Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 22240

 1                           Thursday, 1 December 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everyone.  Judge Morrison is

 7     indisposed today, so therefore we are sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis.

 8             Probably Dr. Karadzic needs to introduce his -- or Mr. Robinson,

 9     please.

10             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.  Good morning, Mr. President.  We have with

11     us Dr. Dusan Dunjic who's an expert being allowed by the Court to assist

12     us during the testimony of this witness.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  If the witness could take the solemn

14     declaration, please.

15             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

16     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17                           WITNESS:  RICHARD WRIGHT

18             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Doctor.  Please make yourself

19     comfortable.

20             Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

21             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good morning.

22                           Examination by Mr. Mitchell:

23        Q.   Good morning, professor.

24        A.   Good morning.

25        Q.   Can you please state your full name.

Page 22241

 1        A.   Richard Vernon Stafford Wright, with a W.

 2        Q.   Okay, just two things before we start.  Could you tell the Court

 3     what the papers are that you've got in front of you.

 4        A.   The papers I have in front of me are reports that I wrote for

 5     ICTY on the exhumations that I did.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             MR. MITCHELL:  Can I please have 65 ter number 3452 in e-court.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Could we ask the witness to speak closer to the

 9     mike.  Thank you.

10             MR. MITCHELL:

11        Q.   And, professor, you provided a current copy of your CV to the OTP

12     in November.  Is this the CV on the screen in front of you?

13        A.   Yes, but I'd have to see the date at the end to be sure.

14             MR. MITCHELL:  Go to the last page.

15             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that's the one.

16             MR. MITCHELL:

17        Q.   Thank you.  Now, you've talked about your background at length in

18     the Krstic trial, and that's the transcript that we are going to be

19     tendering later, but I do want to ask you a couple of questions about

20     your background.

21             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can go back to the first page of the CV.

22        Q.   Professor, we see that you're an Emeritus Professor of

23     Anthropology from the University of Sydney, but you're actually an

24     archaeologist; is that correct?

25        A.   Yes, I'm an archaeologist.

Page 22242

 1        Q.   Can you explain how that works, the difference between your title

 2     and your profession?

 3        A.   Well, there really isn't any difference, because in those days

 4     the University of Sydney had a Department of Anthropology that included

 5     physical anthropology and archaeology and cultural anthropology.  So

 6     there was -- anthropology was an umbrella title, and I was in charge of

 7     the archaeological side of that department.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Can you explain briefly to the Trial Chamber what

 9     exactly archaeology is and how it's relevant to the exhumation of mass

10     graves?

11        A.   Well, archaeology is essentially the examination of the earth, of

12     soils, for past relics, either for human remains or for artefacts, and

13     these are then excavated and interpreted.

14        Q.   You started work for the ICTY in 1997; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes, that's correct.

16        Q.   Did you have any prior experience in exhuming mass graves?

17        A.   Yes.  In 1990 I was asked by the Attorney General of the

18     Commonwealth government in Australia to go to the Ukraine, which was then

19     part of the Soviet Union, to investigate three mass graves of Jews who

20     had been murdered in 1942.  There were three graves, and I was working

21     there in 1990 and 1991 and made reports back to the Australian government

22     on the existence of these graves, which contained something like

23     800 bodies between the three of them, and that material went to court.

24     The reason why an Australian would be going over there was that there

25     were three men in Adelaide, in South Australia, of whom it was said that

Page 22243

 1     they had participated in Nazi killings in the Ukraine in 1942 and had

 2     then emigrated to Australia after the Second World War.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Now, when you were at the ICTY you worked with

 4     forensic anthropologists or in co-ordination with forensic

 5     anthropologists and pathologists.  Can you briefly describe to the

 6     Chamber what those jobs do and how their work relates to yours as an

 7     archaeologist?

 8        A.   The anthropologists that I had on my team, on my excavation team,

 9     were also experienced in archaeology.  The reason for having them there

10     is that they know their human bones inside-out and are therefore able to

11     follow in muddy deposits.  They're able to follow the way in which a body

12     is disposed.  There were also anthropologists at the morgue, which was

13     not part of my operation, who were doing an analysis of the remains.  But

14     the anthropologists I had working with me were there because of their

15     knowledge of the human body and skeleton and, because of this knowledge,

16     were able to retrieve the bodies in a more complete and undamaged way.

17        Q.   And what about the pathologists?

18        A.   No, we had no pathologists on the team.

19        Q.   But at the morgue --

20        A.   Oh.

21        Q.   -- you know, how -- how did their job relate to yours as part of

22     the process of exhuming and analysing the remains?

23        A.   Well, the process that was set up was that the morgue was in

24     Visoko, which is close to -- close to Sarajevo, and we would periodically

25     send the bodies that we had exhumed in chiller vans down to the morgue in

Page 22244

 1     Visoko.  And there standard analyses were done of the biological profiles

 2     of the individuals, their age, sex, cause and manner of death, and that

 3     was done by anthropologists and pathologists but they were not part of my

 4     team.  So the operation was divided into the exhumation team, of which I

 5     was in charge, and the anthropologists and pathologists at the morgue.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  The last exhumation you did for the ICTY was in 2000;

 7     is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes.  It would have been September/October 2000.

 9        Q.   Have you participated in any exhumations since then?

10        A.   Not with ICTY, but I have participated in the exhumation of

11     World War I Australian -- mostly Australian but some British soldiers who

12     were killed in the First World War at a place called Fromelles in

13     north-east France, and I was the senior forensic advisor to the Oxford

14     archaeology team that had the contract to do this work, that is, to

15     recover the bodies and to recover the uniforms and artefacts associated

16     with the bodies which had been buried by the Germans after a disastrous

17     battle.  And then they were analysed on -- on the spot, DNA samples

18     taken.  And so, yes, I was the senior advisor for that project, but I

19     didn't have an executive role.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Was there anything of significance or of interest

21     about the disposition of those bodies?

22        A.   The bodies were collected, I'm not sure, two or three days after

23     the battle, and they were in various disarranged -- the bodies were

24     disarranged because many had been killed by shell blast, and the Germans

25     buried them - it was a Bavarian regiment, in fact - the Germans buried

Page 22245

 1     them respectfully, side by side, alternately heads to the west and heads

 2     to the east and in two rows separated by a small quantity of soil, and

 3     altogether there were five graves that were full and contained

 4     250 soldiers buried in their uniforms.

 5        Q.   Were any of the people worked for you in Bosnia involved in that

 6     particular exhumation?

 7        A.   Yes.  The two graves were excavated at one time, and two of the

 8     people who had worked for me in Bosnia over a period of some weeks or

 9     months, one -- Oxford archaeology is a very experienced consulting firm

10     in the UK, but they did not have experts in mass graves so they employed

11     two people to be in charge of the excavations of each grave as it was

12     done.  Another person, Caroline Barker, who worked for me and was in

13     charge of the anthropology at the anthropological laboratory at

14     Fromelles, a -- the forensic photographer who took the photographs that

15     are in my reports was the photographer for that project.  So, yes, the

16     people who worked for me in Bosnia went on to their own careers, but they

17     were -- were captured, as it were, for the work at Fromelles, four of

18     them.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Just one last very brief question about your

20     background.  We can see on your CV at the top it's Richard Wright AM, and

21     this is different from your previous CVs.  Can you explain very briefly

22     what the AM means?

23        A.   Yeah, very briefly, I was made a member of the order of Australia

24     in the Queen's honours list in May and it stands for Member of the Order

25     of Australia, and that was awarded to me for my work in forensic

Page 22246

 1     archaeology, among other things.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Turning now to your work for the ICTY.  You wrote two

 3     reports:  "Exhumations in Eastern Bosnia in 1998" and "Excavations and

 4     Exhumations at Kozluk in 1999."  Do you recall testifying about those two

 5     reports in the Krstic trial?

 6        A.   Yes, I do.

 7        Q.   Have you had an opportunity to review your testimony in the

 8     Krstic trial?

 9        A.   Yes, I have.

10        Q.   And I understand you have one correction to that testimony.  At

11     transcript page 3633, at lines 19 and 21, there are two references to the

12     word "objectives."  That should read "objects"; is that correct?

13        A.   Yes, that is correct.  The context of what I was saying was that

14     archaeologists specialise in recovering objects from the soil but that

15     got written down as objectives.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Now, can you confirm that with that correction, the

17     transcript of your testimony in Krstic, it accurately reflects your

18     evidence in that case?

19        A.   Yes, it does.

20        Q.   And if you were asked the same questions on the same topics

21     today, would you give the same answers?

22        A.   Yes, I would.

23             MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. President, I'd like to tender the Krstic

24     testimony, which is 65 ter number 03227.

25             JUDGE KWON:  You are minded to tender Dr. Wright's CV as well?

Page 22247

 1             MR. MITCHELL:  Yes, my apologies.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  We'll admit that first.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  65 ter number 03452 will be

 4     Exhibit P3998.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  And Professor Wright's testimony in Krstic will be

 6     admitted as Exhibit P3999.

 7             MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. President, I'd also like to tender at this

 8     point the associated exhibits and also the two reports that I mentioned.

 9     The first report, "Exhumations in Eastern Bosnia in 1998," is

10     65 ter number 2496; and the second report, "Excavations and Exhumations

11     at Kozluk in 1999," is 65 ter number 2495.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

13             Mr. Robinson.

14             MR. ROBINSON:  No objection, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Those two reports will be admitted as Exhibit 4000

16     and Exhibit P4001.

17             MR. MITCHELL:  I'd now like to read a summary of

18     Professor Wright's testimony in the Krstic case.

19             Professor Wright started work for the ICTY in 1997.  In 1998 he

20     led the exhumations at the mass grave-sites at the Red Dam;

21     Cancari Road 3; Cancari Road 12; Hodzici Road 3, 4, and 5; Liplje 2; and

22     Zeleni Jadar 5.  In 1999 he exhumed a primary mass grave at Kozluk.  And

23     at the time of his testimony in the Krstic case he was working at sites

24     in Prijedor.

25             Professor Wright described how an excavation would start, with

Page 22248

 1     him being taken by ICTY investigators to a suspected mass grave-site.  It

 2     was then his job to find the actual location of the grave within that

 3     suspect area.

 4             First the site was checked for mines and booby-traps and a

 5     surveying team was set up to record the content -- sorry, to record the

 6     grave and its contents.  A backhoe would then be used to scrape off the

 7     surface of the soil until Professor Wright was satisfied that the

 8     complete outline of the grave had been uncovered.

 9             Each of the bodies within the grave were surveyed with a

10     three-dimensional recording system, and each body or body part was

11     assigned a unique number and photograph.

12             Where a virtually complete body was removed, the experts also

13     filled out a form called a "body sheet" which described the properties of

14     the body.  Once the bodies and body parts had been exhumed, they were

15     sent to the morgue for anthropological and pathological analysis.

16             The details of the eight graves exhumed by Professor Wright in

17     1998 are as follows:  The first site, known as the Red Dam, was a large

18     primary grave dug into a dam wall made of limestone blocks.  It had been

19     robbed and contained no complete bodies.  However, it contained many

20     highly fragmented human remains, which according to the morgue accounted

21     for a minimum number of 46 individuals.

22             The remaining seven sites he exhumed that year - Cancari Road 3;

23     Cancari Road 12; Hodzici Road 3, 4, and 5; Zeleni Jadar 5; and Liplje 2 -

24     were all secondary graves.  He concluded that the Liplje 2 secondary

25     grave was connected to the Red Dam primary grave based on the presence of

Page 22249

 1     angular non-naturally occurring limestone blocks at both sites.

 2             In 1998, Professor Wright also probed an additional 21 sites that

 3     proved to be graves.  He estimated that those 21 sites contained an

 4     additional 2.571 bodies.

 5             In 1999, Professor Wright exhumed a partially robbed primary mass

 6     grave-site at Kozluk.  He concluded that this site was linked to the

 7     Cancari 3 secondary grave he had exhumed the previous year based on the

 8     presence of fragments of green glass present throughout both sites.

 9             He also concluded that the Kozluk site was an execution site as

10     well as a burial site where some individuals had been simply covered with

11     soil and left undisturbed.  This conclusion was based on the lack of any

12     disturbance to the limbs of those bodies and the recovery of bullets

13     embedded in the clay underneath the bodies.

14             Professor Wright observed that 42 per cent of the 280 individuals

15     at the Kozluk site had their hands tied behind their back, while

16     16 per cent of the bodies were blindfolded.

17             Professor Wright also noted that he saw only civilian clothing in

18     the graves he exhumed in 1998 and 1999.

19             I now have some additional questions.

20        Q.   Professor, you've spoken about primary and secondary graves in

21     your prior testimony.  Can you define for us what these are?

22        A.   Yes.  I think before doing that I need to also introduce a first

23     category which is an execution site.  A primary grave is where the bodies

24     from an execution site are first buried.  That in many cases, one might

25     imagine, was the end of the matter, but these graves were dug up in most

Page 22250

 1     cases and the bodies were taken away to secondary graves.  And so we

 2     distinguish between primary graves, the place of initial disposal, and

 3     secondary graves, which are the places to which the bodies were taken

 4     from the primary graves.

 5        Q.   In your reports you use the term "rob" to describe the process of

 6     removal from a primary to a secondary grave.  Can you explain in a little

 7     bit more detail what you mean by this tern "rob"?

 8        A.   Yes, the word "rob" or "robbed" is commonly used in archaeology

 9     to mean that when you excavate a site you see areas where things have

10     been taken away.  It may seem to -- in common usage that I'm talking

11     about some type of a criminal act, but the word is used not necessarily

12     to mean that.  And there's a section in the Oxford English Dictionary

13     devoted to the archaeological -- special archaeological use of the word

14     robbed.  So when I was using that term, I was using it as an

15     archaeologist.

16        Q.   I'd like to ask you to -- if you can, to give us an example of

17     what you've been talking about, an execution primary grave and secondary

18     grave.  Can you tell us using the Kozluk site as an example about this

19     process?  Can you tell us how you first came to learn of the site at

20     Kozluk?

21        A.   In 1998, we were excavating at a site called Cancari Road 3, and

22     as the excavator was marking out the limits of the grave, that is, the

23     machine, the machine, the backhoe, if you like, as it was marking out the

24     boundaries of the grave, we saw hundreds if not thousands of pieces of

25     broken green glass, and they were all of the same type of glass, from

Page 22251

 1     bottles, many of which had still got their crown seals on them even

 2     though they were broken, and we found a pile of labels, maybe 3- or

 3     400 labels, which mentioned the Vitinka bottling factory at Kozluk.  Now,

 4     this site was in a fairly desolate part of -- Cancari Road 3 was in an a

 5     fairly desolate part of Bosnia and there was no settlement around it, so

 6     I concluded that these bodies had been brought, together with the broken

 7     glass, from a primary site or an execution site, I didn't know which, but

 8     primary grave or an execution site that was at a place where the bottling

 9     factory dumped its broken bottles.

10             So I got in touch with ICTY about this.  And initially they were

11     unaware of such an execution site or a primary grave in that area, but

12     they immediately came down and we went to -- but we went behind the

13     bottling factory and we found an area of -- by the Drina River that was

14     grossly disturbed, and I think a couple of legs or it was a leg and an

15     arm lying out below what looked like a loading ramp for trucks to pull up

16     against.  We hadn't found a grave by then, and in -- sorry, end of 1998,

17     but in 1999 my team went back there and we found the primary grave which

18     had been robbed and from which I conclude the bodies that were at

19     Cancari 3 had been taken.  They'd been taken from Kozluk to Cancari 3

20     transferring the evidence of the bottles and the labels, and Cancari 3

21     was certainly a secondary grave by the standards of the incompleteness of

22     many of the bodies which had come apart in the -- while they were

23     transferred.

24        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to show you a few photos of this site and get you

25     to explain them to us.

Page 22252

 1        A.   Can I ask which site?

 2        Q.   Kozluk.

 3             MR. MITCHELL:  65 ter number 2495.  Page 27 in e-court.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  2495 or 59?

 5             MR. MITCHELL:  I believe it's 2495.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 7             MR. MITCHELL:  My apologies.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Is this what we admitted as one of his expert

 9     report?

10             MR. MITCHELL:  Correct, Mr. President.  If we can go to the next

11     page in B/C/S so we can get the description.

12        Q.   Okay.  Professor, starting with the top photo, photo number 4,

13     can you tell us what we're looking at here?

14        A.   Yes.  We're at -- we're at the site --

15             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  If the Defence is okay, we can

16     collapse the B/C/S and can zoom in to the picture.

17             Would that be okay, Mr. Karadzic?

18             Yes, we'll do that.

19             THE WITNESS:  This is the area of the Kozluk site that we called

20     KK2.  It's a distinct area from the main mass of bodies.  But the reason

21     why this was seen as important by us is that here you're looking down

22     from some high ground onto a flat surface on which these bodies lie, and

23     we found many of them visibly, that we then analysed them, visibly had

24     gunshot wounds, and they -- and bullets were embedded up to about

25     10 centimetres -- I seem to have done some damage.

Page 22253

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Mitchell, would you -- would you like the doctor

 2     to mark on the picture?

 3             MR. MITCHELL:  Yes, Mr. President.  That might be helpful.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Could you wait a second until our usher could assist

 5     you.  Yes, you can mark it.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  This is the flat surface here.  And here are

 7     the bodies, obviously, lying down.  Many of them had their hands tied

 8     behind their backs and/or were blindfolded, but I can't remember the

 9     numbers.  But we found bullets embedded in the soil underneath these

10     bodies down to a depth of 10 centimetres.

11             These bodies were then covered up with soil after they had

12     been -- died there, and later an attempt was made, not by us but

13     previously, to recover the bodies, and you're beginning to see here an

14     old trench that cut through the edge of these bodies.

15             MR. MITCHELL:

16        Q.   If we can scroll down and have a look at photograph 5.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Do we need to preserve this one?  Or we can --

18             MR. MITCHELL:  It's all the same page, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE KWON:  No, I wanted -- I wanted to ask you whether you

20     wanted to keep doctor's marking on this picture.  At this moment it won't

21     be necessary.

22             MR. MITCHELL:  Yeah, not yet.

23             JUDGE KWON:  So we can -- yes, we can move on then.

24             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you.

25             If we can scroll down to the next photo, photo number 5.

Page 22254

 1             THE WITNESS:  You would want me to talk now?

 2             MR. MITCHELL:

 3        Q.   Yeah.  You said we could see the edges of a trench.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Would you like the doctor to mark it

 6     again?

 7             MR. MITCHELL:  Yes, please.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 9             THE WITNESS:  This is the surface we were looking at --

10             JUDGE KWON:  Oh, no, just -- could you wait.  Probably you need

11     to push some pencil click first.  Could you wait till assisted by our --

12     by our usher.

13             THE WITNESS:  This is the flat surface that I was talking about

14     previously.  If it will help the proceedings, I can point but not touch.

15             MR. MITCHELL:

16        Q.   If you can just, yeah, describe it to us.

17        A.   Yes, okay.  Well, we can see at the top of the photograph the

18     same flat surface and the bodies lying on the flat surface.  And right

19     across the picture is a trench which, as you can see on the edges here,

20     has -- has cut -- hmm.  Anyway, the -- there is a cut right across the

21     bodies that's taken away the leg of one of them, and this is done by an

22     excavator with teeth.  And the excavator that dug this trench and took

23     away we don't know what but presumably some bodies, some from the edge

24     here, this -- these marks are left by the excavator, because it

25     compresses the soil in such a manner that when looser soil is thrown over

Page 22255

 1     the top the actual compressed grooves of the teeth are not obliterated.

 2        Q.   Okay.

 3        A.   And the archaeologists just take out the soft material.  So my

 4     interpretation of this is that there was [Realtime transcript read in

 5     error "wasn't"] an execution there and that the attempt was made then to

 6     recover the bodies.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  I think we can zoom in further at those parts.  Yes.

 8     Once again.  Further.  Further, yes.  We can see a bit clearer.  Is this

 9     what you're -- what you're referring to, Doctor?

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I'm referring to the two critical parts of

11     this photograph, are -- at the top, are undisturbed bodies.  On the edge,

12     some limbs have been taken away.  And on the bottom you see the trench

13     that cut through the mass of bodies.

14             MR. MITCHELL:  Can we please go to page 30 in e-court.

15        Q.   And just looking at the top photo, which is photo number 9, is

16     that the green glass that you were talking about, Professor?

17        A.   Yes.  At the top of the screen you can see the green glass of

18     which we have removed for sending down to the morgue many -- many bodies.

19     In fact, at this particular area of the site, which is KK3, we found some

20     280 complete bodies, and these are the ones that are left down the slope,

21     and that is the green glass.

22        Q.   Was it part of your protocol to keep the artefacts that were

23     recovered from a site?

24        A.   In general, yes.  And certainly any artefacts that were -- would

25     bear on the cause and manner of death and the identification of the

Page 22256

 1     individuals.  But an exception made at Kozluk and at Cancari 3 was that

 2     we did not collect all the glass because we considered it as background

 3     waste material that didn't bear on the case.

 4        Q.   Professor, can I just clarify something in the transcript at

 5     page 15, line 13.  It says my interpretation of this site is there wasn't

 6     an execution there.  Is that what you said?

 7        A.   No.  There was an execution there.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can now scroll down to look at photo

10     number 10.

11        Q.   Now, in your report at page 13 you estimated that there were some

12     16 per cent of the bodies had blindfolds and 43 per cent, or 124 bodies,

13     had ligatures.  Now, using this particular photo as an example, can you

14     explain to us how you interpreted an artefact as a ligature or as a

15     blindfold?

16        A.   I'm afraid of touching the screen, and I really do need to mark

17     at this point.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

19             THE WITNESS:  Let me just explain the layout of this body.  Here

20     is a head with hair.  Here are the shoulder blades.  And the -- and here

21     are the ribs.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you for your patience.

23             Another way we can do it is put that picture on the ELMO and then

24     doctor can point to the picture.

25             We seem to have some problem with the --

Page 22257

 1             MR. MITCHELL:  That's fine with me, Mr. President.  I don't have

 2     a colour version of that photo.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Why don't we use the -- your report, even in black

 4     and white.

 5             MR. NICHOLLS:  Good morning, Your Honours.  I don't mean to

 6     interrupt.  I just wonder if this is a problem that can be fixed if we

 7     need a five-minute break.  I think it would be worth it so that the

 8     expert can mark as necessary.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  I agree.  But before we take a break, short break:

10     Mr. Tieger, we are seized of the motion from the Defence to either

11     postpone or -- postpone/adjourn Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez's testimony or order

12     him to testify live.  Can -- when do you think you can give your response

13     to this?

14             MR. TIEGER:  I'll get back to the Court.  I gather that's a

15     request for a response as expedited as possible, and I'll report back on

16     what we can manage as soon as possible.

17             JUDGE KWON:  So I'd like to hear from you before the end of

18     business tomorrow.  Thank you.

19             Then we'll take a break for five minutes.  So if you could tell

20     us when it's ready.

21                           --- Break taken at 9.39 a.m.

22                           --- On resuming at 9.47 a.m.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you for your patience, Doctor.

24             Let's, continue, Mr. Mitchell.

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

Page 22258

 1        Q.   Okay.  We should be -- should be up and running, Professor.  The

 2     question was:  How do you interpret an artefact as a ligature or a

 3     blindfold?

 4        A.   Yes.  I was, before the screen failed, I was pointing to the

 5     layout of this body.  Here is the hair.  We seem to have the same

 6     troubles.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Just wait.  Wait a minute.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Here is the --

 9             JUDGE KWON:  No, no, no.

10             THE WITNESS:  What am I doing wrong?  Or is the machine wrong?

11             JUDGE KWON:  Just -- could you wait till ... yes.

12             MR. MITCHELL:

13        Q.   Sir, can we go down.  It's the bottom photo we're looking at.

14             MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. President.  We do have colour copies here.

15             JUDGE KWON:  I don't understand this.  Let's put the colour copy

16     on the ELMO.

17             THE WITNESS:  Now it's working.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Oh, it is work-- now it works.  Yes.

19             THE WITNESS:  The head, the hair, the shoulder blades, the spine.

20     And here we see the two arms meeting behind the back, and there is this

21     cloth tied round the arms.  This is the cloth holding them together

22     behind the back.  And this individual, although we're looking at the back

23     of the skull and it's a bit obscured, but this is the blindfold here.  So

24     I would interpret those bits of cloth as not background waste from a

25     rubbish dump but as so intimately related to the body that they are

Page 22259

 1     artefacts that must be recovered.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Could you kindly, Doctor, put your -- put the date

 3     and your signature at the right bottom of the picture.  Today is

 4     1st of December.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  This page will be admitted as separate

 7     exhibit.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P4002, Your Honours.

 9             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Can I please go to page 32 now.

10        Q.   And just briefly, Professor, once this comes up I want to ask you

11     if you recall what material the ligatures were made of at this site,

12     whether they were made of the same material or something different.

13        A.   I can't answer that question as to whether they were all made of

14     the same material.  It wasn't something that was within my brief.  But I

15     seem to -- at Kozluk, most of the ligatures, I think all of them that are

16     in that picture, are of cloth, but they were in -- except for these

17     specially taken illustrations for our records, in general we were not

18     analysing the nature of the material.

19        Q.   Mm-hmm.  Okay.

20             MR. MITCHELL:  Can we go back to page 29 now.

21        Q.   And you said earlier, Professor, that you interpreted that

22     previous picture as a ligature because both hands were tied behind the

23     back.  How did you interpret this one as a ligature when it's only around

24     one wrist?

25             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can maybe zoom in photo number 8.

Page 22260

 1        A.   Yes.  In the case of this individual, the ligature is around this

 2     arm, then there's a knot, and then there's a loop of cloth in this area,

 3     and I concluded that this individual had broken loose in his left arm

 4     from the ligature but had not broken loose on his right arm.  So he's

 5     carried with the -- with it, with his right arm, the loop from which he's

 6     broken loose.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             MR. MITCHELL:  Can I tender that, Mr. President.

 9        Q.   Professor, if you could write your initials and the date.

10        A.   [Marks]

11             JUDGE KWON:  That will be Exhibit P4003.

12             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you.

13        Q.   Professor, I want to move to a different area now, and just a few

14     questions about who you reported to at the ICTY during these exhumations.

15     Can you tell us who you reported to?

16        A.   Yes.  I -- in -- in terms of the structure of ICTY as it was

17     then, I reported to the Chief of Operations.

18        Q.   Did the Chief of Operations direct you how to do your

19     professional work at these sites?

20        A.   No.  The Chief of Operations was very rarely at the sites but did

21     make visits.

22        Q.   Okay.  What about the investigators who came to the site; did

23     they direct your work, issue instructions on how to do the work?

24        A.   No, they didn't.

25        Q.   Okay.  Now, I have a few questions about the protocols that you

Page 22261

 1     had in place at the site as well.  Who developed these protocols?

 2        A.   I developed them together with my team, and you're referring to a

 3     document which has a series of paragraphs.

 4        Q.   Correct.

 5        A.   Is it possible to show one on the screen so that I know --

 6        Q.   Yes.

 7             MR. MITCHELL:  If we could have 65 ter 2495.  That's the Kozluk

 8     report.

 9        Q.   And it should be around page 6, starting with the heading

10     "Exhumation Procedures."

11        A.   Yes, that's fine.

12        Q.   Okay, so these are the protocols that you developed?

13        A.   Yes.  And these were printed and given to each member of the

14     team, and I took each member of the team through the protocols to explain

15     what they mean.  Essentially they describe who's responsible for doing

16     what during the exhumation.

17        Q.   And were these protocols put in place at all the

18     Srebrenica-related sites and the three Prijedor sites that you exhumed at

19     Redak, Pasinac cemetery, and Kevljani?

20        A.   Yes, they were, and they were essentially the same for each site

21     but with some differences that depended on the nature of the site.  But

22     they were -- they are essentially the same in 1997 -- sorry, in 1998,

23     1999, and 2000.

24        Q.   And have these protocols received peer recognition or been

25     followed at other sites other than the ICTY?

Page 22262

 1        A.   They were certainly used.  They're not published.  The principles

 2     behind them were incorporated into a book, "The Scientific Investigation

 3     of Mass Graves," which was published by Dr. Cox, and to which people who

 4     worked for me contributed.  And I can see the influence of these

 5     protocols which were developed, and not by me personally but in

 6     conjunction with my team of surveyors, photographers, and scene-of-crime

 7     officers.  Yes, they do have -- have had some influence.

 8        Q.   Okay.  When we were talking about Kozluk, I asked you about

 9     whether you preserved the green glass and you said no.  Was there any

10     other occasion where you didn't preserve an artefact at a site?

11        A.   Yes.  At the -- at the Red Dam that you've referred to, which we

12     worked on in April maybe to May 1998, there were no complete bodies.

13     There were isolated bones.  And in the filling of the -- the refilling of

14     that grave at the Red Dam, there were isolated pieces of clothing that

15     were not associated with any bones and which were industrially

16     manufactured clothing that would not have led to the identification of

17     individuals, and so they were put back -- some of those were put back in

18     the grave.  But what was retained were things like knitted sweaters which

19     somebody might recognise as their own handiwork.  That is the only

20     occasion on which I discarded artefacts, but that was after photography.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Now, just one question about the 21 sites that were

22     probed in 1998, and you estimate that had these sites contained 2.571

23     bodies.  Have you subsequently come into any information that would cause

24     you to revise that estimation?

25        A.   Yes.  If I -- if I could just expand on that a bit.  We -- we

Page 22263

 1     had -- I had information from the morgue of -- about the number of bodies

 2     in seven of the secondary graves that we had excavated.  There were

 3     21 graves that we had probed, and the principles of probing were to

 4     define the outline of the grave and show there were more than two

 5     individuals in the grave but not exhume them, and I did some

 6     calculations, which are estimates, and came up with that number that you

 7     mentioned.  More particularly, I came up with an average number, which I

 8     think was about 122 in each grave.  So I put in my report that if you

 9     accept certain assumptions there, then -- I'm bad on remembering numbers.

10             If I could consult my notes, Mr. President on this.  Could I

11     consult my notes on the numbers that I --

12             JUDGE KWON:  By all means, Doctor.

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  From the -- in the report on the 1998 season,

14     where we had seven secondary graves and I was asked to estimate how many

15     bodies there might be in the 21, I came up, as you said, with an estimate

16     of 2.571, which was an average of 120 -- based on the average of 122.4

17     bodies that we actually found.  I was concerned that my estimate --

18     whether -- were my estimates widely out, so I have kept up with people

19     who have worked since on the exhumation of these probed secondary graves

20     that I didn't exhume, and in particular Mr. Jon Sterenberg who worked for

21     ICMP told me of the number of individuals in ten of those probed graves

22     and the -- that was an average of greater than 151, which meant that my

23     estimate back in -- in 1999 was an underestimate.

24        Q.   Okay.

25        A.   I also consulted a much later report by Dusan Janc, which is an

Page 22264

 1     official ICTY document, and he had information at that point, that was

 2     last year, of the number of individuals in 19 of the 21 probed graves and

 3     they had an average of 137.6.  So, say, 138 bodies actually recovered.

 4     So my estimates in that report you're referring to were a slight

 5     underestimate.  There were more bodies in those probed graves than I had

 6     estimated.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second, Mr. Mitchell.

 9             Do you have any problem, Mr. Karadzic?

10             THE ACCUSED:  I think it's colder than it should be.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

12             MR. MITCHELL:

13        Q.   Just to clarify:  Professor, you were shown the report by

14     Dusan Janc when you came here for your testimony in the Tolimir case last

15     year?

16        A.   I can't remember whether I was shown it before or afterwards.

17        Q.   Okay.  Now, I want to move to a different area now, which is your

18     exhumation at the Glogova 1 site.

19             MR. MITCHELL:  And if I can bring up 65 ter 2504.

20        Q.   And just while that's coming up:  Professor, were the same

21     protocols in place at this site that were in place at your 1998 and 1999

22     excavations?

23        A.   Not the same in the sense of identical, but the principles were

24     the same, yes.  I think by 2000 we decided we would not -- in 1999 at

25     Kozluk where there were some hundreds if not thousands of shell cases

Page 22265

 1     from bullets, we decided we would not survey each one.  We did survey

 2     each one, but we didn't photograph each one, as we would have done

 3     before.  So that's explicit in our 2000 -- protocols for the year 2000,

 4     but if there's artefacts like AK-47 shell cases exceeds a certain number,

 5     we won't photograph every one.

 6        Q.   Okay.

 7        A.   But that's the sort of difference.

 8        Q.   And is this the report that you wrote on that exhumation?

 9        A.   Yes, it is.

10             MR. MITCHELL:  Can we please go to page 26 in e-court.

11        Q.   Can you describe to us what we're looking at in this photo.

12             MR. MITCHELL:  Maybe we can blow it up.

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

14             JUDGE KWON:  I think we can safely collapse the B/C/S part.

15             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  We're looking at -- at the site which is

16     called Glogova 1.  I hardly dare touch the screen, but I will risk it.

17             MR. MITCHELL:

18        Q.   Just -- just wait one moment, Professor.

19        A.   Yes.  This is essentially the area of Glogova 1, which I

20     excavated.  And over the road here is Glogova 2, which I was not

21     responsible for that excavation.

22        Q.   And just -- just to orient us, the road that we can see --

23             JUDGE KWON:  Could you kindly put 1 and 2 for the future

24     reference.

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

Page 22266

 1             MR. MITCHELL:

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Can you just orient us, the road that we see running

 3     along the top half of the picture?

 4        A.   Yes.  Essentially it's running on the left to Kravica and the

 5     warehouse, which I think is about 6 kilometres, and to the right this

 6     main road is running to Bratunac.

 7        Q.   Okay.

 8        A.   And then there is a side road here which is a track, which leads

 9     up to the two Glogova sites.

10        Q.   Thank you.  And can you please put your initials and date that.

11        A.   [Marks]

12             MR. MITCHELL:  If that can be admitted, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Exhibit P4004.

14             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can go to page 28 next.

15        Q.   Now, this is a complex site, Professor, so if -- when the next

16     image comes up, if you can just briefly describe the site and the various

17     sub-graves within it.

18             MR. MITCHELL:  Actually, maybe page 29 may be better.

19        Q.   So there are six separate deposits here; is that correct?

20        A.   There are six separate surviving deposits.  The -- I divide the

21     site into two areas.  There is this area that I'm drawing a red line

22     around, which I'll mark as 1, and then there are three discrete small

23     graves on the left-hand side of the picture marked as grave E, K, and L.

24     This area to the right, which I've labelled 1, was probably once a very

25     much large area of mass graves, and these marks on -- that we have put on

Page 22267

 1     and called grave H, grave F, and grave C, are surviving patches of

 2     body -- of bodies.  It -- from a grave that was robbed in October 1995.

 3     And so this is what was left behind that we found.  On the left are

 4     graves that were not disturbed in October 1995 and so they are intact.

 5        Q.   And how do you know that these graves were robbed in

 6     October 1995?

 7        A.   Because we see signs of excavators having cut through the bodies,

 8     and there are these dismembered limbs left behind after a -- after an

 9     attempt was made to remove the bodies.

10        Q.   And what about the specific time period that you gave,

11     October 1995; how did you conclude that that's when the robbing occurred?

12        A.   I was shown aerial images which are included in my report which

13     allows me to see first of all when the original burials were made, which

14     was in July 1995.  That's all the burials were made.

15        Q.   Mm-hmm.

16        A.   And then in October 1995, these aerial images show the

17     disturbance of the area I've marked 1?  And there's -- one of the aerial

18     images shows a large excavator working in this area, mechanical excavator

19     working in this area, which I'll call 2.

20        Q.   Okay.  If you can initial and date that.

21        A.   [Marks]

22             JUDGE KWON:  Professor, did you include that -- those aerial

23     images you saw at the time into your report?

24             THE WITNESS:  I did, Mr. President.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Where can we see them, Mr. Mitchell?  We'll mark --

Page 22268

 1     we'll admit this as Exhibit P4005.  Do you have your report in front of

 2     you?

 3             MR. MITCHELL:  I do, Mr. President.  I think it's, Mr. President,

 4     at page 27.  It's an aerial image dated the 27th of July for three --

 5     sorry, four aerial images, 5th of July, 17th of July, 27th of July, and

 6     then 30th of October.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  After having kept this image, we'll move to page 27

 8     to take a brief look.

 9             I think it's in front of you at the monitor, Doctor.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

11             JUDGE KWON:  If you could give us some brief explanation.

12             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Mr. President.  This is the area which we

13     investigated.  And on the 5th of July, in this aerial photograph, it's an

14     undisturbed area.  On the 17th of July, this photograph to the right,

15     there's a lot of disturbed soil showing up.  We recognised this in

16     photograph after photograph.  You can't dig graves without disturbing

17     soil.  And this area here is the area within which burials were made.

18     These letters in blue are the labels we gave to patches of surviving

19     bodies for our own notes, and they remain unchanged in all of the four

20     photographs.

21             The -- on the 27th of July you can see that the area is smoothed

22     over.  And this area down at the bottom of the picture, K and L, has got

23     graves which were not there on the 17th of July, this area which I'll

24     mark as 2, in both cases on the 17th of July it actually has one of the

25     graves, but the -- the -- there are two graves here which were -- there

Page 22269

 1     are two graves here which appear after, that is E and L.

 2             And the disturbance of the site that took place on the

 3     30th of October, where you can see big areas of new disturbed soil which

 4     are not present here, this type of robbing did not extend to these graves

 5     down here, K, E, and L.

 6             The photograph of the excavator at work was not available to me

 7     when I wrote this report, and so it's not included in the report, the

 8     aerial image.

 9             MR. MITCHELL:

10        Q.   Can you initial that and date it, Professor.

11        A.   [Marks]

12             JUDGE KWON:  Exhibit P4006.

13             Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

14             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you.

15        Q.   Were you able to establish any links between this grave at

16     Glogova 1 and a secondary grave-site?

17        A.   Yes.  Rather in the same way as the link between Cancari Road 3

18     and Kozluk, we in fact found one of the secondary graves for the Glogova

19     site before we found the primary grave.  The secondary grave we found in

20     1998, at the end of the season, is Zeleni Jadar 5.  And Zeleni Jadar 5

21     had certain peculiar properties compared with the other graves we had

22     dug.  For instance, there were a lot of motorcar parts, barbed wire, hay.

23     This was mixed up with the bodies.  And even an unripe apple, which,

24     although it might seem of little consequence, at least allows one to

25     judge approximately the season at which these bodies were buried.

Page 22270

 1             Then in 2000 when we excavated the Glogova site, we consistently

 2     found -- well, there are orchards, trees overhanging the graves, and we

 3     were finding motorcar parts, parts of buildings, barbed wire.

 4        Q.   Did you find hay Glogova 1?

 5        A.   We found hay.  We found hay in Glogova 1.  There's a picture in

 6     my report of the hay.  And we found, more particularly and which was of

 7     great interest to the investigators, we were finding parts of --

 8     broken-off parts of what was clearly a building.  And Mr. Mike Hedley,

 9     who was a British police officer, was commissioned to write a report on

10     the relationship between these bits of building that we were finding at

11     Glogova with the Kravica warehouse.  And I personally went down there and

12     saw the Kravica warehouse, that the door had been -- that the arch above

13     the door had been broken.  And in the graves at Glogova 1 we were able to

14     assemble virtually the complete door from -- which we recovered from

15     various parts of the site mixed in with the bodies, the frame, the

16     joists, the door itself, pieces of cement which were painted white and

17     some painted red, and polystyrene which was used.  You could see at the

18     warehouse itself polystyrene was used as an insulator between the cement

19     panels that formed the wall.  But I didn't do an analysis of that

20     material.  I formed an impression.  But there is a separate analysis

21     done.

22        Q.   Okay.  There's one other artefact, or type of artefact, that you

23     describe in that grave, which is shrapnel- and grenade-related artefacts.

24             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can go to page 37 in e-court.

25        Q.   If you can just explain what it is that we're looking at in these

Page 22271

 1     five photographs, starting with the one at the top of the page, 56763_15?

 2        A.   Yes.  There we're looking at a pellet of metal embedded in --

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Why don't you zoom in, just for the first picture.

 4             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Here we're looking at a very shattered skull.  And

 6     embedded in the skull is this pellet.  And the unexploded ordnance

 7     officer that we had with us explained, for our own safety, explained to

 8     me that this is a pellet from a grenade.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MR. MITCHELL:  Do we need to save this page now or scroll down

11     and --

12             JUDGE KWON:  Why don't we --

13             MR. MITCHELL:  We can save it now.

14        Q.   You can initial and date it, Professor.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Exhibit P4007.

16             MR. MITCHELL:  And if we can scroll down and look at the next two

17     photos down on that page.

18        Q.   And, Professor, if you can just describe what we're looking at in

19     these two photos.

20        A.   Well -- sorry.

21        Q.   Please go ahead.

22        A.   We're looking at some flesh, I don't know what, maybe the

23     shoulder, the skin.  And the one on the left is a general photograph and

24     the one on the right is a close-up of the same effect, but here a piece

25     of metal embedded in the flesh.

Page 22272

 1             MR. MITCHELL:  Just for the record -- sorry.  Just for the

 2     record, we're looking at photo 56715_04a.  And if we can just scroll

 3     across so I can get the number of the second one.

 4             If we can save that, Mr. President.

 5        Q.   Professor, if you can initial and date that.

 6        A.   [Marks]

 7        Q.   Just for the record, the second photo we were looking at was

 8     56715_05a.  And now if we can scroll down and look at the bottom two

 9     photos on that page, which are 56726_25.

10             JUDGE KWON:  The previous one was admitted as Exhibit P4008;

11     correct?

12             THE REGISTRAR:  That's correct, Your Honours.

13             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.

14        Q.   And the second photo we're looking at here on the right is

15     56757_24.  And again, Professor, if you can just explain what it is we're

16     looking at here.

17        A.   Here we're looking at a piece of bent metal which is found with

18     the bodies.  And I was told again by the unexploded ordnance officer that

19     this is the fly-off, I believe that's the name, the fly-off lever of a

20     grenade which is lifted and causes the grenade to explode.  And the one

21     on the left is a second one of those but not bent.

22             MR. MITCHELL:  Okay.  If I can now go to page 17 in e-court, 17

23     in the English, 16 in the B/C/S.

24        Q.   Professor, that's page 16 in your hard copy, if you'd like to

25     take a look.

Page 22273

 1        A.   Do you want me to initial it?

 2        Q.   Yes, please.  No, you haven't marked it --

 3             JUDGE KWON:  No, you don't have to because you didn't mark

 4     anything.

 5             MR. MITCHELL:

 6        Q.   Okay.  Now, at this part of your report you talk about how the

 7     bodies in this site are -- you describe them as unusually fragmented, and

 8     you conclude that some of this is due to blast injuries as well as the

 9     burial process itself.  Can you just briefly expand on this conclusion.

10        A.   Well, the bones were more broken up within the clothing than at

11     any of the other sites we examined, and the association with the bodies

12     of grenades and flesh -- and metal embedded in the flesh led me to

13     conclude that we were looking at blast damage.  But, but, these bodies go

14     to the morgue.  These are the impressions -- contingency impressions that

15     I form at the site, but I have no doubt that these bodies suffered blast

16     damage.

17             JUDGE KWON:  What paragraph are we looking at on this page?

18             MR. MITCHELL:  That's the very bottom of the page.  My apologies.

19     It's over on page 16, the paragraph that starts with "In the light of

20     this unusual fragmentation, I consider it significant that Glogova 1 is

21     the only primary site where I have found remains of explosive devices in

22     the form of grenades and shrapnel."

23             JUDGE KWON:  Where is it?

24             MR. MITCHELL:  Paragraph 3.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Oh, yes.  In -- yes.  Thank you.

Page 22274

 1             MR. MITCHELL:

 2        Q.   Okay.  I want to take you to one last area and that's a video --

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Would you like to tender doctor's report it testify?

 4             MR. MITCHELL:  Yes, please.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  You are not tendering his interim report, are

 6     you?

 7             MR. MITCHELL:  No, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Exhibit -- the 65 ter 2504 will be admitted as

 9     Exhibit P4009.

10             I take it there's no opposition.

11             MR. ROBINSON:  That's correct, Mr. President.

12             MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. President, the only thing I have left is some

13     video footage of about 10 minutes, but with breaks and explanations it

14     could be 20, 25 minutes.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  We will take a break in a few minutes.

16     But before that shall we deal with associated exhibits --

17             MR. MITCHELL:  Certainly.

18             JUDGE KWON:  -- with this transcript you tender.

19             Two -- just, first question is:  Two expert reports which have

20     been already tendered are listed as one -- as one of those associated

21     exhibits, but we're not minder to tender them separately?

22             MR. MITCHELL:  They should be tendered separately under Rule 94,

23     not as associated exhibits.

24             JUDGE KWON:  65 ter number 20576.  And, before that, 65 ter 2494.

25     Can we upload it?  This is just one-page diagram.  But according to the

Page 22275

 1     transcript, doctor identifies certain parts of the -- this diagram by

 2     colour, but I see only black and white.  Can we upload 2494?  Do we have

 3     original in colour?

 4             MR. MITCHELL:  I have looked.  I don't believe that we have the

 5     original in colour, but Professor Wright does, so we may be able to

 6     rescan --

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Could you look during the break.

 8             MR. MITCHELL:  -- rescan his report in colour.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  And then further:  25 -- 20576, doctor also explains

10     in colour red, but I see only yellow colour in that picture.  20576.

11     Could you take a look during the break.

12             MR. MITCHELL:  Yes, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Then we'll take a break now for half an hour and

14     resume at 11.00.

15                           --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Is it now okay with you, Mr. Karadzic?

18             THE ACCUSED:  I don't feel yet, but I hope.  I hope it will be.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Okay.  Let's continue, Mr. Mitchell.

20             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Just in respect of the

21     two associated exhibits you asked me about:  2495, the Kozluk report,

22     where that schematic is taken from, we're in the process of getting and

23     uploading the colour version.  In relation to 20576, that's the incorrect

24     photo.  The right photo that Professor Wright was talking about is

25     already admitted as P216, and that was admitted as part of a

Page 22276

 1     92 bis decision with KDZ069.  So that's the appropriate exhibit at that

 2     transcript reference.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  And the last item in the associated

 4     exhibit is a video.  Is this what we are going to see now?

 5             MR. MITCHELL:  Yes, it is.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 7             Are there any objection otherwise?

 8             MR. ROBINSON:  No, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  Then, with those caveats, all the other

10     associated exhibits will be admitted into evidence and be given number in

11     due course.

12             Yes.  Let's continue, Mr. Mitchell.

13             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.

14        Q.   Professor, we're going to look now at a video of the Cancari 12

15     site that you exhumed in 1998.  But before we start, I just wonder if you

16     could give the Trial Chamber a bit of background about this site.  Just

17     describe where it is and some of the general properties.

18        A.   Yes.  The Cancari 12 site was the first site that we excavated

19     that was a secondary grave in 1998.  It's at one extreme end of what we

20     call the Cancari Road, that is, the end of the Cancari Road that's

21     furthest away from the Drina River.  It was shown to us by -- or, rather,

22     we were taken to it by investigators, and I had to see whether it was

23     feasible to excavate the site and we were able to get all our transport

24     in and all the necessary buildings that would have to go up to do the

25     work, and, well, that's it.

Page 22277

 1        Q.   Okay.  That might be an appropriate point to start the film.  And

 2     I'll -- rather than talking during the footage, we'll just watch a bit

 3     and then I'll stop and get you to explain what it is that we've just

 4     seen.

 5             MR. MITCHELL:  So if we can start.

 6                           [Video-clip played]

 7             MR. MITCHELL:  Okay.  If we can stop there.  The time is 00:25

 8     seconds.

 9        Q.   And if you can describe what we just saw in that image,

10     Professor.

11        A.   Yes, what we saw in that image was the grave before any

12     excavation started.  And the people responsible for the surveying that

13     was going to take place were -- were -- were setting up their equipment,

14     establishing a baseline and so on.

15        Q.   Okay.

16             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can start again.

17                           [Video-clip played]

18             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can just stop there.  That's 01:05 seconds.

19        Q.   And if you can describe this.

20        A.   What we've seen there is the initial search for the boundaries of

21     the grave.  The archaeological principle is that you find the grave

22     outlines before you disturb any of the bodies.  And how do you find the

23     grave outlines?  Well, excavation in this sort of soil brings up

24     mineralised material from down below and mixes it up with the organic

25     material on top that this backhoe that you saw in the film is scraping

Page 22278

 1     through.  So when the grave is refilled, there's a mottled soil in the

 2     filling of the grave, it contains top-soil and subsoil, and the boundary

 3     of the grave therefore can show up when you have a decent scrape across

 4     the surface, a nice smooth scrape.  And that's what this backhoe is

 5     doing, searching for the boundaries of the grave.

 6        Q.   Sir, what are the specific things that are being looked for, the

 7     specific signs?  Like, is there change in texture of the soil, colour of

 8     the soil?  Like, what are the things that -- the specific indicia that

 9     they're looking for?

10        A.   Well, exactly as I've described.  Because a grave is dug through

11     a developed soil profile, it mixes it all up.  And so the archaeologists

12     are looking, where this excavator is working, for a change in texture or

13     colour and then tracking that to see if it makes sense in terms of the

14     outline of a grave.

15        Q.   Okay.

16             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can keep going.

17                           [Video-clip played]

18             MR. MITCHELL:  Okay.  If I can just stop there.

19        Q.   Two questions.  First, what -- what are the orange flags that we

20     saw you -- or we saw being put in place a few seconds ago?

21        A.   The orange flags are temporary markers of what the archaeologist

22     thinks is the boundary of the grave as it's being developed.

23        Q.   Okay.  And second:  Can you explain the colour of the soil here,

24     what we're looking at, at this particular shot?

25             MR. MITCHELL:  And I'll just -- the time we stopped the video at

Page 22279

 1     is 01 minutes and 47 seconds.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  The natural colour of the soil is black at

 3     the organic horizon at the top and then it changes to a reddish colour

 4     and then it changes to a much paler colour with a natural deposit.  When

 5     bodies have been put into a grave and the grave has been refilled, the

 6     soil around the bodies changes colour.  This is because the ferric oxide

 7     in the soil, which -- if you'd like to think of it as rust, the ferric

 8     oxide in the soil is changed by the bacteria that putrefy the bodies.

 9     This is an -- these are anaerobic bacteria, and the world over this is a

10     phenomenon that's observed, where iron is in the soil.  The -- an oxygen

11     atom from the ferric oxide is taken by these bacteria to keep them alive

12     and the soil changes to the ferrous state because of the loss of that

13     oxygen molecule.  So this a -- these blueish-green soils is a very useful

14     indicator that bodies, not necessarily human bodies, but organic bodies

15     have been in -- been in that spot.

16             MR. MITCHELL:  Can we restart.

17                           [Video-clip played]

18             MR. MITCHELL:  Okay.  If I can just stop there.

19             THE WITNESS:  What are we -- sorry.

20             MR. MITCHELL:

21        Q.   Sorry, yeah, what stage of the process are we at here now?

22        A.   Well, the previous stage that we saw, people with picks and

23     trowels, were not digging up bodies but they were following on from the

24     mechanical excavator by using picks, mattocks, and trowels to define the

25     grave precisely.  Then the next step is to put in a sounding within the

Page 22280

 1     area of the -- of what is thought to be the grave to see if there are

 2     indeed bodies in the grave, and so this is the sounding that's put in to

 3     check that.

 4             MR. MITCHELL:  And that's at 2 minutes and 49 seconds.  And if we

 5     can start again.

 6                           [Video-clip played]

 7             MR. MITCHELL: [Microphone not activated] Stop there.

 8        Q.   Now --

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Microphone, please.

10             MR. MITCHELL:  Sorry.

11        Q.   We can see a dig trench now.  Can you explain what stage of the

12     process the excavation is at now?

13        A.   Well, once the sounding that we saw in the previous -- the

14     previous part of the video, once the sounding is established that there

15     are bodies, then the filling of the grave above those bodies has to be

16     removed.  And if there's danger of flooding of the grave during the

17     course of work, a sump is put in to catch the water by the side.  So

18     you're seeing a mixture of the removal of the filling of the grave down

19     to the level of the bodies and the digging of a deeper trench along the

20     side which would catch the water if it should -- there should be

21     torrential rain.

22        Q.   Now, we saw the backhoe working at the start.  We're now starting

23     to see work being done by hand.  How much of the excavation is done by

24     hand from this point onwards?

25        A.   All the work around bodies is done by hand.  The excavator is for

Page 22281

 1     the removal of -- the mechanical excavator is for the removal of material

 2     that is not containing bodies.

 3             MR. MITCHELL:  Okay.  If we can start the video again.

 4                           [Video-clip played]

 5             MR. MITCHELL:  Stop there.  Stop there.

 6        Q.   Okay.  What are we looking at here?

 7        A.   Well, we jumped forward several days from the previous point

 8     where you stopped the video, and the -- the side trench had been, as you

 9     notice, had put boards there, and the bodies were now being exposed.

10     The -- and taken away in body bags to the chiller van where they were

11     then taken to the morgue in Visoko.  So there's a big gap in time between

12     the two sets of shots.

13        Q.   But this specifically, what's the machine that we're looking at

14     in the centre of the shot?

15             MR. MITCHELL:  And that shot is at 4 minutes and 22 seconds.

16        A.   Now, this is a -- what we call a total station, a surveying

17     instrument for measuring the -- for any particular artefact or point on a

18     body, it measures the number of metres east, the number of metres north,

19     and the elevation of the point in relation to our datum.  And from that,

20     then we can reconstruct in three dimensions the location of a particular

21     artefact or particular body and generate stick figures to represent the

22     human skeletons that were in the -- in the excavation.  So this is the

23     surveying instrument which allows us to reconstruct the three-dimensional

24     patterns within the grave.

25        Q.   And you survey these 12 points on the body; is that correct?

Page 22282

 1        A.   Yes.  Then we were using 12 points on the body.  We're using the

 2     head, the shoulders, the elbows, the wrists, the pelvis, the knees, and

 3     ankles, and from that it was possible to construct a three-dimensional

 4     map of the grave in stick figures.  And then you can, on the computer,

 5     rotate those images so that you can see, perhaps, piles of bodies from

 6     the side.  Yeah.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Can we start again, please.

 8                           [Video-clip played]

 9             MR. MITCHELL: [Microphone not activated]

10             JUDGE KWON:  Microphone.

11             MR. MITCHELL:  We've stopped at 5 minutes and 2 seconds.

12        Q.   Can you describe what -- what we see on the screen here,

13     Professor?

14        A.   Yes.  Well, just as background, the Cancari 12 grave was a

15     secondary grave, and the bodies had been removed from a site that I'm

16     told is the Branjevo Farm.  And in the course of removing the bodies from

17     that primary grave at Branjevo Farm, many of them were broken up so that

18     we had some isolated hands and limbs.  I can't recall the details of this

19     particular individual, but I know what we're looking at.  We're looking

20     at a hand and a knot of cloth in what would be the area of the wrist, so

21     a ligature.

22             MR. MITCHELL:  And can we start again.

23                           [Video-clip played]

24             MR. MITCHELL:  Okay.  If we can just stop there.

25        Q.   What's the code that we're looking at there?

Page 22283

 1        A.   The code -- the C is obscured by the block of soil on the left,

 2     but that would be CR12 that designates the site, and the code A046

 3     indicates that it's the 46th -- it's an artefact with the number 046.  I

 4     don't know what the artefact is, I can't see, but these would be probably

 5     the ligature that we saw in the previous shot, but I'm not sure.  And

 6     the -- these entries are then made into a log so that each of these

 7     items -- item A046 would be an item in the log that was kept for the

 8     site.

 9             MR. MITCHELL:  And just for the record, that was at 5 minutes and

10     31 seconds.  And we can restart.

11                           [Video-clip played]

12             MR. MITCHELL:  Just stop there.  Six minutes, 22 seconds.

13        Q.   Can you describe what this, the white object we see on the screen

14     now?

15        A.   Yes, this is one of the plastic body bags that we used, zipped

16     from top to bottom -- or from all along the top, rather, I should say.

17     And the label on it is CR12, and it's B095.  I think it's a 9.  And so

18     that signifies that this bag is going to include a whole body.  Now, the

19     body may not be removable in its complete state so that bits may have to

20     be removed bit by bit, but into that bag, that body bag, would have gone

21     a body which was virtually complete.  And then these body bags are

22     transferred to the chiller van.

23        Q.   How would the code for a body part be different?

24        A.   If that had been a body part, it would be BP092, BP standing for

25     body part.

Page 22284

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             MR. MITCHELL:  We can restart.

 3                           [Video-clip played]

 4             MR. MITCHELL:  Can we stop there.

 5        Q.   What's this, the sheet that we're looking at here?

 6        A.   This is one of the body sheets.  So when a body was complete or

 7     nearly complete, the person responsible for uncovering that body would

 8     fill out some summary details which would include the -- the -- the

 9     lay -- layout of the body, whether it showed any puncture marks, whether

10     it was -- what kind of clothing it was wearing, any associate artefacts

11     would be listed on; what is really a checklist to remind the excavator to

12     make certain observations.  And at the very bottom you see a schematic

13     diagram of how the body was laid out, together with some notes.

14             MR. MITCHELL:  And that was at 6 minutes and 40 seconds.  And we

15     can restart.

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             MR. MITCHELL:  Just stop there.  That's 7 minutes and 52 seconds.

18        Q.   Now, there's several parts going into a body bag here.  Can you

19     describe -- well, just describe what we're seeing.

20        A.   Yes, earlier on we just saw for a flashing moment the label,

21     which was a B label, so it's a body, but the body is being removed in

22     bits and pieces, although these were together in the grave, and they're

23     now being removed as bits and pieces and reassembled, as it were, in the

24     body bag.

25             MR. MITCHELL:  Can we restart.

Page 22285

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can just stop there.

 3        Q.   Where's this body being taken to now, Professor?

 4        A.   Well, that -- just at the beginning of the sequence you saw the

 5     excavators putting plastic bags over the hands, and they would also put

 6     them over the feet so the various parts of the hand don't fall off in

 7     transport.  They stay together.  And now the body is being taken to the

 8     chiller van on a stretcher.

 9             MR. MITCHELL:  And that was at 8 minutes and 38 seconds.  And we

10     can restart.

11                           [Video-clip played]

12             MR. MITCHELL:  If we can just stop there.  Nine minutes and

13     8 seconds.

14        Q.   Can you describe what's going on here, Professor?

15        A.   Yes, two things.  The -- well, one -- one thing in this case.

16     They are looking for wallets or any other form of identification, such as

17     a necklace, which we could photograph.  Not because it's the final study

18     of any documents that might be found with this body but because we were

19     afraid that documents would perish in the interval between their removal

20     from the grave and their arrival at the morgue where they were studied in

21     more detail by investigators.  So it was our custom to see if there was a

22     wallet in a pocket and, if so, to open it up, because when you open up a

23     wallet you're normally seeing a primary identification document, and then

24     that's photograph, and the wallet is then closed and put back.

25             And minimum -- there's minimum -- there are two reasons why

Page 22286

 1     there's minimum decay from this point on.  One is that the bag is sealed

 2     so there's little oxygen, and oxygen is very damaging to paper documents.

 3     And the second thing is that it's kept under cold conditions which again

 4     slows down the fungal and bacterial decay that would take place in

 5     documents.  So they're looking for any document that would -- could be

 6     opened up and photographed, and then that could be recorded.

 7        Q.   You probably can't give us an exact answer, but how -- how

 8     quickly would a piece of paper degrade after coming out of site like

 9     this?  Is it hours or days or weeks?

10        A.   I don't know.  We were not -- we had no -- apart from the general

11     principles that it's bad for a document to be re-oxygenated, as it were,

12     and being allowed to dry out in particular, we -- I don't know.  This was

13     a precaution.

14        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

15             MR. MITCHELL:  We can restart.

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             MR. MITCHELL:  And stop there.  Ten minutes, 10 seconds.

18        Q.   Was that the chiller van that we just saw in the picture?

19        A.   It was.  And you saw the scene-of-crime officers who were

20     responsible for formally handing over the bodies and the artefacts doing

21     that part of the job, putting them in the chiller van and closing the

22     door.

23        Q.   And from there the bodies go to the morgue?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And that's where the anthropologists and the pathologists start

Page 22287

 1     their examination of the remains?

 2        A.   Yes.  And the investigators would -- the investigators would

 3     start their examination of the artefacts.

 4             MR. MITCHELL:  Thank you, Professor.  I have no further

 5     questions.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 7             Yes, it's now time for Mr. Karadzic to start his

 8     cross-examination.  Just a second.  I think this video is a part of the

 9     associated exhibit, but shall we give the number separately now.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  That's Exhibit P4027, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

12             Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Excellencies, good

14     afternoon to all.

15                           Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Professor.

17        A.   Good afternoon, Mr. Karadzic.

18        Q.   At the very outset I would like to say to you that I highly

19     appreciate the impressive work that you did, and I would like to ask you

20     for your understanding, namely the Defence has to establish which part of

21     your work can be considered established beyond reasonable doubt in terms

22     of criminal law, that is to say, what has actually been established or,

23     on the other hand, what can be disputed or challenged.  On the whole,

24     this is an impressive body of work.  I'm not attacking it in any way.

25     I'm just saying that we should find out what it is that has been

Page 22288

 1     established, actually.

 2             Do you agree with that.

 3        A.   Yes, I agree with that.

 4        Q.   I would like to ask you something.  At the very outset you said

 5     that you worked for the international criminal court.  Am I right if I

 6     specify this by saying that you were engaged by the Office of the

 7     Prosecutor?

 8        A.   Yes, I was, under contract.

 9        Q.   I'm asking you that because in our legal system there is an

10     investigative judge who can be engaged and that judge has to be

11     impartial, where someone working for the Office of the Prosecutor need

12     not be.

13             So who is your employer from the side of the Office of the

14     Prosecutor.

15        A.   I was answerable to the Chief of Operations of whom there were

16     three different people during the time I worked in the four years.  That

17     was the person that I was answerable to, who had, I suppose, the right of

18     hire and fire, the right to hire me or fire me.

19        Q.   When you say Chief of Operations, was he in charge of anything

20     else or was it only these operations?  What kind of a particular post is

21     that?  Can you help us with that?  What did these operations include?

22        A.   Mr. Karadzic, I don't know.  I can't answer that.  I was not

23     employed within the whole system of ICTY, so I'm not familiar with the

24     structure or the responsibilities of that person other than to provide my

25     support for me.

Page 22289

 1        Q.   Thank you.  The second sentence here in your introduction in

 2     Glogova 1, you say:

 3              "I was asked to identify and exhume graveyards -- or, rather,

 4     the graves of persons who were allegedly killed after the taking of

 5     Srebrenica."

 6             Is that right?

 7        A.   Yes, that is right.

 8        Q.   Can we consider, then, that all the bodies that were accessible

 9     to you, that your team had exhumed, that is -- actually, that you

10     established that these people died after the taking of Srebrenica?

11        A.   Can you clarify, please?  Do you mean just at Glogova or are you

12     talking about all these sites we've heard about today?

13        Q.   Well, is this the assignment that you were given for all the

14     locations or only for Glogova?

15        A.   No.  I asked the question because a lot of the work I did was not

16     related to the Srebrenica case.  I worked in Prijedor.  But for the sites

17     that we've heard about today, yes, it was my understanding that the ICTY

18     believed that these were people who were killed after the fall of

19     Srebrenica.

20        Q.   Thank you.  My interest is in Eastern Bosnia, not Prijedor, what

21     is part of this case.

22             Professor, did you obtain any other information from someone?

23     Were you informed about what it was that had been going on there and what

24     you would be up against, as it were?

25        A.   Do you mean what is -- what had -- what happened at Srebrenica

Page 22290

 1     and what I could expect to find?  I'm not quite sure what the question

 2     means.

 3        Q.   Let me put it in simple terms.  The war started there in

 4     April 1992.  The war went on all the way up until October 1995.

 5     Srebrenica was declared a safe haven, a protected area, in May 1993.

 6     Before July 1993, about 2.000 fighters lost their lives from Srebrenica

 7     only.  And not only in Srebrenica itself, but as they were going out into

 8     Serb-held territory.  Could you differentiate as to who had lost their

 9     lives before the take-over of Srebrenica and who lost their lives after

10     the take-over of Srebrenica?

11        A.   No.  I -- I -- I don't see how I could have established that, and

12     I can't answer your question there.

13        Q.   Thank you, Professor.  You have given an answer, and I'm not

14     attacking your findings at all.  You have done a great deal of work.

15             Do you know that people were dying every day in that area?  Serbs

16     and Muslims were dying every day.  Have you received that information at

17     all?

18        A.   Not in my official capacity as an independent investigator of the

19     graves, no, but I have read newspapers and heard news about events.  But

20     I was not officially told very much about the background to the fall of

21     Srebrenica.  I was asked to investigate certain graves and to determine

22     how the people -- how many people were in them, what the properties of

23     these bodies were, what associated artefacts were, but I'm -- I'm not an

24     expert in the history of the -- of the war.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Let us put it simply, in simple terms.  Professor,

Page 22291

 1     you stated on page 47, line 18, it was -- line 19, 20:  "It was my

 2     understanding that the ICTY," I take it to be the OTP, "ICTY believed

 3     that these were people who were killed after the fall of Srebrenica."

 4     But it was not for you to establish that fact.

 5             THE WITNESS:  I think it was for me to establish that fact, yes,

 6     but --

 7             JUDGE KWON:  But, I mean, they were killed after the fall of

 8     Srebrenica or -- or may have been killed before the fall of Srebrenica.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Oh, I see what you mean.  My understanding was that

10     they had fallen -- that they had died after the fall of Srebrenica.

11             JUDGE KWON:  But did you establish that fact?

12             THE WITNESS:  I'd say my -- yes, I believe I established that

13     fact, that they were people who had died after the fall of Srebrenica.  I

14     don't -- I didn't work -- I mean, I imagine the people who died before

15     the fall of Srebrenica, say within Srebrenica itself, would have been

16     buried there, but I didn't work around Srebrenica.  We worked in areas to

17     which bodies had been taken.  Now, my understanding of the history is

18     that people were taken away from Srebrenica, and all the people that I

19     excavated were taken away from Srebrenica, and I don't think for that

20     reason that they died before the fall of Srebrenica.

21             JUDGE KWON:  So one -- was one of your mandates to establish the

22     timing of the death of those bodies?

23             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Mr. President.  I -- it would have been.  Or I

24     was asked to advise whether it was reasonable to think that these people

25     had died after the fall of Srebrenica.

Page 22292

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

 2             Yes, Mr. -- back to you, Mr. Karadzic.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Did you establish and did they show you graves -- or, rather, was

 6     it your obligation to investigate all the accessible mass graves?

 7        A.   No, Mr. Karadzic.  I was shown aerial images that the -- that had

 8     fresh patches of soil on them dating from October 1995, and I was shown

 9     photographs that, on my analysis, had about 28 of these patches of soil

10     that appeared, you know, over a period of a couple of days in

11     October 1995, and I went to all of these and decided which of them we

12     could excavate in the season that was available, in the season that was

13     available which was about six months.  And so my advice was sought as to

14     how many we could reasonably excavate in that time.  It was not possible

15     to excavate more than seven of those in that time.  But as I said earlier

16     in my testimony, we probed the other sites it showed on the aerial

17     photographs to establish that they were -- that they had multiple human

18     remains in them, but we didn't exhume them.

19             So in answer to your question was it my obligation to investigate

20     all the accessible mass graves, yes, to investigate, but not to excavate.

21     Excavation was restricted to seven.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Which method did you apply, and in which way did you

23     establish the time of death?

24        A.   Well, we -- we -- we established that the watches that were worn

25     by some of the individuals were consistent with the date of the

Page 22293

 1     executions, and that analysis is in my report.  They're consistent.

 2     The -- we also found artefacts of a sort, which, again, are in my report,

 3     such as Dutch newspaper that was cut up into cigarette papers and was in

 4     the pockets of the victims.  But the main way in which we established the

 5     age of those graves was that they -- that is, the secondary graves of the

 6     1998 season, is that they do not appear before October 1995.  We have

 7     images of the ground before October 1995 and then suddenly these graves

 8     appear.  So that is the best way of determining the age of the graves.

 9        Q.   The age of the graves.  But the time of death is something

10     different.  That's not the age of the graves.  How did you establish when

11     a man had died?

12        A.   I was not able to establish when a man had died other than by the

13     context of the artefacts that came out of the grave.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Are you trying to say that a watch would show the

15     hour, day, month, and year of execution?

16        A.   The particular watches that I'm talking and which are in my

17     report are Seiko mechanical or automatic watches that stop within 24 to

18     48 hours of the last movement of the watch.  Now, I'm told that the

19     executions took place on Friday, the 14th of July, and eight out of the

20     ten watches that we found in the 1998 season showed a day and a date,

21     that is, Saturday 15 or Sunday 16, which is consistent with the

22     information I received about the date of executions.  But apart from

23     that, apart from that I have evidence of the age of the graves.  But if I

24     look at an individual, I can't tell you when that individual died, no.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

Page 22294

 1             MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. President, just -- if there's going to be more

 2     questions on the topic of watches, I think the report in question is --

 3     it's -- it had 65 ter 2496, and it might be helpful to bring it up if

 4     there's going to be further questions on this.  And it starts -- there's

 5     a section on this topic that starts at around page 28.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 7             Yes, Mr. Karadzic.  Please continue.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   So all of these watches were automatic mechanical ones?  There

11     were no battery operated watches?  Electronic ones?

12        A.   There were windup watches and there were electronic watches, but

13     they do -- the windup watches do not show day and date in the window.  I

14     really believe at this stage I should have a picture of the watch -- of

15     one of the watches to explain what I'm talking about.

16             JUDGE KWON:  I think it's the penultimate page of the first

17     report.  Exhibit P4000.  Page 181.  E-court page.

18             Did you refer to this?

19             THE WITNESS:  I referred to this type of watch, yes.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   And this is not a windup watch; right?  This is an electronic or

22     an automatic mechanical watch.  Oh, it says automatic, doesn't it?

23        A.   Yes, it's an automatic mechanical watch that is self-winding but

24     stops after no movement within 24 or 48 hours.  And this watch is showing

25     in its window the day Sab, which is either Italian or Spanish for

Page 22295

 1     Saturday, 15.  And this is one of the watches that I'm talking about

 2     where eight out of ten were consistent with an execution on Thursday --

 3     on Friday the 14th.  And I argue in my report that the probabilities of

 4     eight out of ten watches showing these day/dates that are consistent with

 5     the supposed execution date is trillions to one.  Some special event

 6     happened that made these watches stop, not at random, but in a pattern.

 7             Now, you asked about the electronic watches and the -- well, you

 8     asked about electronic watches, and they, of course, continued to go on

 9     until the battery runs out.  So they are of no forensic use.  Windup

10     watches tend not to have the day/date window.  They may show a day -- a

11     date, but not a day.  The power of these watches for forensic purpose

12     lies in the fact that they show a day and a date.

13        Q.   Of course we agree, don't we, that neither the month nor the year

14     is displayed; right?

15        A.   No.  Neither the -- the year and the month aren't displayed.  So

16     they're not as good as they might be.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Professor, did you get any information about the

18     customs involved or even legal regulations, namely that detainees in our

19     country cannot have watches, money, IDs, that is to say that persons who

20     are arrested or detained cannot have any valuables on them until they are

21     proven innocent in a court of law?

22        A.   No, Mr. Karadzic.  I'm completely unaware of that.

23        Q.   Would you believe me if I were to say to you that our people of

24     any religious background are very reluctant to take anything from a dead

25     person, whereas anything can be taken off a living person?

Page 22296

 1        A.   It's -- it's a custom that I would not disbelieve, but I don't

 2     know anything about it.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Were you informed that around those days, during the

 4     fall of Srebrenica and after the fall of Srebrenica, there was a great

 5     deal of fighting around Srebrenica and that many people lost their lives?

 6     On both sides.

 7        A.   When you say "informed," I wasn't specifically briefed on this by

 8     officers of ICTY, but it's something that I have read about, certainly.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  So was your task to establish who had lost their

10     lives after the -- the fall of Srebrenica in an unlawful way, by

11     execution, or just to establish how these person had lost their lives?

12        A.   No.  My -- my specific task was to investigate these graves

13     which, as I've said, in 1998 were the secondary graves that -- turned out

14     to be secondary graves, and to collect together the sort of evidence that

15     I've already given testimony on.  It was -- obviously I could see that

16     many of these people had gunshot wounds, but it wasn't my job to

17     determine how they'd lost their lives.  That was the responsibility of

18     the anthropologists and the pathologists in the morgue to give an

19     official statement.  But I have seen, particularly in my Ukrainian work,

20     hundreds of people who had been shot, and I know what gunshot wounds look

21     like, so I formed an opinion that these people had lost their lives in a

22     violent way, but it wasn't my job to establish how these persons lost

23     their lives.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Let me ask you a general question.  If you were to be

25     given this very same task again in that same area, in view of this

Page 22297

 1     experience would you change anything in this other investigation that

 2     you'd carried out -- that you would carry out?  Would you improve

 3     anything?  Would you make things any different?  Would you change

 4     anything?

 5        A.   I would not change any of the major procedures that we used,

 6     which is the discovery of the grave with the least amount of damage to

 7     the bodies, the recovery of the bodies with records of surveying so that

 8     we could work out where they came from in the grave, the photography of

 9     each of the bodies and artefacts before they were moved.  No, I wouldn't

10     change any of those procedures, and they're ones that I continue to use,

11     which were -- well, when I say "I continue to use," I mean which continue

12     to be used at the excavation of soldiers at the Fromelles site that's

13     already been mentioned from World War I.  I wouldn't -- I wouldn't make

14     major changes at all.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Would you change anything as a result of remarks or

16     objections that were made on your final report, some of which you replied

17     to and some of which you accepted?  And what would those changes be that

18     you would make when taking into account the objections that were made?

19        A.   Well, I'm afraid I don't know what the remarks or objections that

20     were made on my final report are.  You'd have -- you'd have to specify

21     what they were before I could answer that question.  I mean, I don't know

22     in which context these objections were made other than in my courtroom

23     testimony in the previous three cases, of Krstic and the Popovic seven

24     and Tolimir.

25        Q.   Well, I will try to narrow that down.  Is it correct that

Page 22298

 1     Dr. Zoran Stankovic remarked that pursuant to Article 19 of the

 2     Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, or some other document,

 3     each interested party has the right to participate or to have an observer

 4     during the inspection?  And I think that you said that that perhaps was

 5     the case but that that was not your job, actually, to allow for this.

 6        A.   Yes.  That is the answer I would give now.  I was not responsible

 7     for the logistics and security of the work.  I don't remember that

 8     particular question being asked of me.  That would have been in the

 9     Krstic case, I imagine.  But I -- it's still not my responsibility to

10     determine who should be allowed or not allowed at the site.

11        Q.   Thank you.  However, when you stated which personnel took part in

12     the exhumation, you said that no citizen of former Yugoslavia took part

13     in this examination work.  Did any such citizen attend the work that was

14     being carried out?

15        A.   No.  That statement is correct.  And, no citizen of the former

16     Yugoslavia was allowed to come to the sites in the four years that I

17     excavated.  And the -- at night the sites were under armed guard to

18     prevent anyone coming in.

19             Had ICTY said to me that they wished me to admit such a person, I

20     would have, of course, admitted them, but the general rule was that no

21     citizen of the former Yugoslavia was allowed near the work.

22             To the extent, for instance, at the Red Dam where we needed a

23     heavier excavator, an owner driver, somebody who owned the heavier

24     excavator and drove the excavator, was not allowed into the site to use

25     it.  Our engineer drove the vehicle.  So it was a strict policy.

Page 22299

 1        Q.   Thank you.  If I understood you correctly, this was not that was

 2     established by you.  This was a ban that was articulated or placed by

 3     somebody else; is that right?

 4        A.   It was a policy that was -- a ban, in English, has a

 5     particularly -- a particular meaning, but it was a policy that we were

 6     not to allow such people into the site, yes.  And I had a project manager

 7     for the site who dealt with such matters.  It was not for me to -- I was

 8     there strictly to do the forensic work, not to engage in policy

 9     discussions.

10        Q.   Thank you.  I'm not attacking you in any way.  I just want to

11     determine who violated the right of Republika Srpska pursuant to

12     Article 19 of the Additional Protocols to be present and to take part in

13     the exhumations.  You were not the one responsible for that, but this

14     right was violated, wasn't it?

15        A.   I'm not aware of the rights and so I can't comment on that.

16        Q.   Thank you.  I think that you did see and comment on the fact that

17     you agreed with the objection of Dr. Zoran Stankovic, a forensics expert

18     from Belgrade, that perhaps that was so but that that was not your job.

19     So we will find that reference and we will establish that in a different

20     way.

21             So you did allow for the possibility that this article of the

22     Additional Protocols does exist?

23             JUDGE KWON:  The doctor said he is not aware of it.  Let us

24     proceed.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 22300

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   You said earlier, if this was translated correctly to me, that

 3     you did the forensic work, and you did not deal with the policies.  Are

 4     you a forensic expert, sir?

 5        A.   I'm an archeologist that specialised in forensic archaeology.  So

 6     I am an expert not in all forensic matters, but I am an expert in

 7     forensic archaeology and to a certain extent in forensic anthropology.

 8     But when you ask am I a forensic expert in the broad sense, no.  I don't

 9     know anything about DNA analysis.  I don't know anything about

10     finger-print analysis.  But I do know how to excavate and apply it in the

11     forensic scene.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Do we agree that it is also not a part of your work

13     to conduct autopsies and to establish the time and cause of death?

14        A.   It's certainly not -- it would not be counted as acceptable to

15     me -- it would not be counted as acceptable in a court that I offered

16     expert opinion on autopsies and time and cause of death.  Yes, it's not

17     part of my expertise.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Well, in view of the time that I have, I'm just going

19     to take one example, and this is your example of Glogova 1 from 2000.  So

20     where the description of the locality is, and this is the description of

21     Glogova 1, that site, you stated that you noticed six areas where human

22     remains were placed, as well as places where there were attempts of

23     unauthorised re-digging in order to remove the bodies.  Are you able to

24     tell us anything else about these attempts?  Were these just attempts or

25     was this actually done?

Page 22301

 1        A.   It was an attempt, but it wasn't a completed job.  It was done,

 2     according to the aerial images, in October 1995.  And a lot of bodies

 3     were taken away, judged by empty parts of graves we found.  But also a

 4     lot of bodies were missed.  So, yes, it was an attempt.  Whether it was

 5     an attempt to remove all the bodies, I don't know, but they certainly

 6     didn't succeed in removing all the bodies.  A lot were left.  And a lot

 7     of body parts that had fallen off the bodies that were taken away were

 8     left.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  What I would like to know, however, is what would

10     have happened with the conclusion regarding grave E had you dug deeper?

11     Your first impression was that that grave was robbed and looted.  It

12     doesn't say looted, but it says that a number of the bodies were taken

13     away.  However, luckily, you said, "As we dug deeper, we concluded that

14     that was not the case."  Is that correct?

15             JUDGE KWON:  Can we see the page?

16             Doctor, if you found the page, let us know so that we can

17     upload it.

18             THE WITNESS:  What is the page number, Mr. President?

19             JUDGE KWON:  No, it's your report, and it's Exhibit P4009.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   It's page 6.

22        A.   Page 6.

23        Q.   I think it's page 6, and the heading of that chapter is -- or

24     section is "Description of Glogova 1 site."

25        A.   Yes.  Now, in the case of -- I understand what you're talking

Page 22302

 1     about.  In the case of grave E, that was not a grave --

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Next page in English.  Just a second.  Grave E.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Grave E was a cave that -- a cave.  Grave E was a

 4     grave that was not disturbed in October 1995.  And the reason for saying

 5     that is both what we found in the excavations and also what the aerial

 6     images showed.  The disturbance did not remove -- the disturbance did not

 7     touch grave E.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   However, you established that only after you dug deeper.  Your

10     first conclusion was that there was unauthorised digging and that the

11     grave was robbed; is that correct?

12        A.   Yes, that's correct.  Within the top parts of the grave we didn't

13     find any bodies, but as we dug deeper we did find some bodies.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Did anything prevent you from digging deeper at all

15     the other graves?

16        A.   No.  My responsibility was, having starting the excavations at a

17     grave, to ensure that every single body had been removed.  To ensure that

18     we did not leave any bodies behind, we always excavated below the graves

19     until we got into natural soil.  So even though, to go back to grave E,

20     we didn't find any bodies in the top, we went down to the natural soil at

21     the bottom of the grave, and that was when we found the bodies in

22     grave E.

23             But after we've finished emptying out a grave, we think it's the

24     bottom, but we always remove soil to make sure that we are in the natural

25     sail.  And in my report on Glogova, I present as -- excuse me and minute,

Page 22303

 1     Mr. President.  I present, on what is page 7 of the report, the natural

 2     soil that existed at --

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Let's go -- move two pages forward.  Is this the

 4     page, Professor?

 5             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Mr. President, it is.  And that is my

 6     reconstruction of what the soil was like before any graves were dug.  And

 7     so we knew, therefore -- well, I say it's my reconstruction.  We put in

 8     an excavation that was outside the area where the graves were to see what

 9     the natural soil was like.  So in all those areas that are on my map of

10     excavation of Glogova, we would have gone down to the natural soil to

11     ensure that no bodies were left behind.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Thank you.  May I draw your attention to the next section where

14     you talk about the digging and the robbing of the graves.  This is the

15     last-but-one paragraph where you state that you conclude that there is no

16     reason for thinking that the bodies at Glogova 1 had been originally

17     buried elsewhere, dug up, and then brought to Glogova.  And you also then

18     state:

19              "On the contrary.  The indications are that bodies were dug out

20     of Glogova 1 and taken elsewhere."

21             Were you able to establish that Glogova 1 was the actual site of

22     execution?

23        A.   No.  I didn't conclude that it was a place of execution, because

24     unlike Kozluk, there were no shell cases lying around.  There were some

25     bullets with the bodies and I think possibly a shell case or two with the

Page 22304

 1     bodies, but they did not show -- there was not enough in the way of shell

 2     cases from rifles, pistols, to suggest that the bodies were executed at

 3     Glogova itself and then pushed into the grave.  So I didn't think it was

 4     an execution site.  On the other hand, there were no signs that the --

 5     there were no signs, as there were at Cancari 12 and other sites, of

 6     soil -- of lumps of soil that were foreign to the area.

 7             What an archaeologist would look for, if you ask them, Are you

 8     sure these bodies were not buried in place A, dug up, and then taken to

 9     place B, such as Glogova?  Then soil travels with the bodies.  Soil is

10     different from the local soil.  We never saw that at Glogova, though we

11     did see artefacts that were consistent with the -- anyway, bits of

12     plaster and bits of the door frames, and so on, that were consistent with

13     the bodies having been brought from somewhere else.  And that somewhere

14     else was, I concluded, the Kravica warehouse.  But they had not been

15     buried anywhere before.

16             Mr. President, the transcript says that they had been buried

17     anywhere before.  I concluded it is that they had not been buried

18     anywhere before, I said, I believe.

19        Q.   I kindly ask for your understanding.  I'm just waiting for the

20     Serbian translation to be completed before I put my next question to you.

21     I would now like us to be more specific.  How many primary gives did you

22     find?

23        A.   In connection with those thought to be related to Srebrenica, I

24     found -- or I worked at the Red Dam site, but that had been robbed.  The

25     only -- the next primary site was Kozluk, which we discovered because of

Page 22305

 1     the glass at Cancari 3.  And the third primary burial site was Glogova.

 2     So in connection with these particular investigations there were three

 3     primary sites.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  But only at one location, at Red Dam, you established

 5     that the primary gave was also the execution site; is that correct?

 6        A.   At the Red Dam there were enormous numbers of shell cases and

 7     bits of bone lying around on the surface of the -- of the area in which

 8     the grave was dug so that it appeared to me to be an execution site, and

 9     the bodies, I assumed, in the grave had come from that execution.  But,

10     of course, the bodies had been removed from the grave and only a few

11     bones left.

12             You ask -- yes, at the Red -- but it wasn't only one location

13     that I established as a primary grave was also the execution site,

14     because that is the core of my interpretation of Kozluk, that it was an

15     execution site and a burial site.  But Glogova was not an execution site.

16     It was a place where people had been put as a first place of burial.

17        Q.   They were killed somewhere else, thus; is that correct?

18        A.   The people at Glogova were killed at -- not at the Glogova site,

19     yes.

20        Q.   Thank you.  How did you rule out that Glogova was a place of

21     assanation [as interpreted]?  How could you conclude -- how could you

22     rule out the possibility that these were the bodies that were collected

23     during the clearing of the terrain of soldiers who were killed in other

24     places and that they were buried in that grave following the sanitation

25     and hygiene measures?

Page 22306

 1        A.   Well, I couldn't completely rule that out.  My observations were

 2     that the -- not a single item of military clothing was found at Glogova.

 3     The bodies were buried in a -- a fresh condition and did not show signs

 4     of insect attack.  Bodies that had been left out and then collected are

 5     normally attacked by blow flies, and the chitinous material of their

 6     bodies and wings survives well with the bodies.  So these were not bodies

 7     that had been left out on a terrain, as it were, and then collected

 8     later.  So I had no reason to suspect that there were -- there was a

 9     mixture of bodies that had come from various places.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

11             MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. President, sorry to interrupt, but there's one

12     transcript correction at -- on the previous page at line 16.  The word

13     "assignation," I believe, was meant to be the B/C/S "asanacija."

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  You're correct.  Thank

15     you.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Professor, all I'm trying to do now is establish the following:

18     Are you saying that all the corpses in Glogova 1 were of the same degree

19     of decomposition?  Or were there any differences in the stage of

20     decomposition of the bodies?

21        A.   Well, there were certainly differences in the stage of

22     decomposition of the bodies, and that depended on where they -- where an

23     individual lay in the mass of bodies.  If you're buried in a mass grave

24     on the very edge of the bodies, then you putrefy much faster and you're

25     reduced to a skeletal stage much faster than the individuals in the

Page 22307

 1     middle of the mass of bodies.  So they're not all in the same stage of

 2     decomposition, but the differences in the stages of decomposition are --

 3     can be interpreted in terms of where the body lies in the body mass when

 4     excavated.

 5             The reason why I referred to the lack of any insect cases is

 6     because they are clues to -- if some bodies have insect cases and others

 7     don't, then that is a sign that these bodies have come from different

 8     places at different times.  But we did not see anything like that.  I saw

 9     nothing that required me to suppose that there had been several events

10     behind these killings of the bodies at Glogova.  I -- to my mind, they

11     could be explained as from a single killing.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Let's look at what you said in the chapter

13     "Characteristics of the Graves and the Bodies."  That is page 15 in my

14     copy.  And then you said:

15             [As read] "The state of the preservation of the bodies varies

16     from skeletonised to virtually fully fleshed.  Figure 8.  These

17     differences in state of preservation are not to be taken as indicating

18     different periods of burial."

19             I don't know if in English it states "should not be or must not

20     be taken."  In Serbian what it says is "must not be."

21             Are you able to tell us why these differences must or should not

22     be taken to indicate that?

23        A.   Yes, I understand the difficulty of translation.  What I mean

24     there is that one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that these bodies were

25     killed at different times, because we noted that these differences in

Page 22308

 1     state of preservation were due to the location of the bodies in relation

 2     to the main mass.

 3             I was not instructing people that they -- that this could not be

 4     the case, but that we didn't need to explain these differences in

 5     preservation other than in -- other than being due to location of the

 6     bodies within the mass graves.

 7        Q.   With your permission, I'm going to read that in English.  I

 8     believe that it is translated correctly:

 9             [In English] "These differences it state of preservation are not

10     to be taken as indicating different periods of burial."

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Is that possibility ruled out, that they were

13     brought in from different locations and at different times?  And why

14     would, in that case, such a possibility be excluded or ruled out?

15        A.   This is what I said earlier, that I agree that a second -- a

16     different interpretation could be put on it but that it's not necessary

17     to put that interpretation on the differential state of preservation.

18     That's all I mean by that.  In other words, I'm following a principle

19     that you don't introduce new factors to explain what you're seeing unless

20     you have to.  In England we call -- in English we call it Occam's razor.

21     But indeed I might -- for instance, if we found at the bottom of a grave

22     skeletons and on the top of those complete bodies I would then say, I

23     believe these bodies that had become skeletons were brought from

24     somewhere else, it's a different event, because it is not possible, in

25     terms of disintegration of bodies, for fresher bodies to be on top.  But

Page 22309

 1     we didn't find anything like that.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  However, were you told where the grave was in which

 3     people who were killed in May of 1992 in Glogova were buried as a result

 4     of major fighting and apparently there were some unlawful executions?

 5     Were you told about this?

 6        A.   No, I was not told.  I was not told to look for a grave that was

 7     believed to date from 1992, no.

 8        Q.   Do you rule out the possibility that this grave that was formed

 9     in 1992, dead bodies were later buried in the process of sanitation and

10     hygiene measures application?

11        A.   Do you mean, Mr. Karadzic, that all the bodies were buried?  Or

12     that some bodies were buried later on top of other bodies?

13        Q.   Can you tell us, how many bodies did you find at Glogova 1?

14        A.   Two hundred and -- no, 191 complete bodies and 249 body parts, in

15     my report.

16        Q.   Thank you.  However, we do know that about 4 -- 64 people were

17     killed in May in 1992.  Did anyone draw your attention to that fact?

18        A.   No.  I don't remember anyone telling me that at all.

19        Q.   You were also never told about the fact that there was fighting

20     over those three and a half years, but also about the fighting in July.

21     Those fightings took place in that area and lasted for about ten days.

22     So that was an ongoing process.

23        A.   Can I ask, do you mean July 1995 or 1992?

24        Q.   1995, before and after the fall of Srebrenica.  I'm talking about

25     combat operations, not executions.  So did you know that there was

Page 22310

 1     fighting in that period and that a large number of Muslim combatants used

 2     combat methods to achieve a breakthrough to Tuzla and that many of them

 3     were killed in the process?

 4        A.   No, I'm not aware of the history of those events.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, I note the time.  It's time for a

 6     break.  If you have more, then we'll take a break now.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  Certainly, Excellency.

 8     This is a very important witness.  The Prosecution spent two hours

 9     examining him, and I hope I will be given at least six hours.

10             JUDGE KWON:  We'll have a break for an hour and resume at 1.35.

11             Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

12             MR. NICHOLLS:  Sorry, Your Honours, I'm not sure if you know,

13     just to make clear:  Unfortunately we do not have another witness for

14     today, for the Court's information.

15             JUDGE KWON:  And that's our understanding.

16             MR. NICHOLLS:  Okay.  I just wanted to be clear.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE KWON:  1.35.

18                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.35 p.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 1.36 p.m.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Professor, you pointed out that in the case of Glogova 1 you

24     found that quite a few people got killed by explosions or by explosive

25     devices; is that correct?

Page 22311

 1        A.   I noticed two things at Glogova.  And the answer is yes.  But if

 2     I can just say, we noticed the -- why I said that, the bones were more

 3     broken than at other sites, and we also found explosive devices and bits

 4     of grenade and other metal embedded in some of the bodies.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  I quite understand that you are reluctant to offer

 6     any forensic estimations as to the time and cause of death, but did you

 7     establish the age of the grave itself, i.e., the time when the grave was

 8     formed, as it were?

 9        A.   I didn't establish it by my forensic investigations, but the

10     aerial images show that the ground was not disturbed on the

11     5th of July, 1995, but that the ground had been disturbed by the

12     20th of July, 1995.  So for those reasons I think that the age of the

13     graves is established.

14        Q.   Is it possible to determine that at that same location no grave

15     existed before and that new bodies were added which would lead you to

16     believe that it was established in July?  And I'm talking particularly

17     about Glogova, for which we know for certain that there were killings in

18     1992 and 1993.

19        A.   There are two points I want to make in answering that question.

20     Firstly, bits of the Kravica warehouse were mixed up with the bodies.

21     There is no lower layer of bodies that doesn't have a mixture of bodies

22     and bits of the warehouse.  Furthermore, I'm familiar with graves, not at

23     Glogova but elsewhere, where burials were made and then there was an

24     interval of time and additional bodies were added.  Now, the way we

25     recognise that in the archaeological -- using archaeological methods is

Page 22312

 1     that if the grave is left open with the earlier bodies exposed, then

 2     there are insects that attack the bodies, and as I explained before, the

 3     chitinous material of insects is very durable and gives an indication

 4     that the bodies were exposed.

 5             Secondly, bodies that were left exposed get damaged very fast by

 6     the elements, the natural elements of climate.  The bones begin to crack.

 7     On the surface, you get lines developing on the surface.  Not breakage,

 8     but lines developing on the surface.

 9             At Glogova we never saw any sign of damage to an earlier layer of

10     bodies.  We never saw an earlier layer of bodies.  Just to repeat, the

11     bits of the warehouse were mixed up with these bodies.  There was no

12     earth, no soil, thrown over an earlier layer of bodies, and no sign of

13     weathering or damage to the bone of any earlier bodies.  I formed the

14     conclusion, in the light of any other evidence, that we were looking at a

15     singular incident of burial.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Professor, you talked about the potential --

17             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.

18             JUDGE KWON:  -- the potential link between the Glogova site and

19     the Kravica warehouse.  Would you exclude the possibility of the --

20     bringing some part -- some bodies from the other -- other site, for

21     example, so to speak, other killing site?

22             THE WITNESS:  No, I wouldn't exclude that, but what I would say,

23     Mr. President, is they were included with the bodies from -- with the

24     other bodies at the same time.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

Page 22313

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 3             Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   You said that -- if you allow me, I would introduce this new term

 7     that you mentioned, "robbed," such as the Red Dam, but can we call some

 8     other graves enriched?  So did you find any graves that were enriched, so

 9     to speak, later on as opposed to those who you say were robbed?

10        A.   No.  I did not see any -- I understand the question and what you

11     mean by "enriched."  I did not see any graves which I interpreted as

12     having been opened up for the purpose of depositing more bodies.

13        Q.   But a while ago you said that you saw such graves where

14     additional burials had been carried out.  Was that only the Red Dam, or

15     were any similar cases?

16        A.   No, I'm sorry, I didn't make myself plain.  The graves that I saw

17     were not to do with the case that we're talking about.  None of the

18     graves that I'm talking about fall into that category of graves to which

19     bodies were added later.  The graves in question, one of them is in the

20     Ukraine and one was in the Prijedor area, which is not the subject of

21     this -- of my testimony.  I did not see any graves of this -- of the --

22     none of the graves that we're talking about now had bodies added to them,

23     so far as my observations went.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Professor, it may have been the interpretation

25     issue.  Previously you said that you are familiar about graves, "not at

Page 22314

 1     Glogova but elsewhere, where burials were made and then there was an

 2     interval of time and additional bodies were added."  But you don't see

 3     such examples in -- in Bosnia?

 4             THE WITNESS:  No, I'm sorry, Mr. President, I didn't make myself

 5     plain.  I didn't see it at Glogova.  I didn't see it at any of the graves

 6     that are attributed to the Srebrenica event.  But one of those graves

 7     that we're talking about I did see in Bosnia, but it was from the -- from

 8     1992 killings.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Thank you.  We'll get back to this.  I remember you mentioning

12     this in the context of the Red Dam.

13             Now, let's finish with the issue of insects.  Do you agree that

14     on page 15 in the Serbian version you said that one should take into

15     account the fact that the bodies were removed from the graves and that

16     they were covered with mud which prevented one from seeing clearly all

17     the characteristics of the bodies.  Some of the entries in the body

18     sheets were, therefore, provisional.  In other words, the process of

19     identification of dead bodies was finally completed in the morgue,

20     because the final conclusions could only have come from the morgue.  Is

21     that correct?

22        A.   Yes, that is correct.

23        Q.   Thank you.  We saw that it was mid May when we watched the

24     video-clip.  Can you tell us what was the temperature in those

25     refrigerators?

Page 22315

 1        A.   I don't know the temperature, but it would have been above the

 2     freezing point.  And the ideal temperature would be about 5 degrees.  But

 3     I don't know what temperature was actually achieved by the engineers.  I

 4     should say 5 degrees Celsius.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  And then you said earlier today that at times bodies

 6     were transported to the Visoko morgue.  Can you tell us what were the

 7     intervals between those trips, when bodies were transferred?

 8        A.   I should say an average time would be one week between the

 9     exhumation and their accumulation in the chiller van, and then they were

10     taken down to Visoko and ... about a week, maybe less sometimes.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Did you have any feedback information how long after

12     the arrival the post-mortem was conducted?

13        A.   That I don't know, Mr. Karadzic.  I went down to the morgue on a

14     couple of occasions, but I didn't take part in their proceedings, and I

15     don't know the interval between the arrival of the bodies and the

16     carrying out of the post-mortem examination by the anthropologists and

17     the pathologists.  I can't comment on that.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Is it true that some of the graves, for example

19     Cancari, were spotted in the images in 1995 and were only exhumed in

20     1998?

21        A.   Yes.  That -- that is the -- that is the case.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Is there a method of calculating the age of each

23     particular grave or do we have to rely solely on the aerial images?

24        A.   To get any precision, yes, we have to rely on the aerial images.

25     There are methods such as radiocarbon dating of the bodies would now, but

Page 22316

 1     not then, give us a rough idea of when the person died, but it would not

 2     have the precision of those aerial photographs.  I perhaps should

 3     elaborate.  The radiocarbon dating has been used for many years, but

 4     there's a particular form of radiocarbon dating that detects the

 5     radioactive carbon that was created by the hydrogen bombs that were let

 6     off in the early 1990s.  And forensic scientists make use of the decline

 7     of this high level of radiocarbon to date bodies, and I've used this

 8     method myself in -- with the police in determining roughly when someone

 9     died and is found in the forest outside Sydney, and the radiocarbon labs

10     were able to tell me it was between 1985 and 1992, but that's not very

11     precise.

12        Q.   Thank you.  You said that there were intact bullets in pockets,

13     but what I'm interested in is the Dutch newspaper that you mentioned.

14     Was it possible to determine when those newspapers were dated?  Or,

15     actually, you said that there were pieces or strips of Dutch paper that

16     were used to roll cigarettes.  Was it possible for anyone to determine

17     the date that those newspapers bore?

18        A.   I'm sure that would have been possible, but we -- I don't

19     remember seeing a piece of that newspaper that actually carried the date

20     of the newspaper, but presumably it would be possible, by reading the

21     text, for somebody to determine when that newspaper was published, but I

22     can't say.

23        Q.   Have these artefacts been preserved?

24        A.   You would have to ask the investigators of the ICTY, because once

25     I handed them over, I'm not responsible for them.  I don't know.

Page 22317

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I ask my learned friend

 3     Mr. Mitchell, our -- since our printer is not working, I would appreciate

 4     if it would be possible to have the following documents printed:

 5     R108-63-9798, and this is at the same time my notification to the OTP

 6     that I'm going to use these documents.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Thank you, Professor, for your answer.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Do you have a 65 ter number for that?

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   While this is being resolved, may I remind you of page 17 where

12     you said that wounds were caused by shrapnel, by bullets, by hand

13     grenades, and some other missile pieces.  Also discovered were intact

14     bullets in the pockets of those victims.  Does this fact indicate that

15     the person in question was actually a combatant?

16        A.   Two things.  Firstly, there was only one individual who had these

17     rounds in his pocket, and that's illustrated on figure 17 of my report,

18     and it was found with other personal possessions.  But the fact that

19     somebody has bullets in their pocket does not indicate to me that that

20     person is necessarily a combatant, no.  But I -- I can't -- I don't know

21     anything about this person beyond that.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

23             MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. President, that's the document.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

25             MR. MITCHELL:  Is it to be given to the witness?

Page 22318

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Two pages; is that right?

 2             MR. MITCHELL:  Correct.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would appreciate if this be put

 4     on the ELMO, please.  Oh, it seems that our printer is now working.  It's

 5     been out of operation for about an hour.

 6             All right.  Can this be put on ELMO, please.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   If I understand correctly, this is a letter of yours addressed to

 9     Mr. McCloskey.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Let us put that on the ELMO, yes.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Do you recall this letter?

13        A.   Can I, Mr. President, just read the letter?

14             JUDGE KWON:  By all means, Professor.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Maybe we can put the other copy on

16     ELMO for all the parties to see it.

17             You can keep one hard copy for yourself, and let's put the other

18     one on the ELMO.

19             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I didn't remember the details of the letter,

20     but I acknowledge it is my letter, and I --

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page, please.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   In paragraph 3 there is mention of Article 90 of the

24     Additional Protocols, and you said that had you been asked to apply that,

25     you wouldn't have refused it.

Page 22319

 1        A.   That's right.  And I replied in that way earlier on to your

 2     questioning.  But that's not because of my knowledge of Article 90.  I

 3     don't -- I don't know what that Protocol says.  I'm just saying there

 4     that had I been asked to allow an expert to the examination on mass

 5     graves, I would not have had any objection.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1974, Your Honours.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   In relation to this paragraph that starts with the words "I agree

12     that the exact number can only be determined by actual exhumations,"

13     would you agree that bearing into account -- bearing in mind four years

14     of war and many people losing their lives, that that makes it even more

15     complicated to estimate the number of cases that would involve deaths

16     after the fall of Srebrenica?  Maybe I made this way too complicated.

17             There was a war going on and Srebrenica fell.  Now, the question

18     of making an estimate, hasn't it been made even more complicated?  I

19     mean, an estimate relating to the fall of Srebrenica.  I mean, estimating

20     the number of cases or the number of bodies, if you will.

21        A.   In dealing with the estimate of the number of bodies in the

22     graves that were on those aerial images, I dealt with that in my answer

23     to the prosecuting barrister.  I said that I had checked later to find

24     that those graves had been excavated and that my estimate of the number

25     of bodies in the other graves was a bit of an underestimate.  So that in

Page 22320

 1     dealing with the graves that were on the aerial images, I would stick by

 2     the method that I used in the report in 19 -- the report I made in 1999

 3     on the 1998 season.  Those estimates that are being criticised in this

 4     letter have since been shown to be reasonable estimates of the numbers of

 5     the bodies in the remaining secondary graves.

 6        Q.   I'm not challenging that.  This is what I'm interested in now:

 7     All of these bodies estimated to be in un-exhumed graves on the basis of

 8     average numbers, should they all be linked to the fall of Srebrenica,

 9     disregarding totally that there were four years of war before that?

10        A.   I can only comment, Mr. Karadzic, on the graves that I personally

11     excavated.  What I was talking about in terms of the estimates are graves

12     that I was not -- I did not excavate, and so I can't comment on the --

13     whether those graves bear on the question of Srebrenica other than by

14     noting that they appear on the aerial imagery that was dating from

15     July 1995.  I -- I did not go back to Bosnia after the year 2000 when we

16     finished at Glogova, and these other graves were excavated by other

17     people.

18        Q.   Thank you.  However, you do agree, don't you, that a far more

19     accurate time of death can be established by way of a post-mortem rather

20     than aerial images?

21        A.   I -- I doubt that, no.  I think that even with people who have

22     died in the last week there's considerable debate about the time at which

23     they died.  I think in this case if there are bodies and they're in

24     graves and those graves are dated by the aerial images, as I understand

25     what pathologists do, that would be a far better indication about the

Page 22321

 1     time of death of these people than anything that the pathologist could

 2     determine.

 3        Q.   But what shall we do with secondary graves?  How do we establish

 4     when the people buried in secondary graves had died?

 5        A.   We can only identify, as we did in many cases, the primary graves

 6     from which they came, such as Branjevo Farm, from the Red Dam, and the

 7     age of those graves is also known from aerial imagery.  So the fact that

 8     they are in secondary graves does not mean that we can't date the primary

 9     graves from which they came.  And I haven't made a detailed study of the

10     aerial imagery at the time, but I've seen pictures of dated aerial images

11     that are consistent with death in July of 1995.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

13             MR. MITCHELL:  I'm sorry to interrupt again, Mr. President.

14     Just, there was a suggestion a few minutes ago that the exhumations were

15     somehow noncompliant with the Geneva Conventions.  I'm just wondering if

16     Mr. Karadzic could point to the exact provision that's being relied on

17     there, because Article 90 has got nothing to do with the exhumation of

18     mass graves.  Article 120 of the third Geneva Convention does talk about

19     the procedures to be followed after the death of POWs, but it doesn't

20     mention anything about experts.  So perhaps Dr. Karadzic would look into

21     that and perhaps consider withdrawing that.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Judge Lattanzi found Article 34, but I'm not sure

23     whether it is the correct --

24             JUDGE LATTANZI:  And 90 also, 90 is fact finding.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Rule 90 as well, Article 90.

Page 22322

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Article 90, international fact finding commission --

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Are these the Additional Protocols?

 4     Are we talking about the Additional Protocols?

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE KWON:  I take it Mr. Karadzic will come up with a more

 7     precise argument.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   In principle, in the case of Markale and everything else, we

11     asked for the Serb side to be present.  However, we were always denied

12     that.  Perhaps this is a typographical error here in terms of how this

13     article was copied.

14             Can I just finish with Glogova now.  You found -- you found

15     12 victims there with their hands tied, with ligatures on their hands;

16     right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Somewhere else you found a few of those too.  In Kozluk,

19     somewhere like that; right?

20        A.   Yes, we did, and many in the secondary graves too.

21        Q.   Thank you.  When you were asked about what these were made of,

22     you said cloth.  Was it uniform or did it vary?

23        A.   No.  I answered that I couldn't remember that, whether the cloth

24     varied or not.

25        Q.   But you certainly did not notice that this was a uniform matter,

Page 22323

 1     as it were.

 2        A.   Are we talking about Kozluk or about this grave at Glogova?

 3        Q.   Professor, all the photographs we've seen that had to do with

 4     ligatures are different, and all of this seems to be makeshift.  Whatever

 5     was at hand, they use it to tie these people's hands.  It wasn't that

 6     some kind of uniform thing was manufactured for all cases.

 7        A.   I didn't study the cloth, but I was told by one of the

 8     investigators who had studied the cloth that they - that's after the

 9     bodies had gone to the morgue - that there was -- there were many that

10     were made of the same -- exactly the same cloth, but I can't speak to

11     that point from my own personal examination of the cloth.

12             I should also say that at grave L, at Glogova, which is the grave

13     you're referring to where people had ligatures, that that was a

14     polyethylene string and not cloth.

15        Q.   Thank you.  You did deal with the number, didn't you?  Not only

16     establishing the exact number of bodies exhumed, but also you dealt with

17     estimating the number of bodies in all the graves; right?

18        A.   Yes, I did give estimates of the number of bodies in all the

19     graves in my reports, and also said that the final number would have to

20     be determined at the morgue.

21        Q.   Thank you.  And do you know that in different graves connections

22     were being established on the basis of DNA?

23        A.   Yes, I know that that was being done because I read about it, but

24     none of that was started before I left Bosnia.  It was all much more

25     recent.

Page 22324

 1        Q.   Thank you.  I'm not looking for any culprits here.  I just want

 2     us to establish the following:  If you agree that in Cancari 3 out of

 3     138 bodies only 40 are connected with Kozluk, we cannot consider the rest

 4     to have been related to Kozluk; right?

 5        A.   Well, you -- Mr. Karadzic, you're drawing on information there

 6     that I don't have, presumably from the DNA studies.

 7        Q.   Yes, yes.  On the basis of DNA studies, the connections were

 8     being established between secondary graves, partial bodies, and so on.

 9     This connection was being established on the basis of DNA analysis.  So,

10     for example, in Cancari, 3 out of 138 bodies, only --

11             JUDGE KWON:  Why don't you reserve that question for another

12     witness.  Dr. -- the professor said he's not aware of that analysis.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Professor, I am satisfied with your answer in terms of

16     establishing the total number, but I'd still like to call up

17     65 ter 21024, a letter written by an investigator, Mr. Dusan Janc.  2009

18     or -- March 2009.  There's also a Serbian translation here, but that's

19     not it.

20             Could I ask you to take a look at this text.  Is it in line with

21     what you said a moment ago, that this is no way to establish the number?

22        A.   I must have some time to read it, please.

23             Yes, I've read it now.  Could you ask me the question again.

24        Q.   Is this in line with what you said a moment ago, that these

25     estimates cannot yield a number?  The number has to come from the

Page 22325

 1     morgue -- rather, all the exhumations, and then ultimately the morgue.

 2        A.   Yes, I -- I think, though, that this correction by Mr. Janc

 3     relates to where the individuals in the graves came from rather than how

 4     the numbers are actually -- the numbers within the graves are actually

 5     calculated.  It relates to origin of the bodies rather than the numbers

 6     of bodies that are in the graves.  But perhaps I'm not understanding your

 7     question.

 8        Q.   However, in the penultimate paragraph it says:

 9             "Nevertheless, the exact number cannot be provided."

10             Do you agree that if we're dealing with different locations, we

11     cannot say that it's the same cause?  Cause of death, I mean.

12        A.   Certainly.  If the DNA analysis has shown that most of the bodies

13     in the Glogova mass graves came from the Kravica warehouse but some

14     didn't, then I would expect them to maybe, maybe not, show different

15     properties.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?

18             JUDGE KWON:  This is going to be -- I understood to be tendered

19     by the Prosecution.  I would take it there's no position.

20             MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. Janc is coming as a witness, so we could do it

21     now or then.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, why don't you reserve it when Mr. Janc

23     is coming?  I have no difficulty in reserving or admitting it as Defence

24     exhibit, but this is --

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, I'll tell you why.

Page 22326

 1     I offered part of Karavelic's statement here.  The Prosecutor offered all

 2     of Karavelic's statement, thinking that they would call him as a witness.

 3     And I agreed to that because I thought that he would appear here.

 4     However, it was not fair, because they ultimately did not call him, so I

 5     will have to call him, and that is why I'm doing this now.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  I see no problem.  We'll admit it.  Exhibit D1975.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Do you agree, Professor, that the Serbs buried their own dead on

 9     their own territory through family arrangements, whereas victims from the

10     other side were buried in mass graves, and the other way around?  The

11     Muslims buried their own victims with dignity, involving family

12     arrangements, and they buried Serb soldiers in mass graves.  Does this

13     sound like a customary thing to you, and was that the way it was?

14        A.   I have no idea about the statement you're making to me, and I can

15     neither agree or disagree.

16        Q.   If I were to tell you that part of Podrinje was under Muslim

17     control for a while and about 50 mass Serb graves were found there and

18     then when we liberated that area they were exhumed and these people were

19     buried involving family arrangements, General Morillon attended some of

20     these exhumations, does this piece of information shed more light on my

21     previous question put to you?

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

23             MR. MITCHELL:  Could we have a date on this, just to put it into

24     context?

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was in 1993, the spring of 1993,

Page 22327

 1     when we liberated Serb areas that were held by the Muslims until then.

 2     This is a generally known thing, that there were about 50 mass graves,

 3     and that afterwards they had family funerals.  And it was the other way

 4     around.  Muslims buried Serb soldiers and Serb civilians in mass graves,

 5     and they buried their own by way of family arrangements.  So it was the

 6     other way around as well.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Well, Mr. Karadzic, I never like to hear of

 8     atrocities that have been committed, but -- and I have no reasons to

 9     disbelieve what you're saying, but I must point out that I'm here as an

10     expert witness about mass graves that I actually exhumed, and not to be

11     an expert or give an opinion on historical events that I didn't

12     investigate.  I have investigated, under ICTY arrangements, the killing

13     of Serb civilians in -- near Gospic, and that was a dreadful event, but I

14     know about that, but I don't know anything about Eastern Bosnia, what was

15     happening with mass graves there, other than those that I have been asked

16     to investigate by ICTY.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Thank you, Professor.  My intention is for us to have a look at

19     this.  You made a statement on the basis of 121 or 151, whatever, of the

20     total number of bodies buried in mass graves in Podrinje, the

21     Drina valley.  Does all of this have to be linked to the fall of

22     Srebrenica?  How do we make a distinction in terms of those who have

23     nothing to do with Srebrenica?

24        A.   I assume that by the Podrinje valley you mean Glogova, the site

25     of Glogova.  I'm not familiar with the geography in the geographical

Page 22328

 1     terms, but you do mean Glogova; yes?

 2        Q.   Podrinje is the Drina River valley from Kozluk to Bratunac.  The

 3     left bank of the Drina.  All of that is the Podrinje.  However, we call

 4     the area right by the Drina river "Podrinje."  That is Kozluk as well,

 5     where you worked.

 6        A.   Well, I certainly made a statement that I found more than 121 or

 7     151 bodies in the area that you're talking about.  I found several

 8     hundred.  How -- whether I can -- whether they relate to the fall of

 9     Srebrenica is, to my mind, fundamentally determined by the interpretation

10     of the aerial images and, secondly, by the artefacts that we found within

11     the grave.  But they are, in my opinion, secondary to the aerial images

12     which give dates for when those people were buried.

13        Q.   Yes, Professor, but how can we know that the people who were

14     killed in July 1995 were moved from a primary grave to a secondary grave?

15     How do we know that they did not lose their lives before that?

16        A.   Because, as I said before, the primary graves themselves that

17     we're concerned with are dated by aerial imagery, and so of course they

18     lost their lives before they were put in the secondary graves, but I'm

19     not aware of any primary graves that have yielded bodies in secondary

20     graves and date from before 1995, before July 1995.  I don't know of any.

21        Q.   Thank you.  I'm not talking about the graves that you opened

22     only.  I'm talking about the method of providing this estimate.  Do you

23     allow for the possibility or do you rule out the possibility that in the

24     secondary graves there were also bodies for which this was a primary

25     grave?

Page 22329

 1        A.   I interpreted the putting of bodies into the secondary graves as

 2     single events, and we saw no sign of executions around the secondary

 3     graves.

 4        Q.   So this was not the execution site; right?  However, do you rule

 5     out this possibility or do you allow for this possibility: that some

 6     bodies were added to certain graves?  So for some bodies these are

 7     primary graves and for other bodies these are secondary graves.

 8        A.   I don't think anything can be ruled out in these circumstances,

 9     but it would mean that we were very careless in our examination of the

10     stratigraphy of the graves and the relationships between the bodies and

11     differential decay and those other matters I mentioned before.  The

12     people -- members of my team are experienced in stratigraphic archaeology

13     and in the effects on bodies of -- of damage to the bodies due to

14     exposure and then other fresh bodies being added on top.  So you asked me

15     to rule out, but that is something which from the scientific point of

16     view one is reluctant to say, but in fact I think it is beyond -- from my

17     point of view, beyond a shadow of a doubt.  I just do not believe that

18     these were graves that -- that have been misinterpreted.

19        Q.   Tell us this:  You exhumed seven graves; right?

20        A.   The seven secondary graves, yes.

21        Q.   What about the primary ones; nobody exhumed them, right?  Your

22     estimate, to how many graves did it actually pertain?  You established

23     certain things in relation to the bodies that you exhumed; however, you

24     made estimates on the basis of this in relation to how many graves?

25             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

Page 22330

 1             MR. MITCHELL:  Mr. President, this is starting to get a bit

 2     confused, I think.  Are we talking about the estimate of 2.571 from the

 3     21 probed graves?  Is that the issue that we're talking about?

 4             JUDGE KWON:  I don't follow either.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, here it is.  I think that the

 6     professor will know what I'm talking about.  Some were exhumed, whereas

 7     for others estimates were made on the basis of the assumed average.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   How many graves were left to have that done, that is to say, to

10     have estimates made?

11        A.   I have explained before that I have checked -- well, can I go

12     back to your original question, "What about the primary graves; nobody

13     exhumed them; right?"  The primary graves were exhumed.  For instance,

14     Branjevo Farm was exhumed in 1996, but not by my team.  The primary

15     graves to the south in the Nova Kasaba region were also exhumed in 1996,

16     and I myself exhumed the major primary grave of Kozluk.  So primary

17     graves were examined -- exhumed.

18             Now, as to the question of the estimates, I made an estimate in

19     1999 based on the 1998 work which you referred to.  But as I have already

20     told the Court, I have checked on the numbers of bodies that were in the

21     graves that I didn't exhume, 21 secondary graves, and it turns out now in

22     the light of actual exhumation of those secondary graves, those 21, that

23     I slightly underestimated the number of bodies that might be in the

24     graves that I didn't exhume.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Well, this is what I was counting on, these

Page 22331

 1     estimates.  So the rest were exhumed by somebody else.  Are you able to

 2     stand by the findings of these other experts who worked on the graves

 3     that you made assessments on but that you did not exhume yourself?  Are

 4     you in a position or did you perhaps review their work and are you able

 5     to stand behind the results of their work?

 6        A.   Well, I certainly know the work of Jon Sterenberg.  He worked for

 7     my team for four years and I've known him since, and he stayed on in

 8     Bosnia afterwards and worked for ICMP.  I've always found him to be a

 9     person whose conclusions I could stand by.  I don't know Mr. Dusan Janc,

10     so I can't comment on his reliability.  But I have no particular -- no

11     reason to think that he's an unreliable observer, but then I don't know

12     him, never met him.

13        Q.   Fair enough, as they say.  Is this a signal that it's time, that

14     the time has run out?  We still have a little time, doesn't we?

15             JUDGE KWON:  As long as you stick to relevant issues, I would

16     allow you to continue as far as you can.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Are you familiar or do you know what happened to the artefacts?

20     What happened to the artefacts that you selected, as well as the

21     artefacts in general that were exhumed during the exhumations?

22        A.   I didn't select any artefacts.  There may be a bit of

23     mistranslation.  I found all the artefacts, and all -- I found the

24     artefacts, and all of them are entered into the logs which were then

25     given to ICTY, but the artefacts themselves were all sent down to the

Page 22332

 1     morgue, where, I understood, investigators carried out further analysis.

 2     As to what's happened to those artefacts, I have no idea in the sense of

 3     where they are now.  I don't know.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  You found some ID documents, personal IDs, isn't that

 5     right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Do you know that it's a custom in our area that a prisoner of war

 8     or anybody who is captured would not be allowed to keep their documents,

 9     but they are forced to hand them over, otherwise they could escape?

10        A.   No, I have no idea about what the rules are in Republika Srpska.

11     What they were, I don't know.

12        Q.   And in your country is it possible for a prisoner to keep his

13     passport?

14        A.   To tell you the truth, Mr. Karadzic, never having been arrested

15     myself, I don't know whether I would be allowed to keep my passport or

16     not.

17        Q.   Thank you.  It's my assumption that you're unable to answer the

18     question that the person on whom personal ID is found would not have been

19     previously arrested, but anyway, are you able to tell us whether

20     Glogova 1 and 2 were mixed and whether the DNA that was found in those

21     graves was also found in other graves?  In six cases, for instance, it

22     was proved that one body part was found there and another body part was

23     found in a different location.

24        A.   I don't know the facts of the particular case you're talking

25     about, but it doesn't surprise me, given the way in which the bodies were

Page 22333

 1     handled, that a limb might fall off and be taken away in another truck

 2     which went to a different grave.  So I don't find that surprising.  But I

 3     must refer -- return to the question of Glogova 1 and 2.  I only know

 4     about Glogova 1.  Glogova 2 was excavated after I had stopped working for

 5     ICTY.

 6        Q.   But look how it was found.  For example, in Glogova 1 there were

 7     links of 11 with Budak 1, three with Budak 3, 13 with Bilic 3, three

 8     connections with Zeleni Jadar 6, 13 with Zeleni Jadar 5, six with

 9     Zeleni Jadar 4, and so on and so forth.  So this is absolutely a question

10     of a mixture being found in Glogova 1.  But I understand that you would

11     not have been in a position to know that because the DNA tests were not

12     conducted then.  But do you agree now that things seem much more complex

13     than they seemed then?

14        A.   I don't know the -- whether I had anything to do with the Budak

15     graves, but I certainly had things to do the Zeleni Jadar graves, and

16     they were secondary graves which contained body parts and which we

17     interpreted as having come from the robbing at Glogova.  So in

18     October 1995 bodies why were taken away from Glogova but parts were left

19     behind.  Bodies parts were taken away from Glogova and buried in -- at

20     Zeleni Jadar, I've forgotten the number of the grave.  We only

21     investigated one.  5, I think.  And so I would expect that some body

22     parts from some individuals would be found both in the Glogova and in

23     Zeleni Jadar.  But I can't talk about the other sites, Budak 3 and 13

24     that you mention, because I don't know about them.

25        Q.   Professor, sir, do you know that some artefacts and some forensic

Page 22334

 1     matter was destroyed after they reached this prosecutor's office?

 2        A.   No.  As I said to you, I don't know what happened to the

 3     artefacts after I handed them over.  I was not in the employment of ICTY.

 4     I was under contract to do the graves.  So I haven't been following what

 5     happened after that.

 6        Q.   Professor, sir, thank you very much for your kindness.  Thank you

 7     very much for your answers.  I apologise if I was not precise.  I myself

 8     seek to be as precise as possible, and precision is what I'm after, but I

 9     would like to thank you very much for your help.  I have no more

10     questions for you, sir, because I did not study other documents.  I

11     didn't have enough time.  But I even think that the ones that I did

12     provide as examples are of use and are instructive.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Mitchell, do you have any re-examination?

14             MR. MITCHELL:  No, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Well, that concludes your evidence,

16     Professor Wright.  On behalf of this Chamber and the Tribunal as a whole,

17     I would like to thank you for your coming yet again to the Tribunal to

18     give it.

19             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE KWON:  We'll rise all together.  Yes, Mr. -- then,

21     Professor, you're free to go.

22             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

23                           [The witness withdrew]

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

25             MR. NICHOLLS:  Sorry, Your Honours, just as we haven't quite run

Page 22335

 1     out of time, I wanted to make a brief oral motion which is not opposed.

 2     I would tender the errata sheet that Mr. Brown spoke about on the

 3     24th of November at the end of his testimony.  We've received an ERN, and

 4     it was disclosed a few days ago.  It is 65 ter number 90303.  And that's

 5     the errata sheet prepared based on the questions put to Mr. Brown during

 6     his cross-examination.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Should we admit it as a separate Prosecution

 8     exhibit?

 9             MR. NICHOLLS:  Yes, please, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  That will be done.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P4028, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Are there any matters to deal with?  Yes.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may just talk about the pace.

14     I am sure for myself that I have not been 25 years old for quite some

15     time now, so this pace, I believe, is quite taxing for everybody in this

16     courtroom, in my opinion.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We are sitting five days a week this week, but

18     we have less than a month until the winter break.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And long days.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Tomorrow, 9.00.

21                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.42 p.m.,

22                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 2nd day

23                           of December, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.