you hope so?

20 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Well, because

21 there is a further initial appearance.

22 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Oh, yes, yes.

23 Judge Rodrigues spoke to me about that.

24 Mr. Greaves, did you want to take the floor?

25 MR. GREAVES: At whatever moment is

Page 3058

1 convenient to Your Honour.

2 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I simply wanted

3 to ask a question.

4 Mr. Nice or Mr. Tochilovsky, about how long

5 will your final arguments take? About how long? I'm

6 trying to organise the Trial Chamber's work.

7 MR. NICE: I should hope I could be done in

8 two hours. I've reduced the arguments to paper, which

9 will be ready tomorrow, and so I will be able to pass

10 over various paragraphs, and I have a schedule of

11 evidence that, again, I can pass over quickly. I hope

12 two hours, not more.

13 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. And

14 you, Mr. Greaves, about how long?

15 MR. GREAVES: I have no idea at the moment

16 because I shall be working all night completing it, and

17 I don't know at the moment.

18 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] I hope that

19 we'll be able to finish by the end of tomorrow. That's

20 what I would hope for. Since you do need to go to

21 sleep, I'd ask that you not work all night.

22 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, there are two

23 matters that I want to raise, please.

24 Your Honour directed that a report should be

25 obtained from the commandant of the detention unit. I

Page 3059

1 have not yet had sight of such a report and I would

2 inquire whether such a report has been received.

3 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar,

4 did you get that report?

5 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Well, I don't

6 have it. I could see after the hearing where things

7 stand, but I think that ordinarily the report should be

8 ready. I was thinking that it would be ready by now.

9 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We should have

10 it.

11 MR. GREAVES: I didn't know of the deadline

12 and I had become anxious about it.

13 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Well, you're

14 right. You're absolutely right, Mr. Greaves. In any

15 case, we have to be finished by tomorrow evening at the

16 latest. We would ask the registrar to be sure that

17 Mr. Greaves has the report, and the Judges also. The

18 Judges can think about it afterwards, but Mr. Greaves

19 has to present his final arguments tomorrow.

20 Second point, Mr. Greaves.

21 MR. GREAVES: I have presented a number of

22 documents to my learned friend, and he has been

23 cogitating carefully about them, but we're getting to

24 the stage where he really does need to make up his mind

25 as to whether he's going to allow me to present them to

Page 3060

1 Your Honours without any further argument. I think

2 they're relatively non-controversial as documents go.

3 MR. NICE: I'm happy to allow them to go in,

4 providing that there is another document that my

5 learned friend, which I haven't yet shown him, I think,

6 is prepared to go in. It's to do with medical records

7 and service records and matters of that sort. If I can

8 just show him this document tonight, I dare say we can

9 agree that the whole package can go in tomorrow

10 morning, and we'll have this document copied in enough

11 numbers for the Chamber.

12 MR. GREAVES: I thank my learned friend for

13 his remarks.

14 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Very well. I

15 want to thank the interpreters.

16 We will adjourn and we should begin at 10.00

17 tomorrow. Court stands adjourned.

18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

19 6.13 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,

20 the 25th day of November, 1999, at

21 10 a.m.