1 Monday, 22 September 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand both parties have matters to raise.
6 The Chamber has a couple of matters, and the first one is that the
7 Defence teams, both Defence teams are ordered to file the list of
8 witnesses to be called on behalf of the Defence should the Rule 98 bis
9 judgement establish that there is a case to answer, and this list is to
10 contain all the information required pursuant to Rule 65 ter (G)(i) and
11 is to be filed together with a list of exhibits pursuant to Rule 65 ter
12 (G)(ii). In view of scheduling of the breaks in this case as already
13 announced, the Trial Chamber requires this information to be provided no
14 later than Friday, 17th October 2008.
15 The Chamber is in the process now of filing its decision in
16 relation to the motion of 8th September to substitute VG-42 for VG-85 and
17 VG-64 for VG-71. That motion is granted, but the Prosecution should note
18 that according to its terms, the earliest date for testimony is the 27th
19 of October, and the reason for that is to give the Defence time to
21 Now, who is first, Mr. Groome or -- Mr. Groome, you have matters.
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, as the case has progressed I see one of
23 my responsibilities as trying to in view of prosecuting the case most
24 efficiently is always re-evaluating the witnesses that are on the list.
25 One of the witnesses we sought to add on the 8th of September 2008 is
1 Witness VG-137. He's a convicted Serb perpetrator. A statement was
2 recorded on video over the summer, but it was not until last week that we
3 actually had the transcript. Now after reviewing the full transcript and
4 fully considering the security implications that this witness's family
5 may face as a result of testifying in a case that -- and these security
6 implications have nothing to do with the Defence of the particular
7 accused in this case but just the general security concerns that they
8 have, I believe it is in the interest of justice that I not call the
9 witness at this stage. So I will be withdrawing the -- our request to
10 add VG-137.
11 Of course I apologise to Defence counsel and court staff, legal
12 officers that may have expended efforts in this regard already, but I
13 believe it's consistent with my duties to keep re-evaluating the witness
14 list and reducing it where possible.
15 Your Honour, last week when I filed the -- the witness schedule
16 for this week I mentioned the witness Zehra Turjacanin, and there was a
17 question mark about whether she would be available to testify this
18 Thursday. She has arrived in The Hague and it is our intention to call
19 her this Thursday. I do have one request of the Chamber and that is I
20 think it is preferable for her if her testimony begins and concludes on a
21 single day. I think it may cause her some problems to be worrying
23 I know that we originally had requested and were granted three
24 hours to examine her. It would be my request and my intention to reduce
25 my examination of her to an hour and 45 minutes, and I would request if
1 we could begin her testimony on Thursday morning and conclude it Thursday
2 afternoon. So I'd ask the Chamber to consider that, that even if we
3 should be ahead of schedule on Wednesday that we do allow her just to
4 begin her testimony on Thursday -- Thursday morning.
5 Now, Your Honour, this week we are scheduled to call two experts
6 and they have they devoted a significant portion of their professional
7 pursuits to what happened in Visegrad. Pursuant to the Chamber's earlier
8 ruling we are intending this week to produce these witnesses, tender
9 their prior testimony and reports and make them available for
10 cross-examination. In preparing them for their testimony, it appears
11 that there may be some benefit to asking them some brief additional
12 evidence. For example, as a result of the assertion of an alibi defence,
13 we have called several witnesses to rebut that alibi. Some of those
14 witnesses in their evidence refer to killings of other named people.
15 Ms. Tabeau examined the available data sources for these names and is
16 able to provide information regarding the date which has been recorded as
17 their death.
18 Now, the dates are often approximate and are determined by
19 information provided by family members as to when they last saw the
20 victim. However, given this caveat, they do provide corroboration of the
21 fact that these victims were killed as well as an approximate date.
22 She has also examined her underlying data sources and generated a
23 table of victims named in the indictment and is able to provide similar
24 information about when they are believed to have been reported missing.
25 She has also in preparation for her testimony prepared a
1 PowerPoint presentation that succinctly summarises her report and shows
2 in graphic format her primary conclusions. Among these is a graph that
3 shows the dates when there was a statistical spike in the killings in
4 Visegrad. I believe it would be useful for the Chamber to see this
5 presentation and hear her explanation. I anticipate that both of these
6 matters could be dealt with in approximately 50 minutes, so I'd ask the
7 Chamber to consider whether the Prosecution would be allowed to -- to
8 spend approximately 50 minutes inquiring from Ms. Tabeau on these other
10 Similarly, Dr. John Clark, who with his colleagues performed the
11 examination of the remains found in Slap arrived in The Hague over the
12 weekend. His Vasiljevic testimony has been -- will be admitted pursuant
13 to a decision of the Chamber. Many of the remains that he examined have
14 now been identified. Three of them are named victims in the indictment.
15 The Prosecution is therefore requesting approximately 10 minutes to
16 examine Dr. Clark and have him talk about the specific files, the
17 specific autopsy reports with respect to three cases that he conducted
18 that have to do with named victims in the indictment.
19 Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, your mike.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you please clarify, Mr. Groome, the
24 position of Ms. Tabeau. Is she down to testify it the same day as -- as
25 Zehra Turjacanin?
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, as I had indicated an earlier time
2 because she works in the building I've identified her a person who can be
3 called on short notice should a gap arise. In the filing that we made
4 last Thursday, we identified that we would call her today because we
5 anticipated that even we would be ahead of schedule today because of the
6 Chamber's deferral of the decision of the VG-42 who was originally
7 intended to be today. So she is available to give her evidence today,
8 and she would be the second witness that we would call this week.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
10 Mr. Cepic.
11 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour. First to respond to the
12 issues which is raised by my learned friend Mr. Groome. We do not
13 object, of course, that witness Zehra Turjacanin will appear in one day
14 so no objection related to that.
15 We kindly request the whole material from OTP related to the
16 VG-137. Maybe could be useful for Defence. We don't know yet that. And
17 I would like to raise some other issues. One of that is admission of
18 exhibit which we used with last witness, Nurko Dervisevic. That is the
19 pseudonym sheet. We forgot to request admission of that exhibit.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit that.
21 MR. CEPIC: Thank you. Thank you very much.
22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D18 under seal, Your Honours.
23 MR. CEPIC: And what I would like to raise is as follows as the
24 main, main issue is related to upcoming witnesses, namely on Friday late
25 afternoon we were informed from the OTP that in our lockers are the new
1 disclosure related to the witnesses for this week, so on Saturday we
2 checked and we received 1.304 pages related to the witness Ewa Tabeau,
3 1.004 pages related to John Clark, and 284 pages related to Witness
4 Mirsad Tokaca.
5 On Sunday afternoon we received additional disclosure material
6 and in that disclosure we found exhibit which the OTP intends to use with
7 that witness, that is the CV, updated CV of Ewa Tabeau, but in all this
8 material and in the previous material we haven't got received data
9 sources for the Ewa Tabeau expert report related to Visegrad. That means
10 population census from 1991 and from 1997 voters register mainly because
11 Ms. Tabeau quoted in her expertise that these sources are reliable and
12 relevant to our objectives.
13 On Friday morning we were invited from OTP to -- by e-mail to
14 contact them and to review all material related to that witness, but this
15 morning when we requested that material, the basic material for that
16 report, we received information that this material is under the Rule 70.
17 It is quite confusing for us, because in our opinion that material cannot
18 fall under that Rule because Rule 70(a) specifies that reports, memoranda
19 or other internal documents prepared by a party, its assistants or
20 representatives in connection with the investigation or the preparation
21 of the case are not subject to disclosure or notification under those
22 rules, but the present situation we did not request any previously
23 mentioned documents. We simply requested material requested by public
24 institution which is essential and forms the basis of the expert report.
25 We cannot be prepared for cross-examination without that material because
1 it is clearly quoted in that material that is the base for that report.
2 We needed that material for effective preparation.
3 Thank you very much.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. -- Mr. Alarid.
6 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, did I want to inform the Court that of
7 course doubling with Mr. Cepic, that was one of our main concerns and we
8 did file a motion to bar the testimony of the Prosecution expert based on
9 the late disclosure and the refusal to tender the Rule 70 materials in
10 accordance with the Rules and the procedures of the court.
11 I don't think the motion has come out yet because we filed it --
12 we were writing it this morning, Your Honour, and so that's what
13 basically we focused on this morning.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, I want to say one thing. I don't intend to
15 devote a lot of time on this because there are other ways of settling
16 these issues. For example, Mr. Cepic, if you believe something is not
17 Rule 70, then you can file a motion to that effect and it will be
19 But I would like to hear Mr. Groome on the late disclosures of
20 documentation which appears to be very voluminous, over a thousand pages,
21 and briefly also on the other matter raised by Mr. Cepic.
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm asking Mr. Van Hooydonk to get the
23 precise numbers. At the end of last week both of these experts had done
24 work in the former Yugoslavia. We disclosed material that was
25 disclosable under Rule 66 and Rule 68. We then sent a letter towards the
1 end of last week saying look, there's this whole other body of material,
2 it's not disclosable under Rule 66 in that it's not a prior statement of
3 this witness related to anything, to Visegrad or anything to do with this
4 case and there's nothing in that's exculpatory, but they have worked in
5 this area and they've done much work in other parts of Bosnia and Croatia
6 and the former Yugoslavia. So we said to them there's no -- there's no
7 confidentiality in those documents. If you want access to those
8 documents we will provide that access to those documents, and I believe
9 Defence counsel did want access to those documents. I'm asking Mr. Van
10 Hooydonk now to get me the precise figures about what, if any, portion of
11 this was material that we were required to disclose and what portion of
12 it was material we offered as a courtesy to Defence counsel even though
13 it was not disclosable under the Rules and as soon as I have that
14 information I can report that to the Chamber.
15 With respect to the other matter raised by Mr. Cepic, what's in
16 issue are a very large database or two databases of voter registration
17 records of entire country of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It actually refers
18 to 9.5 million individuals records, each of those records containing 50
19 to 60 different variables or data points within it. So it's in the
20 billions of -- of -- on the magnitude of the information that's contained
21 in there.
22 Ewa Tabeau has never provided this before in another case. She
23 received this pursuant to some Rule 70 agreement. I'm not sure who that
24 is with and I can investigate that for Your Honours. She has stated that
25 it has happened in the past where Defence teams have hired their own
1 demographer and she has made available the database up in our office
2 where they can look and do checks on the database. If that is what
3 Defence counsel is requesting, that is something that could be arranged.
4 I think it's a bet tangential to this issue in that this case, unlike the
5 other cases where Ewa Tabeau has testified such as the Srebrenica cases
6 where the actual victims that the accused were charged with where part of
7 that proof is established with her records, the Prosecution in this
8 particular case is not seeking to establish that any of the individuals
9 killed here were killed as a result or relying -- or we're not relying on
10 Ewa Tabeau's assessment of this database but we can make it available to
11 the Defence. If they want, Ms. Tabeau tells us that it would take about
12 a week to set up a room, the computers, and again I'm not sure if Defence
13 counsel appreciate exactly what they're asking, but it's not the type of
14 material that those of us who are untrained in demography can sit down
15 and make use of. It's something that does require a demographic expert.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic, just briefly.
17 MR. CEPIC: Yes, Your Honour, just briefly. Thank you very much
18 for this opportunity. We just requested material related to Visegrad
19 municipality which was the base for this -- for this report, nothing more
20 than that. Thank you very much.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't intend to determine any of these matters
23 now. If a party has an application to make to the Chamber then it can
24 make that application.
25 Please call the witnesses.
1 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, I still have a preliminary matter
2 separate from --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have another preliminary matter.
4 MR. ALARID: Please, sir, please.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay.
6 MR. ALARID: To be honest I don't know where to begin, Your
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: That sounds very ominous, Mr. Alarid.
9 MR. ALARID: Well, it is, because I'm raising right now an
10 effective assistance of counsel and I do that because I had to become
11 introspective but the comment you gave me on Friday, the reputation of
12 misrepresenting the facts or the evidence cut very deeply. I took it
13 very seriously, because the last thing I want is this Tribunal to somehow
14 not respect my integrity.
15 I took it very seriously because I take this process very
16 seriously. I entered into this process very seriously, and when you do
17 public defender work at any time, you don't get to choose your client,
18 you don't get to choose your case, and you don't make up the facts but
19 you do the best you can every time, and what I'd like to think is that
20 this process -- and we have raised submissions to the counsel with
21 regards to how difficult it has been to prepare this case in the
22 time-frame ordered by the Court, and I hate to complain all the time so
23 we don't complain every time we can, but what you said cut me very
24 deeply, Your Honour, and I want to first explain to you in a bit what it
25 takes for us to do what we do every day and what we've been asked to do
1 despite the fact that I've only been lead counsel since June and I didn't
2 get any help before this point in time. So basically I've been the lone
3 counsel, even as co-counsel since February of this case and there were 50
4 submissions in this case in July when we should be just tearing apart
5 these witnesses and putting them back together again. The witness list
6 has been remade and retwisted around and now reformulated. New witnesses
7 who've never been heard of before are being added. 42 is being
8 substituted. We spent the weekend writing our responses, Your Honour,
9 and you've made your decision first thing in the morning on Monday, even
10 though our decision to -- our option to reply to that is not even done.
11 And it makes me feel like I'm wasting my time because to be
12 honest, Your Honour, if you've convicted my client based on 63 we should
13 go home. We should go home, because at that point in time I think this
14 Court has enough at least in the State of Florida to kill the man. And
15 so the fact is, Your Honour, is I have 21 counts all involving individual
16 murders or atrocities of one kind or another and then they're
17 back-dooring persecution through rape victims under the auspice of
18 alibis? I'm sorry, Your Honour, it's not an alibi unless the witness
19 comments on the date in question. I want to make an oral argument not to
20 allow the witness today because they tender them under alibi; yet this is
21 a back-door argument about the Passat and Behija Zukic today and this
22 witness was not present to know whether or not Milan Lukic was in town
23 for any of the enumerated counts in the indictment at all.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: When the witness comes make that argument --
25 MR. ALARID: Well, but --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- we'll consider it.
2 MR. ALARID: But here is what I'd like to prove to you, Your
3 Honour, is I've made a copy, I have five copies of my binder for this
4 Witness 63 and, see, all I've been able to do with the time-frame this
5 Court has given me is I read it once all the way through, six statements,
6 six statements for the single witness over the course of 15 years. And
7 then we try and highlight the next time and then outline in the margins
8 the third time and then do an outline of which I can -- I'm dissatisfied
9 with myself so if you're dissatisfied with me, then it's all on the
10 table. I'm on the table.
11 So you can understand what it takes to do a witness of this
12 horrible thing. This woman was a victim. I have no doubt in my mind and
13 I have to make her cry to prove a point? I have to put it to the
14 witness? The fact of the matter is is I did misspeak because you're
15 right. In the -- but in the statement to the ICTY, that witness said
16 Milan Lukic held a head. In a statement to -- in anticipation of the
17 Boban Simsic trial she said Milan Lukic head a held and in the statement
18 of the Boban Simsic trial he held a head had. Yet in fact in three
19 opposite statements he didn't, an unknown Serbian, and so I misspeak
20 because I don't have an assistant scrolling through the testimony every
21 time. You allow them to double team me in objections. They split a
22 witness, every day I come they take a new witness. If I had a law firm
23 with eight lawyers I'd be doing gang busters with this case. So I'd like
24 to tell the Court right now because the states been asking me for updates
25 for my defence and what it is and you tell me today I've got to have a
1 full list of witnesses on October 17th and I'm telling you I can't under
2 any set of circumstances with a competent lawyer's ability unless you
3 just believe we're here wasting our time.
4 That's the only way I can do it.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, let me consider what you have --
6 MR. ALARID: But, no, I need to show you something, one more
7 thing, because it's important that you see what's happened to our thing.
8 Can we pull up our photo, please. I'd like to pull up 1D10-1620 for the
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is this --
11 MR. ALARID: It's demonstrative aid, Your Honour, so you can see
12 what I'm telling you is true.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We don't wish to see it. I think we can
14 determine this matter without looking at your exhibits.
15 MR. ALARID: Well, because I --
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: What --
17 MR. ALARID: I want to tell the position --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Overlapping speakers] in relation to
19 co-counsel? Why don't you have a co-counsel?
20 MR. ALARID: Well, see, Your Honour, despite the fact that all 21
21 counts are against us and we have to answer every count every day, 92 ter
22 gives them 15 minutes and then I have two hours of which to annoy this
23 Court with my questions and the fact of the matter is, Your Honour, is
24 they assess us as a level 1, we're a level 1 case, so I'm supposed to do
25 a 300-victim mass murder case with multiple rapes for a level 1, and
1 because the rules in this somewhere way back when people were probably
2 abusing the process came up and decided that these Rules are what set the
3 guidelines for case preparation regardless of when a lawyer's dropped
4 into the process and said you better be ready or else, and I took that
5 very seriously --
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Mr. Alarid.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: I just wanted to make an inquiry into relation
9 to Sredoje Lukic. Mr. Cepic is the counsel, and Mr. Dieckmann is
10 co-counsel. So in that case I don't understand why Mr. Milan Lukic's
11 case is more voluminous and doesn't have a co-counsel.
12 MR. ALARID: Well, Your Honour, what it is is this: It's the
13 practical application of some backwards rules that don't apply to facts
14 of an individual case. It's an attempt by the registry to cookie cutter
15 this process despite the fact that in and of itself the execution of that
16 violates the processes of due process. The fact the matter is, Your
17 Honour, is that I cannot speak publicly over the registry's issues
18 because some of those issues do involve my client's interactions with
19 previous counsel and the problems that manifested from that. Also the
20 problems involved with my previous lead counsel who deferred to me and
21 then left me holding the bag so the fact of the matter is is I have this
22 case and I've done the best I can but I've had to do with it more grunt
23 workers as opposed to lawyers, and so now I'm in a position being forced
24 on this fast track to get this job done, and this case is not a level 1
25 because what a level 1 allows for is co-counsel, lead counsel, and a
1 single assistant. You've seen Jelena Rasic here. She is my right hand
2 in terms of handling Mr. Lukic --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. I'm trying to think of a
4 practical way to resolve it.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, all of the arguments that you are
7 raising about the lack of co-counsel have been put to the registrar?
8 MR. ALARID: All the way up to the point of where they tell me my
9 best bet is to appeal to the President, and the fact of the matter is,
10 Your Honours, we'll be done by that point and they bait and switched the
11 whole process at that juncture.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: But you haven't -- you haven't followed --
13 MR. ALARID: Your Honour --
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- the process by appealing.
15 MR. ALARID: When do I have time, really, I mean, I want you to
16 be honest, I mean tell me I'm working, I need a bone here, but the fact
17 of the matter is we come to work every day and it's actually up now,
18 1D10-1620, please 8, 8, excuse me.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't want to look at it now. I'm listening
20 to your argument which I consider to be a substantial argument that
21 affects the fairness of the trial. That's why I'm attending to it.
22 MR. ALARID: Well, and so here's --
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Overlapping speakers]
24 MR. ALARID: So here is the process, Your Honour, is when I left
25 this case I asked this Court, the Tribunal and everyone else. I gave my
1 calendars. I had to go work on this electronically back home while Marie
2 and a couple law students put this case together on paper. We come back
3 here and we start witnesses. That's the way it works and then they don't
4 give enough funding because I have an investigator, a translator and my
5 legal assistant and they want me to hire a co-counsel, but here's what
6 they tell you to do, see if they'll take less money, so I got to talk to
7 people that live in this community and pay their rent out of this budget
8 and I got to start jockeying around. Why? Because the registry doesn't
9 want to account what a real case takes to work it out.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Mr. Alarid, this is what we'll do. We'll
11 take the matter under consideration. The Trial Chamber has to be very
12 careful. Of course when an issue of the fairness of the trial is
13 involved, the Trial Chamber does have jurisdiction, but as you yourself
14 have pointed out, the normal route for challenging a decision of the
15 registrar is to go to the -- to the President. But we are going to look
16 at the matter, and we'll tell you what decision we have come to.
17 In the meantime, I should bring it to your attention that we have
18 responded in some way to the pressure which you obviously are under by
19 granting the reduction from five days to four days. So we haven't been
20 insensitive to your position, and I'd like you to note that.
21 MR. ALARID: And I did, Your Honour, and I did, but I'll tell you
22 what hurt my feelings because actually that did make me feel good because
23 I did feel respected, but then you took it away at the break. And so it
24 kind of gave me the feeling like, okay, when am I supposed to do this.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Took what away?
1 MR. ALARID: The time. The time, Judge. It's all about time.
2 When you did the two weeks and then the one week off and then start and
3 you tell me I got to have a full witness list on the 17th. I mean, when
4 are we supposed to be ready for a Defence case. And, Your Honour, I'd
5 like to think that in any case where a rape victim comes up and says a
6 couple different things in each statement, that is a case. You know, we
7 have the young gentleman that said his friend was killed, pot shot in the
8 water. That disgusts me. Jeez. Who is going to throw a boy over the
9 railing and take a pot shot in the water. But his dad comes on and says
10 he put his twin on the bus before it ever happened even though the one
11 witness said the twin watched him leave in that red Passat that we are
12 also famously chasing. The fact is I believe we have a case here. And
13 how am I supposed to --
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid.
15 MR. ALARID: How am I supposed to chase down leads? I haven't
16 been to Bosnia yet, Your Honour. I was hoping you have granted the thing
17 so I can go too, the site visit.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, as I said, we will take what you
19 have said under consideration, and tomorrow we'll give -- express our
20 views on it, but of course the Chamber has its own jurisdiction to
21 consider in this matter. I mean, this is an institution where various
22 bodies have various institutions, and we'll have to take that into
23 consideration as well.
24 Mr. Groome.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just briefly. And of course the
1 Prosecution's concerned with the fairness of proceedings as well.
2 If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Ivetic who has arrived here last week
3 is -- has acted ably as a co-counsel in other cases, if I'm not mistaken,
4 so perhaps when the Chamber's considering a possible options, it might
5 want to explore Mr. Alarid and Mr. Ivetic if that were a possibility
6 since he is already working on the case in some capacity and he has
7 appeared before this Tribunal as co-counsel, it might be one sensible
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we will, bearing in mind of course it is
10 not the Chamber who actually --
11 MR. ALARID: To be honest, Your Honour, that's what I was doing
12 and that was the whole point and I've already submitted the paperwork to
13 the appoint Mr. Ivetic is a legal assistant so he can kind of wade in,
14 you know, get on the treadmill so you're not -- and catch up to speed and
15 I can't get a response on that because I think what they're afraid of is
16 exactly the situation which is becoming clear, which is at the point I
17 hire him as a legal assistant, we're maxed out on the budget, so the fact
18 is is I have to fire people today despite the fact that Mr. Ivetic has to
19 come up to speed and it's not going to come up in a week. It's going to
20 be longer than that to come up to speed. That's the ultimate quandary,
21 the rock and the hard place that we're fighting with here.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. As I said, we will consider the
24 MR. ALARID: And there is one important issue that I can't forget
25 to say and it kind of goes to the stress of things is Jelena Rasic, that
1 young lady that you've seen here during trial, she's doing legwork
2 investigation right now in Bosnia and she's being threatened. She's
3 getting text messages that are threatening her life right now. So
4 there's this point of time where I got to bring her back here to sign an
5 affidavit to say how dangerous this process is to defend Milan Lukic and
6 try and go get some county court type records and those kind of things.
7 It's really difficult to get things done. And -- and -- you know, but
8 I'm at a point where I have no choice but to send a young girl into the
9 field to do what I think is dangerous work.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, that's -- that's another matter. I don't
11 say it is insignificant, but as I indicated, we'll consider the matter
12 and to the extent that we can we'll let you know what our position is
14 Let the witness be called. Thank you very much.
15 I wanted to say, Mr. Alarid, that I did say that you were
16 developing this reputation for misstating the evidence, and that was just
17 a factual statement. I never intended to suggest that it was being done
18 maliciously or with any intent.
19 MR. ALARID: Well, I would just state that that is the level of
20 my preparedness and I don't like it because I actually think you deserve
21 a crisper, cleaner more focussed cross-examination for each and every
22 witness that gets the point and does it. But of course, these are
23 beautiful people that come in front of us, and they don't want to answer
24 my questions because they know who I represent, and so we go around the
25 pole some -- way too many times and I don't want to hurt them. That is a
1 horrible position to be put in because --
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: You must have done very well before a jury,
3 Mr. Alarid.
4 MR. ALARID: Well, I like to talk to people because I think, you
5 know what, we all take the robes off and are just people.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Alarid. Thank you very
8 The witness.
9 MR. WEBER: Good afternoon, Your Honours. At this time the
10 Prosecution calls VG-82.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: VG-82, yes. We have spent about 40 minutes.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 WITNESS: WITNESS VG-82
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
17 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit, and you may begin, Mr. Weber.
19 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. At this time the Prosecution would
20 request the court usher to hand the witness a pseudonym sheet.
21 Examination by Mr. Weber:
22 Q. VG-82, you've been granted certain protective measures by the
23 Trial Chamber including the use of a pseudonym. Directing your attention
24 to the sheet in front of you, does your name appear on that sheet?
25 A. Yes, it is my name on the paper.
1 Q. Does your date of birth also appear on that sheet?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Could you please sign that sheet?
4 MR. WEBER: At this time the Prosecution would tender that sheet
5 into evidence.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the pseudonym sheet will become
7 P115 under seal.
8 MR. WEBER:
9 Q. VG-82, did you provide a statement to ICTY investigators on the
10 31st of October, 1997, and also on the 26th of January, 2001?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review that statement in the
13 Bosnian language before coming to court here today?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. If you were asked today the same questions as you were asked when
16 you provided that statement, would your answers be the same?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is the statement that you provided true and accurate to the best
19 of your knowledge?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. WEBER: At this time the Prosecution offers 65 ter number 185
22 into evidence.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
24 THE REGISTRAR: It is admitted as Exhibit P116 under seal.
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. VG-82, in your statement you refer to Milan Lukic as your pupil.
2 When was Milan Lukic your student?
3 A. It could have been in the school year of 1982, '83.
4 Q. Where was Milan Lukic a student of yours?
5 A. In the secondary school centre in Visegrad.
6 Q. What was your position at the secondary school centre?
7 A. I was a teacher.
8 Q. What are the ages of the students who attend the secondary school
10 A. Their years of birth would have been from 1974 to 1978 -- sorry,
11 '64 to '68.
12 Q. You're referring to the birth years of 1964 through 1968. Are
13 there particular years in which you were a professor at the secondary
15 A. I worked there in the school year 1981, '82, and school year
16 1982, '83.
17 Q. And would these birth years been the ages of the students who
18 attended the school during the years in which you were employed there?
19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. What grade and class did you instruct Milan Lukic?
21 A. He was in year two of the secondary school when I taught him. He
22 was the 29 class, and that was for cooks and waiters, that is, for the
23 catering industry.
24 Q. Was Milan Lukic a part of a programme that related to this
1 A. Yes. He was in this course and I remember well he was in the
2 front row, the last bench in the front row, together with Izet Tabakovic.
3 Q. How long did students attend the secondary school? Precisely how
4 many years did the students go to the school?
5 A. The secondary school course is three to four years depending on
6 whether they are getting a general education or training for a particular
7 vocation. Milan Lukic's course was three years. Engineering courses
8 took four years, for example.
9 Q. VG-82, I'd like you to take a look around the courtroom here
10 today. Could you please indicate whether or not you recognise anyone in
11 the courtroom aside from myself and Mr. Groome?
12 MR. ALARID: And standard objection to the form of
13 identification, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's noted.
15 MR. WEBER:
16 Q. VG-82, are you able to see everyone in the courtroom?
17 A. I can see everyone, and I recognise two of them.
18 Q. Okay. What are the names of the individuals that you recognise
19 in the courtroom?
20 A. To my left in the third row, the second person from the wall is
21 Milan Lukic. Next to him, that is the third person in the last row, is
22 Sredoje Lukic.
23 Q. You're referring to the second and third person in the last row.
24 Are you counting from your left or your right?
25 A. From my left. On my left-hand side counting from the left to the
1 right they are the second and the third person.
2 MR. WEBER: May the record reflect the in-court identifications
3 of Milan Lukic as the second person from the left and Sredoje Lukic as
4 the third person from the left.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
6 MR. WEBER: No further questions.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
8 Mr. Alarid.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Alarid:
10 Q. Mr. VG-82, my name is Jason Alarid and I'm the lawyer for Milan
11 Lukic. Can we ask you a few questions, please?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, you did review your statement of 1994, as well as your
14 statement to the ICTY in 2001 and 1997; correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Now, the one thing I didn't understand is how could a statement
17 be both from 1997 and 2001 but written in one statement. Can you explain
19 A. From what I know, there are two separate statements. One was
20 given on the subject of Behija Zukic, and the second statement was given
21 about me and the execution I survived. So in total, there should be two
23 Q. And that's two statements to the ICTY; correct? Which would make
24 three statements total. And the reason I say that is because what I have
25 in my folder that's been disclosed by the Prosecution is a 1994 statement
1 to the MUP in Gorazde, and then I have a statement to the ICTY that says
2 that there were interviews in the 31st of October, 1997, and the 26th of
3 January, 2001, a four-year differential. Can you explain that?
4 A. Maybe we did not understand each other really. I said I gave two
5 statements, one about Behija Zukic and another concerning me personally.
6 I gave one statement in Gorazde, that's true, and the second statement I
7 gave subsequently to the investigator. So one statement was made in
8 Gorazde, and there's another one given to the investigator. There are
9 two different subjects in two different statements.
10 Q. And so was there an actual statement produced in 1997 that you
11 reviewed and signed, whether it was about yourself or Behija Zukic? Did
12 you review and sign anything in 1997?
13 A. I had the opportunity to review each of the statements I've
15 Q. Do you remember giving a statement in 1997 to an investigator
16 from the ICTY?
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Weber.
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, that is objection just right now. I
19 believe the question is a little unclear. There's only two statements
20 that the ICTY has disclosed. There's only two statements that exist.
21 One of the statements, the ICTY statement, was -- this witness was
22 interviewed in 1997, then I believe the witness signed the statement in
23 2001. I believe Mr. Alarid would like to direct the witness's attention
24 relating to that. This witness has clearly indicated at this time
25 there's only two statements.
1 MR. ALARID: That sort of did clarify things, Your Honour, from
2 Mr. Weber, although I'd kind of like it to come from the witness.
3 Q. Do you remember -- so you were interviewed in 1997? Is that
5 A. I think it was in 1997 when I gave that statement in Gorazde, and
6 later, in 2001, if I'm not mistaken, I gave another statement to the
8 Q. And in 2001 -- but I mean -- actually, back that up. In 1997 was
9 any piece of paper prepared as a result of that first interview to the
10 ICTY investigator for you to review?
11 A. Maybe you should clarify, because I haven't quite understood what
12 you mean.
13 Q. Well, I have a statement that says that there were two
14 interviews, in 1997 and 2001. My query is did anyone prepare a
15 preliminary statement in 1997 for you to review and possibly sign?
16 A. I know that I signed a statement, and I believe it was in 2001,
17 the statement that I gave to the investigators. So that's the 2001
19 Q. And so my next question is though if you didn't sign anything in
20 1997, was at least something prepared for you that memorialised the
21 investigation that you reviewed for accuracy even if you didn't sign it?
22 A. You see, from the events in Visegrad, so even in those times of
23 war when some people thought it was impossible to document certain
24 things, we had already started, actually, putting the facts on paper,
25 even before the war was over. And after the Dayton Accords, it became
1 much easier, but even during the war we had been trying to document the
2 events and facts and everything that happened in Visegrad.
3 Q. Now, isn't it true that from a time period standpoint, your
4 statements involving Milan Lukic or your knowledge of Milan Lukic precede
5 the 1st of June, 1992, don't they?
6 A. As for my knowledge of Milan Lukic the statement was about the
7 war and what happened during the war. I provided a statement on what
8 happened during the war.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. Mr. -- I'm not sure I understand
10 the question. Is the question whether he gave statements --
11 MR. ALARID: Regarding --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- Milan Lukic before the 1st of June 1992 --
13 MR. ALARID: Then it was a very bad question if that's where it
14 is. I'll try and clarify it then.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
16 MR. ALARID:
17 Q. No, sir, what I'm actually asking you is isn't it true in your
18 statement you testified about what you believed happened between Behija
19 Zukic, the red Passat, and Milan Lukic's involvement in that? Isn't that
21 A. It's not what I believed, it's what I saw. I eyewitnessed that,
22 and I also heard things about it, both. It's about what happened in 1991
23 and 1992 over there during the war.
24 Q. But would it be fair to say that as your statement relates to
25 Milan Lukic, your involvement or what you saw all occurred before the 1st
1 of June, 1992? Isn't that true?
2 A. What happened with Behija Zukic was in May 1992. My own case
3 happened in June, the 11th of June 1992. So we're talking about May and
4 June 1992.
5 Q. And what happened to you in June of 1992 is when you were taken
6 away and arrested by some Serbians whom you did not know and were almost
7 executed. Isn't that true?
8 A. That's true.
9 Q. So whatever you knew about Milan Lukic or observed about Milan
10 Lukic preceded the 1st of June and is related to the death of Behija
11 Zukic. Isn't that true?
12 A. That's true. Prior to the 1st of June Behija Zukic's death
13 occurred. It was back in May. That, however, does not mean that Milan
14 Lukic did not continue his activities over the following months, although
15 that doesn't necessarily apply to my own case in June.
16 Q. Well, and it also doesn't apply to what you would be able to
17 observe and testify under oath about. Isn't that true?
18 A. Can you please clarify that for me?
19 Q. Meaning you can't testify from personal knowledge of any
20 witnessing of Milan Lukic or doing anything after what you saw
21 surrounding Behija Zukic occurred.
22 A. I was still following everything that was happening even after
23 what occurred to Behija Zukic, because I was still in the Visegrad
24 municipal area. I remained in the area.
25 Q. And so your interest after that was more curiosity and following
1 the news as opposed to actually witnessing any part of what Milan Lukic
2 may or may not have done after the end of May 1992. Isn't that true?
3 A. After the end of May 1992 and June. Up until the 11th of June,
4 1992 I was an eyewitness in Visegrad because I was in Visegrad itself, in
5 the centre of Visegrad. After the 11th of June, I could no longer follow
6 any developments or indeed what Milan Lukic was doing simply because the
7 town by this point in time had been cleansed already.
8 Q. But you were -- but the last time that you believe you saw Milan
9 Lukic was before the end of June 1992. Isn't that true?
10 A. Well, yes. The 11th of June is the time up until which I was
11 able to see him around town but not after that date.
12 Q. And so are you testifying today that you saw him around town
13 between of 1st of June, let's say, and the 11th of June?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. And have you testified to this before?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And where did you see him specifically on the 1st of June, let's
19 A. Let me tell you. It has been 17 years since. You're asking me
20 about the 1st of June specifically. Who on earth could possibly remember
21 such a thing? But he was seen around town every day with this Passat,
22 the car, cherry red, and sometimes he would walk around town with no car,
23 but he was also known for walking around Visegrad barefoot with no shoes
24 on so that no one could hear him as he approached certain homes and
25 certain facilities.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, you say that he was seen around town
2 every day with this Passat. Did you actually see him? Were you one of
3 those persons who saw him?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was able to see him around town,
5 yes. Sometimes during the day we would need to go out and get some bread
6 or some supplies in the centre. Movement, however, was quite restricted
7 simply because movement was not always possible. There were always
8 situations in which somebody would say, "Here comes Lukic. Here comes
9 the Passat." And that was a sign for anyone who happened to be around to
10 try to get off the street as quickly as possible.
11 MR. ALARID:
12 Q. And do you realise that you didn't state any of that in your
13 1997/2000 report?
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Statement you mean.
15 MR. ALARID:
16 Q. Isn't that true?
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that what you call a report or is it a
19 MR. ALARID: I'm sorry. The statement, yes. I'm sorry.
20 Q. Isn't it true, sir, that in your statement of 1997 or 2001 you
21 did not mention seeing Milan Lukic in a Passat or barefoot or walking
22 around between the day Behija Zukic's body was taken from her house and
23 June 11th when you left?
24 A. Well, let me tell you, in my statement the only reference to
25 Milan Lukic is in connection with the Behija Zukic situation. This is
1 not something that I mentioned in my statement. The only thing I mention
2 in my statement is what happened to Behija Zukic, which is also what I
3 saw and also what I heard from other people over the phone or when
4 talking to them.
5 Q. I want to know what you saw, when you were, where you were, when
6 you saw him, was a barefoot, was he driving or was he walking, what you
8 MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER: Those are a series of compound questions.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ask them singly.
12 MR. ALARID:
13 Q. Let's just say after May 31st, [Realtime transcript read in error
14 "July 1st"] 1992, where was the first place you saw Milan Lukic and
16 MR. WEBER: Your Honour --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first place I saw Milan Lukic
18 after the 1st of July was --
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm allowing that question. I don't consider it
20 sufficiently compound.
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I just want to correct the transcript,
22 actually. It says July 1st. I believe counsel intended June 1st.
23 MR. ALARID: I did.
24 MR. WEBER: I just wanted to --
25 MR. ALARID: Actually, I meant May 31st.
1 MR. WEBER: Okay. I was just correcting the transcript, Your
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. Thanks.
4 MR. ALARID:
5 Q. And, sir, could you repeat yourself? The transcript did not pick
6 up the translation. After May 31st, 1992, where was the first place you
7 saw Milan Lukic?
8 A. The first place I saw Milan Lukic was a cafe along a street in
9 Visegrad close to a building that was known as number 8. That's what we
10 called the building. It was a very famous building. It had eight
11 floors. There was this cafe behind that building and Milan used to go
12 there a lot. I'm not sure if he actually owned the cafe, but it's just
13 behind the building that we refer to as number 8. This is a street that
14 takes you from the centre of town to Prelovo and his native area of
16 Q. Was he in the cafe?
17 A. Yes. Yes, he was.
18 Q. Where were you?
19 A. After the murder of Behija Zukic I and other people who lived in
20 that neighbourhood moved closer to the town itself because they had told
21 us that the is Serb police did not have sufficient manpower to make sure
22 everybody was safe and there were killings occurring. They told us that
23 we should move closer to the town itself and they would thus be better
24 able to better establish some effective control over what was going on.
25 This is when I arrived in the building that we refer to as number 8,
1 because that's where my son-in-law lived, and he put us up. That means
2 me, my wife, and my child.
3 Q. Now, just a few days earlier you had hidden in an attic and, I
4 believe, saw the body of Behija Zukic through a hole you had made in the
5 roof tiles. Is that true?
6 A. Yes, that's true.
7 Q. And -- but before that night you didn't know she had died until
8 someone told you because you were again hiding under a bridge avoiding
9 capture. Isn't that true?
10 A. You see, we were hiding under the bridge. We started hiding the
11 moment Behija Zukic informed us that her husband, Dzemo Zukic, her son
12 Faruk Zukic, Fehim Tabakovic and his two sons, Izet Tabakovic and Ferid
13 Tabakovic, and Fahrudin Cocalic had been taken away on her lorry. There
14 was this pick-up truck, a TAM truck that Behija Zukic owned, and these
15 people were put onto that truck and taken away.
16 Q. Now, what I'd asked you was is you were hiding under the bridge
17 the night of. Isn't that true? I know you want to say more, but I'd
18 like to get you home.
19 So you'd just been hided under a bridge; correct?
20 A. That night and after what had happened I was under the bridge
21 that had been destroyed. When the hydroelectric plant started operating
22 the bridge was blown up and that's where I was.
23 Q. And I'm assuming that you had to make it to your -- is it your
24 brother-in-law's home? Is that where you stayed after that? Sorry?
25 A. I was at Dusce because the hydroelectric power plant was not
1 functioning properly anymore and the water wreaked a lot of destruction
2 so I was staying in my brother Hilmo's place.
3 Q. And that's in building number 8; correct?
4 A. No. Just to make sure we're perfectly clear about this. After
5 all of this happened, after the murder of Behija Zukic, I moved to the
6 number 8 to stay with my son-in-law. And what happened earlier on, what
7 happened in connection with Behija Zukic, during that time I was staying
8 with my brother in the neighbourhood in which I lived. That was after
9 Behija Zukic.
10 Q. Okay. And so when you're in -- when you're in building number 8
11 you're having to hide; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And I'm assume you're keeping the windows shuttered and the
14 curtains closed; correct?
15 A. Well, yes. It was like that for the most part. It's just that
16 the windows weren't facing the cafe but, rather, the other way, the
17 Elektrodistribucija company, which was another street, the street
18 opposite, so that's the way the windows were facing, but anyway, we
19 weren't really able to look out. We had to lie underneath our beds and
20 sofas, for example, when someone came knocking at our door.
21 Q. And so how were you able to see this Milan Lukic at the cafe from
22 number 8 and can you tell me what day of the 11 days you were there that
23 you were able to see him at the cafe?
24 A. I think I was quite clear when I said that. I could see him when
25 I left the number 8 and I told you a while ago that we would sometimes go
1 out to get our supplies such as bread and milk, because we had left our
2 own homes, and I had to get some food. I couldn't get by without food,
3 and I was certainly in no position to use anyone else's food. We would
4 go out and get supplies.
5 Q. But isn't it true at this time Visegrad was crawling with Serbian
7 A. Yes, but I told you how it was, roughly speaking. One would
8 leave and go out as quickly as possible but nip over to a shop or grocery
9 to get some milk or other supplies, and as quickly as you could you would
10 just walk back.
11 At a later stage even that no longer worked, so we would just
12 send our wives for them to go and get supplies just in order to make sure
13 that no men were out in the street.
14 Q. And what day between June 1st and June 11th did you see Milan
15 Lukic at the cafe?
16 A. It might have been the first days of June, the 1st or the 2nd,
17 perhaps, but it's difficult to be very specific because he spent a lot of
18 time in that cafe.
19 Q. Was he there every day and you saw him there every day?
20 A. The days that I left the house, whenever I was actually out to
21 get some supplies. If I never left the house, as the case was on certain
22 days, I wasn't able to see him, was I?
23 Q. Well, sir, you've been brought here to rebut an alibi testimony
24 it, so it's very important that you're able to pinpoint with certainty of
25 date the date you saw him.
1 A. As I said, it's very difficult now, 17 years later. You're
2 asking me about the exact date. The next thing I know you'll be asking
3 me about the hour of the day, but it has been a long time. However, up
4 until the 11th of June, the beginning of the Bajram holiday, I was trying
5 to leave, to get out. Whenever I thought it was safe to get out of the
6 house, I would go and get some basic supplies. Those were the basic
7 necessities. That's why I would go out of the house.
8 Q. And so you're saying despite needing to hide in attics and under
9 a bridge, you could walk out in broad daylight and go shopping?
10 A. I told you we would just nip out in a manner of speaking and try
11 to keep it as quick and as short as possible, and there were shops
12 nearby. The neighbourhood is called Mezalin. There were shops nearby.
13 You could just go in and out in no time at all, get your supplies and be
15 Q. How many times did you go out versus sending your wives?
16 A. Well, let's say once a day. I was in no position to risk more
17 than that.
18 Q. So you're saying you went outside every day between June 1st and
19 June 11th?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. During the daylight?
22 A. Yes. Daytime, of course --
23 Q. Just to shop for the --
24 A. -- because of the business hours of the shops. Yes, yes.
25 Q. Well, if men are being taken away never to be seen again don't
1 you think it would be more prudent to gather enough supplies to last for
2 a while?
3 A. Well, let me tell you, things had not yet begun to happen in the
4 same intense way that they started happening later on. By this time only
5 two murders had occurred, no more than two. The first involved the
6 Smajic family, the wife and the husband, Medo Smajic and his wife. That
7 was the first murder. And then there was Behija Zukic, which was the
8 next murder. Maybe at this time people were not yet fully aware of how
9 the whole thing would end and what it would eventually lead to.
10 Q. Sir, before this date the Uzice Corps had already come to town,
11 hadn't they?
12 A. Before when?
13 Q. Before the death of Behija Zukic.
14 A. Yes. Yes. The Uzice Corps came in on the 14th of April.
15 Q. And the Uzice Corps, while they were in town many crimes were
16 committed against Muslims, weren't they?
17 A. Well, they were more like putting in their measuring rod and then
18 checking, but the murders really started occurring in any serious way
19 once the Uzice Corps had withdrawn.
20 Q. And the Uzice Corps disarmed the Muslim people, didn't they?
21 A. Well, let me tell you. I don't think what there was to take away
22 in terms of disarming and who in Visegrad could be disarmed in terms of
23 owning weapons. When the hydroelectric power plant was abandoned, all
24 the Muslims left Visegrad. When they were returning, no one was allowed
25 to carry any weapons while returning. Therefore, there was no one and
1 nothing to disarm.
2 Q. And during the Uzice Corps Muslim men disappeared, didn't they?
3 A. Well, I told you it was mostly about people being taken away and
4 people being checked. The Uzice Corps was headquartered at Bikavac.
5 Mostly there were interviews that were being conducted during the
6 presence of the Uzice Corps in town.
7 Q. Sir, in your statement of 1997 and 2001, you indicated that the
8 White Eagles participated in the attack on Dobrun on the 6th of April,
9 1992. Isn't that true?
10 A. Yes, that's true, the 6th of April, 1992. The White Eagles
11 attacked the local commune of Dobrun. This local commune straddles the
12 border with Serbia. I'm talking about Serbia the country.
13 On the 6th of April, the White Eagles attacked Dobrun. There are
14 documents showing that that were seized, those documents, the White
15 Eagles documents, with all their first names, last names, personal
16 detail, as well as their rules of conduct. But they had tags on them
17 that said Eagles, and then also a flag was seized as well as some other
19 Q. And you heard about the entire population, the Muslim population,
20 as many as they could gather were taken to the soccer stadium, the
21 football stadium in Visegrad and addressed by Colonel Jovanovic. Isn't
22 that true?
23 A. Yes. I heard that people had been taken to the stadium.
24 Probably the objective was to take them away, cleansing. The aim was to
25 use buses to ferry them across to other countries and other areas.
1 Q. And isn't it true that in that stadium Colonel Jovanovic claimed
2 he controlled the White Eagles? Isn't that true?
3 A. I wasn't at the stadium myself. Did I hear this, did I not hear
4 this, frankly I don't remember. Nevertheless, as long as the Uzice Corps
5 was still around, the situation was more or less bearable. Once it left,
6 everything changed.
7 Q. Or quite possibly it was a calculated attempt at disarming the
8 Muslim people, then luring them back to their homes to be victimised and
9 unarmed by a well-organised police action.
10 A. Let me tell you this: All of the people who returned, returned
11 unarmed. There was no resistance at all on their part. That was out of
12 the question. You could say the aim of the whole thing was to bring
13 people back into town, and then we know what happened later.
14 Q. Now, let's talk about how you know Milan Lukic. You remember him
15 specifically being in your class?
16 A. Yes, I do, specifically. And I told you what his class was, the
17 number, the department, and what the vocational speciality was that they
18 were studying. If required, I can provide further explanations as well.
19 Q. Well, but isn't it true that in your statement you didn't
20 necessarily recognise Milan Lukic and it was a Mr. Tabakovic who told you
21 or reminded you that he was somehow in your class?
22 A. You see, when Milan Lukic came from Obrenovac, Serbia, to
23 Visegrad his behaviour drew a lot of attention from many of us. As an
24 individual, as a human being, what he did drew some interest. We
25 actually tried to find out more about him because of that. This is just
1 a single source. Izet Tabakovic who was his classmate and Tesalic
2 [phoen], they were classmates. But this is just a single source that
3 sort of filled in whatever information I had.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, we're going to take the break now.
5 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.08 p.m.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Alarid.
8 MR. ALARID:
9 Q. Mr. Tabakovic is the one that you said was a schoolmate or
10 classmate with Milan Lukic? Is that true?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And which year was he a classmate with him?
13 A. I think it was the school year 1982, '83. And they were in the
14 second year of secondary school.
15 Q. And the -- but the reality is you couldn't remember him. You
16 needed this other young man to tell -- or remind you, rather, that he was
17 in your class. Is that what you're saying?
18 A. That young man is just one of the sources I told you a moment
19 ago. Izet Tabakovic and Fahrudin Cocalic were his classmates. And there
20 is another source that I checked and indeed was convinced that it was a
21 former student of mine.
22 Q. What was the other source, please?
23 A. One is my own inquiries that I made into him, because for a while
24 he was absent from Visegrad, having continued his studies in Belgrade
25 before coming back to our area. So for a while I wasn't seeing him, and
1 then I tried to gather more information to put the whole picture
2 together, which I did, and the other source are those two young men.
3 Q. Where did you make those inquiries?
4 A. In town, in contacts with people of both Bosniak and Serb
5 ethnicity. The two communities were still communicating.
6 Q. How about school records?
7 A. School records exist. There are yearbooks that are kept in the
8 school and archived for a number of years, and they can be checked.
9 Q. And so you're positive that this Milan Lukic in his second year
10 of secondary school was in your class, personally taught by you. Is that
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You're certain of this to a hundred per cent. Is that true?
14 A. I'm quite certain.
15 Q. And you believe school records and yearbooks will verify this.
16 Is that what you're saying?
17 A. Yes, because these yearbooks, books kept for every class, exist.
18 They are archived.
19 Q. And if I were to tell you that this Milan Lukic was in fact not
20 your student and attended a different curriculum, would that change your
22 A. I'll tell you, I'm convinced that he was in that particular
23 course at school, and I taught all classes from year 1 to year 4 of that
24 school, and there were a total of 11 different courses given -- giving
25 different vocational training leading to different professions.
1 Q. How about metallurgy?
2 A. There was a course in metallurgy, and I taught that course too.
3 Those were locksmiths, metal grinders, lathe operators, metallurgical
4 technicians. All these were different vocations at school and I taught
5 them as well.
6 Q. Well --
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: How many students did you teach in all?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That secondary school centre had
9 around 1.500 students, and it worked in two shifts. So there is a
10 likelihood that I taught around half of that total, around 700 to 800
11 students following different courses in different years.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, the class in which you say Milan was, how
13 many students would it have had?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the classes were up to 30
15 students. Up to 30 students were in one classroom.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there anything specific about Milan Lukic
17 that you remember as a student?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that period he didn't stand out.
19 He was young. He was around 17. At that time he didn't stand out
20 because he didn't know himself at the time what would happen in ten
21 years. If he had known, maybe his conduct would have been different even
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Alarid.
24 MR. ALARID:
25 Q. But in fact in your statement of 1997, 2001, you stated that:
1 "He was not a noticeable pupil and, frankly, I don't really remember him
2 clearly from that time." Isn't that true?
3 A. That's what I said a moment ago. He wasn't particularly
4 remarkable at the time. However, after the events that followed ten
5 years later, his behaviour changed. He couldn't have told himself who he
6 would become ten years later.
7 Q. Because the Milan Lukic that you believe went to school and you
8 taught was not an aggressive student or did not cause fights or anything?
9 Is that the fact?
23 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of Chamber]
11 Pages 2056-2057 redacted. Private session.
1 Q. Now, when you -- after the death of Behija Zukic, you heard that
2 members of your community went to complain to the commander in chief,
3 Risto Perisic. Isn't that true?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And isn't it true that Risto Perisic was the chief of police as
6 well as a high ranking member of the Crisis Stab and the SDS party?
7 A. Risto Perisic was my former classmate -- sorry, my former work
8 colleague. We used to work together in the secondary school centre. He
9 taught the Serbian language. When the war broke out, when the military
10 operation started, Risto Perisic became chief of MUP. So he was the
11 chief of MUP, a member of the SDS, and a member of the Crisis Staff. So
12 he was in the inner circle of the SDS.
13 Q. And being in the inner circle of the SDS, the SDS held absolute
14 control over the police in Visegrad after the break-up. Isn't that true?
15 A. Yes. Correct.
16 Q. And isn't it true that Dragan Tomic was the commander of the
17 police under Perisic?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And isn't it true that many Muslims were arrested by the police
20 under the control of Risto Perisic?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And many of those Muslims were never seen or heard from again.
23 Isn't that true?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, you heard that Milan Lukic lived in Obrenovac. Isn't that
2 A. Yes. After completing two years of secondary school he continued
3 his schooling at the police school in Belgrade. You may wonder how come
4 there were so many Lukices in the police and I'll tell you. They have a
5 relative in Belgrade, a certain Lukic, who was the secretary of the
6 Ministry of the Interior. In other words, the minister. And through
7 that Lukic many Lukices were admitted into active police service after --
8 after completing training.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, you have used up 55 minutes, and
10 I'll allow you another ten.
11 MR. ALARID: Thank you, Judge.
12 Q. So you're -- so you're not saying that this Milan Lukic finished
13 as a cook; is that correct?
14 A. When he was finishing his second year, since there were not
15 enough trained active policemen a public competition was announced with
16 the following terms: After two years of no matter what kind of secondary
17 training, one could continue in a police training course to become an
18 active duty policeman. And following that line, Milan Lukic, as an
19 ethnic Serb, and Samir Dedic, an ethnic Bosnian, continued their
20 schooling in a police school, because Samir Dedic's father was also a
21 policeman, Hasim [as interpreted] Dedic. The two continued their
22 schooling, reorienting from their original secondary course to police
24 Q. And so do I -- so does it stand to reason that the information
25 that you got regarding this Milan Lukic moving to Obrenovac and
1 continuing in the police academy was through Samir Dedic's father?
2 That's where you did your research. Is that true?
9 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, are we still in private session? Yes.
10 May the court assistant assist me in taking a pseudonym sheet to
11 the witness, please.
12 Q. And, sir, what's being handed to you is a pseudonym sheet, and
13 just like yourself, other witnesses have been granted protective
14 measures, and I'm going to ask you, do you know who VG-115 is?
15 A. No.
16 Q. How many people were in building 8 when you were staying there
17 before you departed?
18 A. In which building?
19 Q. Where you were hiding before you left June 11th.
20 A. In number 8 there were several Bosniak families. There was the
21 family of Teufo Tankovic. That's him and his wife Savala.
22 Q. I don't mean to cut you off, but what I was concerned about was
23 did at any time you know this person is staying in building 8? Just a
24 query. Even if you didn't know them personally, did you know who she
1 A. I neither heard nor saw them.
11 Page 2062 redacted. Private session.
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, I was perplexed by the statement you
18 made in your remarks concerning the giving of a decision by the Trial
19 Chamber before you had had a chance to respond. I've had it
20 investigated, and this is what happened: The Trial Chamber gave a
21 decision only in relation to VG-42. We have not given a decision in
22 relation to the other witnesses mentioned in the Prosecution's motion.
23 And you did reply in relation to VG-42.
24 MR. ALARID: Yes.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: So I'd like to have that clear on the record.
1 MR. ALARID: 42 and 65 were separated, Your Honour.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
3 MR. ALARID: We separated those, considering you were clearly
4 dealing with the issues of those two separate from the ones that are
5 actually due today, I believe.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, so I just wanted to have it clarified that
7 the Trial Chamber did not give a decision in relation to any witness in
8 respect of whom you have not yet responded.
9 MR. ALARID: Thank you, Judge.
10 I just have a final matter with regard to this witness. I think
11 considering the fact that he was tendered only under the alibi exception
12 following the final 65 ter list and witness list, the witness was not
13 able to give any relevant testimony against the alibi testimony. He was
14 not able to give any specific dates for the relevant counts in June, and
15 specifically he was best able to comment both in his statement, as well
16 as today as to times before the relevant conduct is in issue. If all he
17 was brought in to was to do alibi, I would move that his testimony be
18 stricken. If the Court considers it otherwise, then we would like his
19 MUP statement introduced into evidence.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Groome, have you heard that submission?
21 Mr. Weber, the submission is that the witness whom we just heard
22 did not give evidence to rebut the alibi. The witness gave evidence on
23 other matters.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'd refer the Chamber's attention to the
25 decision that was rendered on the 29th of August, 2008, when this Chamber
1 allowed this witness -- specifically paragraphs 28 and 29. This witness
2 was allowed by the Chamber to present evidence relating to three specific
3 Defence alibi witnesses MLD 5, MLD 6 and MLD 8. It fell within the scope
4 of rebuttal evidence because it rebuts factual assertions that were
5 offered by these Defence witnesses. Believe this witness's testimony
6 should be weighed in context of those witnesses that will appear before
7 the Chamber. The Chamber found that this evidence of this witness is
8 relevant to rebut Defence alibi evidence, not just specifically an alibi.
9 So it -- the Chamber deemed this witness appropriate and relevant to
10 rebut Defence alibi evidence specifically coming from three witnesses, as
11 indicated by the Prosecution.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, I know the Chamber allowed it, but that's
13 not the point. The point is whether the evidence that we actually heard
14 is properly classifiable as alibi rebuttal evidence.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the evidence that the Prosecution
16 indicated in its motion which the Chamber allow was admitted today
17 pursuant to 92 ter. The Prosecution because of the five-minute time
18 limit that was allotted by the Chamber to not lead this evidence, we do
19 not have any objection to counsel's request to admit also the 1994
20 statement and this was the evidence that this witness was intended to
21 give before the Chamber and the evidence that the witness did provide
22 today in the form of 92 ter.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ultimately -- Mr. Alarid, ultimately these are
24 all matters that the Trial Chamber as the trier of fact will have to
25 determine, to determine what weight to attach to the evidence.
1 MR. ALARID: Well, I mean on one hand, Your Honour, I would agree
2 had they listed this witness in their case in chief. I think from that
3 perspective it -- what can I say? But from the perspective of
4 specifically stating that this witness has information that rebuts an
5 alibi, and an alibi is "I was not here, I was somewhere else." This guy
6 did not say, "No, Milan was here instead of somewhere else." Given that
7 fact, during the 11 days he may have seen him at a cafe, that still
8 doesn't necessarily negate alibi. And I understand where they're going
9 is because one of the submissions that my predecessor put in his initial
10 alibi statement way back in January was that Milan says he wasn't always
11 in the Passat, and therefore I think this is still chasing that cherry
12 red Passat, but it doesn't necessarily go to the meat and bones of what
13 an alibi is, which is, "I wasn't there when they say I was," and if he
14 was another witness who said, "Oh, I saw him on June 7th," I would
15 understand if he was another witness who said that, but he didn't say
16 that. So that's why I make my submission.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Weber.
19 MR. WEBER: The three witnesses which were submitted by Defence
20 counsel who is before the now are MLD 5, MLD 6 and MLD 8. All three of
21 these witnesses indicate that others besides Milan Lukic drove the red
22 Passat and also call into question about whether or not he killed Behija
23 Zukic. These -- then during this case the very first witness, actually,
24 counsel made quite an issue and has continued to make an issue over the
25 ownership and possession of this red Passat. This witness was called for
1 a specific purpose relating to rebuttal evidence of facts that contradict
2 the facts which may or may not be offered by the three Defence witnesses
3 MLD 5, MLD 6, or MLD 8.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: We heard the submissions made by Mr. Alarid, and
6 we'll take them into consideration.
7 Mr. Groome.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I said to the Court that I would
9 investigate the matter of disclosure last Friday and I do have some
10 additional information for the Chamber.
11 With respect to Ewa Tabeau, 955 pages in total were provided
12 Defence counsel. Nearly half of that, 466 pages, are her reports from
13 completely unrelated cases. They were provided as a courtesy upon the
14 request of the Defence and not because they were disclosable. And these
15 are cases having to do with the events in Srebrenica in 1995, the Prlic
16 case, cases arising out of the Krajina. So they are cases that clearly
17 have no bearing on this case but again were provided at the request of
18 the Defence counsel.
19 Also disclosed were 200 pages of her report for the Vasiljevic
20 case. That was previously disclosed, Your Honour. All that was
21 disclosed Friday was an ERNed copy because that's the copy that would be
22 used in court with her if she was referring to her report. So that's 200
23 pages that had been previously disclosed.
24 Also disclosed were 175 pages of her report for the Milosevic
25 case, and this was the B/C/S translation of that report. The English
1 version of the Milosevic report was disclosed in March of 2007.
2 So in summary, Your Honour, out of the 955 pages referred to, 840
3 of those pages were either provided as a courtesy to Defence upon their
4 request or were previously disclosed documents.
5 With respect to Dr. John Clark, our IT people conducted a search
6 of records having John Clark's name and identified several thousands of
7 documents. Approximately 900 of these documents arise out of forensic
8 examinations that he was involved with in some capacity arising out of
9 Slap, and the Chamber has already heard of Slap as the communal grave
10 site where many of the victims of what happened in Visegrad were buried.
11 Nine hundred and four documents were disclosed. Out of these 904 pages,
12 approximately 100 pages are text and 800 pages are diagrams of bodies
13 showing the location where the body was recovered and/or diagrams of the
14 bodies showing where injuries were sustained. These documents represent
15 the records of 131 forensic examinations, not all personally performed by
16 Clark. Out of these 131, only 3 have direct relevance to this case, and
17 these have been identified to Defence counsel. These are approximately 9
18 pages of text.
19 As a final note, Your Honour, as the Court is well aware, these
20 cases do generate a lot of -- a large number of documents, and it's for
21 that reason that I had asked my staff to disclose what was properly
22 disclosable under Rule 66 and Rule 68 and then make Defence counsel aware
23 of any other documents that they may also be interested in and as a
24 courtesy to them provide them if they so wished, and that is why so many
25 documents were provided on Friday.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Groome. Who is your next
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution's next witness is
4 Ms. Ewa Tabeau.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
7 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
8 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.
11 Just a minute, Ms. Marcus.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Marcus.
14 Mr. Cepic.
15 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave I just
16 wish to reply to Mr. Groome's statement. If the material is not
17 relevant, why has it been disclosed to us? We had 1.334 pages to work
18 with Saturday morning. I was really in no position to judge which of
19 them were relevant to our case and which were not. Thank you.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I think it's --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: As a courtesy, Mr. Groome?
22 MR. GROOME: Well, Your Honour, the history of it is when the
23 staff identified these documents to me, I drafted a letter which was sent
24 to Defence counsel at the end of last week notifying them of this body of
25 material and offering them, if they wanted to, to view it. The response
1 was they did want this material and it was provided, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: So apparently you did request it.
3 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. There has been some
4 confusion, it seems. We were invited by Mr. Cole from the OTP by e-mail
5 to inspect all the material quite unrelated to this material that was not
6 meant to be disclosed. That was the invitation we received from
7 Mr. Cole. And this disclosure was on an entirely different basis.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid.
10 MR. ALARID: Either way, Your Honour, the offering of Mr. Groome
11 was at the end of Friday, and then we get into the position of getting
12 more disclosures over weekend, and the offer to or the request to see the
13 census materials as well as the voter registration materials we made
14 today and our initial response was simply that under Rule 70 they could
15 not other than allowing us to come into the building. I think that's why
16 I filed a motion or an objection to bar the testimony of this witness in
17 advance of the Chamber's session today and I don't want to waive that
18 motion and I feel that we're at a disadvantage to cross-examination today
19 with those matters disclosed at such a late point or at least left
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour.
22 MR. ALARID: Beginning of Friday. I apologise.
23 MR. GROOME: Ms. Tabeau is readily available. If the Chamber
24 thinks in fairness to both Defence counsel that they should have an
25 additional opportunity or they should have the opportunity to look at
1 this 9.5 million populated database of voter registration, again
2 Ms. Tabeau is here at the beck and call of the Chamber to assist in any
3 way she can.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. But we'll certainly proceed with the
6 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
7 Examination by Ms. Marcus:
8 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Tabeau.
9 A. Good afternoon.
10 Q. You have been called to testify as an expert in these
11 proceedings. Could you please inform the Court of what your area of
12 expertise is.
13 A. I am a demographer. My recent expertise is in the studies of
14 conflict, victims of conflict, the so-called demography of conflict, but
15 from education I am a statistician. I studied statistics and
16 econometrics, obtained my master degree in this area. Later I obtained
17 my Ph.D. in mathematical demography.
18 MS. MARCUS: As the Trial Chamber decided in -- on the 23rd of
19 July, 2008, that Dr. Tabeau does qualify as an expert I will -- am not
20 intending to dwell on her professional qualifications. May I just simply
21 request the court officer to pull up ERN that's document ID 0641-6000.
22 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. May I have some assistant here? I
23 actually pushed some buttons and incorrectly, I believe. I lost my
24 transcript. And if I have something from the e-court it's coming here.
25 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I've just been informed by the court
1 usher that the document can't be found. May I just have a moment,
2 please, and I'll pull up the hard copy.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
4 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I have a hard copy in English of
5 Dr. Tabeau's curriculum vitae.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
7 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, this is the
8 document that was disclosed to us this morning, isn't it? Thank you.
9 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, this is an updated version --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Was that disclosed this morning, Ms. Marcus,
11 only this morning?
12 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, that is an updated version of
13 Dr. Tabeau's curriculum vitae. It's -- as Dr. Tabeau was already
14 qualified as an expert the Prosecution did not see this as an issue.
15 We're merely tendering it for the record. If the Chamber prefers us not
16 to tender it, that will be fine with us. Whatever you decide, Your
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I see. She's already qualified, so there
19 is not an issue. But it doesn't mean, of course, that the Defence can't
20 ask questions about it.
21 MS. MARCUS: Understood, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
23 MS. MARCUS:
24 Q. Dr. Tabeau, could you confirm that the document in front of you
25 is your updated curriculum vitae?
1 A. Yes, it is a brief version of it. Only the major points of my
2 career and major publications are mentioned, latest ones.
3 Q. Should the Trial Chamber require further information with regard
4 to your qualifications, can that information be found in this document?
5 A. Yes, it can.
6 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I tender into evidence the curriculum
7 vitae of Dr. Eve Tabeau.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it is admitted as Exhibit number
11 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, as explained by Mr. Groome earlier
12 today, Dr. Tabeau has kindly prepared a demonstrative exhibit containing
13 brief excerpts from her expert report to facilitate her summarising her
14 findings for us. I'd like to ask the court officer to assist by
15 broadcasting from Mr. Van Hooydonk's computer the PowerPoint.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
17 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if these are the lists
18 that we received yesterday by e-mail, I see no relevance and I don't
19 think the documents are founded or reliable. I don't see the source
20 either. Thank you.
21 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I believe learned counsel is referring
22 to two charts which -- which is not what I was pulling up now but which I
23 would be seeking to ask Dr. Tabeau to comment on later. These charts are
24 an abbreviated way of asking Dr. Tabeau to use her skills of her
25 demographics unit to tell us what can be found about missing persons
1 whose names are related to the indictment and whose names have come up in
2 the evidence. I could either ask her names one by one, or I could
3 prepare a chart or ask Dr. Tabeau more accurately to prepare a chart in
4 which her unit has performed what it does, which is an analysis based on
5 their databases of records in relation to those individual victims.
6 Those are the tools that have been prepared by Dr. Tabeau also as
7 demonstrative exhibits for the efficient and -- efficient presentation of
8 that information.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
10 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave I don't
11 think these questions are essential, at least not from where we stand.
12 However, what I wish to ask my learned friend is have we received what is
13 about to be shown and what the witness will comment on. Thank you.
14 MS. MARCUS: What is about to be shown is --
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid.
16 MS. MARCUS: Sorry.
17 MR. ALARID: From our perspective, Your Honour, it's not just
18 that we have not received the PowerPoint which includes excerpts from the
19 updated report, but the Prosecution filed the motion to file an updated
20 expert report just the 8th of September, which the due date of our
21 response is today, which we've got to draft and preparation would filing
22 in a timely manner, and of course we do not have the PowerPoint
23 presentation of which to object to that.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: So your position then is what, Mr. Alarid?
25 You're not in a position now to give your response?
1 MR. ALARID: Well, no. It just renders our -- our -- the whole
2 issue moot by simply presenting the updated portion of the report in a
3 PowerPoint presentation of which now is before the Court and of course
4 why should we even respond at that point?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, but you have a right to respond, and --
6 MR. ALARID: But aren't we essentially admitting it before the
7 deadline's --
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: I have not yet admitted it.
9 MR. ALARID: No, well, I guess -- I guess --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm asking what your response is now. You must
11 tell us what your position is.
12 MR. ALARID: We would object, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, what -- what I was intending to do is
15 in fact it's true, it's correct what counsel is saying, that these
16 excerpts are from the -- the updated expert report which is in a pending
17 application before the Chamber. Perhaps if I might propose a way to -- a
18 way to resolve it, we could present the PowerPoint. There's nothing in
19 the PowerPoint which is not contained in the reports. It's just that the
20 report contains a lost text and the PowerPoint excerpts certain tables
21 which makes it easier to present to the Chamber and more -- more speedy.
22 In each -- in each reference you will see the connection to what page it
23 is in the expert report. And perhaps what the -- it's up to the Chamber,
24 of course, but what could be done is to mark the expert report for
25 identification and then later, depending on the decision, it could be
1 admitted. I would have been seeking to admit the updated expert report
2 following the presentation of the PowerPoint.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
4 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. [Interpretation]
5 [Previous translation continues] ... this exhibit is -- is from 21st of
6 September, 2008, according to the information which we received from OTP.
7 That means yesterday, exhibit from yesterday. Thank you.
8 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, it's correct. Both the charts that I
9 would be referring to later and the PowerPoint were prepared over the
10 weekend. As Your Honours know, this was a calling on Dr. Tabeau as a
11 substitute for the -- what would have been VG-42.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. We'll -- we'll not admit the updated
13 report now. We'll mark it for identification, and you can present the
15 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 THE REGISTRAR: The report will become Exhibit P118 marked for
18 Q. Dr. Tabeau, can you see the slide on the screen in front you?
19 Okay. Your Honours, I have hard copies of the PowerPoint presentation.
20 As this was not something I was intending to tender, it -- I will not be
21 seeking to present the entirety of it. I will tell everyone what page
22 we're on, and I will not be tendering it. It's merely excerpts, as I
23 said before, of the expert report. Perhaps this would be a way to
24 resolve the technical problems we appear to be having.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters possibly be provided
1 with copies too? Thank you.
2 MS. MARCUS: We're starting on slide 5, page 5.
3 Q. Dr. Tabeau, could you please tell us in general terms what your
4 expert report is about?
5 A. There are two main subjects discussed in this report. The first
6 subject is the changes in the ethnic composition in the period between
7 the outbreak of the conflict and after the conflict ended and related to
8 these numbers of IDPs and refugees from the Visegrad region in Bosnia,
9 and the second subject is an analysis of missing persons from the
10 Visegrad region and Visegrad municipality itself.
11 Q. Pages 6. Does this list represent the other cases before this
12 Tribunal in which this methodology has been used?
13 A. We are now talking about the first subject I have just mentioned,
14 the analysis of ethnic composition and IDPs and refugees. Yes indeed,
15 this list represents the ICTY cases where this method and this kind of
16 study was presented. Our major study was done for the case of Slobodan
17 Milosevic where the area that we presented was far larger than what we
18 present in this report. It was 47 municipalities in Bosnia then. The
19 results presented in this report originated from this study completed for
20 Slobodan Milosevic.
21 Q. Page 7. Turning to the first issue --
22 MR. CEPIC: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I think that the interpreters
23 have a very difficult job because the both witness and my friend
24 Ms. Marcus speak the same language and it is I believe quite difficult to
25 translate everything at times. Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please observe a pause between question and
2 answer, both witness and counsel.
3 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
4 Q. Turning to the first issue. Could you kindly explain what is the
5 objective of this portion of your analysis?
6 A. The main objective we had in mind was to present -- to obtain,
7 produce reliable statistics on genders in the ethnic composition and on
8 the numbers of internally displaced persons and refugees who originated
9 from the Visegrad region. Sources that would -- could be used for this
10 kind of analysis are limited, practically non-existence when particular
11 conflict periods need to be analysed. So this is a challenge, and we
12 identified the necessary sources in proposed methodology, suitable
13 methodology to work on this objective.
14 Well, the region that we analysed in this particular report, I'm
15 speaking we because the initial report was made with a co-author, with
16 Jakub Bijak. Now I updated myself the Visegrad study. Well, when the
17 area is considered then we -- I have to say the analysis is not only made
18 for the Visegrad municipality but also a number of neighbouring
19 municipalities in the Visegrad region were included in the study, and
20 among the most important were of course Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica,
21 and other municipalities. I would like at some point to show this region
22 on a map.
23 Q. Yes. We can turn to page 8. Does this map represent the
24 geographic scope of your study?
25 A. Yes. In the upper right corner there is a square in which the
1 Visegrad region is shown. It is located at the eastern border of Bosnia
2 and Herzegovina with Serbia. So the Visegrad municipality was the
3 central area in our study. And surrounding municipalities included
4 Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica, Han Pijesak, Sokolac, Rogatica, Cajnice
5 and Rudo. We excluded Gorazde as this municipality was split by the
6 Dayton line and in all split municipalities there were very, very intense
7 population movements across the border of the political entities, so
8 these changes wouldn't be directly comparable with all the changes in all
9 remaining municipalities.
10 Q. We've placed the PowerPoint presentation on the ELMO so that will
11 also enable Dr. Tabeau to point with her pen as she -- as she speaks.
12 Turning to page 9. Turning back to your sources, Dr. Tabeau,
13 which you referred to before, could you please explain briefly what
14 sources were used for this portion of your study.
15 A. We used two major sources. One was the 1991 population census
16 conducted in March '91 in the entire country in Bosnia-Herzegovina and
17 also for the rest of the former Yugoslavia. And the second source that
18 we used for the post-conflict period were the voters registrations from
19 1997 and 1998. But as for the starting point of the analysis, the '91
20 census was the only and major source, and one of a better if not the best
21 source one can imagine to be used in such a study as this one.
22 Q. Can you -- can you explain, elaborate on why the census is, as
23 you say, one of the best sources which can be used in this study?
24 A. The population census is the complete population survey in every
25 country. So it is conducted only every approximately ten years as it is
1 a huge effort for statistical authority to conduct the census. It
2 covers, as I said, the entire population in a country, and many aspects
3 of the population. In Bosnia the '91 census covered issues related to
4 the population itself, and as a well other issues related to agriculture.
5 We didn't use the agricultural part of the census. We used the data
6 describing the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
7 Q. What was the methodology for dealing with any deficiencies which
8 may exist in a census?
9 A. Well, perhaps first of all I will mention the deficiencies. The
10 major deficiency of the census data is that data was moved from paper
11 copies of the questionnaires used during the census to the computer files
12 by OCRing, optical character recognition techniques were used in order to
13 computerise this material, and during this process errors were made
14 related to -- to the scanning. So these errors can be seen on the first
15 place in the names of the individuals listed in the census. These are
16 spelling mistakes that we had to deal with, and some other mistakes.
17 Recorded categories were far less affected by the misread characters than
18 the names.
19 In order to eliminate the mistakes from the names, names were
20 important for us from the point of view of the methodology used in this
21 study, we applied several techniques. There were at least three major
22 projects in which we corrected the mistakes -- spelling mistakes in the
23 names. First project was basically running a computer programme to
24 detect impossible combinations of letters in the Bosnian language. There
25 were native speakers who defined -- linguists who defined these
1 impossible combination. So these combinations of letters were identified
2 and replaced by the most likely right combinations.
3 The second method was making lists of names as reported and
4 asking native B/C/S speakers to correct the names, to make from their own
5 names misspelled names the right names.
6 And the third method was we applied a household approach in which
7 in every household in the census we tried to identify the right spelling
8 of name -- of the name within this household. Once such a name was
9 identified all other members with misspelled names within the same
10 household received the correct name.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Marcus, what is the time estimate for this
13 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, as Mr. Groome submitted this morning,
14 we were trying to get through this within a reasonable period of time.
15 His estimate was 50 minutes. I will do my very utmost to -- to get
16 through it in that time or very close to that time.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.
18 MS. MARCUS:
19 Q. Dr. Tabeau, we're moving to page 10 of the PowerPoint. Please
20 briefly could you tell us who is included in the voter registers.
21 A. In the voters registers are included eligible voters who
22 registered to vote in the '97 and '98 elections, local elections, in
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Those who didn't register are not there and those
24 not eligible to vote, too young, are not included in the registers as
1 Q. Now moving to page 11. Could you briefly describe the methods
2 you used in your study?
3 A. Well, basically we -- our purpose was to produce reliable
4 statistics, and we used original sources, that is the census and the
5 voters registers in order to produce those statistics from individual
6 level data. Ethnicity was, however, an important characteristic of the
7 population, and in order to include ethnicity in our study it was
8 necessary to match the census data with the voters registers. So the
9 basic methodology, the most important part of the methodology is the
10 matching of the two sources. We also applied the matching later to the
11 missing persons list that was matched with the census as well for the
12 same purpose as ethnicity was not reported in the voters and not in the
13 missing persons list.
14 Q. Page 12. Could you tell us what definition of ethnicity was
16 A. The ethnicity definition used was the one from the population
17 census --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
19 MR. CEPIC: I'm sorry, I just thought that I heard a leading
20 question, but it's okay. Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: May I --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: -- continue?
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, yes.
25 THE WITNESS: Ethnicity was coming from the census records. This
1 means in the census questionnaire there was a question related to
2 ethnicity. Every respondent had the right to identify himself or herself
3 by giving an answer the person felt was right. It was an open-ended
4 question. All together there were approximately 100 categories reported
5 in the census data. We regrouped these 100 categories with -- into four
6 major groups. We took all those who reported themselves as Serbs to be
7 the Serbs, all those reported as Muslims or Bosniaks as the Muslims,
8 Croats as Croats, and all other ethnicities, including Yugoslavs, in the
9 final last category that we called others.
10 It's important to say that it wasn't so difficult to work with
11 ethnicity from the census because of the matching of the census data with
12 voters and with ICRC records of the missing persons. So once these
13 records -- I am speaking records, individual level records describing
14 cases were matched, it was possible to transfer information from the
15 census records onto either voters records or missing persons records. So
16 that was the major thing in our methodology, using, one, the same
17 definition of ethnicity for pre and post-war period, and using the
18 definition that was coming from this open-ended question from the
19 population census.
20 MS. MARCUS:
21 Q. Page 13. Could you please explain how you identified who was an
22 internally displaced person, an IDP, and who was a refugee, briefly if
24 A. Identifying IDPs and refugees was based on a statistical approach
25 and not on a legal approach, so our statistical -- in our statistical
1 approach an IDP, internally displaced person, was a person who resided in
2 the post-conflict period at a different municipality than was reported
3 for the person in the population census. So in order to decide who is
4 displaced, who is not, we simply compared the place of residence of
5 individuals as reported before the conflict in '91 population census on
6 one hand and voters registers for the post-conflict period as a proxy for
7 the residents, post-war residents, the municipality of registration was
9 And the same with refugees with the difference that refugees were
10 not the persons who moved within the borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina
11 but left the country and moved abroad.
12 Q. Page 14. In your expert report you refer to minimum numbers.
13 Could you explain briefly, please, what is meant by the term "minimum
15 A. So minimum numbers are the numbers that were produced based on
16 the matched records. So whoever was reported in the voters and was back
17 traced in '91 records in the census is a matched record and using these
18 matched records it was possible to produce the so-called minimum numbers,
19 the minimum or at least numbers. All these numbers can be documented
20 individually, that means by attaching lists of persons with names and
21 other details, but we know for sure these lists are an underestimation,
22 undercount. I shouldn't say estimation, because it is not an estimate,
23 it is a count, a count, a statistic produced from data, individual data.
24 So in order to work with these numbers of course these are good
25 statistics based on solid data from large sample, but we know they are
1 not complete, they are incomplete, and we can explain why by using other
2 sources, for instance, UNHCR for instance reported many more internally
3 displaced than what we show in this report.
4 Q. I'd like to please skip page 15 and go to page 16. Dr. Tabeau,
5 could you please explain what the chart on the top of this page
7 A. This is a table coming from the report, table 3A from page 30
8 English version. This table is showing ethnic composition in the
9 Visegrad municipality. Both absolute numbers and percentages are shown.
10 The '91 census column contains statistics, counts coming from the census
11 data. This is the population of those eligible to vote in the 1997 and
12 1998 elections so this is why this number, the overall total is smaller
13 than the general total for Visegrad as published in official sources.
14 The next column is a sample data coming from the voters
15 registration. So this is the overall total 9.241 is not the size,
16 overall size of the 1997 population. It is just a large sample from this
17 population. We show these numbers by ethnicity, major findings in terms
18 of percentages which are good and reliable measures. Disregarding
19 whether they were obtained from the census data or voters registration
20 that is sample data so the percentages can be safely taken as reliable
21 measures of ethnic composition, and we see for instance, that the per
22 cent of Serbs in 1991 was about 32.6 per cent and increased according to
23 the voters registration in 1997 to approximately 95.9 per cent. For
24 Muslims it was a slightly different situation. From a 62.5 per cent it
25 dropped to almost 0, less than 1 per cent. And so on for every ethnic
2 Q. Can you look at the bottom of the page, please, and tell us what
3 conclusions can be drawn from this chart at the bottom of the page?
4 A. This bar chart illustrates the percentages from the table 3A
5 shown on the same page. Each ethnic group is shown separately. For the
6 Serbs we see a huge increase of the fraction of Serbs in the
7 municipality. For the Muslims a dramatic drop from about 63 per cent to
8 practically 0. So the Muslim population shown in this chart is almost
9 entirely gone from Visegrad. This is what this bar chart is showing.
10 Q. Page 17. Dr. Tabeau, could you briefly tell us what this chart
11 represents and what conclusions we can draw from it?
12 A. Well, this table again comes from the report. This is table 3B.
13 The table 3B from page 13 in the report consists of two parts. I'm only
14 showing the part with percentages. I'm not showing absolute numbers, but
15 the 3B with absolute numbers is in the report.
16 The table shown here should be read by rows. For each ethnicity
17 a distribution is shown of the post-conflict place of residence of this
18 ethnic group. The first group, the Serbs, are shown in the post-conflict
19 period as mainly residing still in the municipality of Visegrad. So I'm
20 speaking of 96.9 per cent in the first row. Given under the name this
21 municipality. So this municipality means that these are those from the
22 initial population, 1991 population reported in the census who didn't
23 move anywhere but just stayed in Visegrad.
24 So according to this table, 96.9 per cent stayed, of Serbs stayed
25 in Visegrad. So automatically the percentages of those who have been
1 reported in other municipalities in Bosnia or other countries are
2 extremely small. Other municipalities is less than 1 per cent, and the
3 out of country 2.2 per cent.
4 For Muslims the picture is quite opposite. In these
5 municipalities it is negligible value of 0.01 per cent reported in
6 Visegrad in the post-conflict period, and the rest, that is 99.9 per cent
7 of the Muslim population originating from Visegrad is reported either in
8 other municipalities in Bosnia or generally out of country.
9 And similarly the percentage of other groups is shown according
10 to the distribution by place of residence being the Visegrad or outside
11 Visegrad, but to generalise, to summarise this picture I can say that
12 generally 65 per cent of the pre-war population of Visegrad had become
13 displaced or left the country, 65 per cent, all ethnicities jointly.
14 Of all ethnicities, Muslims practically entirely left the
15 municipality. Of other non-Serbs, some Croats and others stayed, some
16 left. Generally about 63 per cent of non-Serbs left Visegrad as well.
17 That would be a majority. And of course the first issue -- the first
18 result I discussed, the Serbs, 97 per cent of Serbs stayed in Visegrad.
19 This had, of course, impact on the post-war ethnic composition in
20 the municipality. Those Serbs who stayed plus some newcomers, obviously
21 Serbs, resulted in the fact that in 1997 the municipality was dominated
22 by Serbs, had an absolute majority, large majority of the Serb
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Thanks very much, Dr. Tabeau. We have to
25 take the break now.
1 --- Recess taken at 5.35 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 6.10 p.m.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Marcus.
4 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours. Before I commence, there's
5 just one very brief procedural matter in relation to the previous
6 witness. Apparently my colleague Mr. Weber tendered 65 ter number 185
7 and it was admitted as Exhibit P116, but this exhibit was already on the
8 65 ter list with an earlier number. So the earlier number is 65 ter 143.
9 We just wonder whether it might be possible to use the original 65 ter
10 number rather than its duplicate, 185.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. That might be less confusing. The court
12 deputy says yes.
13 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. May have transcript back.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid.
15 MR. ALARID: On that same note, Your Honour, I would like to
16 introduce the 1994 MUP statement of the same witness which was uploaded
17 as 2D02-0001.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit that.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it will be admitted as 1D52 under
21 MS. MARCUS:
22 Q. Dr. Tabeau, in the interest of efficiency and also because all of
23 your evidence is in your expert report which has been marked for
24 identification, we'd just like to turn to one last page in the PowerPoint
25 presentation. That would be page 24.
1 Could I ask you to please explain what we see on the table on the
2 upper right-hand side, which is figure 3 and 4 from page 19 of your
3 expert report.
4 A. These two charts come from the second part of the report in which
5 the numbers of missing persons from the Visegrad municipality and
6 Visegrad region were studied. The upper chart is showing the
7 distribution of the going missing process in the Visegrad municipality by
8 month of disappearance. I'm speaking of this chart. This chart.
9 Q. I think Dr. Tabeau would like to use the ELMO, and she's pointing
10 with her pen, so ...
11 A. As I said, missing persons reported missing from the Visegrad
12 municipalities are shown here by the month of disappearance for the
13 entire conflict period starting with April 1992 until the last one shown
14 is August 1995. I checked the spreadsheet this morning, and I saw no
15 numbers for the period after August 1995.
16 So obviously the highest numbers of missing persons were reported
17 in three months, May, June, and July 1992. The highest absolute maximum
18 is from June 1992. That would be the first chart, the upper chart.
19 And there is the lower chart. So having shown that the largest
20 number of missing persons was in the spring and summer of 1992, the lower
21 chart is showing the distribution of going missing by date of
22 disappearance from April 1992 until end of June 1992. The 15th of May is
23 somewhere here. So starting from this day the numbers are clearly high,
24 higher and highest. So second half of May is the first period of
25 obviously increased activity of -- of the process of going missing, and
1 then the June until the 20th of June and the last days of June.
2 So sometime around May 25th, June 14th, and June 20th, these
3 three days, are local maxima where the numbers were the highest in this
5 MS. MARCUS: Thank you. Could I ask the court officer to please
6 call up document ID number 0641-6041.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
8 MR. CEPIC: We haven't got the document on our list under that
9 number, so that is my -- do we know which document is?
10 MS. MARCUS: Yes. This is -- this is a document, it was ERNed
11 this morning. It's the first of two charts which was prepared by
12 Dr. Tabeau. The first chart contains the names of victims named in the
13 indictment. The second chart contains other names.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Cepic.
15 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave I have
16 already emphasised this objection but let me repeat it. I do not see the
17 base for authenticity and reliability of information presented in this
18 way. We already have the indictment with its annexes. We have the
19 witness's expert report of the 17th August 2001 with certain annexes, and
20 this is something entirely new, a third paper that doesn't fall in either
21 of the previous two. And again, let me repeat, I do not see the
22 foundation for the authenticity of this document.
23 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I was just about to lay the foundation
24 for authenticity. This is a list of names from the indictment. It was
25 given to Dr. Tabeau's unit and she and her staff conducted research which
1 resulted in the results of this chart.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no. You must ask her.
3 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have to get that evidence from her.
5 MS. MARCUS: Yes, sir. May I pose the question to Dr. Tabeau?
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
7 MS. MARCUS:
8 Q. Dr. Tabeau, do you recognise the chart that you see on the screen
9 in front of you?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. Can you tell us what this chart is?
12 A. This is the list of victims from the schedules in the indictment
13 of Lukic and Lukic case. This list is broader than the information
14 included in the schedules. There are several blocks of variables
15 included which I can explain, but what we see on the screen is a number
16 of data items or variables that are labelled L and L, and these items
17 come partly from the indictment, the names and age -- or approximate age
18 of the victims. In addition to this there is relatives' information
19 included. There are some additional variables in this spreadsheet
20 starting with the census data. A number of variables are called census,
21 and the next component --
22 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt you.
23 A. Yes. The following block is variables called voters and DDPR.
24 These are sources reporting on the surviving population --
25 Q. Dr. Tabeau.
1 A. -- post-conflict and so on. Yes.
2 Q. I apologise for the interruption. Can you confirm that this
3 chart was prepared by you and your staff?
4 A. Yes, I can.
5 Q. Can you confirm that you have reviewed the results and you are
6 satisfied with the accuracy of this product?
7 A. Yes, I did review the results, and I summarised the overlap of
8 the various sources we investigated with the victim lists.
9 Q. I apologise. Can you confirm that if the Trial Chamber or the
10 Defence has any questions about any individual entries on this chart you
11 would be able to provide those clarifications?
12 A. Of course, to the extent that the information from the
13 spreadsheet will be considered.
14 MS. MARCUS: I'd like to now tender this chart into evidence.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
16 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we oppose this request
17 until such time as we have analysed the document and checked it. As my
18 learned friend said we got this document this morning and my assistant or
19 indeed I have not had a chance to check and cross-reference this document
20 and see if everything tallies, also in terms of the other sources that
21 the Prosecutor indicates were a foundation of this chart.
22 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, perhaps it could be marked for
23 identification and then we could tender it into evidence following any
24 questions that the Defence may have.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Marked for identification.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it will become Exhibit number P119
2 marked for identification.
3 MS. MARCUS: Could I now ask the court officer to call up
4 document ID 0641-6040.
5 And for your information, Your Honours, this will be my very last
7 Q. Dr. Tabeau, do you recognise the chart that you see on the screen
8 in front of you?
9 A. Yes, do.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
11 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Just briefly, Your Honour. Standing
12 objection as in relation to the previous document.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Okay.
14 MS. MARCUS:
15 Q. Can you tell the Chamber what this chart represents, please.
16 A. This list is the list of victims that -- and the list was
17 provided to us by the Lukic and Lukic trial team. We were requested to
18 cross-reference this list with one major source that we used for our
19 report and could be and should be cross-referenced in this case. This is
20 ICRC list of missing persons.
21 Q. Can you confirm that this is the chart prepared by you and your
23 A. Yes, I confirm.
24 Q. Can you confirm that you have viewed the results and that you are
25 satisfied with the accuracy of this product?
1 A. Yes, I can confirm this.
2 Q. Can you confirm that if the Trial Chamber or the Defence may have
3 any questions about any individual entries on this chart you would be
4 able to provide clarifications?
5 A. Yes.
6 MS. MARCUS: I'd like to tender this also as marked for
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: It is admitted as Exhibit P120 marked for
11 MS. MARCUS:
12 Q. Dr. Tabeau, in relation to both these charts that we've just had
13 marked for identification, can you talk briefly about the dates and any
14 accuracy or inaccuracy, reliability of the dates of death or the dates of
16 A. Well, dates is a data item that is difficult for the respondent
17 to remember exactly. So it often happens that dates are reported not
18 fully correctly or not fully completely. So with the ICRC list for
19 instance there is a about say 30 per cent in the 2005 edition of date of
20 birth that is not available as a complete item with all components, day
21 and month and year reported, but when it comes to the year of birth then
22 there is only a few in the entire list of 22.000 records that are
23 unavailable, like 10, 12 records don't include year of birth.
24 But generally it is not only the ICRC list. In many sources,
25 especially sources that were compiled without using any ID cards or
1 passports or any documents reporting the date of birth, black on white,
2 dates are not reported correctly. And especially if data is collected in
3 chaotic circumstances or an in a situation just after certain dramatic
4 events, then this has of course impact on the reporting quality and then
5 certain deficiencies can be also seen in the dates.
6 I am speaking of date of birth, but the same actually applies to
7 the date of disappearance or date of death. Many sources with which we
8 have to work were compiled by not non-professionals, not by
9 statisticians, just by NGOs or volunteers who wanted to share the
10 information they had with somebody. These dates are reported simply with
11 deficiencies, either incomplete or with certain errors. So when
12 cross-referencing sources it is often the case that we see small
13 differences in the date of birth or the date of disappearance or death.
14 Q. Thank you, Dr. Tabeau. I have no further questions.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Ms. Marcus.
16 Well, we've heard the submissions that were made by --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: We've heard the submissions that were made by
19 Mr. Alarid and Mr. Cepic, in particular those by Mr. Alarid. Mr. Alarid
20 complained about lateness in receiving the documentation and not having
21 adequate time to prepare for cross-examination. The Chamber believes
22 there is merit in the submission, and in light of that, we will postpone
23 cross-examination until Wednesday of this week.
24 Now, Mr. Groome, how does that fit into your plans?
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I think our plans can be adjusted since
1 we have not been able to talk to Ms. Tabeau or Dr. Tabeau, could I ask
2 the Court to inquire if -- I know that she had some annual leave planned
3 in the near future, if we could ask, inquire if she's available on
4 Wednesday for cross-examination.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Tabeau, would you be available on Wednesday?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. I am unavailable on Friday.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Your are available on --
8 THE WITNESS: I'm unavailable from Friday --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see.
10 THE WITNESS: -- until Monday, but Wednesday, Thursday I'm in, I
11 am available.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I believe we would complete the
13 cross-examination on Wednesday certainly.
14 MR. GROOME: I will make the necessary adjustments to the
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: In that case, Dr. Tabeau, we would discharge you
17 for the time being.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have another witness, Mr. Groome?
21 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, Dr. John Clark is in the
23 Your Honour, while we're waiting the witness if I might address
24 the Chamber on a brief matter.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
1 MR. GROOME: I read the Chamber's decision with respect to VG-42
2 and take note of the Chamber finding unacceptable that the Prosecution
3 had brought the witness to The Hague. I just want to state to the
4 Chamber it was not anticipate -- in anticipation of any particular ruling
5 by the Chamber but simply trying to -- to keep the court hearing days
6 fully occupied. We are getting to a stage now in the trial where we have
7 less of a pool of witnesses to call upon, so I apologise to the Chamber
8 if the Chamber thought that we were anticipating -- or I was
9 anticipating a decision by the Chamber, simply an effort to ensure that
10 there was no gaps in the hearing time.
11 I would also raise with the Chamber there are pending motions
12 with respect to a number of witnesses. I have asked, again in an effort
13 to ensure that the hearing schedule not be postponed, and I'm also aware
14 that sometimes passports take up to three weeks to obtain. I have asked
15 staff to work with these witnesses to get their passports. If the
16 Chamber finds that objectionable, I will certainly cease that practice
17 and await the Chamber's ruling on these witnesses. Again it's not to
18 anticipate a particular ruling by the Chamber but simply if the Chamber
19 does decide to permit the inclusion of these witnesses that there will be
20 a minimum of delay between the time that -- that is necessary to make the
21 necessary arrangements for them to come to The Hague.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: In the circumstances I find the practice
24 Mr. Cepic.
25 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm just taking
1 advantage of these couple of minutes and I would like to ask my friends
2 from the OTP to disclose and hand over to us documents in a timelier
3 manner from now on in order to make our work in the courtroom more
4 effective. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you have been rebuked.
6 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
7 [The witness entered court]
8 WITNESS: JOHN CLARK
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
10 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit, and you may begin.
13 MR. GROOME: Ms. Mazzocco will lead the examination in this case.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may begin, Ms. Mazzocco.
15 MS. MAZZOCCO: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Examination by Ms. Mazzocco:
17 Q. Can I first ask you to say your name, please?
18 A. John Clark.
19 Q. Dr. Clark, can you describe to the Court your education, your
20 profession, in particular the assignment you received in an international
22 A. My profession, I'm a forensic pathologist. That means I'm a
23 medical doctor, and I specialise in finding out why people have died by
24 carrying out post-mortem examinations, particularly with a forensic
25 expertise it is interpreting injuries on bodies and dealing with people
1 who have died in perhaps suspicious circumstances. I've been a forensic
2 pathologist for about 25 years working both in -- mainly in -- well, in
3 the United Kingdom, both in Scotland where I'm based at the moment and in
4 England as well.
5 Q. And you have worked in international context, isn't it?
6 A. My main contribution to that has been this work with which I'm
7 here. For three years, 1999, 2000, and 2001 I was the chief pathologist
8 in Bosnia and Croatia for the ICTY carrying out the -- in charge of the
9 mortuary there and carrying out the post-mortem examinations.
10 Q. Thanks.
11 MS. MAZZOCCO: May I ask the court officer to display on the
12 screen the 65 ter number 2.1.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Where are you from, doctor? Where are you from?
14 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Where are you from?
16 THE WITNESS: I'm from Glasgow. University of Glasgow.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Glasgow. You're Scottish then.
18 THE WITNESS: I'm Scottish, yes.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thanks.
20 MS. MAZZOCCO:
21 Q. Dr. Clark, is this your updated CV, the one that you see on the
23 A. Yes, it is, yes.
24 MS. MAZZOCCO: Your Honours, I'd like to tender the CV into
25 evidence to the purpose to determining the witness former and present
1 position and the professional experience.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We admit it, yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: It is admitted as P121, Exhibit P121.
4 MS. MAZZOCCO:
5 Q. Dr. Clark, you have said that you participate as chief
6 pathologist to the ICTY operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Which were the
8 A. 1999, 2000, and 2001.
9 Q. We have heard evidence that many people were killed in Visegrad
10 area. Could you examine all the victims?
11 A. I'm not aware of how many people were killed in the Visegrad
12 area. I understand that there were large numbers. Our -- my only
13 involvement in -- in that region was dealing with a specific site, what
14 we called the Slap site of 131 bodies. This was a specific exercise
15 which we did in 2000 -- late 2000 and again in 2001.
16 Q. Did you work together with a Bosnian commission?
17 A. Yes. Slightly unusually because most of the work that we had
18 been doing, the Tribunal did both the exhumation and the mortuary work in
19 other cases. In this instance, the Slap site, it was people from the
20 Bosnian commission who did the exhumation and they formally handed over
21 the bodies to us and we carried out -- the Tribunal carried out the
22 post-mortem examinations. And following that, we handed the bodies back
23 over to the Bosnian commission.
24 Q. Who signed each autopsy report?
25 A. The -- at any one time there would be three pathologists in the
1 mortuary carrying out the post-mortem examination simultaneously. So we
2 had three tables. And the pathologist carrying out the examination would
3 have signed the autopsy report.
4 Having said that, there was a lot of discussion between us in
5 each cases and we showed each other findings. So although one person may
6 have signed the report, the others will have often have seen the findings
7 as well.
8 Q. You have said that you have -- you found in the -- you studied
9 131 bodies. What was the sex and age of these bodies?
10 A. I don't have my report with me, but the -- I think a
11 hundred and -- about 114 were male. May I have a copy of the report.
12 Q. Yes, yes. If you have -- can I ask --
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. You may look at the report.
14 THE WITNESS: The majority were male. I can tell you that. Yes.
15 114. This is of 131 bodies, 114 were male, 14 were female, and in three
16 cases we were unable to determine the sex, and these were mostly young
18 MS. MAZZOCCO:
19 Q. Were the bodies numbered?
20 A. Yes. The Bosnian commission had numbered the bodies as they
21 exhumed them, and they gave them a number. For some reason they started
22 at number 317. I'm not quite sure the reason for that, but anyway, when
23 they handed the bodies over and during our examination, we continued that
24 numbering system, and we put letters at the beginning and at the end to
25 denote the site we were working on and whether this was a body or --
1 there was only one instance where there was a body part. So the
2 numbering system that we used followed on from the numbering system from
3 the Bosnian commission.
4 Q. Can you describe the main difficulties you related to this type
5 of autopsy work?
6 A. All these bodies were skeletonised. In other words, we were --
7 all the soft tissues of the body had disappeared and all that we were
8 left with were just the skeleton, and the bones were jumbled in together.
9 So there wasn't a straight skeleton, they were mixed in together, in with
10 clothing and sometimes various other items in with the body. So that's
11 what we had to deal with, skeletonised remains.
12 Now, our job was to try and find any injuries on these people and
13 try and establish the cause of death. So all we could work on were any
14 injuries to the bones. That's what we had to work on. So if somebody
15 had been injured in a way which didn't damage the bones, we wouldn't have
16 seen that.
17 Also, we had to bear in mind that injuries can occur to bones of
18 the bodies after death, and it is very difficult just looking at bones
19 themselves to see whether an injury occurred in life or after death. So
20 we had to keep a very open mind, and it was quite likely that there would
21 be injuries to these bodies after death -- to the bones after death
22 because they had been in a grave, just handling, et cetera. But with
23 experience we were able to recognise what was likely to be a post-mortem
24 injury and what was not. Anyway, so that was one of the main problems;
25 we were left with bones and to try and establish whether these injuries
1 on them occurred in life or after death.
2 Secondly was having found an injury, trying to work out what
3 caused it. Was this a bullet injury? Was this caused by blunt force
4 injuries, blunt force trauma, in other words, being hit by something or
5 was it caused by a knife or whatever. So that was the other task we had
6 to do.
7 And thirdly, even having found an injury, even having established
8 that it was due to a gunshot injury or whatever, could we then see that
9 was necessarily the cause of death because people don't die from a broken
10 bone. You die because of the injuries to all the organs round about, the
11 internal tissues. So because we only had bones and even though there was
12 a bone -- an injury in the bone, could we necessarily say that that's
13 what killed that person.
14 So -- so there was lots of -- there were difficulties in the
15 interpretation, and we had to bear that in mind all the time.
16 Q. And so how did you prove an injury as being due to gunshot as
17 opposed to other causes?
18 A. When a bullet hits bone, it causes characteristic damage,
19 particularly with a high velocity rifle. It shatters the bone. It
20 causes a huge amount of damage. So many of the bones that we saw were
21 in -- in lots of pieces, different pieces, but with the aid of the
22 anthropologists, we were able to stick these together and -- and perhaps
23 find actually a hole with lots of fracturing round about it. And if we
24 found that, then we were fairly convinced that this was a gunshot injury.
25 And often there would be bullet fragments in the body as well.
1 Q. Sorry. Was it possible to determine whether it was a
2 high velocity rifle was used or a handgun?
3 A. Nearly all of the cases the pattern of injuries, the nature of
4 the damage to the bones was very typical of high velocity injuries. The
5 reason for that is if you fire a handgun a handgun will damage a bone
6 just simply by the hole it produces. So if you have a bone and a handgun
7 bullet goes through the bone, it just creates a hole. But a high
8 velocity rifle, it creates not just a hole but a huge amount of
9 fracturing round about, and because -- it was because of this extensive
10 fracturing we could say the vast majority of cases were high velocity
12 We did in two cases find handgun bullets and injuries pointing to
13 that which very much suggested that these people had been killed by
14 handguns rather than high velocity rifles. That was the exception. The
15 vast majority were the high velocity rifles.
16 Q. Thank you. And were you able to determine the direction of fire,
17 the position between the victim and the attacker?
18 A. To some extent but not in all cases. That is based on again if a
19 bullet goes through bone, particularly the skull or a rib it leaves a
20 characteristic pattern or shape from which you can tell the direction
21 it's going. So, for instance, if a bullet entered the back of the head
22 and came out the front, we could tell the direct just by the shape of the
23 bone if you look at the outside and the inside surface, and it's highly
24 typical, well documented.
25 So most times with the skull it was easy to tell that. It's less
1 easy on other bones. And in the end we could only tell direction in a
2 certain proportion, but -- and this is listed in the -- in the report.
3 For instance, of all the shots -- of all the shots to the head, just --
4 the majority were from behind or the side and lesser numbers from the
5 front and occasionally from the top.
6 So I think to answer your question, there was variable -- the
7 bullets were fired in variable directions.
8 Q. In -- in which phase of this process were the bodies shown to the
9 families for possible identification?
10 A. That was after our official involvement. Although our main role
11 was to look at injuries and establish cause of death, we did as much as
12 we could as well to aid identification by taking measurements of the
13 skeleton, seeing it was male or female, all that sort of stuff, looking
14 for documents and photographing the clothing, et cetera, documenting
16 With that information we handed that all over to the Bosnian
17 commission, and I'm aware that they then showed the clothing and the
18 remains and documents to relatives to try and seek some identification.
19 Q. And --
20 A. Sorry, just one other thing. We also took from each body a
21 sample of bone for future DNA analysis. DNA analysis on bone in that
22 time, even only seven years ago, was in its infancy and it wasn't really
23 possible or practical to do DNA analysis then. That has changed now and
24 in recent years a lot of analysis, DNA analysis has been done.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MS. MAZZOCCO: Could I ask the court officer to display the
2 screen the document bearing the 65 ter number 1.
3 Q. Dr. Clark, is this the report that you signed as chief
4 pathologist and that summarises the finding from the Slap grave sites?
5 A. Yes. The -- what happened here was after all the post-mortems,
6 the 131 post-mortems compiled by myself, my colleagues, I extracted the
7 information from them and made this final report which is what you have
9 MS. MAZZOCCO: Your Honours, I'd like to tender the report into
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
12 THE REGISTRAR: It is admitted as Exhibit P122, Your Honours.
13 MS. MAZZOCCO: And may I now ask the court officer to display
14 page 10 of this 65 ter number 1, the same. And maybe can figure 6 at the
15 top be enlarged. The one on the left.
16 Q. Can you explain the findings of this photograph that come from
17 autopsy report 361?
18 A. This is -- the bone at the top there is the shoulder blade, the
19 scapula. Down below it we have five ribs laid out like that. Now, this
20 is not the normal anatomical position. This is just for ease of
21 photographing. So you can imagine the ribs effectively lying on top of
22 the shoulder blade. Now, what this does show, however, is a hole in the
23 shoulder blade, in the middle of it. You can just see the blue coming
24 through it where there's an arrow pointing to it. And if you go down a
25 bit further down you will see holes in the ribs, a line of holes.
1 Now, that to us was a typical pattern of a gunshot, of a bullet
2 going through the body, and although I've listed five holes that you can
3 see, that is probably all the same track because of where the ribs are
4 against the shoulder blade. So that's a typical bullet going through the
5 upper part of the trunk.
6 MS. MAZZOCCO: Can the court officer display the document bearing
7 number X008/0291. Should I repeat maybe? X008/0291. This one. Thank
9 Q. Is this the autopsy report related to body 361?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the one related to that photo that we have seen now. And in
12 this case was it possible to determine the cause of death?
13 A. The cause of death we attributed was that bullet injury, the
14 gunshot injury to the chest. I explained earlier that all we found there
15 is a bullet to the bone, but I think, you know, as pathologists we know
16 that under the shoulder blade under the ribs you have the major organs.
17 You have the lungs and the heart, et cetera, and I think it's reasonable
18 to suggest that these -- these parts of the body would have been injured
19 and fatally so and that this -- this was the cause of death.
20 Q. And was it possible in this case to determine the direction of
22 A. Perhaps if you went down a page. It's page 2.
23 Q. I read it in this page.
24 A. Oh, yes, sorry, yes. The shot was coming -- seemed to be coming
25 from behind. Sorry. Yes.
1 MS. MAZZOCCO: Your Honour, I would like to tender this document
2 into evidence.
3 And can I now --
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
5 THE REGISTRAR: It is admitted Exhibit P number 123.
6 MS. MAZZOCCO: Can I now ask the court officer to display the
7 document bearing number 0638/3236.
8 Q. Do you recognise the number at the top of the page on the right?
9 A. The number is almost certainly the same numbering system that we
10 used, 361/00. I have no reason to believe that any new numbering system
11 was used, so I think that applies to the body that we saw.
12 Q. So can you explain the process related to this document? Was --
13 A. I -- this -- we handed the bodies over to the Bosnian commission,
14 and that -- that was the end of our involvement. I'm aware, just because
15 I was in the area at the time, that they had an identification process
16 soon afterwards and that relatives were invited to come and look at the
17 clothing and possessions, as I said earlier, and I can only imagine that
18 as relatives did identify to their purposes each body that this form was
19 produced by the Bosnian commission. But it's not an official form from
20 anything that we did, but -- but I just -- I'm aware of the process that
21 went on. I think that's it.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MS. MAZZOCCO: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this document
24 into evidence.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P124, Your Honours.
2 MS. MAZZOCCO: Can I now ask the court officer to display the
3 document with number X007/7947.
4 Q. Dr. Clark, can you describe what you see on the screen?
5 A. This is another autopsy report, SP01/378B which was carried out
6 in May 2001.
7 Q. And so is -- which body is related? You said, sorry.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And in this case was it possible to determine the cause of death?
10 A. Yes. He again died from a gunshot injury to the chest.
11 MS. MAZZOCCO: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this document
12 into evidence.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 THE REGISTRAR: It is admitted as number -- Exhibit number P125.
15 MS. MAZZOCCO: And finally can I ask the court officer to display
16 the document with number X007/9454.
17 Q. Dr. Clark, is this the autopsy report your team drafted concerned
18 the body 328?
19 A. Yes, this is SP01/328B carried out in November 2000, and I felt
20 that this man probably died from a gunshot injury to the chest. This was
21 a little less definite than the previous two but there appeared to be
22 bullet damage to three ribs on the right side of the chest and there were
23 bullet holes in the clothing that he was wearing. So I felt the most
24 probable cause of death was a gunshot injury to the chest.
25 MS. MAZZOCCO: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this document
1 into evidence.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: It's admitted as Exhibit number P126.
4 MS. MAZZOCCO: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
6 Mr. Alarid.
7 MR. ALARID: Yes, Your Honour. Are we going to do cross, it's
8 7.00, tonight.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: We do go on --
10 MR. ALARID: Until 7.15.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. Ten past 7.00. Okay.
12 MR. ALARID: Ten past 7.00, okay. I forget these things, Your
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Alarid:
15 Q. Dr. Clark, from your data at Slap would it be fair to say that
16 none of the bodies originated there at Slap; this was not an execution
17 site. Correct?
18 A. Not as far as I'm aware, no. These were all bodies buried in
19 individual graves which we understood floated down the river.
20 Q. And you got that understanding from third-party sources, but was
21 that an exhaustive assessment of the location of the body or is it
22 possible that some others were brought there from other locales as
23 opposed to the river?
24 A. That's entirely possible, yes.
25 Q. And would it be fair to say there was very little information as
1 to where on the river or otherwise the bodies were actually killed?
2 A. Yes.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could speakers please kindly pause between
4 questions and answers for the benefit of the interpreters, thank you.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Have you both heard that? Please observe a
6 pause between question and answer.
7 MR. ALARID: I apologise, Your Honour, and I didn't have my
8 translation headset on because I can hear.
9 Q. And so it is possible that the -- or you can't tell from the
10 locale where exactly the body was deceased; correct?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And just by virtue of your role, you didn't have any
13 participation in the actual family identification. Is that what I heard?
14 A. None at all, no. I was -- it was done in the same areas where we
15 were working, and I saw it as an interested observer, that's all.
16 Q. And with regards to the actual bodies, you indicated it was --
17 well, it appears from the documentation that you just used it was even
18 difficult to assess the age in some.
19 A. Yes. The age was established not by us but by anthropologists,
20 who gave the information to us, but even they would give a range of -- of
21 years, you know, 20 to 30 years sometimes as a range of age. It is very
22 difficult in general principles to establish somebody's age from bones
23 the older you get.
24 Q. And it appears from -- from your findings that the grave site in
25 and of itself was fairly disorganised?
1 A. No, I wouldn't -- certainly not from our findings. I thought it
2 was to some extent remarkably well organised. I did visit it after the
3 exhumation, and I understand that the graves were -- they were largely
4 individual graves.
5 Q. Was there some contamination, i.e., bodies being too close
6 together or mishandled at the scene, because it appears that you had some
7 partial skeletons recovered. Is that fair?
8 A. That's right. I didn't witness the exhumation process. There
9 may have been some transferring of occasional bones, I do not know. I
10 think it would be wrong for me to say there was mishandling.
11 Q. Well, I mean under the -- you know, under the worst of
12 circumstances there might have been mistakes made with regards to the
13 handling of the corpses?
14 A. I think other people should answer that. I mean, I don't know.
15 Q. How many people would you say could have handled a particular
16 corpse before you get to do your analysis?
17 A. I would imagine maybe perhaps two or three people were involved
18 in exhuming each particular body, which would be put into a body bag, and
19 after that the body bag would not be opened until I saw it.
20 Q. Even with respect to the body bag, you said that the remains were
21 all skeletonised?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is it true that you were getting incomplete skeletons?
24 A. A number of the bodies did have parts missing, yes.
25 Q. And would you assume that that was because the bodies were
1 dismembered at another locale or that there was actually mishandling at
2 the grave site?
3 A. No. There could be various reasons, and I put this in the
4 context of having been involved in other grave sites by highly
5 experienced exhumation teams, even there we would get small parts of
6 other bodies in with other cases. I think there's possibly three reasons
7 why parts of bodies may be missing. Firstly, if this was just -- quite a
8 lot of time it was just the small bones of the hands and the wrist. They
9 are very difficult to find, and they were probably just left in the soil.
10 Secondly, yes, you're correct. In taking a body out of the grave
11 it is possible that occasionally parts ended up in the wrong body bag. I
12 don't know. I'm just raising it as a possibility.
13 And the third possibility is that prior to burial these bodies
14 were missing a particular part. A limb wasn't present prior to burial.
15 I cannot tell what state the body was in prior to burial, whether they
16 were decomposed or fresh or whatever, and it's possible with a very
17 decomposed body that parts were missing prior to burial.
18 Q. And even with regards to trying to assess bullet direction, would
19 it be fair to say that absent the soft tissue you can make mistakes
20 simply because a high velocity bullet absent intervention can even cause
21 a nice circular hole in bone at the exit wound?
22 A. I'm not sure I follow that completely but --
23 Q. Well, on the scapula you indicated that that was most probably a
24 rear shot?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. But on the same token it is possible for that pattern in the
2 scapula at least to have been caused from a frontal shot?
3 A. It is possible. I mean, even in the scapula they do have -- what
4 we're looking for is a thing called bevelling. In other words, the
5 diameter of the hole on the entrance side is smaller than the diameter
6 hole on the exit side of the bone, and that's typically seen in the skull
7 and it can occur to see it in the ribs and in the scapula. I can't
8 remember in this particular case how definite that direction was, but
9 certainly with the ribs, taking the ribs into account as well, I think we
10 were confident that this shot was coming from behind.
11 Q. Arguing that the ribs were deflective of damage on the exit
12 wound? Meaning that they were getting the deflective energy as the
13 bullet travelled outwards?
14 A. No, no, the ribs were -- it would have hit the ribs first.
15 Q. I understand.
16 A. Sorry, sorry. It hit the scapula first and then the ribs.
17 Q. That's what I thought.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Would it be fair to say otherwise that some of these
20 wounds could have been achieved in combat? I.e., there is no real way to
21 tell whether or not there was a civilian casualty or an actual combat
23 A. No, not from the pathology evidence, no. I can't -- I cannot
25 MR. ALARID: I have no further questions at this time, Your
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Cepic?
3 MR. DIECKMANN: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: How long are you going to be?
5 MR. DIECKMANN: I have less than 20 questions and it takes 15
6 minutes perhaps 20.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think we'll have to do that tomorrow then. We
8 will adjourn. Doctor, you will have to return tomorrow.
9 THE WITNESS: Right.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Tomorrow it's at -- in the afternoon, 2.15.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.08 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 23rd day
13 of September, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.