Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 3673

1 Monday, 29 May 2000

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.39 a.m.

5 [The accused entered court].

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good

7 morning, ladies and gentlemen; good morning to the

8 technical booth; good morning interpreters.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Good morning, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good

11 morning legal officers, court reporters, Mr. Harmon,

12 Mr. McCloskey. I see Mr. Cayley is not here. Good

13 morning, Mr. Petrusic, Mr. Visnjic; good morning,

14 Professor; good morning to the accused.

15 Have you had a good rest?

16 THE WITNESS: I have, thank you,

17 Mr. President.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Even with

19 this storm we had?

20 THE WITNESS: I stayed indoors.

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I should

22 like to remind you, Professor, that you are continuing

23 under oath and you will now be answering some further

24 questions put to you by Mr. McCloskey.

25 Mr. McCloskey, you have the floor.

Page 3674

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President, and

2 good morning; good morning, Your Honours; good morning,

3 Defence counsel.


5 Examined by Mr. McCloskey: [cont'd]

6 Q. Professor Wright, if we could, I'd like to go

7 back just briefly, and if you could place the

8 Exhibit 196 on the ELMO, the exhibit of your

9 computer-generated graves.

10 All right. I just want to clarify one

11 point. I know that previously we went over the

12 dimensions, the length, the width, and the depth of

13 each of the secondary graves you exhumed as well as the

14 dam, and I noticed that -- we also discussed the ramp

15 that was present in these graves, and I wondered, could

16 you discuss the depth, how accurate that depth figure

17 is for these graves, how that relates to the ramp?

18 A. Yes. The ramp on the Cancari 12 site which

19 we're looking at here is at this end, and the graves

20 get deeper as you go towards the end. That's the very

21 nature of the machinery digging them. So the depth

22 that I gave in my testimony on Friday relate to the

23 maximum depths that are at the far end of the grave

24 from the ramp.

25 Q. So in order to determine the volume of

Page 3675

1 basically the size of the grave, you would have to have

2 the exact or a better size of the actual depth of the

3 grave than the deepest side?

4 A. Yes. I didn't present any testimony on the

5 volume of the grave, merely the maximum depth. The

6 only exception to that is the grave of Zeleni Jadar,

7 which was not dug in this way. So that was a fairly

8 even depth all over.

9 Q. Now, also in your probing of all the

10 secondary graves, were you able to link any of the

11 secondary graves to each over merely by this brief

12 process of probing? Especially I'm referring -- were

13 you able to link Cancari 3 with any of the other probed

14 graves?

15 A. The content of glass at -- of broken glass at

16 Cancari 3 and at Cancari 1 led me to think that they

17 had both come from the same source, which I considered

18 to be the site of Kozluk.

19 Q. Thank you. Now, the Liplje sites. Clearly

20 the exhumation at Liplje show these very large, cut

21 boulders as you've described. Did you notice anything

22 like that in the other brief probings you did on the

23 other sides around Liplje?

24 A. The point about the Liplje grave is they're

25 not boulders in the geological sense. They are

Page 3676

1 actually quarried rock at Liplje, and that's unique to

2 Liplje and to the dam site.

3 Q. Did you come across any of that quarried rock

4 as you were probing the other two Liplje sites that you

5 probed?

6 A. No. I've never seen it anywhere else.

7 Q. Again, could you -- but the probing process

8 is not a detailed archaeological study in any way, is

9 it?

10 A. It's not a detailed archaeological study, but

11 the content at Liplje of large, fractured rocks is such

12 that had it been present in any of the other sites, I

13 believe I would have seen it during the scraping

14 process at the top of the filling of the grave.

15 Q. We hope you have a chance to get to those

16 graves the upcoming summer.

17 Well, let's now get on to the following

18 summer, where you were able to look more into the

19 Kozluk site, which you were led to, the Kozluk site, by

20 the investigation. And you described briefly what you

21 found there the previous summer; the area near the

22 bottling factory, the surface remains and such.

23 But let's put Exhibit 201 on the ELMO, if we

24 could. If you could describe what that photo depicts.

25 A. This is obviously an aerial photograph taken

Page 3677

1 of the site of Kozluk. The area that we excavated in

2 is this area here. This is the River Drina which forms

3 the boundary between Republika Srpska and Serbia. This

4 is Serbia.

5 Q. And for the record -- excuse me, Professor

6 Wright -- the area of the exhumation was the large sort

7 of disturbed dirt area on the left of the photo, and

8 the area of Serbia is in the top of the photo on the

9 other side of the Drina River from the excavation?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Can you tell us what you -- a little bit

12 about the area and what you discovered as you excavated

13 this particular grave?

14 A. I first went there in 1998, when I suspected

15 that the Cancari 3 site had come from near Kozluk. And

16 when I went there, I found the whole area covered in

17 soil, but in one place there were human remains. There

18 was a leg and, I think, some other part of the anatomy,

19 and some clothing lying around, also shell cases from

20 rifle fire. But there was nothing else to be seen.

21 I returned with my team in 1999, in -- I

22 don't have the dates with me, but it was sometime in

23 the summer, late June, July of 1999, and we brought

24 some heavy earth-moving equipment with us. And there

25 were three things that we discovered at Kozluk.

Page 3678

1 Firstly, all traces of the burial of the

2 bodies had been covered up by soil, and I'd like to

3 divide the observations into three. Firstly, we

4 discovered places where bodies had been totally removed

5 by heavy machinery at some time before we got there.

6 Secondly, there were places where attempts

7 had been made to remove bodies, but my interpretation

8 is that the attempts were given up. Some bodies had

9 been taken away, but there were many parts of bodies

10 that were left in the soil and then covered up again

11 with clean soil.

12 Thirdly, there were places that I interpret

13 as places of execution. That is, we uncovered bodies

14 that had -- where the executed people had dropped on

15 the spot, and that had then been covered up with soil

16 and had been left entirely undisturbed. My

17 interpretation of those bodies as having dropped on the

18 spot after being shot is based on the lack of any

19 disturbance to the limbs, and also we recovered, by

20 means of metal detectors, bullets embedded in the clay

21 that was under the bodies.

22 Q. Now, we have some exhibits, I think, that

23 will help explain your conclusions, and if you could

24 put the next exhibit, which is 202, on the ELMO.

25 But before we get to that, let me ask,

Page 3679

1 generally as you excavated this grave, did you notice

2 this tell-tale green glass all throughout the grave

3 fill?

4 A. Yes. I think there was nowhere we didn't

5 find the green glass. I should qualify my use of the

6 word "grave". There was little or no sign of dug

7 graves of the sort that I have been giving testimony

8 about.

9 This area at Kozluk is an area of sloping

10 ground. There are places where gravel and sand have

11 been extracted for commercial purposes. Nearly all the

12 bodies lay on the slopes and were then covered up with

13 dirt. So they are graves, yes, but they are not big,

14 excavated graves of the sort which we have been talking

15 about in previous testimony.

16 Q. Thank you. All right. And if you could put

17 Exhibit 202 on the ELMO, and if you could explain that

18 and how that fits into the conclusions you were just

19 speaking of.

20 A. This is the third type of deposit at Kozluk.

21 This is the place where we found -- this is one of the

22 places where we found bodies lying on a surface, this

23 surface from which we have removed the covering dirt

24 [indicates]. These bodies are lying individually, were

25 originally about a metre below the surface of the soil

Page 3680

1 that had covered them up. They are skeletonised

2 because they are so close to the surface, and

3 therefore, I decided in this case to expose the whole

4 width of bodies. Normally, we don't do that because

5 exposure of the fleshed bodies to oxygen causes more

6 putrefaction. But in this case they were virtually

7 skeletonised, so I made an exception to my normal

8 practice. And here are bodies lying on a surface

9 embedded in which we found many bullets.

10 Q. So just to clarify, your normal practice is

11 to, as you uncover a body, you take it away so it's not

12 open to the elements?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. But in this case, because they were

15 skeletonised -- and this is a good exhibit of what

16 happened -- you just uncovered all these bodies and

17 left them lying?

18 A. Yes, much more like a conventional

19 archaeologically excavation.

20 Q. And you spoke of people that you thought were

21 shot in the grave. Are those people depicted in this

22 particular photograph?

23 A. This is the place that we called Kozluk 2 and

24 where there's a limited number of bodies. The main

25 area I'll talk about later of Kozluk 3.

Page 3681

1 Q. And what can you tell us about the bodies

2 that you see in this photograph?

3 A. Several of them in this photograph, I think

4 about half of them, had their hands tied behind their

5 back or their hands arranged in such a position that I

6 believed their hands were tied behind their back. And

7 because these bodies are so close to the surface,

8 natural materials like cotton disintegrate as the

9 bodies disintegrate, so in other parts of the site

10 where the hands were behind the bodies, where they were

11 protected from destruction, we almost invariably found

12 ligatures, the actual ligatures themselves.

13 Q. Some of these bodies were actually

14 blindfolded, were they not?

15 A. In this particular photograph, I can't -- I

16 couldn't say -- speak to the numbers, but my memory is,

17 yes.

18 Q. In the Kozluk grave generally there were a

19 number of blindfolded bodies?

20 A. In the Kozluk grave generally there were many

21 blindfolded bodies, I think in the order of 16 per

22 cent.

23 Q. From this photograph, can you conclude

24 whether or not any of these individuals in the

25 photograph were shot in the grave?

Page 3682

1 A. I saw injuries that are consistent with

2 gunshot wounds, but, of course, the mortuary team

3 determined that. But I saw, in the case of these, at

4 least one of these individuals, a bullet embedded in

5 bone.

6 Q. I believe yesterday [sic] You testified that

7 you discovered bullets underneath some bodies. Was

8 that this group or another group?

9 A. In two places we found bullets underneath

10 bodies and this was one of them.

11 Q. Okay. Could you point out that and try to

12 describe, on the ELMO, which bodies you're talking

13 about, for the record. You may need to pull the

14 photograph or the ELMO may need to come up a bit to

15 include the entire photograph.

16 A. I do have an exhibit designed -- which shows

17 the distribution of bullets coming up, but essentially

18 they're embedded in this surface. This is the original

19 surface that was exposed at the time of execution. It

20 had, underneath the bodies, plant remains preserved

21 that were actually growing in place, had been growing

22 in place, so this was a land surface on which the

23 people had fallen when they were shot.

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. And for the

25 record, Professor Wright has pointed to the five bodies

Page 3683

1 on the right side of the screen, that are separate from

2 each other, as well as to the cluster of bodies as you

3 move over to the left of the screen.

4 Q. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes, that's correct. At the bottom right of

6 the illustration is a -- where the surface suddenly

7 stops, this is an area where subsequent robbing

8 activity took place.

9 Q. How do you know that?

10 A. Because of the tooth marks and the disruption

11 and actual removal of the bodies that are on the edge

12 of this distribution. In other words, as you move

13 towards the bottom right of the photograph, there is a

14 sudden break which is where the robbing trench cut

15 across and removed some bones from bodies.

16 Q. When you say "tooth mark," you're talking

17 about the tooth marks of the digging machine that

18 robbed them; is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Could you point out what you believe to be

21 tooth marks on this photograph?

22 A. Not on this photograph. I think they are

23 showing in this portion, but I have another

24 illustration to show that better.

25 Q. All right. And the -- where this trench

Page 3684

1 comes across the bodies, were those bodies actually cut

2 by this trenching action?

3 A. Yes. One had lost a leg by the trenching

4 action.

5 Q. I believe the next exhibit is a better

6 exhibit on the tooth marks that you're speaking of, and

7 that is Exhibit 132/107. That is the same group of

8 individuals but a larger view; is that right?

9 A. Yes, at about 45 degrees the view. But we're

10 looking at the same bodies as we looked at in the

11 previous photographs, and the distribution from the

12 right-hand side to the left-hand side, something like

13 16 or 17 bodies.

14 Q. So the teeth marks on this, can you describe

15 that?

16 A. Yes. In the foreground of the picture there

17 is trench showing. It's common in these graves to find

18 that either tyres or the teeth on the machines or both

19 have compressed the soil at the time of the removal of

20 the soil so that subsequent soil falls into the hollows

21 of the tooth marks. It's much looser and it's,

22 therefore, possible to remove it and to display the

23 machinery that was used to do the robbing.

24 Q. So how were you able to take the dirt off of

25 these bodies and these scrape marks without disturbing

Page 3685

1 the bodies or the scrape marks?

2 A. It's done in the normal archaeological way,

3 with trowels and with brushes.

4 Q. So your backhoe never got -- didn't get near

5 these bodies or these scrape marks, this was all done

6 by hand by you?

7 A. This is done by hand.

8 Q. Is there anything else in this photograph of

9 interest to your conclusions?

10 A. I think the fact that the bodies are

11 skeletonised shows up well. Some items of synthetic

12 clothing have survived well. The -- most of the

13 natural materials have been destroyed by the weathering

14 process because these bodies were quite close to the

15 surface.

16 Q. Now, we don't see the individual number

17 markings on these bodies that you usually photograph

18 next to bodies, but in some other of your photographic

19 records, each of these bodies will be identified by

20 number; is that correct?

21 A. Each of these bodies has been assigned a

22 sequence number, and that sequence number will be

23 included in the photograph of each body, and that

24 sequence number would have gone down with the body to

25 the mortuary.

Page 3686

1 Q. So this would allow us to ask the

2 pathologist, if necessary, to identify these bodies and

3 give us the conclusions of the autopsies of, for

4 example, these five that are on the right-hand side of

5 the picture?

6 A. Yes. The individual -- the bodies are

7 treated as individual bodies for the purpose of

8 analysis.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: For Your Honours, we have

10 asked one of the pathologists who will testify to go

11 over the results, particular results of these five,

12 just for your recollection, when we get to the

13 pathologists in a day or two.

14 Q. All right. Now, you mentioned other parts of

15 the grave. Can you discuss other parts of the grave

16 and how that fits into your conclusions?

17 A. The main area of discovery of bodies is what

18 we have called Kozluk 3, and in that area, we recovered

19 some 270 bodies, together with about 200 body parts

20 left over by the attempts to move some of those bodies.

21 Q. Can you describe how you found them and any

22 conclusions you might have reached?

23 A. They are some 20 or 30 metres to the west of

24 the picture that you have on the screen. We discovered

25 it by scraping down the covering of soil over the

Page 3687

1 bodies until we first found them and then the work

2 changed to being done by hand.

3 Q. Do these appear to be on, like you said

4 before, some kind of a slope?

5 A. They are on a slope. They are lying on

6 probably hundreds of thousands of pieces of broken

7 glass. In other words, before the people were

8 executed, the bottling factory had dumped many hundreds

9 of broken bottles down that slope, and all 270 bodies

10 at Kozluk 3 lie on that broken glass.

11 Q. Were you ever able to make any conclusions

12 about whether or not the people were killed where they

13 were lying or whether they were dumped there later?

14 A. On the margins of the distribution of the

15 270 bodies, where you're dealing with individual bodies

16 at the extremities of the body mass, the bodies looked

17 like they do in this photograph from Kozluk 3; that is,

18 they're lying on surfaces just beyond the glassy edge,

19 on their own, and where there are bullets embedded in

20 the clay.

21 Q. How about the large cluster of the group?

22 Were you able to determine anything or would that be

23 speculation?

24 A. I considered whether or not these people

25 might have been shot on top of the slope and then

Page 3688

1 pushed by machinery down the slope as opposed to being

2 shot on the slope itself, on the glassy slope itself,

3 and I wasn't able to conclude one way or the other what

4 had happened. On the fringes of the main distribution

5 of bodies, however, they had definitely been shot in

6 place.

7 Q. You found many shell casings throughout this

8 grave, didn't you?

9 A. Amongst the bodies and to the side of the

10 bodies, we found many shell casings.

11 Q. Could you put Exhibit 203 on the ELMO and

12 explain what that is?

13 A. I mentioned in my testimony on Friday that we

14 surveyed each of the bodies, taking 12 anatomical

15 landmarks. This allows us to produce maps of the

16 distribution of these bodies, of which this is the map

17 for the site of Kozluk 3 that we've been talking

18 about.

19 Kozluk 3 -- in the case of Kozluk 3, the

20 bodies had soft tissue very well preserved, and here we

21 had to remove them as we found them, because it was the

22 height of summer and bacterial decomposition and

23 destruction by insects was beginning to start within

24 two or three hours of their exposure. So we removed

25 them one by one. Therefore, our survey is the only

Page 3689

1 record that we have of what the total mass of bodies

2 looks like, and this is a representation of the bodies

3 at Kozluk. There are 270 complete bodies represented

4 in this diagram. I haven't represented the body parts.

5 Q. The bodies are the little black stick

6 figures?

7 A. Yes. On the bottom left where this

8 individual is on its own, here where its on its own you

9 can see the effect, but, of course, within the main

10 mass of bodies where they were sometimes four thick,

11 you lose resolution, you lose detail.

12 Q. What are the little red marks?

13 A. Red dots are the shell casings that we found

14 as the bodies were removed. These are mixed up with

15 the bodies, lying to the side of the bodies, on the

16 surface on which the bodies lie.

17 Q. Now, is there anything else, any other major

18 conclusions you wish to share with the Court? And, of

19 course, the total number of individuals represented in

20 the grave, as you've received information from the

21 anthropologist, would also, of course, be important.

22 A. The anthropologist will have to testify to

23 that, but we removed -- my records show that we moved

24 from this location that is illustrated here some

25 270 bodies and some 200 body parts. I'm not aware of

Page 3690

1 how many individuals the anthropologist reconstructed

2 from these 200 body parts that are additional to the

3 270 shown here.

4 Q. All right. And just finally, Exhibit 223 is

5 your resume or your CV, and you've had a chance to

6 review that and that is an accurate copy of your CV; is

7 that correct?

8 A. That is.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honours, I have no

10 further questions at this time.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank

12 you very much, Mr. McCloskey.

13 Professor, you're now going to answer

14 questions put to you by Mr. Visnjic, the Defence

15 counsel, is going to ask you.

16 Mr. Visnjic, you have the floor.

17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you,

18 Mr. President.

19 Cross-examined by Mr. Visnjic:

20 Q. Professor Wright, in your statement about the

21 exhumations in 1998, within the frameworks of your

22 conclusions you state that none of the 857 individuals

23 were wearing military uniforms. Can you tell us -- can

24 you explain to us what you mean by the term "to wear

25 military uniform"? What do you consider that term to

Page 3691

1 mean in your statement?

2 A. By that statement, I mean that I did not see

3 essentially khaki jackets and khaki trousers of the

4 sort that I associate internationally with military

5 wear.

6 Q. Did you mean that some individuals had a

7 complete uniform or only parts of an army uniform? Is

8 it possible that individuals were wearing both civilian

9 and military clothing at the same time, parts of these

10 different types of clothing?

11 A. No, I was referring to items of military

12 clothing. I did not see, in 1998, nor in 1999, for

13 that matter, an item of military clothing in the grave,

14 though I have expressed in my report some caution there

15 because the clothing is covered in mud in many

16 instances and so the final conclusion about the nature

17 of the clothing we found is done by the mortuary staff

18 after washing the clothes. But I did not see, in the

19 course of exhumations, an item of military clothing.

20 Q. In the same report, within your conclusions

21 you state that on the basis of the findings by

22 Mr. Mills, that it was possible to ascertain the time

23 of the execution as being Thursday, the 14th of July,

24 1995.

25 My question is the following: In your

Page 3692

1 report, you mention that you found ten watches, eight

2 of which are in keeping with a certain mathematical

3 procedure and is incorporated into this term. Bearing

4 in mind the two watches that don't fit, is it possible

5 that in the same site, grave site, people were buried

6 which were executed earlier on or later on and then

7 introduced into the sites, into the graves, later on?

8 A. On the basis of the watches alone -- on the

9 basis of the watches that I observed in the course of

10 excavation, I was struck by the fact that eight out of

11 ten showed either "Saturday 15" or "Sunday 16" in the

12 windows. My understanding of these watches is that --

13 because I actually own one myself -- is that they --

14 you do not have to set the day or the date in order for

15 the watch to work as a timepiece. So although one

16 possible conclusion would be, from a watch that did not

17 show ""Friday [sic] 15" or "Sunday 16", one possible

18 conclusion would be that its user died at a different

19 time. It's not a necessary conclusion, because the day

20 and the date may never have been set.

21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me. Perhaps we could

22 clarify which grave you're talking about. I believe

23 that these watches are specific to specific graves, and

24 that may make more sense.

25 A. I'm talking -- in my report, I list the --

Page 3693

1 I'm sorry, were you addressing the question to me or --

2 MR. McCLOSKEY: No. That was just an

3 objection to try to clarify the record, because the

4 question is vague as to --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. McCloskey.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me. It's an objection

7 as to vagueness, because we don't know which grave site

8 he's talking about.

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes.

10 Mr. Visnjic, could you specify and tell us exactly what

11 you mean in your question so that we can follow the

12 discussion. So when you're talking about watches,

13 perhaps it would be a good idea for you to indicate

14 what the grave site is that you're referring to where

15 the watches were found. Otherwise, it is difficult to

16 follow.

17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

18 in the question -- that is to say, we are talking about

19 two watches found at the Hodzici grave site, A-4. That

20 is what it states in the professor's statement, at

21 least.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

23 Mr. McCloskey, is that precision sufficient for you?

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think Professor Wright has

25 a whole section on the watches that he, in order to

Page 3694

1 shed light on this during testimony, may want to

2 discuss, because it doesn't make any sense if discussed

3 without the knowledge of which watches were found in

4 which grave, and of course each secondary grave is

5 associated to a primary grave, and we have evidence on

6 the record of when the primary graves were created.

7 And so I think in order for this discussion to make

8 sense, we need to definitely get back into the

9 particular grave, the particular watches, because

10 watches were found in different graves, both primary

11 and secondary, and it's difficult to understand this

12 particular discussion of the analysis of these

13 particular artefacts unless we go back to the

14 beginning, to some degree. But Professor Wright knows

15 all about this and he can discuss it, so I merely say

16 that.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Very

18 well. Perhaps Mr. Visnjic could ask the question in a

19 more precise way, and then Professor Wright can answer

20 and explain. And at the end, if there are any

21 difficulties, you can take up the matter,

22 Mr. McCloskey, later on in your redirect. I think that

23 that is the way to proceed.

24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you,

25 Mr. President.

Page 3695

1 Q. Professor Wright, can you tell us the

2 following: When you located the secondary grave sites,

3 were the aerial photographs, for your purposes and

4 investigation, were they decisive in determining their

5 exact locations as well as the other indicators such as

6 the Hodzici road?

7 A. The aerial photographs were, in a sense,

8 precise. But the area that they showed was an area of

9 general disturbance, which was much larger than the

10 grave itself. So the area of disturbance might be in

11 the order of 100 metres by 100 metres, but within that

12 there was a grave that might be 30 metres long and five

13 metres -- and three metres broad. So the aerial

14 photographs allowed us to go to the general area, but

15 exploratory work with a backhoe had to be done to find

16 the exact grave.

17 Q. My next question is linked to that answer of

18 yours. Is it a logical assumption that underneath the

19 larger surface that was dug, that you find the largest

20 number of bodies? Was this assumption borne out and

21 confirmed in practice?

22 A. I didn't do any formal analysis of the

23 relation of the disturbed area shown by aerial images

24 and the number of bodies. I couldn't answer that

25 question.

Page 3696

1 Q. Can you tell us how it was decided which of

2 the secondary grave sites in a certain location -- let

3 us take, for example, the Hodzici road -- would be

4 exhumated and which did you leave for a subsequent

5 date?

6 A. One of our considerations was that we could

7 get to the site the heavy equipment and the -- or set

8 up the camp with washing facilities and analytical

9 facilities and so on. Some of the sites were suitable

10 for that, some were not. All of them, except for

11 Hodzici 1, were by the side of a good gravel road. We

12 decided, on the basis of the ease of work -- the

13 separation, for instance, in Cancari road between

14 number 12 and number 3 was a sample of two that were

15 well separated. So there were a mixture of factors

16 that made us decide which ones to totally exhume and

17 which ones to probe.

18 Q. During your testimony yesterday [sic], you

19 said that on the basis of your experience from Bosnia,

20 you were able to conclude that the blue and green

21 colour of the soil indicated that below the soil it

22 would be probable to expect bodies.

23 My question is the following: Based on your

24 experience, did this refer only to the Bosnia area as a

25 geographical region, to Bosnia itself, or -- bearing in

Page 3697

1 mind the climate, the soil composition and so on, or

2 did other factors influence you to draw that conclusion

3 based on your previous experience?

4 A. In terms of my own previous experience in the

5 Ukraine, we saw dark soil associated with the bodies,

6 but we did not see this bright green/blue soil. That

7 is unique to my Bosnian experience, though I have read

8 textbooks on homicide investigations, and the

9 occurrence of such blue/green soil associated with

10 bodies is commonly mentioned.

11 Q. Were there any differences in colour with the

12 secondary and -- primary and secondary grave sites in

13 terms of soil colour?

14 A. No, I can't say that there were consistent

15 differences. The primary sites that I saw were the

16 dam -- that I investigated were the dam site, Petkovci

17 Dam site. Around the bodies were certainly this --

18 around the body parts was this greenish soil. And the

19 other primary site I have worked on is Kozluk, and

20 again around the bodies that still had flesh associated

21 with them was this green soil. I don't remember any

22 differences between the general properties of the soil

23 in those two primary sites and in the secondary sites.

24 Q. Judging from your experience, what level

25 above and below the bodies does this colouring of the

Page 3698

1 soil take place?

2 A. It extends to beyond the bodies, perhaps to

3 20 or 30 centimetres beyond the bodies, even into the

4 undisturbed soil alongside the bodies. I should say 20

5 or 30 centimetres.

6 Q. Above and below the body level, you say; is

7 that correct?

8 A. And to the side.

9 Q. Thank you. This experience of yours, does it

10 relate -- is it the same for primary and secondary

11 grave sites?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Does the same colouring in the soil -- would

14 the bodies of animals produce the same soil colouring,

15 animals or some other putrefaction, decomposition?

16 Would it give the same soil colouring?

17 A. I imagine that's so, but I don't have any

18 direct experience of digging where there's a mass of

19 animals buried. But I don't think it's something

20 peculiar to human remains.

21 Q. Professor Wright, with respect to your

22 experience as far as secondary grave sites are

23 concerned, your experience in that field, what would

24 you say determines these sites of secondary grave

25 sites? What led the perpetrators to choose a

Page 3699

1 particular secondary grave site? Was it the

2 configuration of the soil, whether it was soft soil

3 which would be easy to dig, or would you say there were

4 other elements that led them to choose a particular

5 secondary grave site?

6 A. The only answer I can give to that is that

7 the sites were accessible to trucks. I can't speak for

8 the people who dug the secondary graves, but I did

9 observe that all of the sites could be driven to by

10 vehicles, by heavy vehicles.

11 Q. Professor, during your testimony today in the

12 examination-in-chief, you said that you found the

13 bodies -- parts of bodies of two individuals at the

14 surface of the soil in Kozluk in 1998. According to

15 your assessment, what was the age of the body parts on

16 that surface; that is to say, how long were they on the

17 surface?

18 A. I couldn't say, in number of years, but they

19 still had flesh and tissue holding the bones together.

20 They were clearly not very old. But just looking at

21 those bones on their own, I couldn't say how old they

22 were. The body parts, I couldn't say how old they

23 were.

24 Can I add to that? Now I have studied the

25 site, I know they must be later than the executions and

Page 3700

1 the main burials, because they're lying on soil that

2 was put back over the disturbed remains.

3 Q. Were these body parts damaged in any way?

4 A. By definition, because they're body parts,

5 they must have been removed from complete bodies. So

6 to that extent they were damaged.

7 Q. At what depth underneath these body parts

8 were the rest of the bodies in the grave site located?

9 A. At the exact spot where we found those body

10 parts on the surface in 1998, immediately below that

11 there were no other bodies. The other bodies were to

12 the west and to the east of those two remains. There

13 was something like 20 metres separating the site of

14 Kozluk 2, the grave of Kozluk 2 from Kozluk 3, and they

15 are on the surface between those two areas.

16 Q. Could you say whether in that locality,

17 whether there were more exhumations at one particular

18 spot, whether the primary gave sites were dug over

19 several times?

20 A. No. I think that the observations we made

21 only require one episode of robbing of the area. I

22 didn't see any indications that led me to suggest that

23 it had been dug over many times.

24 Q. On the basis of your experience, again can

25 you exclude the possibility of there being many

Page 3701

1 diggings, that is to say that the bodies had been

2 buried many times, several times?

3 A. At Kozluk, yes, because most of the bodies

4 were totally undisturbed. It was only near the top of

5 the main mass of the bodies that there were body parts

6 and disturbance. Most of them were totally

7 undisturbed.

8 Q. Within the frameworks of that same report of

9 yours, you say that a number of body parts were pulled

10 off from the bodies during the exhumation and in the

11 attempt to cover up the primary grave site, that they

12 were severed from the main body. Do you know -- I know

13 that this does not come exclusively within your field

14 of expertise, but do you happen to know whether the

15 pathologists, when they made the identifications,

16 whether they discovered any of those body parts and

17 were able to incorporate them? Did they find them in

18 the secondary grave sites and were they able to link

19 them up to the bodies that were found in the primary

20 grave sites? Were they able to put two together?

21 A. I think you're referring to the Cancari 3

22 site and the Kozluk site. I don't know whether they

23 were able to fit them together. I have not been -- I

24 have not taken part in the mortuary operation, so I

25 don't know the results there.

Page 3702

1 Q. During your testimony today, you said that

2 certain casings had been found below the bodies. When

3 a bullet penetrates a human body, how deep can it go

4 below the body and what does that depend on?

5 A. I'm not a ballistics expert. I should say

6 that the shell cases at Kozluk were found mixed up with

7 the bodies as well as below the bodies, that is, the

8 shell cases. The bullets were both on the edges of the

9 Kozluk 3 site, that is, the main mass of bodies, and at

10 Kozluk 2 were embedded in the clay below the bodies to

11 a depth of about 5 centimetres.

12 The shell cases were not found embedded in

13 the clay underneath. The shell cases were found on the

14 surface on which the bodies lay, amongst the bodies,

15 and on top of the bodies. But I cannot -- not having

16 any expertise in ballistics, I cannot comment on the

17 significance of that except to say where I found them.

18 Q. The number of bullets found, did it

19 correspond to the number of persons executed?

20 A. Can I ask you if we're referring to the

21 number of shell cases or the number of bullets?

22 Q. Number of bullets.

23 A. I don't know how many bullets were found

24 altogether. A lot of them will also have been found in

25 the mortuary. And although in the site logs we

Page 3703

1 recorded all the bullets found by ourselves, you would

2 have to add to those the bullets that were found in the

3 mortuary operation. I don't have that number with me.

4 Q. Also in your report referring to Kozluk, you

5 stated that the bodies were transported by trucks. I

6 think that this is to be found on page 12 of your

7 report, just to help you. Page 12, paragraph 2, last

8 sentence.

9 A. Yes. That conclusion was based on the

10 observations that we made in 1998, that there was a

11 slope which had clothing and some body parts on it

12 that -- where there were body parts spilled down the

13 slope, and I interpreted that as being the remains of

14 the removal of the bodies after the robbing of the

15 primary grave. I didn't, however, see truck marks or

16 any other evidence. That is an interpretation based on

17 my knowledge of the Cancari 3 site, to which I

18 attribute the bodies in the Cancari 3 site to having

19 come from Kozluk. And knowing the road distances, I,

20 therefore, assume they must have come by truck, and I

21 identified at the Kozluk site a place in the landscape

22 which had clothing and body parts and which I think is

23 consistent with the place where the bodies were loaded

24 into the trucks.

25 Q. Professor Wright, I should like to go back to

Page 3704

1 your previous testimony regarding the primary grave

2 site at the dam at Petkovci.

3 During your examination-in-chief, you said

4 that because of the composition of the soil, which is

5 rocky and allows for oxygen to pass, that the

6 putrefication of soft tissue was speeded up.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Could it be that for the same reason, because

9 of the circulation of air, that bodies are mummified

10 more quickly too?

11 A. For a body to become mummified, in my

12 opinion, it has to be dry, and the site at the dam is

13 far from dry because of the rainfall that falls on the

14 surface of the ground. So I would not expect bodies,

15 under those circumstances, to become mummified.

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I should like

17 to ask the registrar to show the witness Prosecution

18 Exhibit 22/8. It is a photograph. So could it be

19 shown to the Witness, please.

20 I should also like to ask the registrar,

21 Mr. President, Mr. President, to facilitate

22 proceedings, this is a page of the transcript in which

23 the Professor is explaining this photograph. I'm

24 sorry, not the Professor but Mr. Ruez. Mr. Ruez was

25 commenting on this photograph. It is page 742 of the

Page 3705

1 transcript, on the 15th of March, 2000, when the

2 investigator of the Prosecution's Office, Mr. Ruez, was

3 explaining this photograph or, rather, Exhibit 22/8.

4 Q. Professor, the part that I should like to

5 refer to has been highlighted in yellow, and it has to

6 do with the following: The ligatures or the cloth, as

7 Mr. Ruez said was like a ligature, was found on the

8 surface or immediately below the surface of the soil at

9 the dam.

10 My question is the following: How long is it

11 possible for a piece of cloth of this kind to remain on

12 the surface without decomposing, in view of the

13 composition of the material?

14 A. My experience of these sites is that the

15 answer depends on the type of the material. If it's a

16 natural material such as cotton or wool, then it is

17 destroyed very quickly. If it's an artificial material

18 such as nylon or polyester, then it will last for many,

19 many years. I don't know the composition of this

20 particular item, so I can't answer your question

21 directly. I can only distinguish between -- in

22 answering that general question, I can only distinguish

23 between natural and artificial materials, and they have

24 different -- they have different lifetimes in the

25 soil.

Page 3706

1 Q. I should like to ask for Prosecution

2 Exhibit 131/1.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

4 Mr. Visnjic, excuse me for interrupting you. Are you

5 going to use other exhibits? In that case, you can

6 tell the registrar the exhibit numbers in advance so

7 that she can prepare them for you.

8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

9 I had thought about it, but in view of the fact that we

10 didn't ask for a break between the examination-in-chief

11 and the cross, and I'm close to ending my cross, so I

12 think this is a more rational way to proceed.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I

14 understand. Thank you anyway, Mr. Visnjic.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me. I'm having a

16 problem finding it. If we can take a break perhaps.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps I

18 see that Mr. Harmon is going to find the exhibit for

19 us.

20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Professor Wright, my question is: Is this

22 the type of material that can last for a protracted

23 period of time?

24 A. Yes. I have seen this material in the sites

25 we've exhumed. I identify this as a polyester twine.

Page 3707

1 Therefore, it being polyester, I would expect this to

2 last for a protracted period of time.

3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Exhibit 131/1

4 also has a first page containing explanations, so could

5 I ask for that to be shown to the witness as well,

6 please. Yes, yes, that's it.

7 A. Do you want me to display this?

8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, please.

9 Q. Professor Wright, can you just explain to us

10 these two numbers that appear here in the left-hand

11 corner, lower left-hand box?

12 A. I can't explain those numbers from my direct

13 experience. These numbers are assigned to that object

14 after I have handed the material over to the mortuary.

15 So I don't know the significance of those numbers.

16 Q. Professor Wright, according to your report

17 and findings, how many hand ligatures were found at the

18 dam grave site?

19 A. To answer that, I would have to consult my

20 report, and then I would also have to consult the log

21 that was taken of the remains. I have my report with

22 me and I can have a look at that, but I do not have the

23 log which has been tendered in evidence and is part of

24 ICTY's records. I don't have it with me, but I will

25 look first in my report and see if I made mention of

Page 3708

1 these things.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

3 Mr. Visnjic, would you like a break now? Would that be

4 convenient? We have been working for an hour and a

5 quarter. Perhaps we could have a break now. You are

6 about to finish, are you?

7 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

8 I only have one further brief question for Professor

9 Wright, so I can put it before the break, or it's up to

10 you. If you decide to have the break now, it's fine.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In any

12 event, as we have questions by the Judges later,

13 perhaps it would be better to have a break now so that

14 Professor Wright can have a chance to look through his

15 report. And then we can resume, because we need to

16 have the re-examination and the questions of the

17 Judges.

18 So we'll now have a 20-minute break.

19 --- Recess taken at 10.48 a.m.

20 --- On resuming at 11.13 a.m.

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We're

22 resuming the hearing. Mr. Visnjic, you may continue,

23 please.

24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you,

25 Mr. President.

Page 3709

1 Q. Professor Wright, would you be so kind as to

2 put Exhibit 22/8 onto the ELMO.

3 A. This is the one?

4 Q. Professor Wright, based on your experience,

5 if we were to compare the ligature shown on this

6 photograph, 22/8, and the ligature shown on Exhibit

7 131/1, the one you described earlier on, which of these

8 two materials can have a longer lifetime on the surface

9 of the soil?

10 A. I can't answer that because I don't know the

11 material from which this ligature was made. If it was

12 made of polyester, then it would last a long time. If

13 it was made of cotton, I wouldn't expect it to last

14 very long.

15 Can I just clarify one point too -- at one

16 point as well, that in the testimony that I was shown,

17 that is, in this page, the time of discovery of this

18 item is said to be April 1998. I think it should read

19 "April 1997", because it was found before I went to

20 the site.

21 Q. Thank you for the explanation.

22 Professor Wright, my next question has to do

23 with the part of your report dealing with the potential

24 grave site at Potocari. You carried out some

25 investigations there, but you didn't find any bodies or

Page 3710

1 remains there?

2 A. That is correct.

3 Q. However, in your report, if I understood you

4 correctly, you do express a certain doubt or

5 suspicion. So could you comment on that in a little

6 more detail, please?

7 A. Yes. I was asked to go to an area behind the

8 bus station at Potocari where there were aerial images

9 of disturbed soil. I looked in two of these places.

10 In one, I could detect nothing. In the second one, a

11 hole -- a large hole had in the past been dug and

12 refilled, but it had no human remains in the refilling,

13 no body parts in the refilling. What I did see near

14 the top were some lumps of this green putrid clay, but

15 there were no body parts adhering to them, and I am

16 unable to come to any firm conclusion about the

17 Potocari site.

18 Q. Thank you, Professor Wright. Professor,

19 could you exclude the possibility of certain grave

20 sites -- I'm talking about primary grave sites such as

21 Kozluk, for instance -- after bodies had been buried

22 there, bodies of people who were executed en masse,

23 that there may have been additional burials of other

24 bodies from other locations? Is this a possibility?

25 A. No. We studied the stratigraphy, that is,

Page 3711

1 the layers of soil, very carefully, and I saw no

2 evidence of subsequent burial at Kozluk. And in my

3 opinion, that's not a possibility.

4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

5 that ends my cross-examination.

6 Professor Wright, thank you.

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you

8 very much, Mr. Visnjic.

9 Mr. McCloskey, any additional questions?

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, briefly, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please go

12 ahead.

13 Re-examined by Mr. McCloskey:

14 Q. Professor Wright, I believe you have Exhibit

15 5/22 [Realtime transcript read in error "522"], the

16 aerial image of Potocari, and could you place that on

17 the ELMO.

18 So after the season of 1999, you were asked

19 to go explore a site behind the Express bus compound in

20 Potocari; is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Could you point, with your pointer, to the

23 area that you actually took a look at and excavated?

24 A. There are three areas marked by an arrow. I

25 looked at this area, and I looked at that area, and

Page 3712

1 this is the area in which I was able to identify that a

2 large hole had been dug in the past.

3 Q. You're referring to the area, the large hole,

4 is the middle arrow.

5 A. The middle arrow.

6 Q. And you looked at the arrow to the bottom of

7 the area -- of the arrow at the bottom of the picture

8 and didn't find anything but you did find a hole under

9 the middle arrow; is that correct?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. And how big was that hole?

12 A. I would need to consult my report. My memory

13 is that it was about 6 metres by 4 metres, but the

14 dimensions are given in my report, if I may consult

15 that. Eight metres square by 2 metres deep was my

16 estimate of the size of that hole.

17 Q. Were you able to get any indication of

18 whether it was dug by hand or dug by machine?

19 A. No direct indication, no.

20 Q. Do you recall how deep in the hole the green

21 clay or the green soil was that you found that is

22 usually indicative of some sort of organic body flesh?

23 A. I saw these scattered lumps of this green

24 clay near the top of the filling of the hole.

25 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, getting back to

Page 3713

1 the watch artefacts --

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

3 Mr. McCloskey, I apologise for interrupting you, but

4 for the transcript, the exhibit that you showed

5 Professor right was 5/22, was it?

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: According to my records, yes,

7 Mr. President.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Because I

9 see on the LiveNote it says "522." So it needs to be

10 corrected; 5/22.

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

12 Q. Now, back to the analysis of the watches. I

13 think if we use the example of the dam, which is, I

14 believe, the first time in the Srebrenica case that you

15 found and analysed a watch; is that correct?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Okay. Can you explain the circumstances of

18 finding that watch and the information that you gained

19 in your analysis?

20 A. The watch from the dam site was found as an

21 isolated artefact within the filling of the grave,

22 because the bodies had been mostly broken up and we

23 were finding artefacts in the filling of the grave.

24 This particular watch is a mechanical,

25 automatic watch that stops about 36 to 48 hours after

Page 3714

1 the last movement of the individual's wrist. If any

2 memory serves me correctly, the watch at the dam site

3 showed, in its day/date window, the combination of

4 "Sunday" and "16th."

5 Q. So you found out the information that if it

6 had stopped, you would just make some simple arithmetic

7 and determine the date that it actually stopped moving;

8 is that right?

9 A. Yes. One watch on its own, even perhaps two

10 watches, don't take on significance. Only at the end

11 of the season was the significance clear to me, and

12 that is that the remarkable coincidence had taken place

13 if these eight out of -- if all ten watches had stopped

14 at random, the chances of eight out of ten showing

15 either "Saturday 15" or "Sunday 16" can be simply

16 calculated as several millions to one. So some

17 event -- I believe some common event had caused this

18 tendency for watches to stop on Saturday 15 or Sunday

19 16. That was my conclusion.

20 Q. So basically you had eight watches that if

21 you do the subtraction, would have stopped their

22 natural movement around the -- on the 14th or 15th; is

23 that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And you were told by the investigators that

Page 3715

1 there was indications that some mass executions

2 occurred on the 14th and 15th?

3 A. That's what Mr. Rhodes told me.

4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Nothing further, Your

5 Honours.

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,

7 Mr. McCloskey.

8 Judge Fouad Riad.

9 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Thank you,

10 Mr. President.

11 Questioned by the Court:

12 JUDGE RIAD: Good morning, Professor.

13 A. Good morning, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE RIAD: I have a question really in the

15 light of information you gave this morning, in the

16 testimony of this morning, as I was not present

17 before.

18 You mentioned that, and I quote you, "On the

19 fringes," when you're speaking of Kozluk 3, "On the

20 fringes of the main distribution of bodies, they had

21 been shot in place," and they could not have been shot

22 on the slope itself or on the top of the slope and

23 pushed down by machinery, according to your

24 assessment.

25 Then speaking also of Kozluk 2, you mentioned

Page 3716

1 that they had -- or some had their hands tied back, and

2 then you mentioned later that 16 per cent were

3 blindfolded and that none were wearing military

4 clothes. You mentioned something like 875 were not

5 wearing any military clothes.

6 Some of the information I would like to base

7 my question on, and to ask you if you are in a position

8 to determine whether the killing or some of it took

9 place in a fight or took place in an execution.

10 A. Well, Your Honour, if I can just distinguish

11 one or two points there. The absence of military

12 clothing that applied to 800 and something individuals

13 is for all the sites that I have exhumed. At Kozluk

14 there were some 280 individuals, none of whom had

15 military clothing.

16 At Kozluk, on the fringes of the site, I was

17 able to conclude that the people had been shot on the

18 spot because they lay on this vegetated surface and we

19 found bullets embedded in this surface.

20 In the middle of the main mass of bodies at

21 Kozluk, because they lay on glass, on broken glass, and

22 because bodies underneath would have absorbed some of

23 the bullets from above, I was not able to determine

24 directly that they had been shot on the spot, but the

25 arrangement of the bodies is consistent with their

Page 3717

1 having been shot on the spot.

2 At Kozluk, I -- where the evidence was of a

3 sort, where the location of the bodies was of a sort

4 that would allow me to determine whether they had been

5 killed on the spot or been brought from somewhere else,

6 I concluded that they had been shot on the spot. I saw

7 no positive evidence that the bodies had been brought

8 from anywhere else.

9 JUDGE RIAD: And being shot on the spot

10 excludes being shot in a fight, the arrangement you

11 mentioned?

12 A. No, I think being shot on the spot does not

13 exclude people being shot in a fight. However, at

14 Kozluk, 42 per cent of the 280 individuals had their

15 hands tied behind their back, and in my opinion, that

16 does exclude people being shot in a fight.

17 JUDGE RIAD: And there were no weapons -- no

18 kind of weapons around these bodies which suggests that

19 these people were carrying weapons or using them?

20 A. No, I don't remember, at Kozluk, any weapons

21 whatsoever. We found the discarded shell cases from

22 rifles and we found bullets, but I don't remember

23 finding any weapons.

24 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Professor

25 Wright.

Page 3718

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you

2 very much, Judge Fuad Riad. Judge Wald.

3 JUDGE WALD: Professor Wright, if you come

4 upon a mass grave or a grave with many bodies in it,

5 and this is to be based on your experience generally,

6 is it possible to tell if the bodies in those graves

7 have been put in there at different time periods? I

8 mean maybe not within a day or so, but within weeks or

9 months, at different time periods, or whether they were

10 all put in there at approximately the same time.

11 A. I think I haven't found any graves that I

12 have interpreted in that way. In my experience, I have

13 two sites, one in the Ukraine and one in Bosnia that is

14 not part of this current case, where I have concluded

15 that bodies were put in on two occasions, but there was

16 a small amount of time between them.

17 At what I would expect, yes, it should be

18 possible, because if bodies were put in, say, in --

19 talking generally, if they were put in in May, the

20 month of May, and then covered up with some soil, and

21 then more bodies were put in, that would be an

22 indication. If they were put in in May and not covered

23 up with soil, I would expect considerable destruction

24 of the tissues and evidence of survival of insects and

25 beetles, which we commonly find on bodies that have

Page 3719

1 been left exposed for some time.

2 So, yes, in general, I would be able to tell

3 whether bodies had been put into a grave and, sometime

4 later, new ones added.

5 JUDGE WALD: Right. And in the case of the

6 bodies that you exhumed about which you testified here,

7 did you see any such indications that bodies had been

8 put in at significantly different times?

9 A. No, I saw no indications that would require

10 me to conclude that.

11 JUDGE WALD: And the second part of my

12 question is: In the case -- this would probably be

13 primarily secondary graves -- you were able to tell, I

14 gather from reading your report and some of the others,

15 when bodies have come from different locations either

16 because they have different soils or in the case of the

17 glass; is that generally true? If a secondary grave

18 contains bodies from two different primary sites, you

19 would be able to tell that?

20 A. Yes, I should be able to tell that.

21 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Professor

23 Wright, I have a question of a general nature.

24 You have seen several mass grave sites. Are

25 you able to have an idea of the means of organisation

Page 3720

1 required? Let us say the means and the organisation

2 that was used in order to arrive at the results that

3 you were able to observe.

4 A. Yes, I would have two comments to make on

5 that.

6 Firstly, the organisation of the digging of

7 the grave is manifest by whether or not machinery was

8 used. If it's dug by hand, it can be done quite

9 casually. If it's dug by machinery, then obviously

10 it's a bigger organisation required.

11 My second comment is, that having related the

12 primary graves to the secondary graves, I can conclude

13 that the bodies were not taken by hand over several

14 kilometres but were taken by truck, and that again

15 bears on the question of the level of organisation.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In your

17 opinion and from your viewpoint, is there a difference

18 between organisation for primary grave sites and the

19 organisation required for secondary grave sites?

20 A. Yes, Mr. President, I'd say there is a

21 difference in level of organisation. In the case, for

22 example, of the Kozluk site, some few hundred living

23 people were taken there and executed. That would

24 require much more organisation than the removal of the

25 bodies from the Kozluk site to secondary graves.

Page 3721

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Are you

2 also able to reconstruct the organisation required on

3 the basis of the results observed for, let us say, the

4 primary mass graves and for the secondary mass graves?

5 Can you reconstruct -- repeat the type of organisation

6 that was used?

7 A. I think the answer to that question bears on

8 whether or not the event took place in a very short

9 period of time, and my conclusion at all the sites is

10 that -- or rather I should say my conclusion at Kozluk

11 and the secondary graves is that both operations took

12 place over a very short period of time. The shorter

13 the time, the greater the level of organisation

14 required.

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you

16 very much, Professor Wright, for coming here to speak

17 before us. I should also like to thank you for

18 cooperating with the international justice system. We

19 thank you very much and wish you bon voyage back to

20 your country, and every success in your continuing

21 work.

22 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President.

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I do have some

24 exhibits to tender, and they would be 188, 189 through

25 194, 196 through 205, and 223.

Page 3722

1 [The witness withdrew]

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

3 Mr. Visnjic, do you have any objections to make?

4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I do not,

5 Mr. President.

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think,

7 Mr. Visnjic, that it is not necessary to tender that

8 copy of the transcript, because we have our own

9 references, and so we have -- you have tendered the

10 evidence and it has been admitted.

11 What are we going to do now, Mr. McCloskey,

12 or perhaps Mr. Harmon?

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, it's still

14 me. We have Dr. Bill Haglund, the chief of the

15 exhumation season for 1996, who is a forensic

16 anthropologist as opposed to Professor Wright, who is

17 an archaeologist, and he will be able to tell us, much

18 in the same vein as Professor Wright, about the

19 exhumations and the results from 1996. He is ready to

20 go.

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Have the

22 witness brought in, please.

23 [The witness entered court]

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: I believe we had his exhibits

25 ready to go, if we could put them next to him.

Page 3723

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Professor

2 Haglund, can you hear me?


4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good

5 morning to you. You are now going to read the solemn

6 declaration that the usher is going to give you.

7 Please go ahead.

8 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

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

10 truth.


12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be

13 seated. I think that you are quite familiar with

14 procedure in the courtroom, so I can take it that you

15 feel at ease, Professor.


17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 And thank you for coming, to begin with. For the

19 moment, you're going to answer questions put to you by

20 Mr. McCloskey.

21 Mr. McCloskey, you have the floor.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

23 Examined by Mr. McCloskey:

24 Q. Could you state your name and spell your

25 last?

Page 3724

1 A. Yes, William D. Haglund, H-a-g-l-u-n-d.

2 Q. And what is your profession?

3 A. A forensic anthropologist.

4 Q. And can you give us your educational

5 background?

6 A. Yes. I received my Ph.D in physical

7 anthropology at the University of Washington in

8 Seattle, Washington State, United States.

9 Q. Prior to that what was your undergraduate?

10 A. My undergraduate, I received also a masters

11 degree in physical anthropologist and a bachelor's

12 degree in biology.

13 Q. Could you give us a brief outline of your

14 employment history?

15 A. In forensics, for 16 years I was employed by

16 the King County Medical Examiner's Office in Seattle,

17 Washington. That's an office that has jurisdiction

18 over all unexpected, sudden deaths; homicides;

19 accidents; suicides; natural deaths that are

20 unattended; and those deaths of suspicious or sudden

21 nature.

22 Q. What was your position there?

23 A. I was the chief medical investigator. In

24 that position, I supervised the death scene

25 investigators who actually went to the death scenes,

Page 3725

1 the autopsy staff; and as an anthropologist, I would

2 respond to outdoor scenes and assist police and protect

3 our office's interests in the recovery of buried

4 skeletal remains, scavenged remains, and remains where

5 there were identification problems.

6 Q. All right. What kind of field experience

7 have you had and employment after leaving Seattle, the

8 Seattle office?

9 A. Well, I took holidays and went on some

10 foreign missions. In 1993, I was a member of the

11 expert committee and went to Croatia. I then, on a

12 yearly basis, once or twice a year, would go to

13 Honduras, where I would do exhumations and

14 identifications of individuals.

15 Q. When did you first start working for the

16 International Criminal Tribunal?

17 A. In an official capacity, other than missions,

18 in December 31, 1995.

19 Q. And can you describe to us what the term

20 "forensic" means and especially as it relates to

21 anthropology, your expertise?

22 A. Well, let's first look at physical

23 anthropology. Physical anthropology basically deals

24 with the human skeleton, its development, its

25 maturation, and how skeletons of some populations

Page 3726

1 compare with other populations. The forensic physical

2 anthropologist, also in the United States, takes

3 courses in human genetics, archaeology, and

4 palaeontology.

5 Forensic anthropology is the application of

6 that skeletal component, the development, maturation of

7 the human skeleton to the medical-legal context, and

8 traditionally forensic anthropologists have been called

9 upon to identify human remains, skeletal remains

10 usually, decomposed remains, remains where there's a

11 question of identity. They've been asked to analyse

12 and examine the skeleton, determine the sex, the race

13 when appropriate, the age, stature. Sometimes we could

14 tell about handedness, what side the person favours

15 when they use their hands. Do interpretation of

16 skeletal trauma, and sometimes we can tell something

17 about how a person lived their life or what kinds of

18 traumas they may have suffered during life.

19 More recently, in the last two decades in the

20 United States, forensic anthropologists have become

21 more involved with fleshed remains, burnt remains in

22 the autopsy setting, as well as in the recovery of

23 remains at crime scenes.

24 Q. Where does your expertise, which is forensic

25 anthropology, fit in with the actual exhumations

Page 3727

1 which -- we've heard, as you know, from an

2 archaeologist who's a digger. How does a bone man, an

3 anthropologist, get involved in archaeology?

4 A. Well, it's a crime scene and that's part it.

5 I do have a smattering of archaeology, but, of course,

6 the work that we do in these sorts of teams are great

7 endeavours with many, many people involved, and so I

8 did have very good archaeologists working with for me

9 and with me, Becky Saunders from the United States,

10 Fronimis Coso [phoen] From Guatemala, and, you know,

11 various people with other skills. So they could

12 compensate my lack of certain skills in areas.

13 Q. You mentioned that part of your job as an

14 anthropologist was the examination of bones, bone

15 trauma. How did you work with the forensic

16 pathologist? Can you explain what a forensic

17 pathologist does and how you connect with it, realising

18 that we're going to be hearing from some pathologists

19 soon?

20 A. A forensic pathologist is a medical doctor.

21 I'm a Ph.D, Doctor of Philosophy. The forensic

22 pathologist, of course, performs autopsy examinations

23 and makes the medical opinion as to the cause of

24 death. But the pathologist routinely deals with

25 fleshed remains, and more and more as the flesh

Page 3728

1 disappears and the bones come forth, the anthropologist

2 is more involvement. So we actually compliment each

3 other. For skeletal remains, we may assist the

4 pathologist in the interpretation of trauma, and then

5 they take this information from us and they incorporate

6 it into their determination of the cause of death. But

7 for the most part, what we're doing is reconstructing

8 fragmented bones, putting them back together,

9 determining the sex, the age, stature of them, the

10 bones themselves.

11 Q. Now, can you give us a little bit, just a

12 brief rundown on what you were doing in Rwanda before

13 coming to Bosnia? A little bit about those projects.

14 A. Okay. In September 1995, I did an assessment

15 for the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda, for

16 ICTR, to determine what -- of the Prosecution's

17 priority of graves would be, lend themselves to

18 excavation and forensic investigation.

19 Q. Go ahead.

20 A. And then subsequently, from the 15th of

21 December through the 22nd of February, 1995/1996, we

22 excavated and did the examinations on a large grave in

23 Kibuye, Rwanda, a grave that contained or involved 496

24 individuals, and then another smaller forensic

25 investigation was gone in Kigali, Rwanda. At that

Page 3729

1 time, I was the forensic advisor or the ICTR.

2 Q. Then in the summer of 1995, did you come over

3 to be in charge of the exhumations for Bosnia?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. Now, as a person that was associated with the

6 pathologists, can you give us a little background?

7 We've heard about the archaeology site and the

8 procedures there, but can you give us a little

9 background on what happens once the bodies arrive to

10 the morgue, especially in relation to your expertise as

11 we'll leave some of the medical information for the

12 pathologists?

13 A. I think, as the Court appreciates, at this

14 time the bodies arrive in varying conditions.

15 Sometimes they're parts of bodies, sometimes they're

16 skeletons, and sometimes they're bodies with a

17 significant amount of flesh on them.

18 Once the bodies -- the bodies are removed

19 from our refrigerated containers from the numbered,

20 sealed bags that they were regularly placed in, and

21 they're photographed as they're opened, and then the

22 pathologist and the radiologist look through the

23 remains and pass them under a fluoroscope to find any

24 projectiles that might be in the remains.

25 Then the pathologist proceeds with their

Page 3730

1 autopsy examination, removing clothing, evidence, and

2 doing their external and internal examination.

3 The evidence then is passed on to evidence

4 technicians and photographers for their processing.

5 At that time, if it's a skeletal remains, the

6 anthropologist gets involved relatively soon doing an

7 inventory and cleaning the bones that are necessary for

8 us to make our determinations, or reconstructing

9 bones. If it's a fleshed remains, then at the behest

10 of the pathologist, we'll do any reconstruction that

11 they wish us to do, and then we have a set group of

12 bones which we do remove from the remains and clean and

13 use for our estimations of sex and age, et cetera.

14 Q. In the situation where you just have body

15 parts and it's difficult or impossible to tell from

16 that part alone how many people are involved, do you

17 determine a minimum number of people from the various

18 body parts?

19 A. Yes. That was an issue in a few instances in

20 1996, but it has become a great issue since then.

21 Q. All right. So I think --

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honours, Mr. Jose Pablo,

23 who has dealt with these issues previous where there

24 were many more numbers involved, I think we would like,

25 at this point, to leave the explanation of the minimum

Page 3731

1 number calculation to him. Otherwise, we'll be

2 repeating ourselves, and it is more important to

3 Mr. Pablo, but of course, Dr. Haglund can discuss that

4 should the need arise.

5 Q. Now, could you -- we have your report which

6 is Exhibit number 207/1, and could you open that to

7 page 32 and place that on the ELMO so that we can see

8 that.

9 Now, you were speaking generally of some of

10 the work that you do in the morgue. Can you explain

11 that photograph and how it would have been incorporated

12 into your work?

13 A. Yes. This is a fragmented cranium or skull

14 minus the lower jaw, and what we've done here is placed

15 the pieces together and glued them together. You can

16 see there are multiple fragments. Here's one, here's

17 one here, here's one here, and et cetera. By

18 conjoining these fragments and putting them together,

19 then the pathologist can look at this gunshot wound,

20 and tell its sequence relative to other trauma that

21 might be in the cranium and to get a better idea of

22 entrance wounds versus exit wounds, et cetera. It

23 helps them in their analysis.

24 Q. So an anthropologist would have assembled all

25 these various parts and glued it together?

Page 3732

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And can you point out on this particular

3 exhibit where you see particular wounds, and describe

4 how you know that?

5 A. Well, this is an entrance gunshot wound. If

6 we could just see the back side of it in a good

7 picture, you would see that the back side of it and the

8 direction the bullet is proceeding has a bevelled

9 contour around the circumference of the entrance wound.

10 Q. And you're referring to the skull on the

11 upper part of the frame, the small hole?

12 A. Yes, to the small hole here. Then there was

13 some other trauma that went on in this, and not seeing

14 the front, I can't appreciate what it is. But the

15 fracture lines emanating from this gunshot wound ran

16 like in a piece of glass. If you have one trauma to a

17 piece of glass, the lines radiate out. If you have a

18 subsequent trauma, the lines would radiate out but stop

19 at the line made by the first trauma. And you see this

20 kind of phenomena here.

21 Q. And the bottom photograph, is that the same

22 skull?

23 A. That's the same skull, and it shows the exit

24 wound derived from the trauma on the other side of

25 the -- at the entrance.

Page 3733

1 Q. And this is the kind of thing you do to

2 assist the pathology in the cause of death?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. All right. Well, let's get you to Bosnia in

5 1995.

6 You did a series of exhumations of mass

7 graves, and let's start with the first grave you did.

8 Can you tell us a little bit about that and what you

9 were able to conclude from the excavation?

10 A. This is looking westerly down a dirt road

11 that runs through the Cerska Valley here. We have a

12 high embankment down the northerly side of the road,

13 and we have a slope or an embankment off of the

14 southerly side of the road.

15 Quite briefly, for 30 metres along this road

16 there were bodies that had been placed on the surface

17 and buried for an extension -- for about six metres

18 down the slope. Our investigation of this site first

19 involved looking at the surface. And on this side of

20 the road, more dense, next to the embankment on the

21 northerly side of the road --

22 Q. Could you indicate, when you say "this side

23 of the road", for the record --

24 A. On the northerly side of the road. On the

25 far side of the road from the grave were cartridge

Page 3734

1 casings strewn along the whole 32,5-metre length where

2 the bodies had been deposited.

3 After clearing the vegetation from the grave

4 on the embankment side and collecting these cartridges,

5 we then exhumed 150 male individuals. They were men

6 and boys. They -- 149 of them died of gunshot wounds.

7 The majority died of multiple gunshot wounds, some of

8 them with six, nine, and one with upwards to 20 gunshot

9 wounds. They were all males. Their mean ages range

10 from 14 to men in their 50s. Two of the youngest were

11 between 11 and 15. We do their age assessments as

12 ranges, because it's not an exact science.

13 There were ligatures used to bind many of

14 these individuals' wrists or arms behind their backs.

15 We recovered 48 such ligatures. Twenty-four of those

16 were in place, still holding the arms behind the back,

17 and 23 were associated with other remains.

18 I think the story that this grave tells is

19 that 150 men and boys, maybe all at once or separately,

20 were lined up along this side of the road; that their

21 killers were on the opposite side of the road next to

22 the bank; that they shot these individuals in a

23 spraying-type fashion; that the cartridges were ejected

24 from their weapons, where we found them and collected

25 them from the road. And when this was done -- you

Page 3735

1 can't maybe appreciate it -- but there's a large gouge

2 of earth that has been removed by machine from this

3 side of the road, and that --

4 Q. For the record, that reflects the opposite

5 side of the road on the left side of the photograph?

6 A. On the northern side of the road. It was

7 borrowed from the northern side of the road and used to

8 cover up the bodies that now lay on the surface of the

9 embankment.

10 JUDGE RIAD: Excuse me. Can I understand

11 what's the meaning of a sprayed shot, "in a

12 spraying-type fashion" as you expressed? Thank you.

13 A. I'm using the -- coining the words of the

14 pathologist who did this summary, about his assessment

15 that because of the multiple gunshot wounds that

16 covered many, many body areas, that the weapons were

17 sort of just not aimed specifically but sort of just

18 like this [indicates], and he called that spraying.

19 JUDGE RIAD: So they were automatic?

20 A. Yes. It would be automatic weapons, yes.

21 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: And also for clarification I

23 should note that --

24 Q. Dr. Haglund, you work in close connection

25 with the pathologists, and you have reviewed these

Page 3736

1 final summary reports of the pathologists. Unlike

2 Professor Wright, who stopped at the grave, you're

3 dealing with a lot of pathology issues here; is that

4 correct?

5 A. Yes. I collated the reports.

6 Q. And you also assisted the pathologists, as

7 you've shown us, with bone trauma and other issues?

8 A. Yes, with the caveat that I'm not a medical

9 doctor.

10 Q. This has been on ongoing debate somewhat

11 between the two professions over the years, has it not?

12 A. Yes, that's right, but I refer to medical

13 doctors for medical opinions.

14 Q. And what do you base your conclusion of the

15 story on? Can you tell us why -- did you see any marks

16 of heavy equipment used, or how do you know that heavy

17 equipment was used to get soil from that side of the

18 road?

19 A. I think just a magnitude of the soil removed

20 and the reach that would have to have been made to get

21 the soil down, I assume it was a machine. And it's the

22 cartridge casings -- the distribution of the cartridge

23 casings and the fact that as this dirt was removed by

24 the machine from the northern side of the road, many of

25 those cartridge casings were also picked up and

Page 3737

1 included in the fill of the grave, along with the

2 bodies, and subsequently there have been some

3 connections made, I believe, with those.

4 Q. Were you able to tell from the wire ligatures

5 whether or not -- well, you've got 150 bodies total and

6 about 48 wore ligatures. Were they bunched together,

7 the 48, or were they separated throughout the grave?

8 Can we make anything of those details?

9 A. The individuals with the ligatures were

10 randomly disbursed in the grave above, below, and in

11 between other bodies. As the individuals were shot,

12 they either fell over the side or subsequently were

13 rolled over the side. So many of them rolled further

14 down the hill, where they piled up, and some of them

15 still remained on the hillside.

16 Q. So is it your opinion that this is a primary

17 grave?

18 A. This is a primary, undisturbed body disposal

19 site. I think as the previous witness pointed out,

20 technically it's not a grave, no hole was dug, but it

21 is a repository with human remains, yes.

22 Q. And what do you base your conclusion that

23 it's not disturbed on?

24 A. The remains were relatively intact, as we

25 would assume they would be, if they were deposited in

Page 3738

1 that location as fleshed remains.

2 This was a grave where decomposition was

3 accelerated more than we would expect in deeper graves

4 that are more protected. The decomposition was

5 accelerated for many reasons.

6 One, it was a shallow grave. This surface of

7 the embankment was exposed to the sun for much of the

8 day, which warmed up that shallow environment and then

9 accelerated the decomposition process.

10 The cover -- the soil and the cover was

11 relatively gravelly, and so that it was relatively

12 loosely compacted also. And also located on a slope

13 like this, the drainage was very good, which also kept

14 the remains more dry than they would if they would have

15 been on a flat surface and other environments that

16 we've experienced in Bosnia. So many of the remains

17 were well advanced in decomposition and partially

18 skeletalised.

19 MR. McCLOSKEY: And for the record, this

20 exhibit is 16/3.

21 Q. Let's go to the next exhumation, and that was

22 the exhumation known at Nova Kasaba 96, since it was --

23 excuse me. Nova Kasaba, yes, 96.

24 You have put what has been marked Exhibit

25 14/4 on, the only piece of photography we're using for

Page 3739

1 this particular grave. But again can you tell us the

2 results of the excavation and the results of your

3 examination of the bodies?

4 A. Just to orient ourselves, this is the main

5 road, highway. We're looking at two fields, one field

6 to the right and one field to the left [indicates].

7 It's separated by a hedge row of bushes. You see some

8 light-coloured areas. These are areas of disturbance.

9 Q. And that's -- if you could just note for the

10 record where the arrows are pointed in KS-1 and 2.

11 A. Yes, and the arrows are pointing and the

12 letters indicate four graves, NSK -- Nova Kasaba grave

13 number 1, grave number 2, grave number 3 and grave

14 number 4. You can see the location of each of these

15 graves is marked by a smear of disturbed surface soil;

16 a very large smear on this side to the right, and to

17 the left of the hedge, a more medium-size smear, and a

18 very small smear up here.

19 Nova Kasaba grave 1 was a shallow grave. It

20 contained seven men. Nova Kasaba 2 was a deeper grave,

21 about one and a half metres. It contained 19 men.

22 Nova Kasaba 3 contained six men. And when I'm saying

23 "men", men and boys, basically. I should correct

24 myself. And Nova Kasaba 4 contained one elderly man.

25 The seven individuals in the grave number 1

Page 3740

1 all had their hands bound behind their back. They all

2 died of gunshot wounds. Of the 19 males recovered from

3 Nova Kasaba 2, six -- 13 of the 19 had their hands

4 bound behind their backs. The six -- there were six

5 males in Nova Kasaba 3. Five of the six had their

6 hands bound behind their back. And Nova Kasaba 4, as I

7 previously stated, was a single individual and a

8 skeleton.

9 In summary, all the individuals were males.

10 The mean age ranged from about 17 to men in their 50s.

11 Thirty-two of the thirty-three individuals died of

12 gunshot wounds, and there was a real bias towards

13 gunshot wounds, multiple gunshot wounds, and gunshot

14 wounds in the head. The 33rd individual died of

15 massive head wounds, but according to the pathologist's

16 report, he was unable to determine the instrument that

17 caused that death but that the head wounds, he was

18 sure, was the cause of the death. And 27 of the 33,

19 again, all had their hands bound behind their backs.

20 Q. Were you able to make -- come to any opinion

21 regarding whether or not any of the individuals died or

22 were shot at the location of the grave?

23 A. In grave number NSK-2, the grave containing

24 the 19 individuals, some were in kneeling positions,

25 some were in sitting positions with their heads slumped

Page 3741

1 forward, and these were positions that, in my

2 experience, would not be -- we would not encounter by

3 individuals being thrown into a grave. It would be my

4 opinion that they most likely were in those positions

5 in those graves and shot in the grave.

6 Q. And were you able to determine whether these

7 graves were dug by hand or by machine?

8 A. They were relatively shallow graves, but the

9 smear, the disturbed area, if we were digging graves by

10 hand, I would expect -- for instance, the Nova Kasaba 1

11 grave was just probably two times bigger than the

12 pointer size [indicates], and the grave Nova Kasaba 2

13 maybe covered three or four times the pointer size

14 [indicates]. If they were dug by hand, I think we

15 would see localised activity in the area where the

16 grave was dug. The smear to me indicates the driving

17 around of machinery, the movement. And this is -- gets

18 relatively damp, and the first, oh, possibly several

19 centimetres of this soil is muddy and churned up from

20 this activity, and I believe that's what we're seeing.

21 We also see tracks going into the area from the road.

22 Q. Yes. What is that? Were you able to make

23 out what that big area of disturbed earth is above

24 NKS-4? It's not where the grave is pointed, but just

25 above it there is a very large area relative of --

Page 3742

1 A. Well, that's a relatively steep embankment,

2 and if a machine was used, it would have had to slide

3 down there and enter it that way, I believe.

4 Q. And were you able to see any indications

5 whether this was a primary or a disturbed grave?

6 A. I'm sorry, these are all primary, undisturbed

7 graves. And by "primary", I'm meaning that these are

8 the graves that the individuals were placed in or were

9 killed in and is the original position -- at the

10 original location at which they were buried.

11 Q. Let's talk about the next graves which were

12 referred to as Lazete, and we now refer to that as

13 Lazete in the area of Orahovac. And the first

14 photograph is 20/2, and if you could put that on the

15 ELMO and tell us the story of that grave.

16 A. Here we have an overview of the area of the

17 Lazete graves. There's a main road that's traversing

18 up from the right-hand corner towards the centre --

19 Q. Excuse me, Dr. Haglund. We need to pull

20 that -- look at it on your screen and centre it.

21 A. I can see it just fine. Thank you.

22 There's a road that traverses towards the

23 centre of the picture from the upper right-hand

24 corner. That's the main road. We see the label

25 "Lazete 1" here, and this was noted by -- was

Page 3743

1 designated by the original investigators that looked at

2 the site. So this is a separate grave. We're

3 interested in the grave that comes along a small rural

4 road, crosses under a raised railroad track underpass,

5 and is located in a field behind that raised area. So

6 now we're looking at a large area of disturbance that

7 directly abuts and is alongside a wooded hillside which

8 is this dark area off to the right of the picture.

9 Q. That's designated --

10 A. LZ-2.

11 Q. -- in the photograph. Thank you. Okay.

12 And what can you tell us about this particular

13 excavation and what did you find?

14 A. This particular excavation was actually

15 located in a drainage area where it had a very high

16 water-table and where water ran down from the fields

17 and the hills above it.

18 Q. Why don't we look at the next exhibit, 20/8,

19 for that explanation.

20 A. From this view now, we can see the raised

21 railroad track bed, the underpass which you need to

22 access this site from. The road, the little road to

23 the farm, passes across the midline of the section

24 running left to right here.

25 We can see a large disturbed area here

Page 3744

1 towards the centre on the right-hand side of the

2 picture, this darker coloured area, and this is an

3 area -- the area of disturbance that we saw on the

4 former aerial imagery.

5 Q. Could we go to the next exhibit, which you

6 should have before you, and could you tell us the

7 exhibit number as it's marked on there? It should be

8 "OTP," on the back.

9 A. It says "IT9833T."

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just one second. I'm sorry.

11 A. Okay. I'll do it myself now, thank you. OTP

12 Exhibit 213.


14 Q. And Exhibit 213 is just out of your report,

15 is it not?

16 A. That's correct. It's an overall map that

17 shows the Lazete 2 general area. To orient you,

18 running from the top to the right here is the railroad

19 embankment; again, the field road; and we're looking at

20 the disturbed area that's outlined in blue towards the

21 lower left-hand area of the disturbed area that we saw

22 in the aerial imagery.

23 You'll see one, two, three rectangular

24 trenches which were test trenches that were dug to

25 locate the graves. Then you see two red localised

Page 3745

1 areas, and those are the graves we've designated

2 Lazete 2A, and Lazete 2B.

3 Q. Now, let me ask you, do those reflect two

4 separate pits or can you explain that?

5 A. We were unable to determine if this was a

6 large trench that was made to deposit the remains in or

7 if they were two separate pits. It was an unseasonably

8 wet year in 1996, and we ran into the rainy season,

9 which is not the best conditions under which to do some

10 of this work, and so it did, I think, obscure some of

11 our findings. So the answer to that question is no,

12 that's ambiguous to us at this point.

13 Q. And can you explain those two designations

14 and what they reflect?

15 A. Yes. As I just said, grave A is what we call

16 in our report LZ, Lazete 2, grave A; and Lazete 2,

17 grave B.

18 Q. Why don't you tell us about each one.

19 A. If I might show the next exhibit. Would that

20 be possible?

21 Q. Certainly.

22 A. Okay.

23 Q. And that's Exhibit 214.

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: And if the ELMO could focus

25 on the photograph and not at the drawing underneath.

Page 3746

1 Focus and maybe blow-up on the photograph. So if we

2 could have that photograph so it's taking up the whole

3 screen, so we get a bit of a blow-up on it, please.

4 Zero down on that photograph.

5 A. It's relatively blurred, but ...

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just go down towards it and

7 centre it in there. It should be able to fill the

8 screen. There we go. Okay. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

9 Back it off a little bit so we just get the

10 photograph.

11 A. Okay. That's excellent.

12 This is looking down into the grave pit.

13 It's about a 5 by 6 metre area or mass of bodies.


15 Q. Is this A or B?

16 A. This is LZ-2A. You can see individual

17 remains, this individual here lying face up, for

18 instance, and basically underneath this whole area are

19 bodies below it. This is just the top layer of bodies

20 before they've been fully exposed and removed.

21 This mass of bodies extends to the floor of

22 the grave, which is approximately 2 1/2 to 3 metres

23 deep, depending on what area you measured it.

24 It contained 112 individuals. These

25 individuals were relatively complete remains. This

Page 3747

1 whole site was -- contained these two separate

2 assemblages of bodies, A and B. It contained one

3 skeletal remains on the surface, and it also contained

4 about 98 separate units of body parts, parts ranging

5 all the way from pieces of bodies, like an arm or

6 whatever, to bones, individuals bones and fragments of

7 bones, and their distribution is quite telling as we go

8 on. But this was a one single basic pile of bodies of

9 112 individuals.

10 The next pile of bodies or group of bodies in

11 the grave, LZ-2B, is significantly different. And

12 that's Exhibit OTP 215. We'll need to back down again

13 but not right now.

14 What we see here, LZ-2A, was an undisturbed

15 primary grave. Here we're looking at a disturbed

16 primary grave. In this particular grave, what we're

17 seeing is groups of bodies that are separated from each

18 other. We have a group here.

19 If we could just back off, I think, a little

20 bit so I can get the little schematic up in the corner

21 that would be helpful. Thank you so much. I'll move

22 this down.

23 This little shaded area, the shaded areas up

24 here, represent isolated islands of human remains or

25 bodies. So "A" would be this isolated island in the

Page 3748

1 centre towards the top. "B" would be this isolated

2 group of remains here, and on and on. We have one here

3 towards the left.

4 And what we see here also is that along the

5 margins, between spaces there is no bodies at all. And

6 along these margins, for instance, the lower boundary

7 of "A," we see a relatively straight line. And what we

8 have here is the evidence of bodies having been removed

9 from the grave, removed with a machine, most likely a

10 backhoe, a machine that would reach down into the body

11 mass, encounter it, press them into the ground,

12 transect whatever bodies it happened to encounter, and

13 pull them out of the grave. So in these voids or empty

14 spaces between where the bodies are, bodies have been

15 removed.

16 I might also point out the discolouration of

17 the soil, this bluish/green discolouration that

18 contrasts with the surrounding soil, and that's from

19 leaching of decomposition products around these -- this

20 group of bodies, phenomena that's been referred to, I

21 think, previously.

22 But if we might look closer at that

23 individual who is extending out into the areas that the

24 bodies have been removed from --

25 Q. I think we have in the next exhibit a little

Page 3749

1 better shot of that.

2 A. Yes. This is remains number 6, and then

3 subsequently we'll look at remains number 13 and 14,

4 which are under number 6.

5 This is Exhibit 216. To help you appreciate

6 this, this is a belt, and these are the lower

7 extremities and pants of this individual.

8 Q. For the record, can we show that he's talking

9 about the body marked number 6.

10 A. And his legs extend into the body mass

11 towards the upper part of the picture.

12 Below we see his waist and his chest, and we

13 see about the area of the breast that this body has

14 been transected, basically chopped apart, and that the

15 upper part, the arms and the neck and the head have,

16 been removed from the grave.

17 All along these sharp margins in this grave

18 that separate groups of bodies from areas where bodies

19 are not present, we see this phenomena; transected

20 bodies from this removal process.

21 When body number 6 is removed -- it was

22 positioned right here between body 17 and 13 -- we find

23 the same -- a similar phenomena for these bodies. In

24 this case, this man's head and upper part of his body

25 is still in the body group, and his legs have been

Page 3750

1 severed as the body removal process removed the bodies

2 on the other side of him.

3 Q. So could you give us the basic conclusions as

4 for numbers and blindfolds for the people in the

5 primary undisturbed grave, Lazete 2A?

6 A. Well, the undisturbed grave LZ-2A, had

7 112 individuals, and they were all males. They -- I

8 haven't separated these all out. I think I have them

9 as a composite. A hundred and twenty-seven of these

10 165 bodies from this site -- incidentally, I neglected

11 to mention that LZ-2B has a minimum number mostly -- a

12 minimum number of 52 people. Fifty-two plus the 112,

13 plus the 1 skeletal remains that we found at Lazete 2

14 was the total of 165 individuals. Their ages range

15 between 16 and 45 years of age.

16 A signature of Lazete 2A and B were that

17 there were a total of 104 blindfolds recovered from

18 these remains. Seventy-seven blindfolded individuals

19 were removed from grave A, and 26 or 50 per cent of the

20 individuals in grave B were blindfolded.

21 Q. How about cause of death?

22 A. Well, the cause of death, 158 of these 165

23 individuals died of gunshot wounds, in seven cases, the

24 cause of death was undetermined, and multiple gunshot

25 wounds accounted for wounds in 108 of these

Page 3751

1 individuals.

2 Q. Okay. Now, let's go to your -- the next

3 grave site, which you refer to as Pilica, and now we

4 call it -- refer to it as the Branjevo Military Farm.

5 And you're now going to Exhibit 24/4.

6 A. This aerial imagery depicts a view of the

7 buildings of the farm proper and surrounding fields.

8 The buildings are labelled -- next to the road here,

9 and they're at the mid-right of the image. Then if we

10 proceed towards the left, past an area of brush,

11 through the field, we come to a -- labelled a burial

12 area, and that's the location of the grave at the

13 Pilica grave site.

14 The grave measured 28 by approximately

15 5 metres, and it ranged from 2 1/2 to 3 metres in

16 depth.

17 Q. Could you go to the next exhibit, 217. It

18 gives us a shot of the sort of finished product of the

19 empty grave.

20 A. If that could be sharpened. We're looking

21 from one end of the grave to the other, and with these

22 individuals standing on the floor of the grave, you can

23 appreciate the depth of the grave, which is about in

24 excess of 3 metres, about 3 metres. You might also

25 appreciate -- I don't know if the colour shows up --

Page 3752

1 again this discolouration that's associated with the

2 decomposing flesh in this environment and soil here.

3 Although the grave space itself was 28 metres

4 long, only 14 per cent of it was occupied, the floor

5 space, was occupied by a pile of human remains, a

6 minimal number of 132 individuals.

7 Also, throughout this fill were some body

8 parts. This gets a little complicated, but the grave

9 itself had 53 complete individuals in this group of

10 bodies, 23 nearly complete individuals, and another --

11 let's see -- hundred and -- over a hundred body parts.

12 Actually, about 170 body parts.

13 To give you an idea of what we were labelling

14 as body parts, ten individuals were individuals that

15 were missing their heads; five body part units were

16 just upper extremities; sixteen were individuals who

17 were transected at the torso, and so on; and then there

18 were individual bones and bone fragments.

19 Q. Would you go to the next exhibit, 212. That

20 also gives us an idea of the size and scope of the

21 grave. Tell us a little bit about what this is. We

22 need to back it off again.

23 A. Well this depicts some of the -- actually, we

24 could back off a tad more and we can see the lip of the

25 grave. You can see the workers down in the grave, and

Page 3753

1 what you can see above is the archaeologist who is

2 doing the mapping, and at this time, the

3 laser-generated mapping equipment is hitting a target

4 in this pole, and we're actually delineating a body.

5 We're measuring where the head is, where the knees are,

6 a procedure that Dr. Wright has previously mentioned.

7 One of the things you need to appreciate, I

8 think, with these remains that are in deep graves that

9 are for the most part fleshed, in fact, so well fleshed

10 that they actually have pristine tattoos, its a very

11 preservative environment in deep graves, but bodies are

12 very pliable, but they're very chaotic and entangled

13 amongst each other, with arms underneath another body

14 and maybe legs overlapped with another body. So

15 it's -- to remove them from the grave involves maybe

16 reaching beneath several bodies to extract an arm and a

17 hand, and rolling the body over so that another body

18 could be moved out of the way and so on, and this is

19 the process by which we need to extract them. It's not

20 as simple as one might envision with a skeleton that's

21 just lying there and you can expose the bones and then

22 remove it. It's a wicked game of Pick-up Sticks, only

23 the Pick-up Sticks, if you've ever played that

24 childhood game, have arms and legs.

25 Q. Could you go to the next exhibit and could

Page 3754

1 you explain that? It's 218. If we could zero in on

2 the top half of that exhibit. Can you explain what

3 this represents?

4 A. Well, this was a questionable luxury of

5 having a very damp environment, that we were able to

6 expose many bodies. Of course, when bodies are so

7 entangled, you need to expose several surrounding a

8 particular individual because one individual may be

9 entwined with other individuals around them.

10 But we see, looking down into the grave, the

11 top of an assemblage of approximately 130 persons. We

12 can see, for instance, the individual labelled

13 number 3. He's lying sort of on his side with his face

14 facing towards the upper part of the picture, so you

15 can see his hands are bound behind his back.

16 We have another individual over here that's

17 bound, another one down here. All told in this group

18 of remains, 77 people had their hands bound behind

19 their back. To give you a little -- the ages of these

20 people actually -- of course, they're all males, and I

21 won't give -- when you're dealing with minimal numbers,

22 sometimes you have more males than you do have bodies,

23 and sometimes you have more causes of death than you

24 have bodies, because you may have had causes of death

25 for different parts and you don't know what parts go

Page 3755

1 together.

2 Q. Is this the only grouped mass of bodies in

3 that whole grave?

4 A. Yes. Like I say, it occupied -- this group

5 of bodies occupied the far extreme of one end of the

6 grave and the rest of the grave is empty.

7 Just to appreciate a little bit more of the

8 ligatures, if I may, this is also a picture that was

9 previously shown, I believe.

10 Q. This is Exhibit 219. If we could focus on

11 the top half of that photograph.

12 A. That's correct. You can see in this case,

13 this is an individual subsequently identified, and he's

14 lying on his left side, you can see, and you can see

15 his hands are bound at the wrists. This is an

16 individual that has an artificial leg, and here's his

17 hands here, bound behind his back.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. Then, of course, other parts of the grave had

20 rather gruesome parts of remains. If I might just show

21 this last exhibit, 211. This is the kind of body parts

22 that we were finding in the grave, severed head and

23 neck.

24 Q. Finding these kinds of severed body parts as

25 well as this one clumped group of 132, what kind of

Page 3756

1 conclusions did you reach about whether this was a

2 disturbed or undisturbed? Can you tell us about your

3 analysis there?

4 A. I think it was ambiguous. One would think --

5 Q. I think we can turn the -- could you take

6 that off the --

7 A. Yes, let's do that. I think we're done,

8 anyway, with the photographs.

9 One of the questions that arises with these

10 graves is why there is such a big grave space and so

11 little of the grave occupied? That's a question I

12 tried to answer, really not coming up with much

13 result.

14 The group of bodies in the pile --

15 Q. Excuse me, Dr. Haglund. I've just been

16 informed by my legs and by the time and colleagues it

17 may be a good time for a break.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank

19 you, Mr. McCloskey. I was going to draw your attention

20 to this. I think that we need a break, a 20-minute

21 break now.

22 --- Recess taken at 12.40 p.m.

23 --- On resuming at 1.04 p.m.

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The hearing

25 is resumed. Mr. McCloskey, you may continue, please.

Page 3757

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

2 Q. Dr. Haglund, could you briefly, just to bring

3 us back to where we were, summarise the contents of

4 this grave, where the clusters were, where the body

5 parts were, and then, as you were getting into, give us

6 your analysis of what you believe that shows us?

7 A. Yes. As I previously mentioned, this was a

8 very large grave, 28 metres long, and at one far

9 extremity the major portion of the remains of 132

10 minimal number of individuals was located. Also in

11 this grave, in parts of it were 188 -- parts of 188

12 other human remains; bones, fragments, heads, et

13 cetera. The pile, the one massive body, did have

14 partial remains in them, mixed with them, and also in

15 this particular mass of bodies there was vegetation and

16 there was a soil intermixed with and amongst them.

17 The question then is: "Was or was not the

18 grave disturbed?" It's a large area. Only a

19 fraction -- 14 per cent of the area of floor space of

20 the grave was utilised. If it was not disturbed, we

21 need to explain how bodies got dismembered and pulled

22 apart. One possible explanation could be that the

23 bodies were dismembered, many of them, in the process

24 of putting them in the grave.

25 The soil and vegetation intermixed with the

Page 3758

1 remains in the major body mass would indicate to me

2 that the bodies were probably placed into the grave by

3 being scooped off of the ground surface in the field,

4 where they had been killed, and maybe a front-end

5 loader machine, and then loads of those bodies were

6 then driven into the grave and dumped into that pile.

7 It's possible, during that kind of process, that maybe

8 in the scooping up of the bodies from where they lay,

9 they could have tumbled and maybe been torn apart.

10 That's possible. Then that might explain how, in the

11 major body mass, you would have complete bodies and

12 then parts of bodies, and that other parts of bodies

13 may have been dropped along the way as the grave was

14 being made.

15 The other possibility is that, of course,

16 that the grave was disturbed. We would still have an

17 explanation for the parts of bodies in the major mass

18 of the body mass. In this loading process, this one

19 single group of bodies does not have the strict

20 delineation where, you know, it looked like somebody

21 had removed bodies and then cut them where there was a

22 margin, as we did at the Lezete grave. But it's

23 conceivable, like at the Lezete grave, maybe we had a

24 large trench and piles of bodies next to each other,

25 separated. That's another possibility, and that if the

Page 3759

1 grave was then disturbed, that that mass of bodies that

2 we did find were left behind and that the parts of

3 bodies that we found were residual being left behind

4 from the disturbing effort. And I think it's a bit

5 ambiguous. Other information I've heard lends me to

6 believe that it is a disturbed grave.

7 Q. So at the time you were writing your report,

8 you didn't have access to the information regarding the

9 secondary graves, their analysis and --

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. [Inaudible] that information?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. Now, we do have the cluster of bodies in the

14 bottom of that grave, and I just want to ask you, if

15 you can, if we have a concentration of bodies similar

16 to the cluster that we actually see in the bottom of

17 that grave and that concentration is throughout that

18 grave, is that grave big enough to hold 1.200 people at

19 that concentration that we see?

20 A. Well, this is a rosary of "if"s, and it's

21 rather speculative. If -- if the complete floor of the

22 grave was packed with a density and a height of the

23 bodies that we found in the one body mass, yes, it

24 could hold seven to nine hundred people. But realise

25 the grave was three metres deep. It could hold much

Page 3760

1 more. But that is -- I think that tiptoes into

2 speculation, which I don't feel I would like to warrant

3 an opinion on.

4 Q. Now, most of your testimony has been

5 regarding the graves and the excavation, but as a

6 forensic anthropologist, you also supervised the morgue

7 work and spent a lot of time helping the pathologists

8 in actually going through the anthropology work,

9 determining sex, age, minimum numbers; is that correct?

10 A. That's correct.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I am, Your Honours, not

12 going to have Dr. Haglund tell us how an anthropologist

13 determines sex and age at this point, of course, and

14 would save that for Jose Pablo, although he can

15 certainly answer that question if anyone would like to

16 know about it.

17 Q. Also, at the end of this very long summer,

18 did one or two of your young colleagues have some

19 criticism regarding your supervision of the archaeology

20 work?

21 A. Absolutely, yes.

22 Q. What was that about?

23 A. Well, there was some criticism raised

24 regarding the perceived rate and quality of the work.

25 Basically, that was the crux of it.

Page 3761

1 The ICTY convened an expert panel to look at

2 and interview these individuals, to look at their

3 criticisms, and the expert panel's opinion was that the

4 criticisms really had nothing to do with the quality,

5 did not jeopardise the scientific quality of the work,

6 and they added that it wasn't surprising to them to

7 have brought together people from disparate lands and

8 disparate backgrounds and experiences and not have some

9 different perceptions of how things should go.

10 Q. And more significantly, were there -- well,

11 did anyone -- were there any complaints regarding your

12 work at the morgue and your anthropology work?

13 A. Not that I'm aware of, but there was a

14 complain raised regarding the supervising pathologists

15 and the autopsy reports.

16 Q. And were those allegations that the

17 supervising pathologists, in some of the reports,

18 actually reviewed the reports and findings of other

19 pathologists and, in some cases, changed the cause of

20 death without notifying the underlying pathologist that

21 did the report?

22 A. Yes, I think in an effort to make things

23 uniform. But, yes, I think it was proven he did not

24 consult the other pathologists. And the panel, the

25 independent expert panel, also reviewed this issue, and

Page 3762

1 before they had reviewed it, I believe ICTY did take

2 all of the original autopsy reports, the autopsy -- the

3 ones that had been amended back to the original

4 pathologist, to have them review it, to make sure that

5 the autopsy reports were consistent -- the opinions

6 were consistent with their original opinions and to

7 verify that. And again the expert panel thought that

8 that was an appropriate way to handle that potential

9 misunderstanding and that there was nothing that would

10 jeopardise the scientific validity of findings because

11 of it.

12 Q. But were you aware that the expert panel did

13 conclude that it was inappropriate for the chief

14 pathologist to change the reports of others without

15 consulting them?

16 A. That's correct.

17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I have no

18 further questions.

19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,

20 Mr. McCloskey.

21 Professor Haglund, you are now going to

22 answer questions put to you by Mr. Visnjic on behalf of

23 the Defence.

24 Mr. Visnjic, you have the floor.

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you,

Page 3763

1 Mr. President.

2 Cross-examined by Mr. Visnjic:

3 Q. Good afternoon, sir.

4 Professor, could you tell us, in your

5 opinion, whether the number of identified bodies is

6 small, and what is the reason for this small number of

7 identifications?

8 A. I've not been appraised of the actual numbers

9 of the identifications exactly, I've not been following

10 that issue, although I know it's proceeded far beyond

11 what we originally had anticipated. But, yes, it's

12 understandable to me that there are so few personal

13 identifications if you require scientific rigorousness

14 for positive identification.

15 We're dealing -- if I just might give a

16 hypothetical. If we have a small grave in a local

17 community and we knew who should be buried in that

18 grave, that's one kind of problem. It's easier to

19 solve. But if you have potentially several thousand

20 individuals and they are scattered way away from their

21 home territory and they end up in graves that you do

22 not know which grave who ended up in, then it becomes a

23 great feat to interview members of 7.000 families to

24 find them, in the first place, and then to put together

25 a database, and then to find information enough on the

Page 3764

1 bodies to help one identify them.

2 One of the problems in these situations, of

3 course, is that circumstantially, you may have leads to

4 a couple of identities, but that's not a positive, to

5 find somebody's name on a piece of paper. That just

6 gives you an idea of who it might be. And the

7 information that's available for these individuals,

8 they are not fingerprints, they are not dental

9 information, they are not hospital information, they

10 are anecdotal information for the most part out of

11 people's memories. And in order to scientifically

12 identify someone, now we're left with the last resource

13 of doing DNA identification. That's expensive and this

14 is a great, large project. I know some progress is

15 being made on it. But, no, I am not surprised at the

16 small number of identifications.

17 Q. Thank you. You have already answered my next

18 question, Professor.

19 Among the bodies, was it possible, and on the

20 basis which parameters, to establish differences

21 between injuries that occurred during the person's

22 lifetime and those that occurred after death?

23 A. Yes, that is possible in many, many

24 occasions.

25 Q. Is it also possible to ascertain with

Page 3765

1 certainty, in the specific case of the grave site that

2 you investigated, which were the injuries that may have

3 occurred on the bodies during combat operations and

4 those that would be the result of executions?

5 A. I think one has to look at a mass grave as a

6 contextual situation, and when I look at a grave, for

7 instance Nova Kasaba grave number 4, and I see

8 19 individuals in that grave, and I see that they're

9 all shot, and I see that 13 of those individuals with

10 their hands bound behind their backs, it defies reason

11 to me that they would have been combat soldiers. And

12 it's similar in the other graves.

13 Q. My next question refers to this particular

14 grave at Nova Kasaba, Nova Kasaba 4. I think one body

15 was found there.

16 A. That's correct, yes. It was elderly

17 gentleman who had no determined cause of death. A

18 skeletal remains which is explainable because of the

19 relatively superficial nature of the body compared to

20 the depth of the ones that were fleshed at the same

21 site.

22 Q. Bearing in mind your previous observation,

23 can one leave open the possibility that that body may

24 have been brought there later on and buried there?

25 A. I think that's possible.

Page 3766

1 Q. During the examination-in-chief, you were

2 describing the grave Lazete 2. It seems to me that you

3 stated, at one point, that at the top of the grave a

4 skeleton was found.

5 A. It was not over the top of the grave. It was

6 a distance from the actual disturbed site, lying by

7 some bushes by the hillside. We recovered it because

8 it would not have been proper for us to leave a body

9 lying out in the open.

10 Whether it was actually connected with that

11 particular incident, I could not tell, it's just that

12 it was in the same location.

13 Q. Thank you. On the basis of the clothing

14 found on the bodies, is it possible to make any

15 conclusions as to whether those bodies were those of

16 civilians or soldiers or, rather, whether persons in

17 civilian clothes had any traces on them which could

18 lead to the conclusion that they were military men

19 clothed in civilian clothing?

20 A. I don't recall any indications on the remains

21 of the people dressed in civilian clothing that they

22 would have been military. However, in the Cerska

23 grave, in, I believe, Lazete, and, I believe, in the

24 Pilica grave, of all the people that were there, there

25 may have been maybe five or so individuals that may

Page 3767

1 have had -- one of them may have had military-type

2 trousers on or maybe a jacket, something like that.

3 But all the individuals were dressed -- of the 480 or

4 so, the majority -- the vast majority, except for less

5 than ten probably, were dressed in civilian clothing.

6 Q. Professor Haglund, is one of the parameters

7 distinguishing injuries in lifetime and after death the

8 colour of the bones, and to what extent is that

9 parameter important?

10 A. Excuse me. Would you repeat that? Are you

11 asking about distinguishing trauma after death or

12 before death; which?

13 Q. The difference between those injuries before

14 death and after death, the bone structure.

15 A. Yes. For dried bones that have been exposed

16 to the soil, yes, you can tell the difference between

17 post-mortem injuries versus injuries that occurred

18 pari-mortem or at or about the time of death.

19 Q. Is a different colour one of the elements?

20 A. Yes, but we're dealing with bones that are

21 completely skeletalised, and for the most part these

22 individuals were not completely skeletalised. Many of

23 them had very much flesh left on them. And one of the

24 indications of trauma that occurred during life, the

25 pathologist will find accompanying gunshot wounds, is

Page 3768

1 haemorrhaging around the areas where the trauma

2 occurred.

3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

4 with your indulgence, can I have a minute, please, to

5 consult?

6 Q. Professor Haglund, another question related

7 to the previous one. The time factor when determining

8 whether the injury was post-mortem or before is the

9 time when the injuries were discovered after death,

10 does it play a certain role?

11 A. I think if you're referring to fleshed

12 remains, I would like to defer to the medical experts,

13 the physicians, the pathologists who deal with the

14 fleshed remains, and that's their area of expertise.

15 If you want to talk about bones that are skeletalised

16 and lying in soil, then I'm happy to discourse on

17 those, but I'd like to stay within my area of

18 expertise.

19 Q. So we're only talking about bone injuries; is

20 that right?

21 A. In the majority of these cases they had bone

22 injuries, but when they have injuries in the context of

23 flesh, then I think that that's the best area for the

24 pathologist, because some of the questions you're

25 asking me also have to do with the characteristics of

Page 3769

1 the surrounding tissue, the soft tissue, and when the

2 anthropologist looks at bone, we clear the soft tissue

3 away so we can see the surface of the bone, and the

4 soft tissue is not a consideration in our analysis.

5 That's the provenance of the pathologist.

6 Q. On the basis of which indicators has it been

7 established that it was an execution, a murder, in the

8 case of all of the bodies? Could causes of death also

9 include suicide or combat?

10 A. Well, I just would like again to point out

11 that -- I have investigated many suicides. I have

12 never seen an individual with their hands bound behind

13 their back shoot themselves multiple times. Many of

14 these people have multiple injuries which are totally

15 inconsistent with the circumstances of suicide.

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

17 thank you. I have no further questions.

18 Thank you, Doctor.

19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you

20 very much, Mr. Visnjic.

21 Mr. McCloskey, do you have any

22 re-examination?

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President. I would

24 merely point out that we also would like Dr. Haglund's

25 CV marked as OPT Exhibit 222, which he has just

Page 3770

1 provided me.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We will

3 deal with all the exhibits at the end.

4 Judge Fouad Riad.

5 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you, Mr. President.

6 Questioned by the Court:

7 JUDGE RIAD: Good morning.

8 A. Good afternoon. Good morning. It's

9 afternoon. It's morning somewhere.

10 JUDGE RIAD: In Dutch there is a word for it,

11 but ...

12 I have been listening carefully to your very

13 clear testimony, and I would like just to have a few

14 explanations. One of them concerns the body parts

15 which you mentioned, because you said that you found

16 once 53 complete individuals and then 170 body parts,

17 either missing heads -- or 10 missing heads,

18 16 transected at the torso, and 5 upper extremities.

19 Now, how -- and you explained that later in some way by

20 saying that it could have been torn apart in the

21 loading or unloading.

22 For instance, the missing heads, ten missing

23 heads, would they be torn apart in the loading or

24 unloading?

25 A. It would seem more consistent -- if you mean

Page 3771

1 by "unloading", you mean disturbance of the grave and

2 removal from the grave, then it seems it would be more

3 consistent with that than with the placing of bodies in

4 the grave.

5 JUDGE RIAD: Were they cut in the same way?

6 A. No. No. It was very random.

7 JUDGE RIAD: The same thing applies to the

8 transected -- the bodies transected at the torso?

9 A. That's correct. It was very random. If I

10 might refer you -- I don't know what exhibit it is.

11 It's -- the Pilica report, page 60, table 7, might help

12 clarify some of this. Is that possible? Who might I

13 ask?

14 JUDGE RIAD: It's possible. If not, you

15 might explain it.

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: I believe you have your

17 report with you.

18 A. Yeah. I have my report with me, and

19 basically this is a table that summarises all

20 264 separate collection units that we took out of the

21 Pilica grave, and it does mention the complete

22 individuals of 53 and the 23 nearly completed

23 individuals, and then it has a part called "Sections of

24 Individuals," and there's ten bodies with missing

25 heads. And if we looked at the individual bodies, the

Page 3772

1 heads would have been taken off at different levels of

2 the neck. It's almost like it got caught in something

3 and then something gave way.

4 I might say that with the fresh bodies, it's

5 harder to transect and separate and dismember the

6 bodies, but with bodies that are more decomposed, they

7 come apart easier, and there are natural places in the

8 skeleton that tend to be weaker and so they come

9 apart.

10 So if we went down here, we have transected

11 torsos; missing upper extremities, lower extremities,

12 and then we have maybe just one arm with a hand; a

13 forearm. So it's very, very random and there's no

14 pattern to it. It's like a mindless machine did it,

15 you know.

16 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you for this answer. My

17 other question, or the last one, you said that there

18 were many causes of death even for one body. What

19 could these causes be?

20 A. These were -- let's see if I can put this in

21 a simple way. We would look at a body part, for

22 instance. Let's say we had a head here and we had a

23 gunshot wound to the head, and it's one of these body

24 parts. We can say that that's a lethal gunshot wound.

25 So that person could have died of that gunshot wound.

Page 3773

1 But let's say we also had a torso and we had multiple

2 gunshot wounds of the torso. That torso, that person

3 whom that torso would have belonged to, could have died

4 of those causes.

5 Now, if those are two different people, they

6 represent the parts of two different people, we have a

7 cause of death for one person if we can put them

8 together. But if we can't put them together, we have

9 two causes of death for two body parts that could

10 belong to the same person.

11 JUDGE RIAD: Because when you said two causes

12 of death I thought one cause would be the cholera,

13 another would be a gunshot, the third would be cut

14 throat, but it is all being shot?

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE RIAD: They are shot everywhere.

17 A. Yes.

18 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.

19 A. Thank you.

20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you

21 very much, Judge Fouad Riad.

22 Judge Wald.

23 JUDGE WALD: Professor Haglund, in your first

24 account of the Cerska Valley graves, you talked about a

25 likely scenario being that the 150 men and boys were

Page 3774

1 lined up along the side after road and then they were

2 shot by their killers from across the road, so that

3 they all had gunshots. Some had 6 to 9, and you said

4 one had 20. I'm wondering, even under spray shooting,

5 under what circumstances would one of these people have

6 gotten shot 20 times? I thought perhaps there was a

7 hypothesis. Maybe they tried to escape or something?

8 A. [No audible response]

9 Q. Okay.

10 My second question would be whether or not,

11 based on all of your experience with the several grave

12 sites, you would have any explanation or hypothesis of

13 the fact that insofar as I can see, all but Nova

14 Kasaba, you had basically one or in Lazete two grave

15 sites with relatively large numbers of bodies, body

16 parts, at least in one of the two graves. The number

17 has been sometimes 120, 132, numbers like that.

18 In Nova Kasaba you had a total, as I counted

19 up, of 36 bodies but separated into four different

20 grave sites that we saw on the aerial picture. What,

21 if anything, would be the explanation for that?

22 A. There has subsequently been another Nova

23 Kasaba grave that has been exhumed, and I'm not sure

24 how many individuals -- I believe it was less than

25 100. I'm not sure. But I think my experience with

Page 3775

1 homicides, basically, is oftentimes, although there may

2 be some systematic approach to some killings, some are

3 more opportunistic and you have a smaller group rather

4 than a larger group. It's as simple as that.

5 JUDGE WALD: I guess my question is that

6 might be true of the killings, but if you had 36 in the

7 same relatively small area, the fact that they went

8 around and made four grave sites --

9 A. Yes, that's very interesting. They may have

10 appeared at different times. I have no idea.

11 JUDGE WALD: My next questions may either be

12 out of the area of expertise, and if it is, that's

13 fine, or it may draw upon some of your other

14 experiences. But one question which I find puzzling is

15 that in these grave sites which have been disturbed,

16 theoretically meaning that some bodies have been taken

17 out of them, it's hard for me to hypothesise why, if

18 somebody were intent upon concealing or getting rid of

19 the incriminating evidence, they would take out some

20 but leave relatively large numbers still in the grave,

21 which would be, it seems to me, almost as

22 incriminating. I don't know whether anything in your

23 experience would give you any reason to figure that one

24 out.

25 A. Well, I assure you they don't intend to leave

Page 3776

1 parts of the bodies in the graves. That's my

2 impression.

3 JUDGE WALD: You think it's done in such

4 haste that --

5 A. I think it can be done in haste. I think it

6 could be done at night. It could be done with

7 individuals who were not familiar with where the

8 original graves were and of the extent of those

9 graves. I think there's many, many possible reasonable

10 explanations we could make.

11 JUDGE WALD: Well, those are some reasonable

12 ones. Thank you.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you

14 very much, Judge Wald.

15 Professor Haglund, I have two questions.

16 You spoke about the disintegration of bodies,

17 body parts and so on, and you had certain

18 explanations. I would like try out another hypothesis

19 for that list.

20 Is it possible to observe this dismantling of

21 bodies, where the trunk is transected, with regard to

22 the process of killing by gunfire, that the transection

23 of the bodies was related to the process in which they

24 were killed, that is to say, gunfire or whatever?

25 A. Well, if we could just single out, I think,

Page 3777

1 the most obvious exception, to have -- let's say bodies

2 were transected by gunfire and then buried in the

3 grave. It's hard for me to conceive somebody would

4 line them up so that the feet of this one, where they

5 were cut off, matched with the head of this one where

6 it came off. Yes, it's possible, and in these

7 circumstances I don't think it's probable.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] My other

9 question: You spoke about, when describing the work

10 and the composition of the teams, that there were

11 people that had come from different countries. The

12 team members had different experiences and different

13 backgrounds. In your opinion, from the viewpoint of

14 results, the results of the work, the scientific

15 results, how do you view this difference? Was it an

16 interesting, substantial difference; was it troubling

17 to the work? How do you see it?

18 A. Well, I think it's a wonderful situation, to

19 tell you the truth. I do a lot of international work,

20 and I prefer to have international teams, and I prefer

21 to have them not just because of their expertise,

22 because I prefer to have different philosophical and

23 cultural views present in a mission.

24 In the main, the pathologists around the

25 world read the same books. They may work under

Page 3778

1 different circumstances, they may not be as well

2 resourced or facilitated as others, but they are sound

3 scientists. And I think to have people, as we did,

4 from all mission countries, Switzerland, France,

5 Denmark, Iceland, Guatemala, Peru, Chile, Canada, Great

6 Britain, Sri Lanka, I think it's what an international

7 tribunal is about. And the way the work is organised,

8 the work is usually -- at least in 1996, and I think

9 it's probably improved since then, the administration

10 of the work, policies and protocols are established.

11 The individuals are briefed on what those protocols

12 are. They are made to adhere to international

13 standards and sometimes above those international

14 standards. The people come and they work as a team,

15 and they work very hard and they do the best job they

16 can, and I think the results are very credible.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Therefore,

18 if I understood you correctly, that is a conclusion --

19 my conclusion, but I would like to hear your opinion.

20 The difference in heterogeneity, does it favour -- does

21 heterogeneity favour truth better than homogeneity,

22 from the scientific viewpoint, of course?

23 A. Well, I don't think that the science is

24 heterogeneous. The science, as I tried to say, is

25 relatively uniform. These people all believe in the

Page 3779

1 same science, they do the same work, they are trained

2 in the same way, they read the same textbooks. The

3 heterogeneity, I think in this sense, is very much, and

4 that comes from different perspectives, different

5 political views, different religions, different

6 cultures. But the science itself and that forensic

7 investigative work is fairly uniform.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I have no

9 further questions, Professor. We have come to the end

10 of your testimony.

11 Before you go, I should like to ask

12 Mr. McCloskey where we stand with reference to the

13 documents and the tendering of evidence.

14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I would like

15 to offer Exhibit 211 through 219, 222, and 206 through

16 209. I believe those reflect all the new exhibits that

17 we've discussed in the last two hours.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

19 Mr. Visnjic, any objections?

20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No,

21 Mr. President, none.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well,

23 then. The exhibits mentioned have been admitted into

24 evidence.

25 Professor Haglund, I should just like to

Page 3780

1 express the gratitude of the International Tribunal for

2 having come here and giving us the benefit of your

3 experience, for cooperating with us, and we wish you

4 every success in your future work. Thank you very

5 much.

6 THE WITNESS: I would like to thank the Court

7 for their patience, yes.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] It wasn't

9 patience; it was a pleasure to hear you.

10 [The witness withdrew]

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

12 Mr. McCloskey, are we continuing?

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. It's now

14 -- Mr. Cayley is ready to put on Jose Pablo Baraybar,

15 one of the anthropologists that worked on more recent

16 exhumations.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.

18 Thank you very much. We'll have the pleasure of having

19 Mr. Cayley next.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good

22 afternoon. Can you hear me?

23 THE WITNESS: Yes, very well.

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You are now

25 going to read the solemn declaration that the usher is

Page 3781

1 going to hand to you. Please go ahead.

2 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

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

4 truth.


6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be

7 seated. I think that you're quite familiar with the

8 proceedings in the courtroom, so I take it you feel at

9 ease. Yes. Very well. You are now going to answer

10 questions put to you by Mr. Cayley.

11 Please go ahead, Mr. Cayley. You have the

12 floor.

13 MR. CAYLEY: Good afternoon, Mr. President,

14 Your Honours, my learned friends for the Defence.

15 Examined by Mr. Cayley.

16 Q. Mr. Baraybar, good afternoon. Could you

17 please spell your name for the record?

18 A. My name is spelled B-a-r-a-y-b-a-r.

19 Q. And your Christian name is Jose Pablo?

20 A. That is correct.

21 Q. And you were born on the 1st of October of

22 1964?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. And you are of Peruvian nationality; is that

25 correct?

Page 3782

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. You have a bachelor's degree in archaeology

3 from the University of San Marcos in Peru; is that

4 correct?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. And I think you have a master of science

7 degree from the University of London, in fact

8 University College London. What was that degree; in

9 what were your studies in?

10 A. It was a master of sciences, including many

11 areas. I would say bio-archaelogy was one of them, the

12 application of tendencies of human biology to

13 archaeological human remains, as well as

14 paleopathology, which is the study of pathological

15 conditions in human remains, and forensics.

16 Q. Just one thing to remember, Mr. Baraybar.

17 Because we're being simultaneously interpreted and

18 because we're speaking the same language, you must try

19 and speak quite slowly, and if you can pause between

20 the end of my question and the beginning of your

21 answer, that will help, particularly as you're using

22 very technical terms.

23 What year was that, your master of science

24 degree?

25 A. 1991 to 1992.

Page 3783

1 Q. Now, you are, I think, a forensic

2 anthropologist. Can you explain to the Court the type

3 of work you do as a forensic anthropologist?

4 A. A forensic anthropologist deals with human

5 remains from forensic contexts, from medical and legal

6 contexts. Forensic anthropologists deal with the

7 recovery and with the analysis of human remains from

8 those kind of contexts. One of the main tasks after

9 recovery of those remains is to ascertain the age, the

10 sex, and the stature, among other things, of the

11 remains recovered.

12 Q. Now, apart from your work for the

13 International Criminal Tribunal for the Former

14 Yugoslavia, where else have you done work as a forensic

15 anthropologist?

16 A. I have worked in Argentina, in Peru, my home

17 country, in Haiti, Ethiopia, Congo, Guatemala. I

18 started to work for the International Criminal Tribunal

19 for Rwanda, where the Forensic Unit was actually

20 created, as a matter of fact, and from there

21 transferred to this Tribunal.

22 Q. Was all of your work as a forensic

23 anthropologist concerned with alleged violations of

24 human rights?

25 A. That is correct.

Page 3784

1 Q. I'm correct in saying that from 1996 and

2 including 1998 and 1999, you worked on exhumations in

3 connection with the alleged events in and around

4 Srebrenica; is that correct?

5 A. Yes, sir.

6 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could just be

7 provided with Exhibit 220 and also, in fact to speed

8 matters up, the anthropological report.

9 Q. Mr. Baraybar, is Exhibit 220, the document

10 marked Exhibit 220, your curriculum vitae?

11 A. Yes, it is.

12 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I simply offer

13 that to the Court. It contains all of Mr. Baraybar's

14 field work, his laboratory work, his manuscripts and

15 publications and papers in conferences and congresses.

16 I don't intend to go through it, but I offer it to the

17 Court as foundation for his evidence.

18 Q. Mr. Baraybar, can you look at the very next

19 document in front of you, which I think is Exhibit 233,

20 and can you identify that document?

21 A. Yes. This is a report I submitted last year

22 and basically describes the anthropological examination

23 of the human remains recovered in this case.

24 Q. Now, am I right in saying that your report is

25 based on both exhumations and anthropology that you

Page 3785

1 supervised and also is based upon the work of others,

2 including, in fact, Dr. Haglund?

3 A. That is correct.

4 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be shown

5 Exhibit 140.

6 Q. Mr. Baraybar, if you could look at the top

7 right-hand corner, there are some red index numbers,

8 and if you could go to page 25. No, it's actually --

9 in fact, if the usher puts my copy on, it will make it

10 easier. I don't want to spend time going through

11 documents.

12 Can that be placed on the ELMO?

13 Mr. Baraybar, did you prepare reports on the

14 anthropological remains of all of the graves that are

15 actually shown on this exhibit?

16 A. That is correct, I did.

17 MR. CAYLEY: And let the record show that

18 that is the ERN number page 25 up in the top right-hand

19 corner of Exhibit 140, which is an exhibit that went

20 through Mr. Manning. And if the usher could turn to

21 the next page.

22 Q. Now, Mr. Baraybar, in the case of the graves

23 that are shaded green, which were exhumed secondary

24 graves, did you also complete the anthropological

25 reports on the remains from those graves?

Page 3786

1 A. That is correct, I did.

2 MR. CAYLEY: And let the record show that the

3 witness has confirmed on page 26, and that's the ERN

4 number in the top right-hand corner of Exhibit 140.

5 Q. Now, you stated in your evidence earlier that

6 the four objectives of anthropological studies of human

7 remains are to determine the sex of the individual, to

8 determine the age, to determine the stature, and I

9 think you also stated to determine the minimum number

10 of individuals within any grave.

11 Now, purely talking in generic terms before

12 we get to any specific grave, can you explain to the

13 Judge how, as an anthropologist, you determine the sex

14 of an exhumed body or human remains from a grave?

15 A. Yes. In principle, the sex of a body will

16 always be determined by an examination of external

17 genitalia. If the body is decomposed beyond

18 recognition or the soft tissues are virtually gone,

19 that is not possible. Therefore, we are left with the

20 bones to be examined.

21 Having a complete skeleton that consists of

22 206 bones, we will be able to look at three different

23 areas. In order of priority, these areas are the

24 pelvic bones that basically are the hip bones, then the

25 skull, and then the long bones.

Page 3787

1 In each of these areas, we will be looking at

2 a set of structures. And if the Prosecution allow me

3 to show some illustrations, I will be able to clarify

4 this.

5 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be provided

6 with the next three exhibits, which are 224, 225, and

7 226.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley,

9 I do apologise for interrupting, but you mentioned

10 page 25, 26 of the 140 exhibit. This is just a small

11 question, but perhaps for identification purposes we

12 should give IT another number, because we have 926 but

13 we also have 1026. But I'm going to leave it up to

14 you, of course, to do that, and I do apologise for

15 interrupting.

16 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you for that,

17 Mr. President. Because I didn't have the document in

18 front of me, I didn't know the -- I think it's a

19 seven-figure number. There is, in fact, a page 26 in

20 that document, but these were diagrams and the pages

21 were not numbered. In fact, the only page numbers on

22 these two pages, and I'll put them into the record, the

23 first diagram is ERN number 00950925 and the second

24 number is 00950926. So that will make sure that we

25 don't confuse it with the page 26, which is a separate

Page 3788

1 page but has the page number at the foot of the page.

2 Q. Mr. Baraybar, excuse me. If you could first

3 of all show the photograph of the pelvis and explain to

4 the Judges how you would use the pelvic bone to

5 distinguish between a male and a female.

6 A. Right. I am showing Exhibit 224. We're

7 looking at a male pelvis, and in order not to confuse

8 the audience, I will avoid mentioning technical terms

9 or the specific name of each structure. I will just

10 point to you each of the structures we examine in order

11 to determine a sex.

12 If you have a complete and fully articulated

13 pelvic bone such as in this case, you could definitely

14 see there are a number of obvious features that will

15 differentiate this male pelvis from the female pelvis I

16 will show you in a moment. One of the main features is

17 the extent of this area that I'm pointing to here.

18 If you were to have only fragments of this

19 pelvic bone, you would be looking at certain structures

20 such as this one, some of the structures in this area

21 here, primarily related to the angle of these two

22 bones. You would be looking at some other structures

23 not visible on this drawing, that is, basically on the

24 inner aspect of this pubic bone. Then you will be also

25 looking at the position and shape of the sacrum bone;

Page 3789

1 that is, this one.

2 If I may show you now a female pelvis. That

3 is Exhibit 225. You see in this case again that this

4 area is much, much wider in the female, primarily

5 because it is prepared for child-bearing. Again, we

6 would have a look at the same structure I just pointed

7 you a moment ago, and you will see that in this case it

8 is much wider again. We look at this angle here. That

9 again proves to be much wider than the previous

10 example, and to the other structures we cannot actually

11 see in this photograph.

12 If we continue with this observation, I will

13 show you now a picture of a skull, a male skull,

14 Exhibit 226. Again, the structures that will interest

15 us are situated in the frontal bone above the nose,

16 about -- close to the orbits, in the chin, in the area

17 below and behind the ear, and in the area of the back

18 of the head in the occipital bone. An observation of

19 all these factors will allow us to determine sex.

20 I am avoiding to show you a long bone,

21 because that would take us quite a lot of time.

22 However, I would like just to mention that in a long

23 bone, we will primarily observe the rubberstisity

24 [phoen] of the bones and take some measurements that

25 prove to be very different between males and females.

Page 3790

1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Baraybar. Just as a general

2 question, in a case dealing specifically with your

3 investigations in Srebrenica, where the pelvic bone was

4 not present in mortal remains, how did you describe the

5 sex of the individual?

6 A. We have taken a very conservative approach.

7 In other words, whenever the pelvic bones were not

8 present, sex was not ascertained.

9 Q. So am I right in saying that many of the

10 individuals who are termed as of ascertained sex could

11 have been males?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. Now, moving on to the next objective of

14 forensic anthropology, if you could briefly explain to

15 the Judges how you assess the age of an individual from

16 the mortal remains from a grave.

17 A. Well, the assessment of age follow again

18 similar principles as the assessment of sex. A number

19 of structures in the human skeleton change in relation

20 to age. They change in shape, in appearance, in

21 integrity.

22 Sex and age are two multi-factorial, if we

23 can call it in this way, analyses. We have to look at

24 different elements in order to reach a conclusion. The

25 problem with aging, and primarily in a forensic

Page 3791

1 context, is that we have to use very robust, very solid

2 techniques that have to be either derived or proved in

3 forensic cases. It is of no use to me to apply a

4 technique that may have been used in a prehistoric

5 population in some country of the world, because I do

6 not know whether the age estimates derived from those

7 population are applicable to the population I'm working

8 in.

9 In order to avoid this problem, we have

10 chosen two robust techniques derived from a forensic

11 population and specifically tested in a Bosnian

12 forensic population. These techniques deal with

13 changes that occur in the sternal, meaning the area

14 close to the sternum, meaning the chest part of the

15 fourth rib, and some other changes that occur in the

16 so-called pubic symphysis that is a structure of the

17 hip bone.

18 Both techniques were derived originally in a

19 North American forensic population and subsequently,

20 between '98 and '99, were tested and so-called

21 calibrated, I would say, in forensic Bosnian population

22 from Tuzla.

23 Q. So to summarise what you're saying, am I

24 right that you are stating that the scientific tests

25 used to assess the age of individuals that were exhumed

Page 3792

1 from the Srebrenica graves have been calibrated so that

2 they fit a Bosnian population?

3 A. That is correct.

4 Q. Now, in terms of all of the scientific

5 standards that you employed as a forensic

6 anthropologist for all of these areas, sex, age,

7 minimum number of individuals per grave, can you make a

8 few comments to the Judges on those standards?

9 A. The -- as with sex, what I would like to add,

10 age is extremely influenced by the preservation of the

11 remains. In other words, if I have only a fragment of

12 a body, if I have a body part, my assessment, as age

13 goes, will be very limited. For example, if I am using

14 a combination of ribs and pubic bones, if I happen to

15 have an arm or a leg, I will not be able to apply those

16 standards to that specific body part, in which case I

17 will be able to say only this individual is an adult or

18 is a sub-adult, is a growing individual, or maybe it's

19 simply an adult. It could be 30, 50, 80. I cannot

20 really make a difference of that.

21 Q. We can move on to the next objective of

22 forensic anthropology, and that is the MNI or minimum

23 number of individuals. Now, before I show you any

24 exhibits, can you explain to the Judges what the

25 purpose of the MNI test is?

Page 3793

1 A. Right. If we were to encounter a grave with

2 complete individuals, one of the first questions that

3 the Prosecution will ask us is: "How many people were

4 in the grave?" In that case, we will do what we

5 normally know as a head count. You can just simply

6 count how many bodies you are seeing.

7 I mentioned earlier that the human body

8 contains 206 bones. Let's imagine for a moment that

9 instead of complete individuals, we have a number of

10 fragments of people, a number of body parts in there.

11 You have seen from the previous testimonies that it is

12 not easy, even while excavating, to be able to count

13 how many remains we have there. And even if we can

14 count them, we still do not know how many people are

15 represented by those remains.

16 Therefore, the minimum number of individuals

17 is a conservative, again, approach as to say at least

18 how many individuals are necessary to account for the

19 number of body parts or bones we have recovered.

20 Q. Now, you've put together a number of exhibits

21 to explain this scientific concept to the Judges. And

22 if you have Exhibit 227 -- the usher can assist you --

23 could you explain to the Judges what is represented by

24 this diagram?

25 A. Although I am using the example of a left

Page 3794

1 forearm in this case, this is basically the same thing

2 as a head count, meaning two left forearms will

3 indicate that at least we have two people, primarily

4 because nobody tends to have more than two left

5 forearms.

6 If I may move to the second exhibit, 229.

7 Right. This actually is more like the cases we've been

8 dealing with, meaning fragments. Let's just assume

9 again that we have two females that are from the same

10 side but are two different parts of the female. In

11 this one we got the top or proximal part of the bone

12 and the mid-part of the bone, and in this one we have

13 the mid-part and the bottom part, that is, the distal

14 part.

15 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. Baraybar, if I could just

16 interrupt you there. The witness is indicating, on

17 Exhibit 229, that in the left portion of the photograph

18 is the proximal portion of the femur, and in the

19 right-hand photograph, the distal portion of the right

20 femur.

21 Q. Please continue, sir.

22 A. Considering that we cannot actually fit these

23 two fragments and make one femur, we have to take again

24 a conservative approach and say that we assume that

25 these two fragments, although not fitting with one

Page 3795

1 another, represent one individual. That would be the

2 way we would construct a minimal number of

3 individuals. Otherwise, we could say that these are

4 two femurs. But we are taking it as only one.

5 Q. But am I right in saying that potentially in

6 any grave site, these two portions of bone could

7 represent two individuals?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. So this technique of counting individuals

10 naturally always under-counts the number of people in a

11 grave?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. Now, if you could move on to Exhibit 230 and

14 explain to the Judges the process that you went through

15 in either a primary or a secondary grave in order to

16 make an assessment of the number of the -- the minimum

17 number of individuals in that grave.

18 One question before you begin. This is

19 simply a model. This does not represent any particular

20 report that you can completed in respect to Srebrenica,

21 does it?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. Please continue.

24 A. Right. As you told you earlier, and I'll put

25 this in perspective so we can understand what I'm

Page 3796

1 trying to explain, every single remain that arrived to

2 our mortuary, meaning a complete body, a body part, an

3 isolated bone, was thoroughly examined and an inventory

4 was produced. We had to account for each and every

5 single bone that was present or absent and,

6 furthermore, we needed to account with what portion,

7 what part of the bone was present or absent.

8 So in our previous example with the femurs,

9 we have to tell whether we have the top part of a

10 femur, whether we have the bottom part of the femur,

11 and we did that not only with the femur but with all

12 the bones.

13 So I have prepared this example for you to

14 understand. The first thing we have to do when

15 examining the remains, as I said earlier, was that the

16 determination of sex and age. Once those two things

17 have been done, we have to fit the individual into an

18 age range. For example, we have the age range from age

19 8 to 12. That basically means that the individuals in

20 that range are not younger than 8 years of age nor

21 older than 12. Then 13 to 24, and then 25 and more,

22 meaning that we have been unable, in some occasions, to

23 specify how old this person was, and again, being

24 conservative would be to say 25 and more.

25 We have scored the presence or absence of the

Page 3797

1 bone by placing a 1 or 0 in the proximal, meaning the

2 upper part of the bone, the middle part, and the distal

3 part, that is, the lower part of the bone. I'm using

4 here only long bones for simplicity's sake.

5 The calculation of the minimal number of

6 individuals at the end of the day, assuming that this

7 is a site, takes place by looking at the highest number

8 in each of the age ranges. So, for example, we're

9 going to start with the 8 to 12 category, and we can

10 see it is all 0. This basically means that no

11 individuals between 8 and 12 were represented by any

12 bone.

13 Q. Mr. Baraybar, you need to bring it down. You

14 need to -- that's fine.

15 A. I will slide it as I explain. Right.

16 If we go now to the category of 13 to 24, the

17 number highlighted in red that says "38," is the

18 highest number in the whole column. If I just put it

19 here, you can see that all the other numbers are lower

20 than 38. Therefore, we consent to say that there are

21 38 fragments of the left proximal femur in the category

22 13 to 24, meaning that at least we have 38 individuals

23 between 13 and 24 years of age.

24 We can do the same thing for 25-plus

25 category, and again it is highlighted in red the number

Page 3798

1 48 that corresponds to the right proximal tibia. This

2 basically means again that 48 individuals, 25 years or

3 more, are represented by the right proximal tibia.

4 If we go to the bottom now, we go to the

5 actual calculation of the minimal number, and we'll see

6 that in the age 8 to 12 range there's 0. In the 13 to

7 17 we have 38, and in the 25 plus we have 48. By

8 adding those figures, we end up with 86 individuals.

9 So in this hypothetical site, we would say

10 that, at least, we have 86 individuals represented by

11 the bones we have recovered.

12 And again, Mr. Baraybar, to stress what we

13 said previously, there is an assumption that all of

14 these bones essentially belong with each other, so

15 potentially the figure could be a great deal higher

16 than 86.

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. Now, it's not quite as simple as that, is

19 it? It does actually become more complex, where when

20 one is dealing with primary and secondary grave sites.

21 Why does it become more complex when one is dealing

22 with a primary site, which has been robbed and the

23 contents moved to secondary site?

24 A. In the previous testimonies, we have seen the

25 process of disturbance of primary sites and the

Page 3799

1 creation of secondary sites. If I may add something to

2 this.

3 When a primary grave was robbed, it was not

4 completely emptied of its contents, meaning that a

5 number of remains were left behind in the primary

6 grave. Then that primary grave produced, so to speak,

7 a number of secondary sites.

8 Because the machine that went in and robbed

9 the primary site was not selecting what pieces to take,

10 the process occurred at random. This basically means

11 that when the primary site was excavated and the

12 remains analysed, we did not know what we would find.

13 Then we have to find out a way to account for

14 the individual that was left behind in the primary site

15 and the ones that were disposed in the secondary site.

16 The only way to do this would be by merging or

17 combining the left others, so to speak in the primary

18 site and whatever was exposed in the secondary site.

19 In order to do that, we have to calculate a

20 merged or a combined minimal number of individuals that

21 would account for the number of people represented

22 between the primary and the secondary site.

23 Q. Can you demonstrate this on Exhibit 231,

24 which I think is another model? Now, in respect to the

25 sites in and around Srebrenica, how did you know that a

Page 3800

1 primary and a secondary site were connected with each

2 other?

3 A. I was informed by investigators and then read

4 various reports, such as Dr. Brown's property on soil

5 comparisons, and that is the way I found out which

6 sites were related to what others.

7 Q. If you could use the exhibit in front of you

8 and explain to the Judges the MNI in respect to linked

9 sites?

10 A. This again is another simulation. The first,

11 I have only extracted data for the left femur to make

12 it actually easier to explain.

13 The top part, the top chart in yellow

14 represents a primary site and the bottom one in blue

15 represents the secondary site. We know, because of the

16 information I just mentioned, that the two are linked.

17 The way we would then calculate this merged

18 or combined number of individuals would be very much in

19 the same fashion as we have done it before but with

20 some differences.

21 If we observe the first column, meaning the

22 one from 8 to 12 years, we see that in the primary

23 site, there is a fragment of left distal --

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me,

25 Witness, for interrupting you.

Page 3801

1 I see that the technical booth did not show

2 the picture for the public. Our debates are public.

3 We're talking about something that the public must be

4 able to follow. So I should like to ask the technical

5 booth to pay attention. The witness is talking about

6 something, that is, the witness cannot see -- that the

7 public cannot see. I'm sorry for interrupting you, but

8 you may continue. I apologise, Mr. Cayley.

9 A. If we observe then first the first column

10 from 8 to 12 years, we will see that in the primary

11 site, highlighted in red, there is a number 1

12 indicating that a fragment of left distal femur,

13 meaning the area of the bone of the thigh bone above

14 the knee is represent. However, in the secondary site,

15 there is no entry for the same category and the same

16 bone. The left distal femur says 0.

17 This basically means that merging the two

18 sites, at least we can say that one individual between

19 8 to 12 years was represented.

20 If we proceed with the second column between

21 13 and 24, we will see again that the highest number on

22 the primary site is 49, and is highlighted in red,

23 and --

24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me,

25 Witness. I'm sorry for interrupting you.

Page 3802

1 Madam Registrar, are there any technical

2 problems in showing this exhibit or not, because I

3 interrupted the witness once and I see that the matter

4 has not been rectified. Are there any technical

5 problems?

6 THE REGISTRAR: The technical booth says

7 there's no problem.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps

9 there is a problem, because if there's no technical

10 problem, then there's another problem, because I do not

11 see on the monitors the picture which the witness is

12 talking about. So I'm -- now I see it. It's there

13 now. So there was no technical difficulty, but again

14 something was lacking.

15 We must deal with these matters in a dynamic

16 rather than a static way. If a witness is talking

17 about a picture or a table, we cannot follow what the

18 witness is saying if we do not see the picture in front

19 of us or the table. So please pay attention. I'm

20 asking the technical booth to pay attention and to make

21 sure that when the witness is talking about an exhibit,

22 that that exhibit should be shown to the public.

23 I apologise to the witness, once again, and

24 to Mr. Cayley. Perhaps we should round off this point,

25 because it is 2.30.

Page 3803

1 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

2 Q. Mr. Baraybar, if you could just complete your

3 explanation of this particular exhibit.

4 A. I think I left it at the 13-to-24 range,

5 again it is highlighted in red that there are 49 pieces

6 of the proximal left femur, the top part of the femur,

7 and in the secondary site the same -- we have 38

8 individuals also represented by the proximal left

9 femur. And if we move to the 25-plus category, we see

10 that the distal femur has 68 and 44. The minimum

11 number of individuals then would be calculated at the

12 bottom of the page. You can see that in the first

13 category, eight to twelve, we have one; 13 to 24, we

14 have 49 plus 38. That is 87. And in the last one, 68

15 plus 44. That is 112.

16 The total number or the minimal number in

17 this case is 200 individuals, meaning that between the

18 primary and the secondary site, 200 individuals are

19 accounted for, or at least -- that would be the right

20 way to say it -- at least 200 individuals are accounted

21 for between the remains recovered at the primary and

22 the secondary site.

23 Q. But again, as you stated previously, there

24 could be a great deal more than 200 individuals

25 represented by these bone fragments?

Page 3804

1 A. That is correct, and if I may add, that it is

2 paramount to use the same kind of bone in these

3 calculations and to use the same part of the bone in

4 the calculations, because otherwise it would be

5 over-counting individuals. For example, if I use the

6 femur on the primary site and I produce a minimum

7 number of individuals based on the femur on the primary

8 site, and I use another bone, let's say the arm bone,

9 the humerus, on the secondary site and I know that the

10 two sites are connected, if I simply add the two

11 minimal numbers, that is incorrect. I will be

12 overestimating the number I will be having at the end

13 of the day.

14 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, if you wish, this

15 would be a good point in time to pause in

16 Mr. Baraybar's evidence.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes,

18 Mr. Cayley, I think it is time. We have been working a

19 little longer. I apologise to the interpreters. But I

20 think we have finished for today, Witness, and we will

21 resume work tomorrow.

22 So tomorrow at 9.30.

23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

24 2.34 p.m., to be reconvened on

25 Tuesday, the 30th day of May, 2000,

Page 3805

1 at 9.30 a.m.