111208ED

Page 22446

1 WITNESS: CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE

2 Examination by Mr. Mitchell:

3 Q. Good morning, doctor.

4 A. Good morning.

5 Q. Can you please state your full name.

6 A. Christopher Hamilton Lawrence.

7 Q. And before we start can you just briefly tell the Chamber what

8 those documents are that you have before you.

9 A. These are a summary from my reports from the various sites and

10 the actual original reports.

11 Q. What is your profession?

12 A. I'm a forensic pathologist.

13 Q. What is your current position?

14 A. I am the state forensic pathologist for the State of Tasmania in

15 Australia.

16 Q. And what are your responsibilities as the state forensic

17 pathologist for Tasmania?

18 A. I carry -- I run the department of forensic pathology. I carry

19 out autopsies for the coroner and I prepare reports into deaths.

20 Q. In 1998 you were the chief forensic pathologist for the ICTY; is

21 that correct?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. And can you briefly describe your role as the chief forensic

24 pathologist.

25 A. My role as chief forensic pathologist was to run the mortuary

Page 22447

1 portion of the exhumation that was carried out in 1998, that involved

2 recruiting pathologists, technicians, and other individuals necessary for

3 doing the work, supervising the overall functioning of the process at the

4 mortuary, carrying out autopsies, briefing the new pathologists as to

5 what they could expect to find, and then reviewing all of the work and

6 preparing reports on each of the sites.

7 JUDGE KWON: Sorry, Mr. Mitchell, I interrupt again. I also

8 forgot to mention that we are sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis with Mr. --

9 with Judge Morrison being away due to his urgent personal reasons. Yes,

10 Mr. Mitchell.

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

12 Q. Dr. Lawrence, the mortuary you mentioned, that was the Visoko

13 mortuary in Bosnia?

14 A. That's right, the Gradska Groblja mortuary at -- in Visoko.

15 Q. Now, you just mentioned you prepared reports in relation to your

16 work and I just want to briefly run through them with you. You prepared

17 eight reports in relation to the examination of remains from the Dam,

18 Cancari road 3, Cancari road 12, Hodzici Road 3, 4, and 5, Liplje 2, and

19 Zeleni Jadar 5; is that correct?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. You wrote an additional two reports related to ligatures from the

22 Cancari road 3 and Cancari road 12 sites?

23 A. Yes, there were -- some of the ligatures were removed in the

24 grave and sent directly to The Hague and I examined -- in order to have

25 examined all of the material, I examined them when I came to The Hague

Page 22448

1 later that -- or actually early the following year when I was preparing

2 the reports. So I examined those ligatures that I hadn't yet seen.

3 Q. The 11th report was a 1-page report on two sets of remains found

4 in 1998 in Kozluk.

5 A. Yes, as a consequence of examining bodies in the Cancari road 3

6 site where there was some evidence to suggest that the bodies may have

7 come from Kozluk, we did an examination of some surface remains at Kozluk

8 because it was felt that it was inappropriate to leave surface remains

9 there for -- until the following year.

10 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I would like to tender those 11

11 reports now. I can go through one by one. The first one is

12 Dr. Lawrence's report on Kozluk which is 65 ter number 2469.

13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, any objections?

14 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE KWON: Those 11 reports will be admitted into evidence.

16 Shall we give the number now?

17 MR. MITCHELL: I can read the 65 ter numbers into the record if

18 that would assist.

19 JUDGE KWON: I don't think that's necessary. It's already in the

20 record and we will give the number -- in what order? That -- yeah,

21 that's the problem. I take it that the court deputy has the numbers so

22 why don't we give the number now.

23 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 2469 shall be

25 assigned Exhibit Number P4051; 65 ter document 2467 shall be assigned

Page 22449

1 Exhibit Number P4053; 65 ter document 2468 shall be assigned

2 Exhibit Number P4054 --

3 MR. MITCHELL: Sorry, one moment. Those 2467 and 2468 are

4 associated exhibits, they're not the -- part of the 11 reports. The 11

5 reports are 65 ter numbers 2469 through to 2477 and then 11145 and 11146.

6 JUDGE KWON: Correct. So we will give the number in the order of

7 the 65 ter number.

8 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.

9 JUDGE KWON: And then we'll -- you have two associated exhibits

10 which are CV of the doctor and chart showing the primary and secondary

11 grave sites.

12 MR. MITCHELL: Correct, they are associated to Dr. Lawrence's

13 testimony from the Krstic case which I'll tender in a moment.

14 JUDGE KWON: I take it also that there's no objection to the

15 admission of those two associated exhibits?

16 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct, Mr. President. We don't object to

17 any of the associated exhibits.

18 JUDGE KWON: Very well. They will be all admitted.

19 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

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

21 Q. Dr. Lawrence, do you recall testifying in the Krstic case on the

22 31st of May, 2000?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review that testimony?

25 A. Yes, I have.

Page 22450

1 Q. Can you confirm that it accurately reflects your evidence in that

2 case?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. If you were asked the same questions on the same topics today,

5 would your answers be the same?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to tender Dr. Lawrence's testimony from

9 the Krstic case, that's 65 ter number 03226.

10 JUDGE KWON: That will be admitted.

11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

12 JUDGE KWON: So to wrap it up again, we will admit the transcript

13 as Exhibit P4051 and 11 expert reports as Exhibit -- from Exhibit P4052

14 to Exhibit P4062 and two associated exhibits as Exhibit P4063 and Exhibit

15 P4064.

16 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

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

18 I'd now like to read out a summary of Dr. Lawrence's testimony

19 from the Krstic case.

20 In 1998, Dr. Lawrence oversaw the examination of human remains

21 exhumed from eight Srebrenica-related mass graves; the Dam,

22 Cancari Road 3, Cancari Road 12, Hodzici Road 3, 4, and 5, Liplje 2, and

23 Zeleni Jadar 5.

24 He and his staff were based at the Gradska Groblja mortuary

25 facility in Visoko. This facility had three autopsy tables, X-ray

Page 22451

1 equipment, and a secure room for evidence storage. Later in the year,

2 Dr. Lawrence's team also used two temporary mortuaries with additional

3 autopsy tables to facilitate the processing of the remains.

4 The human remains were delivered to the mortuary in body-bags and

5 were held in a locked refrigerated container awaiting analysis. The

6 analysis process started with the contents of the body-bag being

7 photographed. The remains were then X-rayed using a portable X-ray

8 machine known as a fluoroscope which was operated by a radiographer. The

9 assigned pathologist would use the fluoroscope to look for fractures,

10 bullets, any bony abnormalities and then prepare a handwritten report on

11 his or her observations.

12 The remains would then be taken to an autopsy table, where they

13 were searched for personal items and clothing were removed. The clothing

14 was tagged with the case number and handed to the scene of crime officer.

15 The body was then washed and examined for injuries. Any obvious external

16 injuries were photographed.

17 The assigned pathologist would then conduct the autopsy and

18 attempt to further define any areas of injury. They examined the bones

19 for injury and in the case of apparent gun-shot injury, attempted to

20 trace the track of the bullet. Anthropologists assisted with the

21 interpretation of bone injuries, the calculation of sex, age, and the

22 minimum number of individuals and the reconstruction of damaged bones.

23 The pathologists also checked the clothing associated with a body to

24 determine whether any defects in the clothing corresponded with the

25 injuries on the body.

Page 22452

1 During the autopsy the pathologists also looked for evidence of

2 identifying features that may later help to identify the individual.

3 Among the remains examined, Dr. Lawrence and his team found an individual

4 with a grossly deformed ulna, an individual with severe sclerosis of the

5 spine, an individual with tracheostomy, and other individuals with old

6 unhealed fractures and severe joint damage caused by old gun-shot wounds.

7 Lastly, the pathologist would prepare a handwritten report of his

8 or her findings and form an opinion as to the cause of death. The report

9 was typed up and signed by the pathologist and the body stored for

10 hand-over to the Bosnian authorities.

11 Dr. Lawrence prepared a report for each grave-site summarising

12 these findings. In total, his team examined 2.239 body-bags, which,

13 according to the anthropologists, contained a minimum number of 883

14 individuals. They identified 1.307 definite gun-shot wounds, six shotgun

15 wounds and 25 shrapnel wounds, of which 24 came from the Zeleni Jadar 5

16 site. Fifty-three definite ligatures and as many as 83 ligatures were

17 located. They also located 44 definite blindfolds and as many as 103.

18 There were 254 relatively intact bodies among the remains examined. Of

19 these, the cause of death of 50 was undetermined, one died of a

20 combination of gun-shot and shrapnel wounds, and 203 died of gun-shot

21 wounds.

22 Q. Doctor, I now have some additional questions about your evidence.

23 You discussed the morgue procedures at length in your Krstic testimony so

24 I don't want to go through them in any detail. However, in your reports

25 you described a change in procedure that took place during the season and

Page 22453

1 in your reports for Liplje 2, Hodzici 3 and 5, and Zeleni Jadar there's a

2 different in procedure. Can you explain that change in procedure and how

3 it came about?

4 A. Yes. As we got to about halfway through the season it became

5 clear that because of the number of exhibits we were unlikely to complete

6 the work in time unless we changed our procedure somewhat. It became

7 increasingly clear to me that it was very difficult to interpret the

8 material that we found in small body parts, isolated limbs and incomplete

9 bodies.

10 As a -- Mr. Jose Pablo, who was the chief anthropologist,

11 proposed that we change how we did our work to concentrate on the larger

12 body parts. It was important for the anthropologist to examine every

13 bone because they needed to calculate the minimum number of individuals.

14 So as a consequence, at the exhumation site, they divided the remains

15 into isolated body parts, larger body parts, and large -- and almost

16 complete bodies.

17 The pathologists would examine the whole bodies and the larger

18 body parts. The anthropologist would start examining the smaller body --

19 the isolated body parts. If the anthropologist found any injury, then

20 they would be referred to a pathologist to have a complete report. So as

21 a consequence, small body parts which were given -- were given a label of

22 A were examined by the anthropologist. The larger body parts, and in

23 particular things like skulls and so forth, were all examined by

24 pathologists. And the whole bodies were examined exactly as they had

25 been for the whole of the season.

Page 22454

1 Q. In your reports we see you classify injuries that are identified

2 on remains as either peri mortem, old post mortem or recent post mortem.

3 Can you briefly describe those three terms.

4 A. Yes. We were dealing with difficult remains. These were bodies

5 that had old injuries that had started to heal or ante mortem injuries.

6 They had injuries that had occurred at or around the time of death. They

7 then had injuries that had occurred after death, but while the bones were

8 still covered with flesh. And then in many cases they had injuries which

9 had occurred once the bones had been stripped of flesh and had dried out.

10 In order to distinguish between these, the wounds that were -- showed

11 evidence of healing were classified as ante mortem. The injuries that

12 occurred at the time of death were classified as peri mortem. The

13 injuries that occurred in the bones while covered with flesh but

14 apparently after the time of death were classified as early post mortem.

15 And then the injuries that occurred once the bones were defleshed and

16 dried were classified as late post mortem.

17 Q. I'd like to focus now on peri mortem injuries and specifically on

18 gun-shot wounds.

19 MR. MITCHELL: Can I please have 65 ter 2471 in e-court, page 18.

20 Q. Doctor, when this picture comes up, I'd like you to, if possible,

21 to use this picture to explain how a gun-shot wound was identified in a

22 set of remains. And just while we're waiting this is the Cancari Road 12

23 site. Did you have an opportunity to go to that site?

24 A. Yes, I actually attended the site as well. Right. What you can

25 see in the photograph -- sorry. There we go --

Page 22455

1 Q. Just --

2 A. I'm sorry.

3 Q. -- one moment, doctor.

4 JUDGE KWON: Could you wait until assisted by our usher. So the

5 witness wants to mark the picture so that if you could assist him with

6 that.

7 THE WITNESS: Oh, right. You can see this is a skull. It has

8 been quite severely fractured, and then has been reconstructed by the

9 anthropologist. When the skull was first received and was fragmented, it

10 was very difficult to make out very much at all, but after it had been

11 washed and reconstructed -- the white material you can see is glue that

12 has been used to glue the fragments back together again. One can then

13 see a defect here, which is where the bullet has entered the skull. You

14 can see on the other side of this defect, it is irregular in shape and

15 some of the small fragments of bone have been lost. On the other side of

16 the skull over here you can see where the bullet has come out of the

17 skull.

18 JUDGE KWON: For the future reference, could you put number 1 on

19 the entrance part and number 2 for the exit part.

20 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

22 MR. MITCHELL:

23 Q. Is this a definite gun-shot wound, Doctor?

24 A. In my opinion, yes.

25 Q. Can you give us just a brief example of something that you would

Page 22456

1 have classified as a probable or a possible gun-shot wound? How would it

2 differ from what we see here?

3 A. In the skull, for example, if we had a similar radiating pattern

4 of fractures but did not have all of the small fragments of bone which

5 would enable us to define the entrance and the exit wound, that would be

6 normally labelled as a probable gun-shot wound, provided we had metal

7 fragments in the proximity of it.

8 Q. And what about a possible gun-shot wound?

9 A. We were dealing with bodies that were quite badly damaged and

10 were quite disarticulated. There were some cases where we had fractures

11 that looked suspicious to be gun-shot wounds but could not be defined as

12 gun-shot wounds, but also had metal fragments in proximity to these and

13 those I would describe them as possible gun-shot wounds.

14 Q. Why did you consider it important to report probable and possible

15 gun-shot wounds as well as the definite gun-shot wounds?

16 A. Well, in some of the sites and particularly the Dam site and

17 Liplje, there was so much damage that it was very difficult to ascertain

18 exactly what was going on. The -- in those sites what we would do is

19 apply our criteria for definite gun-shot wounds, and in both Liplje and

20 in the Dam site there were relatively few cases which I would classify as

21 definite gun-shot wounds. But I wanted to convey to the Court the idea

22 that these were cases that may well be gun-shot wounds.

23 Q. I'd like to move now to ask you some questions about cause of

24 death.

25 JUDGE KWON: Shall we keep this marking by the witness?

Page 22457

1 MR. MITCHELL: Yes, please, Mr. President.

2 JUDGE KWON: Could you kindly put your initials and date of

3 today, which is 8th of December.

4 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

5 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We will admit it separately, Exhibit P4065.

6 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.

7 Q. Doctor, we see in your reports that once an injury has been

8 identified, depending on the injury, it can be classified as sufficient

9 to cause death, a probable cause of death, possible cause of death,

10 consistent with a cause of death, or in many cases the cause of death was

11 undetermined. And I'd like to ask you to go through each of those

12 categories and give us an example of an injury that would fit into each

13 of those categories.

14 MR. MITCHELL: Can I have up page 41 of this document.

15 Q. And when this picture comes up, Doctor, if you can use this as an

16 example to explain how you categorise those injuries.

17 A. You -- sorry, can I proceed?

18 Q. Yes.

19 A. You need to understand that many of these bodies were quite badly

20 decomposed and were also disarticulated, that is, the body parts were no

21 longer associated. In many cases the bodies were too decomposed to tell

22 whether or not there was haemorrhage associated with the injury. In a

23 few cases, and this example is one of them, the organs were well enough

24 preserved to be absolutely certain what the cause of death was. This is

25 a skull and it has been opened. What you can see under the skull is the

Page 22458

1 brain and where the arrow is there is a bullet. On the outside of the

2 brain there is black material which is decomposed blood. This is one of

3 the few examples where one could be absolutely certain that the cause of

4 death was a gun-shot wound of the head. In many of the others where the

5 organs were not so well preserved, it was more difficult. In cases where

6 you had a clear gun-shot wound in the head that had gone through the

7 head, it was possible to say that this person had been shot and that this

8 injury would cause death. Similarly in injuries in the chest, where

9 there were bullet fragments or bullet tracts in the centre of the chest,

10 even though the heart was no longer preserved it was pretty clear that a

11 gun-shot wound of this nature would cause death.

12 Q. What kind of injuries would you classify as a probable or a

13 possible cause of death?

14 A. In some of the others you had, for example, gun-shot wounds that

15 were in the thigh. Now, a gun-shot wound in the thigh which may or may

16 not strike the major artery, if it struck the artery or the bone,

17 undoubtedly, left untreated, it would ultimately cause death. So in

18 those cases we would give that as a probable cause of death. In some

19 cases you had some evidence of gun-shot wound like small metal fragments

20 close to organs that might cause death, but the injuries were so poorly

21 defined that one couldn't be certain that that was a cause of death. And

22 in those I might give the cause of death as being a possible -- as a

23 possible cause of death.

24 Q. In many cases you were unable to determine a cause of death at

25 all; is that right?

Page 22459

1 A. Yes. In the bodies where they were severely disarticulated and

2 where we were not able to put the bodies back together again, we could

3 not tell whether there was a real cause of death or not. In quite a few

4 of these they did show some evidence of gun-shot wounds, and it is my

5 belief that if we were able to put the bodies together again it might be

6 possible to demonstrate a gun-shot wound. But because these were broken

7 up and because we had no way at that stage of re -- of working out which

8 body parts were associated, it wasn't possible at the time.

9 MR. MITCHELL: Can I please go back to page 40 of this document

10 in e-court.

11 Q. Doctor, is it possible to determine the time of death of these

12 individuals from your pathological examination of their remains?

13 A. From my pathological examination, no. The bodies had decomposed,

14 but I cannot form any meaningful assessment of the time since death.

15 Q. I'd like to ask you to take a look at the third-last paragraph on

16 this page, where you say:

17 "Due to the degree of decomposition it is impossible to prove

18 that any particular gun-shot wound was caused before or after death.

19 However the pattern of shooting and the presence of objects such as

20 blindfolds and ligatures as well as the attempts to conceal the bodies

21 suggests to me that most of the shooting occurred at the time of death."

22 Can you expand on this conclusion that you make in this

23 paragraph?

24 A. Yes. As I said in -- when describing the case we previously saw

25 of the gun-shot wound in the head, that was a very unusual case in which

Page 22460

1 there was good preservation of the brain. And in that particular case

2 one could be certain that that injury occurred at the time of death

3 because of the haemorrhage. But in most cases, the decomposition of the

4 body was such that one could not detect haemorrhage; and hence, you could

5 not be certain that the injury occurred while the heart was still

6 beating. Nevertheless, I would -- given that there were lots of gun-shot

7 wounds in these bodies and given that there were blindfolds and ligatures

8 on these bodies as well as the attempts that were clearly made to conceal

9 the bodies, I think it's highly likely that the shootings occurred at the

10 time of death.

11 Q. Doctor, are you familiar with the phrase "manner of death"?

12 A. Yes, I am.

13 Q. Can you please define that for us.

14 A. The manner of death is basically a legal concept of how the death

15 came about. We typically talk about a natural manner of death or an

16 unnatural manner of death, and then the manner of death in the unnatural

17 might be divided into homicide, suicide, accident, misadventure, or

18 perhaps in some cases where one cannot tell, an undetermined manner of

19 death.

20 Q. Is there a relationship between cause of death and manner of

21 death?

22 A. To some degree, yes. One normally has to consider manner, but

23 different systems deal with cause and manner slightly differently. I

24 work in the Australian system which is very similar to the English

25 coronial [sic] system, but I also did my training in the American system.

Page 22461

1 Now in the Australian and English system it would be up to the coroner to

2 assess the manner of death and the pathologist would normally define

3 themselves to the cause of death. However, if you are doing an

4 investigation of a death, the pathologist would usually make some form of

5 assessment which would determine to what detail they go. For example, if

6 I was dealing with a homicide in my own system, there would be certain

7 things that I would do that I wouldn't routinely do for a natural death.

8 So, to some degree, even in the English system or Australian system, a

9 pathologist does have to consider manner of death.

10 In the American system, the pathologist is called on to determine

11 both the cause and manner of death. So, for example, in most of these

12 sorts of cases the American pathologist would probably give the cause of

13 death as gun-shot wounds and the manner of death as being homicide.

14 Because I work in the Australian system and because most of my

15 pathologists worked in the English-style systems, we gave cause of death

16 but did not give manner of death.

17 Q. One final area, why did you record factors such as the absence of

18 weapons and military uniforms in your reports?

19 A. I tend to record those things which I think might be alternative

20 explanations for the material that I'm shown. Obviously in dealing with

21 bodies that had come from a war zone, one of the alternative explanations

22 for those bodies may well be that they were combat fatalities. It was

23 therefore, I thought, important to record not only whether I thought

24 there were ligatures and blindfolds, but also whether there was any

25 evidence to suggest that these were, in fact, combatants. Other bits of

Page 22462

1 information I also recorded, were any of these people wounded? We had

2 one example of a man who had a shrapnel injury. The shrapnel injury had

3 been bandaged and he had then been blindfolded and shot. And I

4 considered all of these things as relevant to consideration of whether or

5 not these were combatants or people who had been executed.

6 Q. Thank you, Doctor.

7 MR. MITCHELL: I have no further questions.

8 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. Very well.

9 Doctor, your evidence in Krstic case was admitted in lieu of your

10 oral testimony, and now you'll be further asked by Mr. Karadzic in his

11 cross-examination.

12 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

13 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:

14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Dr. Lawrence.

15 A. Good morning, Dr. Karadzic.

16 Q. First of all, I would like to thank you for meeting with my legal

17 advisor and for clarifying some things which I hope will help us to

18 conduct this cross-examination smoothly and efficiently. Also, I would

19 also like to acknowledge you for your moral integrity when in your

20 country you noted an error and you publicly acknowledged it, admitted it.

21 Can we look at 1D4 -- 1D4925.

22 This error occurred in very good conditions for an autopsy; isn't

23 that right?

24 A. This is a case that occurred 18 years ago and two of the three

25 bodies were extremely badly burnt. I would not describe it as very good

Page 22463

1 conditions for the autopsy.

2 Q. Were they better than the ones that you had in Visoko?

3 A. In some ways.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we tender this, please?

6 JUDGE KWON: Just to understand the relevance, could you explain

7 a bit further why this is -- how this is relevant to our case,

8 Mr. Karadzic or Mr. Robinson.

9 MR. ROBINSON: Well, Mr. President, I think this simply shows

10 that a pathologist, even an excellent one like Dr. Lawrence, can make a

11 mistake and I think that is a relevant information for the Chamber when

12 considering his testimony.

13 JUDGE KWON: Any objection, Mr. Mitchell?

14 MR. MITCHELL: No objection.

15 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit it.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1977. Thank you.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. First of all, I would like to ask you something about insects.

20 Are you knowledgeable about insects and their behaviour as far as corpses

21 or mortal remains are concerned? Is that something that you took into

22 account?

23 A. I am -- I'm a forensic pathologist, not an entomologist. I have

24 dealt with some cases where forensic entomology has been concerned and I

25 do have a working knowledge of forensic entomology, but I would not claim

Page 22464

1 to be an expert.

2 Q. Thank you. And is that field applicable to the cases that you

3 worked on in Bosnia?

4 A. I did not see very much evidence to support that. In one of the

5 graves, and I think it was CR12, we did see some very small maggots. And

6 I think that what those maggots represent is a re-infestation of the body

7 after exhumation. But I did not see any evidence of things like pupal

8 cases or other evidence of previous insect infestation that would, I

9 think, assist in assessing time since death.

10 Q. Thank you. What about skeletisation, would that indicate

11 something? Would various degrees of body decomposition indicate anything

12 about that and does skeletisation indicate the presence of insects or

13 not?

14 A. The process of decomposition can occur with or without insects,

15 and similarly the process of skeletisation can occur with or without

16 insects. The -- some of the bodies that we saw showed quite a lot of --

17 a decompositional process that we call adipocere. Now, this is a process

18 that occurs when a buried body is exposed to water and is a process of

19 formation of free fatty acids which stop bacterial proliferation.

20 Decomposition can occur without insects but can be due to bacterial

21 growth alone. So I don't think that the presence of

22 skeletalisation [sic] necessarily indicates the involvement of insects.

23 It could easily do so and the evidence has now gone, but I did not see

24 anything apart from the small number of maggots which I did see in CR12,

25 which would indicate the presence of insects.

Page 22465

1 Q. Thank you. Would the presence of insects give any kind of

2 indication as to the time that the body was there from the time of death

3 to the time of burial?

4 A. Sorry, yes, if they were present it could be helpful. I think my

5 experience with forensic entomology suggests to me that sometimes it's

6 helpful and sometimes it's not. It doesn't always work. I also suspect

7 that after three years quite a lot of the forensic entomology evidence

8 would have gone and would not be recoverable.

9 Q. Thank you. Well, we will leave that topic then. Can you please

10 tell us whether Serbian pathologists took part in this. I'm speaking of

11 Republika Srpska as one of the interested parties there.

12 A. No, they did not.

13 Q. Thank you. Did you receive information in advance about where

14 you were coming, what was happening there earlier, whether you had

15 information about the fact that war was waged in that area for 44 months?

16 A. Yes, I had been briefed at the ICTY and I was aware that war had

17 been fought in that area for some period of time.

18 Q. Thank you. Were you warned, were you instructed about the

19 possibility of encountering graves that were there considerably earlier

20 than July 1995?

21 A. Not specifically, but obviously I considered that a possibility.

22 Q. Thank you. And I can see in your report here for Hodzici 5, this

23 is 65 ter 2475, page 3, where you say that officers at the scene of the

24 crime were looking for objects on the basis of which it could be

25 determined that the persons were coming from Srebrenica. So there was an

Page 22466

1 awareness then that some people were not originally or were not coming

2 from Srebrenica; is that correct?

3 A. No. I think the reason that they were looking for identification

4 was to establish whether they did come from Srebrenica. I don't think it

5 was assumed they came from Srebrenica.

6 Q. Was attention drawn in any way to the possibility of some of the

7 grave-sites dating back to a period before July of 1995 and was the area

8 where combat took place and where these grave-sites from an earlier

9 period were possibly located identified?

10 A. You must remember, I was dealing with the mortuary side of this,

11 not the exhumation side of this. Those questions are probably better put

12 to Professor Wright than to me.

13 Q. Thank you. I did put that question to him. What I wanted to

14 ascertain was it says here in the introduction that between 12 and 20

15 July exhumations were conducted, but you did not attend any of these

16 exhumations or did you?

17 A. I -- my main job was to run the mortuary and I had to be there in

18 the mortuary when it was working. I have known Professor Wright for a

19 long period of time and I am interested in attending the scenes if I can,

20 and I did, in fact, attend the sites of Cancari Road 12, Cancari Road 3,

21 Liplje, and also Zeleni Jadar but not when they were actually digging.

22 Q. Thank you. Since we have this document pulled up, can we have

23 page 2, please. This concerns at least 57 individuals of whom 54 were

24 ascertained to have been male. Let me not read all of it. We can all

25 see this for ourselves. Can I direct your attention to item 4. There

Page 22467

1 you say that there were 31 blindfolds recovered, 19 of which were around

2 the head, two on other parts of the body, two were associated with bodies

3 in general but their exact location was not stated by the pathologist.

4 And eight were loose in the grave. You say the fabric of some ligatures

5 was similar to other Hodzici sites. Was this something you did yourself

6 or did you authorise some of your associates to deal with this?

7 A. The similarities between the blindfolds were fairly obvious. I

8 did examination of these to ascertain whether I thought they were

9 similar. These blindfolds were then sent to The Hague to see -- to -- in

10 case further examination by an expert was required.

11 Q. Thank you. Did you carry out these autopsies or some of your

12 associates? Because you say there that the location was not stated by

13 the pathologist.

14 A. Yes. I would have carried out probably around maybe a fifth of

15 the examinations, maybe a quarter. I'm not exactly sure. Some -- the

16 pathologists who were involved - and there were usually three

17 pathologists until later in the season when there were up to five -- so I

18 was in the -- in the mortuary. I examined probably around about 20

19 per cent or so of the cases. But other cases were being examined which I

20 would review but did not directly carry out myself.

21 Q. Thank you. But elsewhere in your reports you said on several

22 occasions that every pathologist who carries out an autopsy stands by his

23 findings; right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. If my understanding is correct, you took care of some sort of

Page 22468

1 standard, whereas the actual autopsy work, the findings and

2 interpretations, were theirs; right?

3 A. Yes. When we -- when they came, I would brief them on what we

4 were doing, what I needed them to do, and that included discussions about

5 identification of gun-shot wounds, identification of ligatures and

6 blindfolds. They -- they would write the report in their own words, and

7 in some cases they did not provide a description in their report of where

8 the blindfold was found. So in those cases I listed them as being exact

9 site undetermined. Now, I have to say I did examine the blindfolds,

10 particularly later when -- at The Hague as well -- and we did measure

11 them and they were all quite similar. In particular in Hodzici, this

12 particular site Hodzici Road 5, there was one blindfold which was made

13 from a leg of a pair of trousers which I realised was identical and could

14 be matched up to a blindfold that was recovered from Hodzici Road 4. So

15 while I could not tell -- if the pathologist didn't record where the

16 blindfold or ligature was, I did examine the blindfold and ligature to

17 ascertain whether or not in form and material it was similar to the ones

18 we had seen.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at page 15 and then

21 16 in Serbian. I think the same applies to the other version.

22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. The table of blindfolds recovered at the HZ5 site, the number,

24 material, width, circumference, and location. So we have 31 blindfolds,

25 19 around the head, two, et cetera.

Page 22469

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think we can keep the English

2 version as it is and can we have the next page in Serbian.

3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Does it not state here that the width is roughly 60 millimetres

5 and the circumference around 550 millimetres. The blindfolds were

6 recovered around the head or eyes and under the column material it reads:

7 "Pink embossed" and then "pink embossed, scalloped edges." What sort of

8 pattern was it?

9 A. There was a -- I can show you it. I -- I -- I'm not an expert on

10 fabric, but I can show you what it looked like. It was a shiny material

11 which did not have a flat surface, if you know what I mean.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the Chamber request that the

13 Prosecution provide us with the blindfolds after the break.

14 JUDGE KWON: Do you have a picture in colour -- probably in one

15 of the --

16 THE WITNESS: Actually, in one of the -- we can go to Hodzici

17 5 --

18 JUDGE KWON: This is it. You can indicate -- you can turn two

19 pages, next page and then next page. Can you show the witness the next

20 two pages, whether that is it. Next page.

21 Doctor, do you see the monitor?

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.

23 JUDGE KWON: Okay.

24 THE WITNESS: This is one of the ligatures and you can see --

25 JUDGE KWON: Just hold on. Can we zoom in a bit further. Yes.

Page 22470

1 THE WITNESS: You can see here that is the head --

2 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Probably you need to push the button on

3 that -- just a second --

4 THE WITNESS: That's not going to do it.

5 JUDGE KWON: Could you wait until assisted by our -- yes.

6 THE WITNESS: Sorry. This is the head here and this is the

7 blindfold here.

8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Doctor, is that the back of the head or the face that we are

10 seeing?

11 A. That's a really good question. I think it might be the front,

12 but I'm not sure.

13 Q. Don't you think we would be able to see the nasal cavity and the

14 mouth cavity if it were the face?

15 A. Possibly, but with the adipocere that was present a lot of the

16 facial features have been lost. I cannot tell you looking at that

17 whether we are looking at the face or the back of the head.

18 Q. But if the face were concealed, turned the other way, then we

19 wouldn't be able to say with any certainty where the blindfold is exactly

20 resting?

21 A. Yes. I think that the -- the face is here, but I agree that it

22 is hard for somebody who did not see this thing to assess that.

23 JUDGE BAIRD: Doctor, would the adipocere also cover the teeth?

24 THE WITNESS: Yes.

25 JUDGE BAIRD: It would?

Page 22471

1 THE WITNESS: It may do, yes.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Is it the time for our

3 break? I'm asking lest I should continue my examination -- or perhaps

4 one other question.

5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. This particular pink blindfold does not -- is it a jeans-made

7 blindfold? It doesn't seem to have -- we don't know about the pattern.

8 A. This particular one is -- yes, is a pat -- is a fabric that I did

9 not see -- I only saw once. If we turn the page, though, I can show you

10 the pink shiny material.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have it.

12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

13 JUDGE KWON: Do we need to admit this and keep this or it won't

14 be necessary? I leave it in your decision.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I do believe it's already --

16 well, yes, I do agree. It can be marked for identification. We haven't

17 really identified where the face or where the back of the head are.

18 JUDGE KWON: Then I don't think -- I don't think Dr. Lawrence

19 marked a very significant marking here, so we can continue.

20 Yes, we move -- we will not keep this separately. Would you like

21 to ask that question before the recess or shall we take the recess -- the

22 break now, Mr. Karadzic?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let us take the break. I will ask

24 the witness to show us what the typical blindfolds were and that will

25 entail a number of questions.

Page 22472

1 JUDGE KWON: Very well.

2 If Dr. Lawrence could take -- consider that and come up with --

3 some examples after the break, I would appreciate it very much.

4 We'll take a break for half an hour and resume at 11.00.

5 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

6 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 Can we now have a look at something we were trying to see before,

10 page 16.

11 JUDGE KWON: Does the e-court have some problem? Yes.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 15 in English and

13 16 in Serbian. Thank you.

14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Dr. Lawrence, does this not seem pretty uniform to you, pink

16 embossed, pink embossed, pink embossed scalloped edges? Can we now have

17 the next page in English. Page 16 of this document in English.

18 Do you remember, Dr. Lawrence, that many of these blindfolds did

19 not have any knots and where they did it would be indicated -- no, this

20 isn't the page that I'm asking for. I'm looking for page 16 with text.

21 The Serbian can stay as it is and I'd like a page in English which

22 relates to that same site, HZ --

23 JUDGE KWON: E-court page 21.

24 Were you referring to this page, Mr. Karadzic?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It should have a table on it. It

Page 22473

1 should appear the same as the Serbian page. So page 14, yes.

2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Is it not the case that only two are indicated here as having had

4 a knot, whereas all the other ones have no knot, they seem to have been

5 made of one piece?

6 A. Yes, that's correct. There are two in which there is a knot

7 halfway in the middle making two loops, but most of these were single

8 loops.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at the previous page in

11 English where it states and I'll read in Serbian.

12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] "B132 cleared blindfold a larger

13 squared strip of cloth, pink embossed used as blindfold. Pay attention

14 to the unusual tassels of a squared shape."

15 Q. Dr. Lawrence, did they --

16 A. I'm not sure where we are.

17 JUDGE KWON: Let's find it first.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The previous page in English. Can

19 we have the next page where it says [In English] "HZ 05 B132." Next

20 page, please.

21 JUDGE KWON: The page with a picture.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no, it should have a table like

23 the one we had before. It was page 13 so this must be 14. I can't find

24 B132 as described in English --

25 JUDGE KWON: Just let him -- let us show the previous page with

Page 22474

1 the picture and then see the description underneath.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that is it.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We're interested in the text. Can

5 we see the text.

6 THE WITNESS: Ah, yes.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 Can we now have page 17 in Serbian. That is the bottom part of

9 the table. It may be the page before in English where fabric is

10 described, four types of fabric. Pink colour of salmon, shiny like satin

11 with multi-coloured floral pattern, light blue material akin to satin.

12 Can we have the English page --

13 JUDGE KWON: Just next page --

14 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I have it.

15 THE ACCUSED: In e-court next page. Serbian was okay. In

16 English --

17 THE WITNESS: No, it's the next page on in English.

18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. It appears to be a fabric of some luxury, it appears to be an

20 expensive one, does it not, Dr. Lawrence?

21 A. Yes, somewhat.

22 Q. Thank you. Were you acquainted with our customs of war and our

23 religious and cultural customs before they brought you to the mortuary?

24 A. No.

25 Q. That is definitely a mistake on their part. Do you know that in

Page 22475

1 our parts soldiers would carry a designation of sorts that was normally

2 placed on the upper arm in order to avoid friendly fire?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Do you know that Islamic fighters wore around their heads this

5 sort of luxurious fabric as ribbons, headbands?

6 A. No, no.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the video now. That's

8 1D4928.

9 [Video-clip played]

10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Here do you see the headband here --

12 A. [Previous translation continues]...

13 Q. -- the sort that the fighters would wear in this cultural --

14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

15 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I'm just wondering if we can get

16 some foundation for this video, when it is, where it is, who's depicted

17 in it. This is in a vacuum at the moment.

18 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

19 Mr. Karadzic.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We did announce the video which

21 accompanies the book titled "Srebrenica: What Really Happened." It's a

22 film of the Muslim army which was banned and this story was told by a

23 9-year-old boy who was captured. Can we perhaps play the footage from

24 earlier on -- from an earlier point to see the boy.

25 [Video-clip played]

Page 22476

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 Can we have the next clip.

3 [Video-clip played]

4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Do you see here among these fighters that they wear in headband

6 too. This is their own film, 1994, Srebrenica?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have a look at the next

10 one.

11 [Video-clip played]

12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Yet again we saw this fighter with the headband?

14 A. That's right.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 45.

17 [Video-clip played]

18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Do you see that some of them have that, the one in the middle

20 then the one on horseback, they all have headbands, don't they?

21 A. I can't see that one well enough to --

22 Q. The one behind the machine-gun, the one that's smiling or

23 laughing and then the one on horseback.

24 [Video-clip played]

25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 22477

1 Q. You see, the one behind the man carrying a machine-gun, the one

2 that is looking down to the ground, and he is wearing a headband too, as

3 is the one on horseback; right?

4 A. Well, I can't -- I don't know. I can't see it well enough.

5 Q. But you do see that there are civilian clothes there; right?

6 A. Yes.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go on to 50.

8 [Video-clip played]

9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Do you see this here that some of them also have headbands and

11 that for the most part they are wearing civilian clothing. There are

12 some uniforms or rather jackets, but for the most part it's civilian

13 clothes?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now --

17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

18 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I just wanted to clarify what part

19 of the answer Dr. Lawrence was answering yes to; whether they have

20 headbands or civilian clothing or whether it's both.

21 THE WITNESS: I can see that there are some headbands and I can

22 see that there are some military jackets and I can see that there are

23 some clothes that appear civilian.

24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 22478

1 [Video-clip played]

2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. In the previous image you can see that one man is wearing

4 civilian clothing and the other one has a headband. If we can rewind

5 this a bit, but I believe that you have already seen it.

6 A. I'm sorry. Show me.

7 [Video-clip played]

8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. This one has a band over his mouth and the one next to him is

10 wearing civilian clothes only.

11 A. Sorry. I can't see what you're talking about.

12 [Video-clip played]

13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Do you see the last two men, one has civilian clothes and a rifle

15 and the other one has something over his mouth, it's a band covering his

16 mouth, but he does have something on his forehead as well.

17 A. It's very blurry. I'm not sure what I can see. I agree that

18 that clothing on the second-to-last man does look like it's civilian, but

19 I can't -- I don't think I can see that that -- the resolution in that

20 photograph's not good enough for me to see what you're telling me is

21 there.

22 Q. Thank you. Then I'm not going to pursue this further, although

23 we have a few more video-clips. I'm going to show that on some other

24 occasion. I really believe that your Muslim hosts were supposed to

25 familiarise you with the fact that fighters who were of a particular

Page 22479

1 religious background often wore this kind of band as a decoration. If

2 they'd get them from their mothers, they'd usually wear them around the

3 waist. But those who do not have a knot are usually worn around the

4 head. Until now you haven't known this; right?

5 A. I wasn't aware that that was the custom, no.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted? We will

8 provide the exact minute references. The case manager, or rather, my

9 associate is going to take care of that.

10 JUDGE KWON: Can I hear from Mr. Mitchell first.

11 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I don't think -- still don't think

12 there's been a showing of the provenance of this movie, but we don't

13 object.

14 JUDGE KWON: All Mr. -- Dr. Lawrence did is to view the video and

15 give his observation. He couldn't tell when and how this was filmed and

16 I tend to agree with the observation of Mr. Mitchell, that we are not

17 satisfied as to the provenance. So I'm not sure whether it's appropriate

18 to admit this through Dr. Lawrence. I will consult my colleagues.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I say something, just a word?

20 Dr. Lawrence confirmed to us that he had not been made aware of our

21 customs of war or this custom of Islamic fighters wearing headbands.

22 That is one thing. Secondly, that fully coincides with the findings of

23 such objects in the mass graves. And thirdly, this is a film that is

24 accompanying a well-known publication and it was filmed by the Muslims.

25 I'm not talking about the comments at all. I'm just talking about what

Page 22480

1 the witnesses are saying, and these are Muslim films that were captured.

2 Civilian clothing as well, the witness said -- I mean, we all saw that

3 there was civilian clothing there.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE KWON: The comments of Dr. Lawrence you referred to as the

6 first item are already in the transcript, as well as his observation

7 about the film. You will have another opportunity to tender this film

8 through a witness who can tell us about the provenance of this film. For

9 those reasons, we will not admit this through Dr. Lawrence.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Now I'd like to go back to the second page of this document of

13 yours. What is referred to here is how many people were found, who was

14 found, and paragraph 3 says that none of the bodies were carrying weapons

15 or wearing army or police uniforms. However, do you agree that the enemy

16 is not buried with their weapons? Weapons are taken as a trophy or as

17 booty.

18 A. Yes, I would not necessarily anticipate that a soldier would be

19 buried with their weapons. I do understand that a previous soldier from

20 2000 -- sorry, 1997 was found to be carrying a hand-grenade, but I

21 understand that it would be fairly unlikely for the person to be buried

22 with a weapon. We did look for ammunition and we did find occasional

23 pieces of ammunition, I think three pieces in total, none of which looked

24 like contemporary military ammunition.

25 Q. Thank you. You found that in the pockets, right, or in the

Page 22481

1 handbags?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 6 there is a reference to a cord

4 ligature; however, later on it says: By way of a conclusion we are not

5 sure that it was a ligature. Right?

6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell, reference --

7 MR. MITCHELL: Can I please get a citation for the second

8 conclusion that Dr. Karadzic referred to.

9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Dr. Karadzic, can you assist us?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's exactly what I'm working on

11 right now. I do apologise. Just a moment.

12 THE WITNESS: My reading of my own report indicates that the

13 ligature photographed is described as being a ligature. HZ05B091 was

14 recovered with his hands tied behind his back with a 4-millimetre-wide

15 cord tied to form two loops. 120 and 130 millimetres in circumference.

16 JUDGE KWON: Page 13 in hard copy.

17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Thank you.

19 JUDGE KWON: E-court page 15.

20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Possibly it was somewhere else in one of your other findings,

22 perhaps this doubt was expressed, but it doesn't really matter now. Let

23 us go back to page 2. What is stated here is that some bodies were

24 better preserved than in other locations. And that some bodies were more

25 intact and 51 of 57 bodies were totally intact. The intact bodies show

Page 22482

1 that there was little disturbance during the second burial. How do you

2 explain the second burial? Does that mean adding bodies to an

3 already-existing grave or had these people been buried somewhere else and

4 then re-buried into this grave? Or rather, let's put it this way,

5 according to your findings were there people there who were -- who had

6 been buried at different points in time?

7 A. Again, if you're talking about the appearances of them in the

8 grave, those are questions that are better put to Professor Wright. I

9 did attend some of these graves, but I certainly cannot attest to those

10 sorts of things. It is one of Professor Wright's areas of expertise, not

11 mine. There is -- the Hodzici Road bodies were well -- were surprisingly

12 intact. They did vary in their degree of decomposition and this is a

13 feature that one sees in forensic pathology. There is often a great deal

14 of variation in how fast a body can decompose. In addition, work done on

15 mass graves from the Second World War demonstrates that. On the outside

16 of the grave the bodies decompose faster than on the inside of the grave

17 simply because of proximity to air, to water, and that in the centre of

18 the grave one tends to see less decomposition because there is less

19 oxygen. So a degree of variation is not at all uncommon in a mass grave.

20 What is a little unusual in Hodzici 5 is how well preserved they are.

21 And I -- I personally cannot explain why they are that well preserved. I

22 think it is a feature under which the bodies were and also to some degree

23 if the body is not disrupted it won't decompose as quickly. So, yes,

24 Hodzici 5 is unusual. Why is it unusual, I don't really know.

25 Q. Thank you. I asked that only because of this paragraph here, 7

Page 22483

1 and 8, especially 8, where there is a reference to the second burial.

2 That is why I asked that, but basically you cannot answer that; right?

3 A. No. I -- if you look at the patterns in the primary and

4 secondary graves, there are some features that suggested -- but again,

5 Professor Wright is the expert that you should be talking to about the

6 intactness of the bodies and the circumstances. He was the one who

7 exhumed them. He would know the answers to your questions.

8 Q. Thank you. However, the degree of decay is a matter for

9 pathologists; right? Can the time be established, the time of death and

10 the time of burial --

11 A. No.

12 Q. -- on the basis of the degree of -- all right. Thank you. On

13 this page we see that it is believed that there is some likelihood of a

14 person to have suffocated. Do you exclude the possibility that this body

15 had -- was lying facing some dirt surface and that that is how the dust

16 and dirt got in?

17 A. No. The pathologist thought that there was soil in the trachea,

18 in the airway down a long way from the mouth. I had a look at the case

19 and I was not convinced that the soil had necessarily got there in life.

20 There was a small defect in the trachea and I think that the soil could

21 have fallen in there after death. So I was not convinced -- it's

22 possible, but I was not convinced that it was so.

23 JUDGE KWON: It seems to appear on the next page, one fairly

24 intact body had an undetermined cause of death, possibly suffocation.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. Again ...

Page 22484

1 [Defence counsel confer]

2 THE WITNESS: Sorry, the pathologist gave -- suggested that that

3 was a possibility. I looked at the case and was not convinced, but I --

4 I have listed what the pathologist said rather than what I thought.

5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Thank you. However, an archaeologist cannot speak of the time of

7 death. Can a pathologist, though, speak of time of death; and if so,

8 under which circumstances?

9 A. As I get older, I find myself more and more uncertain about

10 assessing time since death. I am reluctant to do it even in fresh bodies

11 and I'm even more reluctant to do it in decomposed bodies. I have been

12 fooled before and I don't think that I can, as a general principle, make

13 a strong assessment of time since death based on just examination alone.

14 Q. Thank you. Can we have a look at page 8 in Serbian. Perhaps

15 it's page 7 in English. It says "findings, post mortem findings." And

16 that is precisely what you are speaking about. You are speaking about

17 different degrees of decomposition and decay to total skeletisation.

18 That cannot really help in determining when a person died and was buried?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page in

22 English, please.

23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. This finding here, is that your own finding or the finding of the

25 pathologist? And how could he come to the conclusion that this had

Page 22485

1 nothing to do with the time of death or --

2 A. Sorry, are we talking about paragraph 3?

3 Q. After paragraph 4:

4 [In English] "This group of bodies was the best preserved.

5 [B/C/S spoken] The variation in decomposition between the sites appeared

6 to reflect local conditions in the primary and secondary grave, and not

7 any difference in time since death."

8 A. Yes, that's my opinion.

9 Q. [Interpretation] And if there was no primary and secondary grave,

10 if one grave is primary as a whole and if it has this range of changes,

11 does that mean that bodies were added to that grave?

12 A. Not necessarily.

13 Q. But that is a possibility, isn't it?

14 A. Look, again, Richard Wright was the one who did the exhumations.

15 Those questions should be put to him, not to me.

16 Q. All right. I'm asking you as a pathologist. When you see this

17 kind of range in terms of the decay of bodies, a pathologist is in a

18 position to speak about that?

19 A. Yes. I can -- there are lots of factors that would alter the

20 decomposition, how long they've been dead for, whether they've been

21 buried or exposed to the air, if they're in a mass grave or a single

22 grave, the temperature, the soil moisture, the degree of breakdown of the

23 body, access to insects. There are multiple reasons for the variation.

24 What I'm saying here is that I think that in view of the location of the

25 mass grave the variation in decomposition is probably explained. But I

Page 22486

1 accept that I cannot ascertain, myself, the time since death, and so

2 there are alternative explanations possible.

3 Q. Thank you. I'm afraid that Mr. Wright also said that we should

4 talk to a pathologist as far as the decay of bodies is concerned, so

5 obviously we'd have to have a group seance.

6 JUDGE KWON: You asked the question to Mr. Wright and that's

7 nothing to do with this witness. Let's move on, Mr. Karadzic.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have a look at page 10 in

9 Serbian, peri mortem injuries.

10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. You're talking about injuries inflicted by fire-arms, gun-shot

12 wounds, and you're talking about three criteria, three elements, in terms

13 of establishing whether something is a gun-shot wound. Are these the

14 only criteria involved or is it possible that there may be some other

15 criteria as well?

16 A. No, there are other criteria. These are the criteria that we --

17 I talked to the pathologist about in these particular bodies. In a

18 normal well-preserved body, we wouldn't have any of these problems. If

19 the skin's present, we normally have bullet-holes in the skin, we have

20 the bullet, it's fairly easy. Because these bodies are quite decomposed,

21 some of them have a bit of skin and when there is skin it makes it much

22 easier. But a lot of these bodies didn't have all of the skin and so I

23 had to talk to the pathologist about the other criteria that they would

24 use to assess this. The first one is finding the bullet in the soft

25 tissue or the bone. The second one is finding the hole that the bullet

Page 22487

1 made in the body. And the third one is where you've got small fragments

2 of metal from a bullet on the X-ray and fractures along the -- and

3 fractures in the adjacent bone. Again, if the body were fully preserved,

4 I wouldn't need -- wouldn't normally apply these criteria.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 14 in Serbian,

7 bullets and bullet fragments recovered.

8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. There you conclude that due to skeletisation and the fact that

10 clothing was underground, it was impossible to establish the distance

11 from which fire was opened; right?

12 A. Yes. Assessing range of fire pathologically you look for

13 evidence of either -- if the gun's held in contact, a muzzle abrasion,

14 and soot within the wound; and it's a little bit further away up to a

15 metre, you look for gun powder stippling on the clothing or on the body;

16 and if it's further than that you can't really tell. As a pathologist

17 all I can tell is whether a gun's been held in contact with the skin,

18 between 0 and a metre, and then further than a metre. Now, in this

19 particular case there was so much soil -- first of all, with no tissue I

20 couldn't tell whether the range of fire was contact or not. There just

21 wasn't enough tissue to be certain. Then in regards to the intermediate

22 range there was a lot of clothing present and the clothing was very

23 heavily soiled. I did see one case and I think it was in -- range of

24 fire -- sorry. Oh, it's not -- there was one case in which I thought I

25 could see gun powder residue, and that piece of clothing was sent to

Page 22488

1 The Hague in case they wanted to do testing on it. In general I felt

2 that it was -- and as a -- I should say, it is my standard practice when

3 dealing with ordinary cases to examine the clothing for gunpowder residue

4 just to try and ascertain that. In this particular case we needed to

5 clean the clothing to examine it. We also were hoping to use the

6 clothing to identify the individuals. So I made a decision to clean the

7 clothing, which is not standard practice, in order to do that. Having

8 said that, I only saw one case where I thought there was evidence of

9 gunpowder stippling and I was looking for it. I accept that the cleaning

10 of the clothing would make it difficult to ascertain range of fire.

11 Q. Thank you. You observed and noted quite a few gun-shot wounds to

12 legs and feet. Did you have any sort of explanation for that? Can a

13 pathologist account for how such injuries came about?

14 A. Can I have the image in CR12 of the -- after page number 11.

15 JUDGE KWON: Cancari Road 12 -- yes, Mr. Mitchell.

16 MR. MITCHELL: It had 65 ter number 2471, Mr. President.

17 JUDGE KWON: It's dated as August 1998, Doctor. August 1998.

18 Which contains the skull you showed us with an arrow?

19 THE WITNESS: No, this one is a body diagram with some red

20 circles.

21 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, you're correct. It is the same

22 report that we looked at in the direct examination.

23 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

24 THE WITNESS: That's Hodzici 5. We need CR12.

25 MR. MITCHELL: It's 65 ter 2471. And the diagram is inserted

Page 22489

1 between pages 9 and 10.

2 JUDGE KWON: Is this it, Doctor?

3 THE WITNESS: No.

4 JUDGE KWON: The right page?

5 THE WITNESS: No, it's -- sorry.

6 JUDGE KWON: It should bear the number 200.

7 THE WITNESS: It will -- I think it's before. No, it's after

8 that --

9 JUDGE KWON: E-court page 16 -- just --

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps P4054, P4054, perhaps we

11 should try that one.

12 JUDGE KWON: Is this the one?

13 THE WITNESS: No, it's not the one, but it will -- it shows some

14 of the features that I want to draw the Court's attention to.

15 If -- there are -- when I was preparing this, I did diagrams of

16 all of the graves. And there do appear to be unusual concentrations

17 here, here, here, here, and here and possibly also here and here. Now,

18 if we can -- so would you like me to mark that?

19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.

20 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

21 Now, if we move on --

22 JUDGE KWON: We'll keep this and give the exhibit number.

23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24 THE WITNESS: And this is now --

25 JUDGE KWON: You have a hard copy before you?

Page 22490

1 THE WITNESS: I do have, yes.

2 JUDGE KWON: If you can give us the page number.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's after page number 11.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the image marked by the witness in

5 court shall be assigned Exhibit Number D1978. Thank you.

6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. There was no explanation provided by the pathologist on the

8 nature of these injuries; right? Can a pathologist address these issues?

9 A. Possibly. I must admit, it was when I started looking at the sum

10 total of all of the cases from CR12 that I thought it was unusual and it

11 took me to the particular case if we can find it. So that's a body

12 diagram with a number of X-rays around it and circles.

13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

14 MR. MITCHELL: It's the photograph that's after page 11 in the

15 report -- well, it's [overlapping speakers] --

16 JUDGE KWON: In the hard copy, you have just a blank page.

17 MR. MITCHELL: I have a very poor quality of it, Mr. President.

18 But perhaps, Doctor, if you could demonstrate the --

19 THE WITNESS: If I could put it on the --

20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, if we can put it on the ELMO.

21 THE WITNESS: Excellent. Okay.

22 Now, having looked at the -- having looked at the overall

23 diagrams, this is one of the cases that I did myself. And it's got an

24 odd pattern of gun-shot wounds. There seems to have -- there seems to be

25 deliberate targeting of the joints, the knees, the wrists, the shoulders,

Page 22491

1 and then the fatal gun-shot wound is in the head. Now, this is an

2 unusual pattern of injury. I think it could be deliberate. I did not

3 identify it in any of the other graves and I did identify three other --

4 sorry, two other cases in Cancari 12 that looked similar. As a

5 pathologist I never use the term "torture," but one wonders if these

6 injuries were not deliberately inflicted.

7 JUDGE KWON: We have to find out whether this is included in his

8 report or not.

9 THE WITNESS: If I can read out what I've said. Figure -- figure

10 2:

11 "There were bullet fragments and gun-shot wounds in the left

12 shoulder, right upper arm, right and left elbow, right hand, left

13 forearm, right knee, and left lower leg, as well as a fatal gun-shot

14 wound in the head. The large number of peripheral gun-shot wounds raises

15 the possibility that they may have been deliberately inflicted to

16 incapacitate and cause pain."

17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

18 MR. MITCHELL: It is in his report, Mr. President, but I think

19 the copy in e-court might have been uploaded incorrectly and that

20 particular page, certainly my copy, is just plain black and so --

21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, in e-court it is just --

22 MR. MITCHELL: -- we will fix it.

23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

24 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.

25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

Page 22492

1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. But we cannot state with any certainty that this was not

3 scattershot fire opened while the individual was fleeing and moving his

4 arms and legs about. This is something we cannot rule out; right?

5 A. It's -- I don't know what it means, but I have to say I saw it in

6 that grave but not in the other graves. It's the only three cases where

7 I suspected it and, you're right, I don't know exactly how it came to --

8 occurred.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the old document again,

11 page 14.

12 JUDGE KWON: So I have to note that the diagram we saw through

13 ELMO was supposed to be on page 21 in e-court. Very well. Let's

14 continue.

15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Page 14, bullets and fragments recovered. That's the title in

17 English. Peri mortem injuries and clothing.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can we have the page in English for everyone?

20 JUDGE KWON: E-court page 22.

21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. It reads there:

23 "Many bodies had two or three layers of clothing on them for

24 instance, underclothing and two sets of trousers. And holes were

25 searched on all the various layers and there were either circular or oval

Page 22493

1 holes of 7- to 8-millimetres in diameter."

2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, let us find the passage in the report

3 first. Are we on the correct page?

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Serbian is.

5 THE WITNESS: The page -- it's 13 in the report.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 13 in English.

7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, two pages further. Page 25, yes.

8 THE ACCUSED: Yes, the clothing.

9 THE WITNESS: Yes.

10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Yes, there it is. Were you told -- was there a suggestion made

12 to you that all these individuals were prisoners or people captured who

13 were executed in the month of July of 1995 or were you also given a

14 possibility that these were grave-sites dating back to various periods

15 and various seasons?

16 A. No, I was told that there were prisoners who were executed.

17 JUDGE KWON: But we are on page 22 I guess, but where do we find

18 that passage, Mr. Karadzic?

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The penultimate paragraph, peri

20 mortem injuries, the clothing.

21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

22 THE ACCUSED: "Many of the bodies were wearing two or three

23 layers" --

24 THE WITNESS: Yes.

25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 22494

1 Q. I don't think that they were fair in their dealings with you,

2 Dr. Lawrence, because a war lasted in that area for 44 months and there

3 were around 50 Serbian mass graves, but we dug them up in 1993 when we

4 liberated the area. Do you agree that it is far more likely that these

5 individuals were killed in winter rather than in summer in the month of

6 July?

7 A. They were wearing multiple layers of clothing. Why they were

8 wearing multiple layers of clothing, I don't know.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have -- it's page 18 in my

11 copy and the chapter is "Cause of Death" on the previous page and

12 interested in the one that follows from there.

13 THE WITNESS: Yes.

14 JUDGE KWON: So to be clear we are back to Hodzici Road number 5?

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. I don't have the time to go through all the 11 documents. That's

18 simply because I haven't -- been given enough time, but let's look at two

19 or three of them to see what sort of limitations were confronted in this

20 sort of work. Can we look at something that I have at the top here,

21 [In English] HZ05B175. [Interpretation] There bullet fragments were

22 found in the heart. Elsewhere a pathologist who worked on the -- the

23 pathologist who worked on the body said that in his view the individual

24 had suffocated as there had been no change in the body --

25 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, let us find the page and proceed.

Page 22495

1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. The title of the chapter is "Cause of Death." And then the

3 following page --

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Can we find that? It's page 18 in the copy I have, so it must be

6 16 were perhaps a higher number, cause of death, yeah.

7 A. Yes, we have it.

8 Q. Can we have the next page, please. In English it reads: B175,

9 that's the third paragraph from the bottom, was a fairly intact body in a

10 moderate state of preservation. "There was no evidence of gun-shot

11 wounds ... and soil was observed in the trachea ..."

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the previous page? In

13 the Serbian version, it's all right.

14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. There it says that bullet fragments were recovered from the

16 heart. It's the third paragraph from the top. It says B175 [In English]

17 "... a bullet fragment is recovered in the heart. The cause of death is

18 certain."

19 A. Yes, that would -- that would appear to be an error there. I --

20 if you look at the listing at the back where I go through all of the

21 gun-shot -- all of the cases, there are no gun-shot wounds in 175.

22 Q. Thank you. While we're on this page let's deal with the

23 following. You say that due to the degree of decomposition in most of

24 these cases it was impossible to ascertain if a certain wound was

25 inflicted by fire-arms before or after death; right? That is your

Page 22496

1 conclusion?

2 A. Yes, except for the case that I showed you, yes.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page in

5 English and can we have the bottom of the Serbian page.

6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. It says:

8 "There were parts of 57 individuals ..."

9 And you say that since individual bodies cannot be reconstructed

10 I stated the cause of death for each body-bag rather than each

11 individual. It is possible that a divided individual where head and

12 torso are separate, that more than one cause of death was stated; right?

13 A. Yes, that's correct.

14 Q. Thank you. Can we go back to page 14, or rather, we've done with

15 the clothing -- I'm sorry, we've done with that, we've finished with

16 that.

17 Can we have the last textual page. The other features that may

18 help identify a body.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Can we look at all the various items found on these individuals.

21 B116: Pen, razor blades, notes, glasses, purse, papers, handkerchief.

22 B153: Watch, key, metal box, purse, jewellery. B154: Personal papers.

23 B156: Fob watch, prayer beads. B160: Prayer beads, knife, coins, key.

24 And the penultimate, B169: Watch, earrings, flintstone, and the last

25 one, ring loose in jacket. This is what the pathologist found when the

Page 22497

1 bodies were brought in?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Thank you. Can we now have a look at table 6, provisional

4 identification of bodies. Let's look at identity papers.

5 Is it not stated here that identity cards were found even two on

6 one individual?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. If I told you that it was a custom in our parts whereby a

9 prisoners would not be able to have any valuables in his pocket because

10 he would be able to bribe someone and he wouldn't be able to have any

11 identity papers on them, do you agree that these individuals having had

12 their documents were not taken prisoner -- were not prisoners of war

13 before their death?

14 A. I'm not sure I understand the logic.

15 Q. Well, let me explain this to you. In respect of this grave-site,

16 you were told that these were individuals who were previously taken

17 prisoner in July of 1995 and were then executed. I put it to you that

18 these individuals were killed when it was winter-time and that they were

19 not previously taken prisoner because prisoners of war cannot retain

20 identity papers or valuables because that would make flight easier for

21 them. Does this not sound to you as a possibility as well?

22 A. I don't think I can comment one way or the other on that.

23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, Doctor didn't testify that these

24 individuals were taken prisoner and then executed.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But he did confirm that directions

Page 22498

1 were given to him to the effect that these were individuals who were

2 taken prisoner in Srebrenica in July of 1995 and that they were executed.

3 And he was given that suggestion. It was not his position.

4 JUDGE KWON: He answered he cannot comment one way or the other

5 on this issue.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. During the interview with my advisor, Mr. Robinson, you said that

9 a conclusion cannot be drawn as to whether the deaths or the dead bodies

10 from a grave-site came from one war episode or several and that no

11 conclusion can be drawn to the effect that they were all killed or died

12 at the same time?

13 A. I'm not quite sure that's exactly what I said. I think what I

14 said was that, looking at the pattern of gun-shot wounds, I cannot reach

15 any conclusion regarding it.

16 Q. Thank you. You also said in these reports that there is no

17 prevalent position or direction from which bodies were fired at?

18 A. No. I have tried -- we've tried quite hard to assess the

19 direction of fire, and the problem is for everyone that I can work out

20 the direction there are probably two or three where I can't work out the

21 direction. So I think it would be extremely dangerous to draw any

22 conclusion about that. If I knew -- if I had perfectly well preserved

23 bodies and I knew the direction of fire, I might be able to draw some

24 conclusion. But in this particular case a majority of them I can't tell

25 the direction of fire. So I think it would be extremely dangerous to

Page 22499

1 draw any conclusion from them.

2 Q. Thank you. Also you said that you cannot conclude whether these

3 are fighters or non-fighting men, right, on the basis of the remains that

4 you examined?

5 A. Again, I can't conclude whether they're fighters or non-fighters

6 on the basis of the injuries. I think that people with blindfolds and

7 ligatures are probably not combatants at the time that they're shot.

8 There are clearly old people with severe disabilities amongst these

9 people who are unlikely to be combatants. There are also young people

10 who I think are unlikely to be combatants. If -- if these were

11 combatants, why did somebody go to so much trouble to conceal the graves?

12 Q. Are you sure that people who had several layers of clothing on

13 them were in secondary graves?

14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear the end of the

15 sentence.

16 JUDGE KWON: Could you ask the question again.

17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Are you sure that the persons that I'm speaking about who had

19 several layers of clothing on, are you sure that their bodies were being

20 concealed? As a pathologist could you come to that conclusion?

21 A. No. The nature -- ascertaining whether a grave was a secondary

22 or a primary grave was not my function. That was, again, a function of

23 Professor Wright.

24 Q. So if we do not deal with that as pathologists, right, we cannot

25 know whether they had been buried several times, right, that is something

Page 22500

1 that a pathologist cannot tell on the basis of the remains he has on his

2 table?

3 A. The answer to that's both yes or no. There were -- there was

4 damage to the bones which I think had occurred after death which I don't

5 normally see in the -- in buried bodies that I normally deal with. And I

6 think does suggest some component of damage during excavation. But as I

7 said, it wasn't my role to ascertain which was a primary and a secondary

8 grave. Other people were doing that assessment.

9 Q. Thank you. Also you said that the number of wounds on one's body

10 was not indicative in any way in terms of whether the victim had died in

11 combat or not, right? Although you do say that most of the injuries came

12 from automatic or semi-automatic weapons; right?

13 A. Again, I think we were seeing many less gun-shot wounds than were

14 actually present. There were a number of cases where we had multiple

15 gun-shot wounds close together in a line which I think would be

16 consistent with an automatic weapon, and that's about all I can really

17 say.

18 Q. Thank you. Also, you confirmed that it was not possible to

19 establish the time between death and burial; right?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Is that not possible or is that not something you had said?

22 A. I don't think it was reasonably possible, given the time that

23 they'd been -- the decomposition and the time they'd been dead for.

24 Those sorts of things would require something like forensic entomology or

25 something to assess.

Page 22501

1 Q. Thank you. Your position is that in Bosnia most garments were

2 not sent for ballistic examinations, although that would have been done

3 under normal circumstances. You say that garments had been washed and

4 you say that it would have been better had the wounds been examined;

5 right? Is that your position?

6 A. No. What I'm saying is in Australia we would probably have

7 sent -- well, I'm not sure all of the garments, but some of the garments

8 to be examined. Having said that, I'm not a ballistics expert and I

9 don't know how successful you can be examining gun-shot residue in a body

10 that's been buried for three years. I suspect that it's probably less

11 successful than if it was fresh, but I don't know. The other thing was

12 that we did not have a ballistics lab in Bosnia at the time. And also

13 that in fact that we were using the clothing to try and identify who

14 these people were. And so for a lot of reasons we did not do something

15 that I might do back in Australia.

16 Q. Thank you. Just a moment, please. Cancari and the Cancari Road

17 location 3, 1998, it says here there were many wounds --

18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We do not have a

19 reference. We cannot find this.

20 JUDGE KWON: Could you slow down. If you would like to put a

21 question in relation to that report, we'll upload it.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. The ERN number is

23 00920597 and that is the Cancari road, location 3. It's on page 2 in the

24 document that I have. 12, 2472, that is the 65 ter number. I don't know

25 what the P number is but the 64 -- 65 ter number was 2472 and then it's

Page 22502

1 page 2. P4056. Yes, location 3. Next page, please, paragraph 12.

2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Is this your conclusion or his? Do you know who it was that was

4 carrying out the post mortem in this case?

5 A. Sorry, which -- which -- the summary was mine. Which --

6 JUDGE KWON: He referred to para 12.

7 THE WITNESS: Para 12. These were -- these were my conclusions.

8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. How can one conclude this, Dr. Lawrence, unless you were under

10 pressure to explain everything?

11 A. No. I'm a -- I'm a forensic pathologist. I have a little

12 experience with anthropology. The fractures we're talking about here

13 were of a type that occur after death with dried bone. They do not look

14 like peri mortem injuries at all.

15 Q. But that would mean that someone had dug up the corpse, broken

16 the bones, and then returned it so that people would be fooled once an

17 exhumation takes place. Is that the only explanation or is there another

18 plausible explanation?

19 A. No, no, it could have occurred during our exhumation.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have a look at -- oh, all

22 right, this has to do with -- actually, page 24, can we have a look at

23 24.

24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Many bodies here also had two or three layers of clothes; right?

Page 22503

1 I have page 24. Yes. This is what I have here, many bodies, yes, yes.

2 It's page 12 here, I assume. The top of the page, please, in English?

3 A. Yeah.

4 Q. The top of both pages, please, in e-court, the very beginning of

5 both pages. So in this grave many bodies were also wearing two or three

6 layers of clothing; right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you. Can we have a look at the bottom of the page, B319,

9 B319. The damage here was consistent with being chewed by a dog; right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you. In addition to what was concluded here, is it

12 possible that this bag had not been buried for a long time generally

13 speaking? Before being buried the body was on the ground for a long

14 time, accessible to animals, and then it was found and then it was

15 buried. That possibility cannot be ruled out; isn't that right?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Thank you. On page 32 in Serbian, again it's 319, there is part

18 of a wire and your comment is:

19 "I'm not convinced that this had been a ligature."

20 CR03B319.

21 A. Yes, there was -- I think in a couple of the graves there were a

22 few pieces of wire and I don't know what they are. I couldn't -- I

23 couldn't in my own mind convince myself that they were ligatures.

24 Q. Thank you. Can we have page 53 in Serbian. There are other

25 marks of identification here, old injuries, et cetera, and also other

Page 22504

1 things that were found, cigarette boxes with dedications and things like

2 that. That had also been found; right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. What you found here was that there were quite a few

5 wounds that were inflicted by shells; right?

6 A. Yes, there were quite a few had old gun-shot injuries which were

7 healing -- which were healed.

8 Q. Thank you. Does this lead you to believe that this was a fighter

9 who had been wounded earlier on as well?

10 A. I don't know. I don't know what it means. It means that it had

11 an old gun-shot wound.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Will I get more time,

14 Your Excellency?

15 JUDGE KWON: Do you have more questions?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the distinguished

17 Dr. Lawrence handed in 11 reports and I've just touched upon two. So I

18 don't know whether this is exemplary in terms of showing what the

19 constraints are and especially the constraints imposed by the hosts, not

20 explaining to Dr. Lawrence that there had been a war going on there in

21 that area for 44 months.

22 JUDGE KWON: I think that has been put and answered. In

23 realistic terms, how much more would you need to conclude your

24 cross-examination, Mr. Karadzic?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Your Excellency, it depends

Page 22505

1 on what I'm expected to do, whether I'm expected to go through each and

2 every report with Dr. Lawrence before you or should I just dwell on

3 particular examples.

4 JUDGE KWON: It is for you how to conduct your cross-examination,

5 but it's time to wrap up your cross-examination, Mr. Karadzic.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well then I'm not going to have

7 enough time to deal with many things. I won't be able to show many

8 things because these are 11 expert reports. It is a fortunate

9 circumstance that I am a doctor as well and that I can read these

10 reports, but there are 11 reports after all. Two hours, two and a half

11 hours is too little time for me for that.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE KWON: We'll take a break now for an hour, after which you

14 will have a half an hour, Mr. Karadzic, to conclude your

15 cross-examination. We'll resume at 1.40.

16 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.38 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 1.42 p.m.

18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. I would like to draw your attention to your findings related to

22 Zeleni Jadar, location 5. Let us just briefly take a look at a few

23 things there. On page 2 there is a reference to different stages of

24 decomposition, and then yet again there is this explanation stating that

25 it seems that the difference between locations reflects local conditions

Page 22506

1 in primary and secondary graves, not the difference in time that had

2 elapsed from the death involved.

3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We do not have an exact

4 reference.

5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Is this an example of the rule that this would not be the only

7 explanation --

8 A. [Previous translation continues]...

9 Q. -- that is paragraph 5.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you. 2476 is the 65 ter number, but I don't know what the

12 P number is.

13 You found quite a few gun-shot wounds and in 24 you found bodies

14 with gun-shot wounds -- you found gun-shot wounds, you found shrapnel

15 wounds?

16 A. Yes, 24 shrapnel wounds.

17 Q. And gun-shot wounds too, right, those are hunting weapons?

18 A. I can't -- I don't know -- sorry, you mean shot-gun -- yes,

19 sorry. Yes, we had gun-shot wounds, we had 24 shrapnel wounds, and we

20 had four shot-gun wounds. Yes, sorry.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we move on to the next page,

23 please.

24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. In paragraph 10 it says:

Page 22507

1 "One of the shot-gun wounds to the lower legs appeared to be

2 bandaged ..."

3 So that means that the person was wounded first and bandaged and

4 then died -- rather, lost his life; right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Paragraph 15, the conclusion is that it is not possible to

7 guarantee that in a single bag there were only the body remains of one

8 person and again the causes of death are listed for the body-bags not for

9 each and every individual --

10 A. [Previous translation continues] ... Yes, that's correct.

11 Q. Does this -- does this bring into question, or rather, interfere

12 with the estimated number of victims?

13 A. No. This -- again, this question should probably be put to

14 Mr. Baraybar, but my understanding is that they looked at the number of

15 the bones and so therefore it should not interfere too much with this

16 estimation of numbers. But again, Mr. Baraybar is the expert to which

17 you should put those questions.

18 Q. Thank you. I'd like to ask you to tell us how many post mortems

19 can be carried out by a forensic expert? What would be the maximum or

20 minimum or what would be the optimum? The minimum would be one or none.

21 So I'm talking about such cases as well as fresh corpses.

22 A. I'm not sure I -- in a day?

23 Q. During the course of a seven-hour workday.

24 A. It depends on -- on what you need to achieve. In a disaster-type

25 situation where you're only trying to examine for evidence of

Page 22508

1 identification, you could do a lot more. In a case where you're dealing

2 with homicide, I think it takes a bit longer. Generally speaking, I

3 would do somewhere between four and maybe six in a day. Obviously I'd

4 got a little bit more experienced by the time I'd finished, but it

5 depends a little bit on the experience of the pathologist to some degree

6 and also on how extensive the remains were. The more skeletalised they

7 were the more the anthropologist might do rather than the pathologist.

8 But, for example, with a fairly intact body, it might take an hour or so

9 to do the examination.

10 Q. Thank you. Could we now look at "Post Mortem Findings," that

11 chapter. In Serbian it's page 12. You've probably found it and could it

12 be found for the sake of the other participants as well.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the English version on

14 the screen as well.

15 JUDGE KWON: How does the first part read, Mr. Karadzic?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Level of preservation, decay, and

17 then there are five paragraphs, and then there is the subheading also in

18 bold and then below it says decay or decomposition. I have page 12.

19 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Mitchell.

20 MR. MITCHELL: I think it's page 8, Mr. President, it's -- ends

21 with the ERN 7975.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that's it.

24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Well please help us understand this, Dr. Lawrence. So relatively

Page 22509

1 well-preserved with skin, about 25, and then in 83 body-bags partial

2 skeletonisation and then 51 body-bags largely or completely skeletonised.

3 And then in 21 cases the degree of preservation was not adequately

4 described to classify. And then paragraph 5, paragraph 5, what is stated

5 here is [No interpretation] and in two cases there was a description of

6 mummification.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. What would you say as a pathologist? What would you conclude as

9 a pathologist? What would you tell us? How can there be such a degree

10 of variety in a single grave?

11 A. Because there is. No, you -- the conditions in a grave, a mass

12 grave, can vary from top to bottom. Adipocere, for example, is a process

13 which requires water. So in the bottom of a grave one might well expect

14 adipocere. At the top of the grave if the material is, well, draining

15 you might get drying out of the body. So it's possible to get both

16 mummification and adipocere depending on the amount of moisture present.

17 As I also described previously, in the mass graves, you often go from the

18 outside where you have got almost complete loss of the tissue to the

19 inside where there's no oxygen where you get almost entirely preserved

20 bodies. So the answer is you can get that sort of variation in one

21 grave. As I have said, it's one explanation for the -- for that the --

22 there are possibly other explanations for it.

23 Q. Thank you. That would imply that the time of death has to be

24 estimated, the time of burial, the time that a body would spend outside a

25 grave; right?

Page 22510

1 A. Yes. There are other explanations for the observation, yes.

2 Q. Thank you. Can we take a look at page 19, that is what I have,

3 so that is peri mortem wounds, shot-gun, shrapnel, let us just have a

4 look at the variety involved, the variety of fragments. In English can

5 we find the right version as well. On the previous page you said that

6 not a particular direction prevailed. You do remember having said that,

7 don't you?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now, the distribution of shrapnel is rather diversified.

10 Different parts of the body, the right hip, the chest, the neck, pelvis,

11 et cetera. Would you agree that this indicates a war operation, or

12 rather, combat?

13 A. I don't know. I don't know that just looking at the wounds, the

14 shrapnel wounds themselves, I could tell the difference between combat or

15 prisoners.

16 Q. But it does resemble combat a great deal, does it not? It is

17 difficult to shoot someone with shrapnel, isn't it?

18 A. I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand the question.

19 Q. It is very difficult to execute someone with a shell, i.e., by

20 shrapnel. So it is more likely that this was the case of combat? Or

21 rather, let me put it this way, can combat be regarded as a possibility?

22 A. Shrapnel injuries are more common as a form of -- a cause of

23 death than gun-shot wounds, yes. In this particular instance can I tell

24 from the shrapnel wounds whether or not -- just the shrapnel wounds

25 alone, whether it's combat or prisoners, I don't know. I would imagine

Page 22511

1 it's entirely possible to kill somebody with shrapnel in either

2 situation. I wouldn't draw a conclusion from it.

3 Q. Thank you. I'd like to look at another report of yours,

4 Liplje 2, that's 2477 65 ter. Let us go briefly through some of the

5 issues. Can we have in e-court -- it was 2477 65 ter, I don't know what

6 the P number is, P4060. Can we have page 2. We can all see what this is

7 about. In item 3 mention is made of the range between 8 and 13 years, 14

8 and 18, et cetera. Do you know that in the Army of Bosnia and

9 Herzegovina there were minors who nowadays they have an organisation of

10 theirs where they fight for their rights?

11 A. Sorry, are you suggesting they -- they're involved in combat?

12 Q. Yes. Yes, they were soldiers aged 14 -- you didn't know that?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Thank you. Under item 4 it says that unfired bullets were

15 recovered which were not contemporary military weapons. Do you know that

16 the Muslims made rifles, they were makeshift rifles, that they made it

17 themselves?

18 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, is it a proper question to put this

19 expert, Mr. Karadzic, while complaining of shortage of time?

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Excellency, this is what the

21 report states. I want to point out that a prisoner cannot have bullets

22 on him, and it is a well-known fact that they produced weapons of their

23 own. And I wanted to know if the expert witness was aware of it himself.

24 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you have another opportunity to tender

25 those -- prove it possible those facts to the Chamber, but not with this

Page 22512

1 witness.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. At page 7 in Serbian your report states that for each and every

5 autopsy it is solely the pathologist conducting it who is responsible for

6 it. And you say that that is the source of evident variations among the

7 different findings and opinions; right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Thank you. On the following page, "Autopsy Findings," both

10 versions, please, there you say that the remains showed a range of

11 decomposition from relatively well preserved with skin to complete

12 skeletonised. We were able to see that. Under 1 it is stated that in

13 four cases there was identifiable but decomposed brain present. Then

14 under 2, partial skeletonisation, et cetera. Now, this set of remains

15 exhumed at the Dam show a higher degree of decomposition than was the

16 case at other sites. And again, the same conclusion is listed here in

17 respect of which we already said that other possibilities were there as

18 well. So is this what you -- is this the basis on which you said that

19 there were different degrees of decomposition in the bodies retrieved at

20 the various sites?

21 A. Yes, yes. The Dam site and Liplje were unusual in that they were

22 very coarse material and there seemed to be an awful lot of damage to the

23 material, hence the disarticulation and decomposition.

24 Q. Thank you. At page 14 mention is made of bullets that were

25 recovered. In English tracks are of the bullet traces, peri mortem and

Page 22513

1 unfired projectiles -- yes, that's it. Did these issues indicate that

2 this was a combatant?

3 A. Sorry, which one?

4 Q. Unfired projectiles. [In English] Medium calibre bullet.

5 A. Yes. Look, it -- I'm not -- I'm a pathologist, I'm not a

6 ballistics expert. If it's important you should probably get the

7 particular round examined by a ballistics expert.

8 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 20, cause of

10 death.

11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Let us confirm an issue that emerges in all the findings, i.e.,

13 that due to the degree of decomposition it was impossible to prove or

14 demonstrate whether the injury was inflicted before or after death and

15 that the pathologists who were trying to ascertain the cause of death

16 used several different terms where the cause of death was -- could not be

17 found, and this was undetermined, unascertained, impossible to

18 ascertain --

19 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter could not find the reference in

20 the original text.

21 THE WITNESS: Yes, yeah, there was a -- some pathologists like

22 different terms. I have used their terms. My term would be

23 "undetermined."

24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Thank you. Would the same putrefying elements be the same with

Page 22519

1 are already allocated. The subject matter of Mr. Butler's evidence is

2 the command structure of the VRS, and as such at the core of the

3 Prosecution's case and intimately related to the accused's

4 responsibility. The Chamber also notes that for his -- for this witness,

5 more than 500 pages of expert material are expected to be tendered.

6 For these reasons, the Chamber considers that it is in the

7 interests of justice that Mr. Richard Butler be heard viva voce as well.

8 [The witness entered court]

9 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, my apology for your inconvenience. I thank

10 you for your indulgence. If you could take the solemn declaration,

11 please.

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

13 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Doctor. Please be seated.

15 Yes, Ms. Sutherland.

16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Good afternoon, Your Honours.

17 WITNESS: ANDRAS JANOS RIEDLMAYER

18 Examination by Ms. Sutherland:

19 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Riedlmayer. Can you state your full name,

20 please.

21 A. My name is Andras Janos Riedlmayer.

22 Q. Your current occupation is the director of the Documentation

23 Center for Islamic Art and Architecture of the Aga Khan Program at the

24 Harvard University; is that right?

25 A. That is correct.

Page 22520

1 Q. And how long have you been in that employment?

2 A. 26 years.

3 Q. If I could have 65 ter number 13341 on the screen, please,

4 Mr. Registrar.

5 Mr. Riedlmayer, is this the updated CV that you provided to the

6 OTP in November 2011?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. Can you explain to the Court briefly what research work you have

9 done with respect to cultural property during periods of war in the

10 former Yugoslavia?

11 A. Over the last two decades I have done both field research and

12 academic research on the subject of destruction of cultural heritage in

13 the former Yugoslavia, in particular with respect to the armed conflict

14 in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Kosovo. In 1999 and subsequently I

15 conducted field investigations in Kosovo, I also conducted field

16 investigations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

17 Q. And as a result you produced reports and you have been qualified

18 as an expert on the destruction of cultural property in six ICTY cases

19 between 2002 and 2010; is that right?

20 A. I believe so -- no, I believe that was -- yeah, six cases, but I

21 submitted two reports for the Milosevic trial, one for Kosovo, and one

22 for Bosnia.

23 Q. You also testified as an expert before the International Court of

24 Justice in the Bosnia versus Serbia and Montenegro case in 2006?

25 A. That is correct.

Page 22521

1 Q. You have authored numerous articles, publications, essays, and

2 reports dealing with the issue of cultural destruction during the

3 conflict in the former Yugoslavia and in particular in Bosnia and

4 Herzegovina?

5 A. Yes, and they are listed in my resume.

6 Q. You are also active in academic societies and a member of a

7 number of professional associations?

8 A. That is correct.

9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I seek to tender Mr. Riedlmayer's

10 CV.

11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that will be admitted.

12 THE REGISTRAR: That will be assigned Exhibit Number P4067.

13 Thank you.

14 MS. SUTHERLAND:

15 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, you were asked to prepare a report in the context

16 of this case. Can you briefly outline the terms of reference.

17 A. Yes. I was requested on 7 April of 2009 to prepare a report for

18 22 Bosnian municipalities that were listed in Schedule D of the

19 Third Amended Indictment in the Karadzic case, and further I was asked to

20 include in the report the destruction of the national library which was

21 in Schedule D -- Schedule G.

22 Q. If I --

23 A. Yeah.

24 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have 65 ter number 13340.

25 [Prosecution counsel confer]

Page 22522

1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, this is Mr. Riedlmayer's expert

2 report. We do have a redacted version of the report which doesn't appear

3 to be uploaded at this moment. It's in the process of being done. The

4 redacted version of the report redacts out the dropped sites listed in

5 Schedule D of the indictment.

6 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, before we discuss aspects of your report, you

7 wanted to make two corrections to it, and that's in footnote 11.

8 "See note 11 below."

9 Should read:

10 "See note 12 below."

11 Is that right?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. And also on the -- in paragraph 47 of the redacted version of the

14 report you wish to insert the words:

15 "(Vogosca municipality)" after the word "Semizovac"; is that

16 right?

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. Sir, how do you determine or define cultural heritage?

19 A. Okay. Cultural heritage is a broad term. The -- for the

20 purposes of this report I limited it to two kinds of cultural heritage.

21 One is built heritage and the other one is libraries and archives.

22 Portable heritage was out of the scope of the report; it's a separate

23 subject. What it refers to is the cultural and religious objects that

24 are specific to a particular country or nation.

25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I omitted to say that we have also

Page 22523

1 redacted from this report Schedule G3 which was the scheduled site of the

2 national library.

3 JUDGE KWON: By the way, I was told that what we have before us

4 is the redacted version already. And I checked the title of the item in

5 the e-court and it says "redacted version."

6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the redacted version actually has

7 the words -- as we can see on the first page "and a report on the 25/26

8 August 1992 shelling of the National and University Library of Bosnia and

9 Herzegovina in Sarajevo." That text is actually redacted from the

10 version we intend submitting.

11 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Thank you. We need a further redacted

12 version.

13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. We will substitute this

14 version that's in e-court at the moment with the redacted version.

15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

16 MS. SUTHERLAND: And Mr. Reid had informed me that he had already

17 changed the description of the title but the upload is in the process of

18 being done.

19 Q. Now, Mr. Riedlmayer, I just wish to ask you a few questions in

20 relation to your methodology in relation to the report that you prepared.

21 You mentioned a moment ago that you concentrated on the municipalities

22 which were listed in Schedule D. What -- what work was involved in

23 relation to this report? What exactly was the purpose and your

24 methodology?

25 A. First of all, of the 22 municipalities that were listed in

Page 22524

1 Schedule D, there were six that I had not covered in previous reports for

2 the Tribunal. And so for those six municipalities, I had to compile the

3 documentation de novo. The methodology was as follows. There were a

4 total of 381 sites that were covered. Among them was a subset of the

5 specific indictment sites listed in Schedule D. For the totality of the

6 381 sites in the municipalities described, I have data-based entries for

7 each site describing the condition of the building and other information.

8 For the indictment sites, I also prepared special formatted entries,

9 meaning outside of the database, which include additional photographs and

10 some additional textual information that wouldn't, for formatting

11 reasons, fit into the database.

12 Would you like me to continue with the methodology questions?

13 Q. Well, I was -- my next question for you was: What material did

14 you produce as part of the tasks? And you have mentioned the survey

15 database and also the formatted records. First of all, can you explain

16 briefly what the survey database actually is. You -- in your report you

17 mention how one goes about navigating through, but if you could just

18 briefly explain what the database is.

19 A. What the database is, it is a method of recording in relation to

20 each other both textual information and visual information, photographs,

21 in some cases architectural plans in a searchable database meaning one

22 can sort it by various criteria. The software involved is FileMaker

23 which is a very common database programme. The various fields include

24 everything from the different names by which a particular monument or

25 site is known. The -- its location, including municipality, the town,

Page 22525

1 GPS co-ordinates, questions of whether the monument in question is under

2 special legal protection. And then category to which the monument

3 belongs, is it a church or a mosque or an archive. And then a

4 description of the category of its state, meaning is it in good condition

5 or damaged or destroyed. Then there is a note as to whether the

6 surrounding buildings suffered damage. For this I usually had to refer

7 to photographs taken during or immediately after the war since during my

8 field survey much of the surroundings had been repaired. And then

9 finally there is a more detailed verbal description of the damage and

10 additional information such as information from informants, information

11 from publications, and contemporary media accounts if available, all of

12 which go towards establishing a time-frame as to when this destruction

13 might have occurred.

14 Q. And as the survey database is unavailable to be in e-court, but

15 it is on CD-ROM, I wish to put the hard copies of the pages of one of the

16 records on the ELMO just so that you can -- the Trial Chamber can see the

17 type of information which is contained within the records.

18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Mr. Usher, if that's possible.

19 Q. And the example that -- that's -- has been selected for you is a

20 Schedule D site and it's the mosque in Biscani from the Prijedor

21 municipality.

22 A. So this is what I was verbally trying to describe. There is the

23 name of the monument in English and in B/C/S, the municipality, the place

24 name, the date of construction, the historical period, official status in

25 this case, none, it was not under special legal protection, and then what

Page 22526

1 kind of monument it was, what kind of setting it was in, and then the

2 building condition. Below it is a description of what the building --

3 building's condition was and it's based in this case on a site visit as

4 well as on photographs from other sources. So on -- the top photograph

5 shows the interior of the building, the bottom photograph which is taken

6 from the front of the building shows the exterior. The -- each of the

7 entries can run up to three A4 pages when printed out, and this one

8 includes an informant statement. The informant in this case is

9 Ahmet Efendija Rahmanovic who was the head Imam of Prijedor. And I

10 interviewed him, he actually accompanied me to the site, and he mentions

11 the date on which the mosque was destroyed. Below that, if you could

12 move that, please -- no, no, here, the bottom of the page. All the way

13 to the bottom, if that's possible.

14 Well, it's not coming up on the screen but what it is it's a

15 bibliography entry. For every site for which there was published

16 information in the form of records stating its age or published

17 photographs from before the war, I would include that. And in this case

18 also there was none, but I would always include contemporary media

19 accounts that mention the condition of the mosque at a particular date,

20 again to establish when this destruction was occurring. So that's the

21 description.

22 Q. And you mentioned earlier that additional photographs are

23 contained in the formatted records which we will get to in just a moment,

24 but how many photographs were you able to put into the survey database in

25 relation to each site?

Page 22527

1 A. The survey database unfortunately could only accommodate two

2 vertical and two horizontal photographs at the maximum. The other

3 technical issue was that since the database had such a large number of

4 entries, the resolution of the photographs had to be kept to a minimum

5 because if you put too much into the database it slows down and ceases

6 functioning. So in the formatted database I was able to use the

7 larger-resolution versions of the photographs.

8 Q. And the survey database is primarily designed to be -- was that

9 primarily something that was to be used electronically for the

10 searchability aspects of it?

11 A. Yes. The database allows searching and sorting on all fields.

12 So you can easily find, for example, all the churches in a given

13 municipality or all the heavily damaged mosques versus all the partially

14 destroyed mosques and so forth.

15 Q. And just before we leave the survey database there was one

16 correction that you wished to make and that was in relation to the entry

17 concerning the "Kramer Selo" mosque in the Rogatica municipality. This

18 entry has the correct town noted and the correction caption under the

19 photograph but the building name is incorrectly cited as "Vragolovi

20 mosque, Dzamija u Vragolovima" and in fact the building name in this

21 entry should read "Kramer Selo mosque, Dzamija u Kramer Selu"; is that

22 correct?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. Turning now to the formatted records, can you -- I think you have

25 explained to the Trial Chamber that they are entries from the survey

Page 22528

1 database in relation to Schedule D sites?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. And do the photographs differ between the formatted records and

4 the survey database?

5 A. The formatted records in some cases contain additional

6 photographs and as I mentioned before they have better resolution.

7 Otherwise they match.

8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I tender the report, the survey

9 database, and the formatted records.

10 JUDGE KWON: In one batch or --

11 MS. SUTHERLAND: If they could have separate exhibit numbers,

12 please.

13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

14 Any objections?

15 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President.

16 JUDGE KWON: They will be all admitted. Shall we give the number

17 now?

18 How many of them?

19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the redacted report which is

20 65 ter number 13340, the survey database is 65 ter number 13853, and the

21 formatted records is 65 ter number 13854.

22 JUDGE KWON: But when you tendered the CD you divided these into

23 several parts because of the size of the --

24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the survey database is on a

25 separate CD, but the formatted records are actually uploaded in e-court

Page 22529

1 and they have also been redacted, taking out the dropped Schedule D

2 sites.

3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We'll admit the expert report of the

4 Doctor as Exhibit P4068 and survey database as P4069 and the formatted

5 records will be admitted as Exhibit 4070.

6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. And, Mr. Riedlmayer, I just want to clarify. You -- for

8 Their Honours' benefit, you were a candidate for a -- for a Ph.D.; was

9 that right?

10 A. Yes, I passed the candidacy exam but I decided not to pursue the

11 Ph.D.

12 Q. And therefore, I'm referring to you as Mr. Riedlmayer. So

13 therefore, Mr. Riedlmayer, in paragraph 18 which is on page 10 of your

14 report, you make reference to a damage assessment conducted for each site

15 surveyed and you list five levels for the damage and define the criteria

16 for each of these five levels. You call it a five-point assessment

17 scale. The first level on your five-point scale is "good condition." In

18 the municipalities that you studied, did you find any Muslim or Catholic

19 cultural or religious sites in good condition?

20 A. I did not.

21 Q. Did you select a number of photos from the formatted records

22 which is now Exhibit P4069?

23 A. That is correct.

24 Q. Of sites listed in Schedule D which would help to illustrate the

25 differences in damage in relation to the remaining four levels and other

Page 22530

1 findings in your report?

2 A. Yes.

3 JUDGE KWON: Correct as Exhibit 4070.

4 MS. SUTHERLAND: You're right, Your Honour, I'm sorry that was --

5 yeah.

6 If I could have 65 ter number 23553.

7 Q. These are the photographs that you selected which have been put

8 onto 25 slides, and below each of the photographs is the formatted

9 record's reference number and the name of the site. If we look at the

10 first slide it's captioned "lightly damaged." How does this site fit

11 into that category?

12 A. First let me explain about the damage categories. I found in my

13 research that people were using terms about degree of destruction rather

14 broadly and it was impossible to rely on other people's description of

15 what the damage might be. So I had to devise a series of easily

16 describable clear criteria with which to describe each monument. This is

17 an example of lightly damaged. What you can see here is a mosque. It's

18 located near the former confrontation line in Zvornik municipality. The

19 top of the minaret, the tall spire of the building, has been severed by a

20 projectile impact. And if you look carefully to the right of the minaret

21 part of the roof has been smashed. And it's lightly damaged because the

22 principal structural elements of the building have not been affected.

23 There's a hole in the roof and the top of the minaret is missing, but the

24 four walls appear to be intact and most of the roof is still intact.

25 Q. The photograph we're looking at at the moment is of the Vitinica

Page 22531

1 mosque; is that right?

2 A. Vitinica mosque in Zvornik, yes.

3 Q. The third level on your five-point scale is "heavily damaged."

4 If we move to the next two slides, please, which are captioned "heavily

5 damaged," how does the first of these examples fit into this category?

6 A. This is also a mosque. It is in Vogosca which is a suburb of

7 Sarajevo. You can see that it is heavily damaged because it has not just

8 the top of the minaret missing, but multiple projectile impacts on the

9 minaret which you can see on the right side of the slide. The top of the

10 minaret is resting on the ground in front of the mosque. The building

11 itself appears to be completely burned out with parts of the walls and

12 parts of the roof missing. It's multiply compromised and thus fits the

13 heavily damaged category.

14 Q. If we could go to the next example, the second example, which is

15 the next slide.

16 A. This is a church in a village in Prijedor municipality called

17 Brisevo. On the left in the centre of the forest you see the burned-out

18 church. That's a photo that I took during my field survey in July of

19 2002. You can see that the roof is missing and the top of the steeple is

20 also missing. I went into the church and I saw char marks on the wall

21 and graffiti in Serbian with Seselj's name and others. The reason I

22 chose the picture on the right is because it was taken immediately after

23 the war. It's a visit by the Catholic bishop of Banja Luka to the

24 church. At that time the floor of the church was still covered with the

25 charred roof tiles and charred woodwork can be seen, remnants of pews and

Page 22532

1 of the roof beams. On the far wall you can see the burned remains of the

2 cross over the altar. So this fits the heavily damaged category again

3 because multiple parts of the building have been compromised. It's

4 completely burned out.

5 Q. Thank you. Just before we move on to the fourth level on your

6 five-point scale I will just note for the record that the first example

7 was the Ugorsko mosque in Vogosca.

8 Sir, the fourth level on the five-point scale is almost

9 destroyed. If we could move, please, to the next two slides which has

10 those captions, how does the first of these examples fit into this

11 category?

12 A. My definition of "almost destroyed" is that several principal

13 parts of the building such as perimeter walls are missing or severely

14 compromised. The building appears beyond repair and would require

15 complete reconstruction but it still has some identifiable elements

16 standing. So here you have a modern mosque in Donji Kamengrad in

17 Sanski Most municipality. You can see that basically three of the walls

18 are gone and the whole roof of the mosque which is a concrete slab is

19 broken and is resting on the ground, but you still have identifiable

20 elements, namely the domes visible. But the building is beyond salvage.

21 So that's why I call it almost destroyed.

22 Q. And if we look at the second example.

23 A. The second example is from a village called Ahatovici. It's

24 about 6 kilometres from Sarajevo in Novi Grad municipality. It's a

25 rather more extreme example of the almost destroyed. The only thing left

Page 22533

1 visible and still standing is the stump of the minaret. The rest is just

2 rubble.

3 Q. And finally, the fifth level on your five-point scale is

4 "completely destroyed." And if we can move to the next three slides,

5 which are captioned "completely destroyed," how does the first of these

6 examples fit into this category?

7 A. The first example is actually I would categorise as "almost

8 destroyed." This building was destroyed in two phases. The photograph

9 at left was taken in September of 1992 by Andre Kaiser, a news

10 photographer. It shows the Roman Catholic parish church in Prijedor.

11 And you can see that there is basically one element left standing, an

12 arch, from the church. The woman in front is gathering firewood from the

13 ruins. The church was reportedly blown up in 1995 and so you can see a

14 photo at right. That photo was provided by the Roman Catholic bishop of

15 Banja Luka and was taken from a car. You can see at far right part of

16 the arch, just a tiny fragment of wall, and the rest of it is rubble. On

17 the left is a parish centre, the modern building, which is still standing

18 and it was there when I visited it and I gathered additional photographs

19 and an architectural plan from the parish priest. But I would call this

20 a completely destroyed building by 1995.

21 Q. If we can move to the second example.

22 A. This is another Catholic church. It is in Kljuc municipality --

23 in the town of Kljuc actually. And one has to carefully look at the

24 photographs. These are photographs taken from opposite ends of the same

25 little lane, small street. If you look at the centre of each photograph,

Page 22534

1 there is a tree with a utility pole next to it. That can be seen in both

2 photos. The before photo was published and it dates from the mid-1980s.

3 The building you can see that the left of the church in the pre-war photo

4 is partly visible behind the tree at the far right of the post-war photo.

5 Also I don't know if this presentation allows it to be blown up to

6 enlarge the photo, but if you can do it or take a look at the format --

7 no, not this one but the post-war photo. Okay. Yes. If you look at

8 that, between the tree and the small pile of stones, you can see the

9 outlines of the foundation. Grass doesn't grow well on top of

10 foundational walls. And so you can actually follow this straight line,

11 it runs parallel to the street. So I also visited the site in 2002, at

12 which point the church had recently been reconstructed. So I can vouch

13 for the fact that the surrounding buildings and the site is still the

14 same.

15 Q. And moving to the third example.

16 A. This is in the town of the Rogatica. It's the Carsijska Dzamija

17 or market mosque. And the two photos show the site of the mosque. The

18 photo on the left is actually a photo from 2006 when the mosque was

19 reconstructed. I had a pre-war photo but it dated from the 1960s and

20 wouldn't have shown the modern building behind it. The photo on the

21 right was taken of the site which I've also visited and shows the same

22 building and the empty site where the mosque stood, "completely

23 destroyed" in this case is self-explanatory.

24 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, I now wish to turn to discuss some of the

25 characteristics of the destruction of sites and the findings in your

Page 22535

1 report. First some of the characteristics. You mentioned -- you've

2 mentioned minarets in a couple of these slides that you've seen before.

3 What is the symbolic value of a minaret?

4 A. Okay. The function of a minaret is to provide a platform --

5 Q. And if -- sorry, if we could actually go to the next slide.

6 So, sorry, if you could continue with your answer.

7 A. Yes, the function of a minaret which you can see on the left here

8 is to provide a place from which the believers can be called to prayer.

9 Muslims are required to pray several times a day. And the symbolic value

10 of it is just like a church steeple in the landscape, it announces the

11 presence of a community, in this case a Muslim community, in a particular

12 location. Further, it refers to the unity of God which is a central

13 tenet of the Muslim faith.

14 Minarets are very useful for purposes of analysing ruined

15 buildings as well for two reasons. One is that in Bosnia they are

16 conventionally placed to the right of the entrance of the building. So

17 it allows one to see the orientation. Mosques are usually directed

18 towards Mecca. So the minaret is to the right of the entrance. The far

19 wall facing the entrance is the prayer niche which faces Mecca which is

20 south/south-east. So on both of these pictures what you are looking at

21 is the south/south-east wall of the mosque, the wall that's away from the

22 entrance.

23 Q. And the picture that we're looking at at the moment is the mosque

24 in Kozarusa. So is there anything else that you wish to tell the Court

25 about this photograph?

Page 22536

1 A. I was in Kozarusa again in July of 2002 and it was the tenth

2 anniversary of the destruction of the mosque. It had been reconstructed

3 at that point. So I was given a photo of the mosque that was taken in

4 1996 which you see at right and I tried to match it up with a photo that

5 showed the same orientation.

6 MS. SUTHERLAND: And if we could go to the next slide.

7 Q. Other than the minaret missing, what are the characteristics that

8 you wish to highlight with this building?

9 A. This is a mosque at Donja Kamenica-Redzici in Zvornik

10 municipality. And the reason I decided to include this is it shows how a

11 building can be analysed to draw conclusions about how it might have been

12 destroyed. If Your Honours take a look at the body of the minaret, it's

13 more clearly visible on the close-up shot on the right. You can see a

14 large fissure going up. It is my contention that this minaret was blown

15 up with explosives placed inside - that each minaret is hollow and has an

16 internal staircase - so placed inside the staircase, and that the

17 pressure of the explosion blew apart the minaret. I could also confirm

18 this from two other facts. One is that if you look on top the thing that

19 looks like a hat is actually the balcony from high up on the minaret. If

20 this minaret had been destroyed in another fashion, for example, by a

21 projectile, one would expect it to have fallen to one side as you saw in

22 a previous photo. In this case, the explosion was such that it simply

23 landed in the stump of the minaret. The other way I could determine that

24 there had been a large blast is, as you can see, the mosque is built of

25 large blocks of stone and I found these some tens of metres away from the

Page 22537

1 site of the destroyed mosque.

2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, if I may, I notice the time if I

3 can go to one more slide to finish this particular aspect.

4 JUDGE KWON: How long would that take?

5 MS. SUTHERLAND: I will have approximately another half an

6 hour -- 20 minutes.

7 JUDGE KWON: Then we'll adjourn for today.

8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Okay.

9 JUDGE KWON: And continue tomorrow.

10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll continue tomorrow at 9.00, and I would

12 appreciate the co-operation of the other Chamber, in particular Tolimir

13 Chamber, for letting us sit tomorrow at Courtroom I.

14 The hearing is now adjourned.

15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.01 p.m.,

16 to be reconvened on Friday, the 9th day of

17 December, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.