Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 14720

 1                           Friday, 19 July 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is the case

 7     number IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 9             Good morning to everyone.  The Chamber was informed that there

10     were a few preliminaries to be raised.  Prosecution -- oh, there is a ...

11     the transcriber is ready.

12             Yes.  I started saying that some preliminary issues were

13     announced to be raised.

14             Ms. Lee.

15             MS. LEE:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Yes, there are two

16     preliminary matters and if we could briefly go into private session.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

18                           [Private session]

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 14721











11  Pages 14721-14723 redacted.  Private session.















Page 14724

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4                           [Open session]

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  We're back in open session, Your Honours.  Thank

 6     you.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  I just want to inform Your Honours that I did my

 9     homework, and I checked the documents introduced as associated exhibits

10     through the Witness RM321 and we do not have any objections.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  That is for all ten of them, I think.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  There was ten, yes.

14             I don't have the numbers here, but I'll revisit the matter.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Maybe --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just -- yes, here I have got it.  P1790 up to

17     and including P1799 are admitted into evidence all as public exhibits.

18             Then before we give -- before we continue the examination of the

19     witness, there are a few matters the Chamber would like to raise as well.

20             The first one is about the end of the Prosecution's case.  On the

21     9th of July of this year, the Prosecution, upon inquiry by the Chamber,

22     provided information on the scope and schedule of presenting the

23     remainder of its evidence.  The Chamber was surprised to learn of the

24     large amount of documents the Prosecution intends to still tender,

25     especially given the many guidances the Chamber has provided on tendering

Page 14725

 1     documents through witnesses and not through bar table motions.

 2             As a result, the Chamber fixes the following schedule:  All

 3     92 bis, 92 quater, and bar table motions shall be filed by the

 4     30th of August, 2013.

 5             The Prosecution did indicate that this was possible with the

 6     exception of one filing.  That last filing can be submitted by the

 7     16th of September, 2013.

 8             As regards the Prosecution's submission that associated exhibits

 9     tendered with pending or future 92 bis motions may be denied and would

10     then need to be bar tabled, the Chamber reminds the Prosecution of its

11     guidance that neither bar tabling nor tendering as associated exhibits is

12     the preferred way of tendering.  One option for such documents would be

13     to use and tender them through witnesses coming to court.  In relation to

14     military documents as well as UN documents, the Chamber considers that

15     the parties could agree on certain matters in a more succinct form.

16             Further, the Chamber urges the Prosecution to carefully consider

17     whether all documents are necessary to satisfy the Prosecution's burden

18     of proof.  In this context, the Chamber urges the Prosecution to avoid

19     repetition, reduce the number and length of documents, and take away

20     details not vital to the case.  In addition, the Prosecution should

21     explain how the documents fit into its case and provide an explanation

22     why the documents could not be tendered through witnesses.

23             Lastly, the Chamber instructs the Prosecution to batch the bar

24     table documents in its motions into clearly defined and focused groups.

25     The documents should be batched by topic or subject matter; for example,

Page 14726

 1     by crime base incident.  This concludes the observations by the Chamber

 2     on the end of the Prosecution's case.

 3             There is one other matter I would like to raise because it is of

 4     some urgency.  Next week the Prosecution will call expert Witness

 5     Haglund, who is a forensic anthropologist.  The Prosecution tenders

 6     15 reports through him, all in all almost 3.000 pages.  The bulk of this

 7     material are, in fact, the underlying autopsy reports the witness bases

 8     his conclusions on.

 9             The Chamber reminds the Prosecution of its guidance and direction

10     of the 29th of October, 2012, in relation to the tendering of underlying

11     documents for expert reports.  The Chamber, therefore, asks the

12     Prosecution to reduce the material tendered for Witness Haglund and

13     specifically to refrain from tendering Rule 65 ter numbers 4550 to 4552,

14     4555 to 4557, 4561 to 4562, as well as parts of 65 ter 4558.

15             Should any of the information contained in these underlying

16     documents not be reflected in the actual expert reports, the Prosecution

17     is free to elicit such evidence viva voce.  And this concludes the

18     observations by the Chamber in relation to expert witness Haglund.

19             Is the Defence ready to continue the cross-examination of

20     Mr. Lawrence?  Then could Mr. Lawrence be escorted into the courtroom.

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Lawrence.  Please be seated.

23             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lawrence, I would like to remind you that you

25     are still bound by the solemn declaration you have given yesterday at the

Page 14727

 1     beginning of your testimony.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I understand.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             Then Mr. Ivetic will now continue his cross-examination.

 5             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7                           WITNESS:  CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE [Resumed]

 8                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]

 9        Q.   Good morning, sir.

10        A.   Good morning.

11        Q.   Doctor, I would like to begin by asking you a few questions about

12     autopsy work in general to see if we can find a common ground, and first

13     I'd ask you if you -- if you agree with me as follows, that in a normal

14     situation, a decision on whether an injury was sustained while the person

15     was alive or if it's a post-mortem one is, to a large degree, based on

16     the observation of surrounding tissue and things that can be connected

17     with that such as bruises, swelling, and bleeding?  Can we first agree

18     with that?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Further, Doctor, can we agree that in a decomposed body in which

21     tissue changes the colour very quickly and starts to break off, this

22     becomes very difficult, and if the post-mortem remains are already

23     skeletonised, then it is impossible.  Before healing begins, it will look

24     just the same as a fracture weeks before or after death.  The existence

25     of bruises is the only thing that can differentiate between such

Page 14728

 1     injuries?

 2        A.   I think I agree with the general proposition.  There are some

 3     differences in boney injuries in bone that is moist and fresh and bone

 4     that is bare and dry.  But in general I agree with your proposition.

 5        Q.   Okay.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  And if I can call up 1D1141 in e-court.  And if we

 7     can have page 14 of that document which should correlate to transcript

 8     page 7527 of the Popovic proceedings.  I apologise, page 20, page 20,

 9     which should be 7533 of the underlying transcript.

10        Q.   And Doctor, you may follow along with me.  I would like to

11     revisit a question and answer that were made beginning at line 5 onward.

12             "Q.  I would now like to put to you a hypothetical question; and

13     since you are an expert, I believe that you will be able to answer it.

14     If an arm belonging to a person was found in a secondary grave and in a

15     completely different secondary grave the other arm was found belonging to

16     the same person, in your reports, this would appear to be two persons or

17     two bodies that were found.  Is that correct?

18             "A.  Not exactly.  I have given you figures on causes of death

19     for the complete bodies and then for the incomplete bodies.  I think the

20     information on the complete bodies is fairly reliable, but it's obviously

21     extremely difficult in an incomplete body to conclude whether or not

22     there were one person killed or two people killed.  It just wasn't

23     possible ... if we had been able to match every one of the bodies, it may

24     have been possible.

25             "The reason I have included both information on the whole bodies

Page 14729

 1     and the body parts is, I think, in particularly some of the more

 2     disrupted graves such as Liplje, it -- it would be hard to get any useful

 3     information.  I also needed to indicate, I think, how many gun-shot

 4     wounds we had.  But I agree, it -- it is very difficult unless you can

 5     completely reunite all of the body parts to interpret exactly what the

 6     results on the body parts means in terms of an actual cause of death."

 7             And, first of all, sir, does this appear to accurately reflect

 8     the testimony that you recall giving?

 9        A.   Yes, it does.

10        Q.   And do you still stand by the same?

11        A.   I -- in rereading it, I -- I think that I observed something --

12     some more information.  The -- and this is slightly -- this is more in

13     the province of the anthropologist than myself, but in the current case

14     where you had an -- a hypothetical case, an arm from one individual in

15     one grave and the arm from another individual in another grave.  The

16     assessment of the minimum number of individuals would probably deal with

17     that to indicate that it was one person that -- the total numbers of

18     people.

19             But I agree that the -- it is -- the concept of a cause of death

20     for a body part is difficult unless you can collect together all of those

21     body parts, match them by DNA, and reconstruct them.

22        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now dealing specifically with the work that was

23     done on these -- on the bodies recovered from the graves that are the

24     subject of your report, can you tell us how many autopsies would be

25     performed per pathologist per day on average?

Page 14730

 1        A.   My -- I -- in my own case, I would do about four or five a day

 2     depending on the completeness of the body.  An incomplete body would take

 3     less time than a complete one, but I wouldn't imagine that many of the

 4     pathologists would be doing more than six and some would be doing as

 5     little as four.

 6        Q.   And would you describe that number as being in line with the

 7     normally accepted procedure in that line of work?

 8        A.   I am not sure there is an accepted procedure in this line of

 9     work.  I thought it was important for the pathologist to perform the work

10     thoroughly.  Certainly, it could have been done faster, but I was more

11     concerned to make the work done good than quick.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May I interrupt.

13             Mr. Lawrence, you are talking at page 10 in response to

14     Mr. Ivetic's question, you said:

15             "But in the current case we had a hypothetical case, an arm from

16     one individual in one grave and an arm from another individual in another

17     grave ..."

18             But the hypothetical question put to you didn't sound to me to be

19     talking of two individuals.  The question reads:

20             "I would now like to put to you a hypothetical question ..." And

21     I jump onto the right place.

22             "If an arm belonging to a person was found in a secondly grave

23     and in a completely different secondary grave the other arm was found

24     belonging to the same person ..."

25             That's the hypothetical question put to you.  Now, does that

Page 14731

 1     change your answer?

 2             THE WITNESS:  Sorry -- no, I'll pause.  Sorry.  Yes, that's what

 3     I was trying to allude to when I qualified my answer.  That's one of the

 4     reasons why we did the calculations of minimum number of individuals.  In

 5     that particular case, you would, say, have a right humerus in another

 6     grave and a left humerus in another grave.  Now, that would be sorted out

 7     by the minimum number of individuals.  That's why we used that technique

 8     to assess.  But it does not solve the issue that, for example, if both of

 9     them had a gun-shot wound going through the right or left humerus close

10     to the shoulder, looking at the body parts you might attribute a cause of

11     death to both.

12             I think that is why in the end I focused most of my report on the

13     intact individuals, because there is potential for some of the data on

14     the incomplete bodies to be slightly misleading.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

16             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one follow-up question.  That would not

18     be necessarily the case for all incomplete bodies.  If, for example, you

19     would have the upper part of a body or just a skull, then, of course,

20     another skull would mean another person?

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Yes --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  So for the arms the example is fine, but for a skull

23     or for the complete pelvis, or there it would be different and you could

24     count them within the number -- minimum number of bodies even if you had

25     only found the skull.

Page 14732

 1             THE WITNESS:  That is correct and that is why, when we were

 2     considering the body parts, the heads, for example, were examined by --

 3     always examined by a pathologist because essentially if you found a

 4     gun-shot wound in the head, you could reliably assume that the individual

 5     to whom that skull belonged was dead.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If you find bodily remains, I think, in

 7     general, even without gun-shot wounds, you can assume that that person is

 8     dead.  If you would agree with me.  But what you may have intended to say

 9     is that that person -- that there is a fair chance that they would have

10     been killed by a bullet which impacted on his head.

11             THE WITNESS:  Absolutely.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Although you can't exclude other causes of

13     death but you'd know that such an impact most likely would cause death,

14     and then the only remaining issue is whether it was a post-mortem impact

15     which is still an opportunity -- a possibility.

16             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we -- I think we agree on many parts of

18     this part of your work.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

20        Q.   Doctor, in relation to the method or criteria that was utilised

21     in doing the autopsy work in Bosnia to research, analyse, and identify

22     victims, am I correct that that was a continuation of the criteria that

23     had been developed by your predecessor Dr. -- I believe it was Bill or

24     William Hunt?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 14733

 1        Q.   Okay.  If we can take a look at something I think relating to

 2     this.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  1D1141 [Realtime transcript read in error "1D4141"],

 4     page 26 in e-court, which should be transcript page 7539.

 5        Q.   And if you could follow along with me, sir, I would like to

 6     revisit the questions and answers from lines 5 through 21.  And I begin:

 7             "Question" --

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before you begin, I think it is 1D1141.  It is

 9     not properly recorded.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

11        Q.   Beginning now, sir.

12             "Q.  Thank you.  Given that you answered a question of

13     Mr. Lazarevic saying that before you went to the location, before you

14     started working on this, you received certain instructions from the

15     Prosecution, or rather from the investigators, could you tell us whether

16     anybody informed you that there is such a custom in Bosnia and

17     Herzegovina that a victim of an armed conflict is buried with a weapon?

18             "A.  No.

19             "Q.  Perhaps I was a bit imprecise.  I said a victim of an armed

20     conflict, and I wanted to say a participant of an armed conflict.  I'm

21     referring to a soldier who was killed.

22             "A.  The answer is still no.

23             "Q.  Can you then tell me why did you consider this to be a

24     potential indicator as to whether this was a participant in an armed

25     conflict or a victim whose cause of death could have been somewhat

Page 14734

 1     different?

 2             "A.  Because I thought it would -- it was one criteria that might

 3     specify between them.  I didn't say it was necessarily a good criteria,

 4     but it is a criteria."

 5             First of all, sir, can you confirm if this testimony from the

 6     Popovic case is accurate?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And would you so testify today if asked the same questions?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And in talking about a criteria in your answer, is this a

11     criteria that you developed or would it be one that you inherited from

12     Dr. Bill Hunt's methodology?

13        A.   To be honest, I can't recall.  I know that in Bill Hunt's work,

14     they did at least find one soldier who was carrying a hand-grenade and

15     that may have been why he reported it.  I think it was largely carrying

16     on something that Bill did, but to be honest, it's so long ago now I

17     can't recall.

18        Q.   That's fair enough, sir.  I'd now like to look together with you

19     at another document.

20             MR. IVETIC:  If we can have 1D1138 in e-court.

21        Q.   And while we wait for it, sir, I can tell you I believe it to be

22     a publication of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia entitled

23     "Pathway."  Are you familiar with such a publication or such an

24     organisation, sir?

25        A.   Yes, I am.

Page 14735

 1        Q.   And we see now the cover page of this document which has your

 2     picture.  Do you recall, sir, having given an interview to this

 3     organisation and when that would have been published?

 4        A.   Yes, I recall doing it.  I can't remember when it was.

 5        Q.   Fair enough.  Would it have been before or after your work for

 6     the Office of the Prosecutor in this case?

 7        A.   In 1998?

 8        Q.   Yeah.

 9        A.   Yes.  It would have been after.

10        Q.   Okay.  Now if we can go to page 2 of the document in e-court, and

11     that is the text of the actual article, I'd like to discuss a few things

12     with you.  If we focus on the bottom of the first column and then the top

13     of the middle column, I'd like to ask you about that, where it begins as

14     follows:

15             "'Where hostilities have descended into the barbarity of a

16     massacre, the way to approach the evidence is one body at a time,' he

17     says.

18             "'You have to prove every single one.  If they are in a mass

19     grave, it's easy, but in places like Kosovo, where they are all buried in

20     single graves, you have to look at each one and determine whether there

21     is enough evidence.

22             "'If you don't get a good nexus between your investigation and

23     your exhumation and autopsy process, then the exhumation is useless.  So

24     it's got to be done very thoroughly and it's an incredibly expensive

25     process.'"

Page 14736

 1             Now first of all, Doctor, can you confirm if this accurately

 2     recollects the statements that you would have made, do you?

 3        A.   This was not given in a court of law, and I think it's fairly

 4     accurate, yes.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Now when you say that if bodies are in a mass grave it is

 6     easy, does this mean that, as a working presumption, you as a pathologist

 7     consider that all bodies found in a same mass grave come from the same

 8     event and met their fate in the same event?

 9        A.   Not necessarily.  As I've pointed out later in the article, the

10     autopsy process is just one step of the investigation.  You have an

11     investigation, you have an exhumation, you have an examination.  All of

12     those parts are important in assessing the significance of the findings.

13     However, as a general principle, the finding of a body that's been in one

14     mass grave and then moved to another mass grave I think is germane to

15     your consideration of what the cause and manner of death might have been.

16        Q.   Now, in such a process and such a consideration, does one not

17     take into account that mass graves might arise by operation of law in a

18     particular jurisdiction?  For instance, for bodies collected in a

19     sanitisation procedure after a battle?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Okay.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask first.  I -- a quote has been given to

23     you, but I would like to first understand fully what you're quoted to

24     have said.

25             The first:

Page 14737

 1             "Where hostilities have descended into a barbarity of a

 2     massacre," that means there that you have a kind of a presumption that

 3     there is a massacre.

 4             THE WITNESS:  I am not sure those words were mine.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 6             THE WITNESS:  That was -- as I say, this was not prepared as a

 7     court statement.  It was taken by a journalist who I think used some

 8     journalistic license in those words.  I think it's --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             THE WITNESS:  -- unlikely I used those specific words.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So -- but then I'll continue.

12             "'You have to prove every single one.'"

13             What do you think you have to prove?

14             THE WITNESS:  Sorry --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  What are you referring to?

16             THE WITNESS:  No, sorry.  This was in reference to -- hold on ...

17             JUDGE ORIE:  But what makes it easy if there are in a mass

18     grave -- to establish the cause of death?  Or I would think that if you

19     take them one by one, at least I would start thinking that it doesn't

20     make any difference.

21             THE WITNESS:  Sorry, this -- this was really a comparison between

22     my experience in Bosnia and in Kosovo, and I think it relates to this

23     issue of the step-wise process of investigation, the same investigation,

24     the examine -- the autopsy, the exhumation and the autopsy examination.

25     Where there was no linkage between -- where they were in separate graves

Page 14738

 1     and there was no apparent linkages between them --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             THE WITNESS:  -- it was much more difficult to interpret the

 4     significance of the findings.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But for you or for the Judges later or for

 6     the --

 7             THE WITNESS:  No, no, for --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  -- prosecutors --

 9             THE WITNESS:  For me.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  For you.

11             THE WITNESS:  For me, yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you explain that.

13             THE WITNESS:  When you've got a large number of bodies in one

14     place that has -- where the body has been buried and then dug up and then

15     reburied, that would, to me, indicate that there was some intention to

16     perhaps conceal the nature of the -- the death.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now is that part of your specific expertise,

18     whether there were -- what kind of intentions there were behind, or is it

19     for you to describe what you see and then to leave the conclusions to

20     those who have a total overview over the facts, perhaps over the case?

21             THE WITNESS:  I -- I accept your -- your point, there,

22     Mr. President.  I was trained in both the English and American systems.

23     In the English system, I would give purely the cause of death.  In the

24     American system, I would be expected to give both the cause of death and

25     the manner of death.  Even in the English system, you often do consider

Page 14739

 1     issues like manner in relation to your cause of death.  For example, the

 2     difference between a gun-shot wound that may have caused a suicide or

 3     gun-shot wound that may have caused -- may have been a homicide.

 4             So there are times in pathology when you do have to consider both

 5     cause and manner.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             THE WITNESS:  But I accept that ultimately that is an issue that

 8     does not need to be resolved by me but does, as I say, need to be

 9     resolved by the court.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now you said it's easy, apparently referring

11     to the Kosovo experience -- no, no, to the Bosnian experience.  What

12     makes it easy?

13             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.  I should have probably qualified that to

14     easier.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Easier.

16             THE WITNESS:  I don't think -- I don't regard it as being "easy."

17             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  And then what would be easy -- easier to prove?

18             THE WITNESS:  Well, I think the fact that -- that you've got all

19     of those bodies together indicates that -- that it relates to one event

20     rather than several events.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  At least there may be indications of -- of

22     that having happened.

23             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then you say -- yes, so I now understand that

25     where you are quoted to have said, "You have to look at each one and

Page 14740

 1     determine whether there is enough evidence," that is in the same

 2     comparison situation that to further develop thoughts on not only the

 3     cause of death but also the manner of death or any link between the

 4     several, that it's easier to develop such thoughts if the bodies are

 5     found together?

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  That's correct.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I understand what the quote was about.

 8             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10        Q.   Before I get back to the document, sir, the type of coronial

11     system that was employed in Bosnia, correct me if I'm wrong, was the

12     English system?

13        A.   I was never quite sure.

14        Q.   Thank you.  If we can now look at the end of the middle column,

15     the third paragraph from the bottom of this article, and it is recorded

16     here as follows:

17             "He might have no autopsies or up to four a day.  'Four is quite

18     a lot.  The straight-forward autopsies take about an hour.  The more

19     complicated ones can take up to four hours, so things can vary from being

20     pretty quiet to being full-on for most of the day.'"

21             Sir, does -- does that accurately reflect your words?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And was this in relation to your normal work in Tasmania or would

24     the same observation apply to the work that was done by yourself and

25     other pathologists in Bosnia?

Page 14741

 1        A.   That was applied to my work in Tasmania.  I still, even in

 2     Bosnia, did not often do more than four or maybe five cases in a day.

 3     But because the bodies were more decomposed, some of the dissections that

 4     I would have ordinarily undertaken in an ordinary autopsy weren't

 5     relevant.  So while some of the -- some of the -- my experience in

 6     Tasmania and my experience in Bosnia are not directly comparable.

 7        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now if we can move to the second-to-last

 8     paragraph on this page, that would be on the far right column, and it

 9     begins as follows:

10             "Team-work is vital.  'You are only as good as the detectives,

11     the crime scene investigators, the corner's officers, and the doctors

12     involved.  The autopsy is really good for checking facts, but in terms of

13     trying to work out exactly what happened ... if you don't have enough

14     information, you can't make an assessment.'"

15             And can you confirm if your words are accurately reflected in

16     this?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And as far as the work of the investigative team, the crime scene

19     investigators, the detectives, those that worked on these graves in

20     Bosnia in 1998, am I correct that you were not involved in overseeing

21     their work or establishing protocols for their work?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   And if we can turn to page --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. --

25             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

Page 14742

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  -- Ivetic, could I ask similar questions as I did

 2     before.

 3             You are quoted to have said:

 4             "'You are only as good as the detectives, the crime scene

 5     investigators, the coroner's officers ...'"

 6             Do I have to understand this that you say, "The result of my work

 7     alone doesn't do the job.  It is -- you need all the pieces to make my

 8     contribution a useful one"?

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  It is my view on forensic pathology that it

10     is part of a process and that the more information that I get in regard

11     to the circumstances, the better I can interpret what I have found.  Now

12     the trade off in that is that there is potential for bias.  And one of

13     the difficulties of being a forensic pathologist is to try and look at

14     the material you've been given analytically and not necessarily be swayed

15     by it but to test it.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, you are saying at the end if you don't have

17     enough information you can't make an assessment.  That's not very clear.

18     An assessment about what?  I take it that for the cause of death it --

19     you might not need all the information.  And my second question would be:

20     Were you fed with all this information -- I mean, would you have the full

21     report of the crime scene investigators, or were you primarily doing your

22     job by doing your autopsies?

23             THE WITNESS:  I think it's important to recognise that this

24     paragraph relates to my work in general and not specifically to my work

25     in Bosnia.

Page 14743

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But then the question still remains:  If you

 2     do an autopsy, are you asking actively for what did you find on the crime

 3     scene, or would you first do that and then make that available so that

 4     those who are overlooking the totality would be able to make a better

 5     assessment or judgement on what happened?

 6             THE WITNESS:  I would -- I would usually try and get as much

 7     information before I started, and then look at what I found and then

 8     maybe ask for further information.  So it wouldn't always be the case

 9     that I'd get all the information I wanted to start with, but it is -- it

10     is important -- the more information I had, the more easy it was to

11     interpret what I was saying.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Such as whether a knife or a pistol was found at the

13     crime scene, is that the kind of things you would ...

14             THE WITNESS:  Those are things I would expect to know, yes.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now you say this applies mainly for your work

16     in Tasmania.  In what way was this different than in Bosnia?

17             THE WITNESS:  I -- well -- it's -- the nexus between the

18     investigation and the autopsy were closer.  I would normally, in a

19     suspicious case, have attended the scene, examined the scene.  I would

20     have had all the information that -- provided by the police.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you mean the scene of -- or the suspected scene

22     of the crime --

23             THE WITNESS:  The scene of --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  -- or the scene of where the bodies were found?

25             THE WITNESS:  The scene of the -- the scene where the bodies were

Page 14744

 1     found.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which is usually -- certainly if it's a

 3     secondary grave would not be the scene of the crime.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Sorry, I was referring there in terms -- to

 5     my work in Tasmania, not the work in --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I now better understand.

 7             Mr. Ivetic, before we ask further questions about what the

 8     witness said, I would first like to fully understand what he is quoted to

 9     have said before asking further questions.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.  If we could turn to page 3 of this

12     article now, I would like to go over one more part.

13        Q.   And then have you explain it for us.  And it is the far right

14     column at the top, the first full paragraph of the same.

15             "'In forensic, weird things tend to happen, slightly more

16     commonly than you'd expect ... coronial cases tend to be strange and

17     unusual.  The older I get, the more careful I am never to say 'never' and

18     never to say 'always.'  I have been surprised in the past ... someone who

19     has accidently fallen on a spike that has gone through their brain, a man

20     driving a car where the gear stick has gone through his heart, very, very

21     strange occurrences that you wouldn't anticipate happening but

22     occasionally do occur.

23             "'On a regular basis, from the history I'm given, I try to guess

24     what the cause of death is and then do the autopsy.  The only problem is

25     it is only possible to get 60 to 70 per cent accuracy.  I am nearly

Page 14745

 1     always surprised by what I find at autopsy.  You can't even anticipate

 2     which cases you are likely to get wrong.'"

 3             Does this accurately depict your words to the journalist?

 4        A.   Well, it's in quotations.  I think it -- I think it probably is,

 5     yes.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And could you tell us then, sir, in relation -- could you

 7     explain to us what you are talking about when you say it's only possible

 8     to get 60 to 70 per cent accuracy?  In relation to what, sir?

 9        A.   Sorry, this is in relation to work I'm doing in -- in relation to

10     my regular work, not in relation to what we are talking about today.

11     But, no, what I -- what I often do is, in my cases in Tasmania, read the

12     story, examine the outside of the body, and try and ascertain what the

13     cause of death is before I do the autopsy, and the problem is that we

14     know from -- from research work and so forth that the accuracy of that is

15     about 60 to 70 per cent.  You've -- you probably can't get more accurate

16     than that.  This is not really -- I -- well, I can't see the direct --

17     it's not meant to relate to the work we did in Bosnia.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  But could I still ask you, "It's not likely..."  Do

19     you mean that only in 60 to 70 per cent of the cases, your initial

20     guess --

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  -- on the basis of the information provided to you

23     and just at looking at the body from the outside that in -- in -- well,

24     let's say 30 to 40 per cent it turns out that you were wrong in your

25     initial guess, whereas in 60 to 70 per cent your guess was right.  Is

Page 14746

 1     that --

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sorry.  I should -- this is -- I think this

 3     highlights the importance -- it was meant to highlight the importance of

 4     doing autopsies.  You -- it is not meant to relate to my accuracy in

 5     terms of assessing the cause of death at the finish of the autopsy.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Because there you think that you can accurately

 7     establish either the cause of death or the probable cause of death or

 8     the -- well, definite cause, there you have no doubts as the accuracy of

 9     such conclusions?

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that's right.  We've actually done research to

11     demonstrate this figure of 60 to 70 per cent being right.  It really

12     relates to an issue in Australian -- in Australian coronial practice

13     where there has been a tendency to do less autopsies.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And this is, therefore:  Is it what I thought

15     it to be initially?

16             THE WITNESS:  I think so.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. IVETIC:  If we can look at one more item for this document.

20     If we could please scroll up to the top of this page, I think we'll see a

21     headline, the second heading.

22        Q.   "'The high-profile cases can be quite dangerous because there is

23     a huge amount of speculation.  If you are not careful with those cases,

24     they can go badly wrong on you.'"

25             Do you stand by those words as being accurately published?

Page 14747

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And do you still hold that view?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And would you consider the work that you did in 1998 for the

 5     Tribunal in Bosnia as being a high-profile case of the type that this

 6     comment was directed towards?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I would tender this document as the

 9     next exhibit number at this time.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter document 1D1138 --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Receives number?

13             THE REGISTRAR:  -- shall be assigned Exhibit number D338.  Thank

14     you.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  D338 is admitted into evidence.

16             Mr. Ivetic, it may be time for the break.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lawrence, we would like to see you back after

19     the break, which will be in approximately 20 minutes.  You may follow the

20     usher.

21                           [The witness stands down]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll resume at 10 minutes to 11.00.

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

24                           --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

Page 14748

 1             Mr. Ivetic, could you give us an indication as where we are in

 2     terms of time?

 3             MR. IVETIC:  I believe I'm still on track to complete the witness

 4     within the estimated time that we had.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And the estimated time was?

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Was two and a half hours, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Two and a half hours.  Yes.  Which would effectively

 8     mean what, more or less?

 9             MR. IVETIC:  I believe just under two hours left today.

10                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  One hour and 50 minutes left.  50, I should

12     pronounce better, especially if it comes to 15 or 50.

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please be seated.

15             Mr. Ivetic, please --

16             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  -- proceed.

18             MR. IVETIC:

19        Q.   Doctor, yesterday you briefly told us about the Gilham case.

20             MR. IVETIC:  And I'd like to revisit that with the assistance of

21     1D1140 in e-court, which I believe is an article of the Sydney Morning

22     Herald from 2011 about that case.

23        Q.   While we wait for that, sir, am I correct that you were an expert

24     witness for the Prosecution in that case?

25        A.   I regard myself an expert witness for the court.

Page 14749

 1        Q.   Fair enough.  You were not called as a defence witness, is what I

 2     was --

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   Okay.  In this article, if we can look at the fourth --

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  The speakers are kindly asked to slow down and

 6     to pause between question and answer so that the interpretation into

 7     B/C/S could be complete.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That was a firm message --

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- we should take to heart.

11             MR. IVETIC:  If we can look at the fourth paragraph from the

12     bottom, sir.

13        Q.   And I can read it so that we can be on the same page.  It begins:

14             "But yesterday in the NSW Criminal Court of Appeal, Dr. Lawrence

15     conceded that he was not fully qualified to give evidence when it came to

16     levels of carbon monoxide below 10 per cent, and that doing so had made

17     him 'uncomfortable.'

18             "Dr. Lawrence said he had warned at the time that a toxicologist

19     would be more appropriate to give evidence.  He also said that he had not

20     been given important information about Chris Gilham such as whether he

21     was a smoker.

22             "Dr. Lawrence said he had changed his view and believed it was

23     possible the elder Gilham sibling was alive for at least a short time

24     after the fire was lit."

25             Does this accurately summarise the Gilham case that we talked

Page 14750

 1     about yesterday?

 2        A.   Well, it's a newspaper article which expresses some of the

 3     opinions of the reporter, but substantially it's correct, yes.

 4        Q.   Okay.  I only want to focus on the recitation that you had not

 5     been given important information, and I want to ask you:  Was this

 6     information that was in the possession of a party in the proceedings?  I

 7     mean, what does that part relate to?

 8        A.   Let me just backtrack a little.  In forensics pathology, a smoker

 9     can have a carbon monoxide level of 10 or even 12, so the -- the

10     observation of whether or not they were a smoker is relevant to the

11     consideration, and I had not been ever informed whether or not

12     Christopher Gilham was or was not a smoker.

13        Q.   Was that information that had been in the possession of the

14     police, the prosecution?  Who had that information?

15        A.   I still don't know.

16        Q.   Can you please tell us, if you know, what was the ultimate

17     outcome of the Gilham appeal?  Was the murder conviction -- or the murder

18     convictions reversed?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   If we can move on to another topic, I'd like to focus on -- upon

21     your arrival at the Tribunal in 1998.

22             MR. IVETIC:  And I'd like to recount something that's contained

23     in 1D1141, the Popovic transcript, page 6 in e-court; transcript

24     page 7519.

25        Q.   And if you could follow along, sir, I'd like to read from line 4

Page 14751

 1     through line 18, the questions and answers.

 2             "Q.  Can you tell us who provided that initial briefing to you as

 3     to what had happened in Srebrenica in 1995 in the opinion of the OTP?

 4             "A.  That's difficult to remember.  I got information from many

 5     people, and I honestly cannot remember who told me what, but I had spoken

 6     to Graham Blewitt, John Ralston, members of the investigative team,

 7     Professor Richard Wright.  So I -- I received information from a large

 8     number of people.

 9             "Q.  Thank you very much.  Naturally, you cannot be expected to

10     remember every word that was uttered to you, and by whom.  But could you

11     summarise the information that was provided to you in OTP -- by OTP as to

12     what was their impression about what had happened in Srebrenica in July

13     of 1995?  What did they tell you?

14             "A.  I -- I was told that a number of people had been killed,

15     that they had been buried, that the graves had been then re -- dug up,

16     and that the bodies had been reburied again."

17             Does this accurately convey the testimony as you recall it from

18     this case?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And do you stand by the same?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   If we can turn to the next page of this transcript in e-court,

23     I'd like to continue to see if I'm understanding this right.  From line 2

24     I'll continue reading, sir.

25             "Q.  Thank you.  When preparing to go out to work in the field,

Page 14752

 1     were you perhaps told that in the territory of Srebrenica municipality,

 2     as well as in neighboring municipalities of Bratunac and Zvornik, in 1992

 3     very intense combat took place between the Serbian and Muslim forces,

 4     which is to say that this happened some three years before the 1995

 5     event -- sorry, 1995 events.

 6             "A.  Yes.  I -- I was aware there had been previous combat.

 7             "Q.  Was your attention drawn to the fact that in doing your

 8     work, you should bear in mind that some of the graves that you might come

 9     across were created in 1992 or 1993?  Were you told to pay particular

10     attention to that fact?

11             "A.  No.

12             "Q.  So you were never told by the Prosecution before going to

13     Bosnia that there existed certain mass graves in the territory of Zvornik

14     and Bratunac dating back to 1992.  Did they have such information?

15             "A.  No.  I don't recall being given -- told that specifically.

16     I was aware that there were graves there, though."

17             Does this accurately reflect the testimony that you gave in that

18     case, sir?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And has anything changed or would you adopt the same testimony

21     today if asked these questions?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And how about the combat that had occurred in July of 1995

24     between a mixed column of several thousand armed and unarmed Bosnian

25     Muslim men trying to break through the Serb lines and get out of

Page 14753

 1     Srebrenica enclave, did your briefing from the Prosecutor's Office relay

 2     that information to you?

 3        A.   Sorry, are we -- sorry, that's a question, not transcript.

 4     Sorry.  Yes, I was told that information.

 5        Q.   Okay.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  I would now like to take a look at Exhibit D329 in

 7     e-court.

 8        Q.   While we wait for that, sir, I can advise that this is a report

 9     of an oversight committee dated 1998.  And once we look at the first page

10     of that document when it comes up, we'll see the several persons that

11     were members of the committee and at the bottom of the page the two

12     Prosecution personnel, Peter McCloskey and Jan Kruszewski, who took part

13     in the same.

14             First of all, did either of the OTP personnel identified in this

15     report have any role in briefing you at the time that you were working as

16     a pathologist for the Office of the Prosecutor?

17        A.   I -- I knew both of the individuals.  I would have talked to

18     Peter about the case on a number of occasions, and I would assume -- I

19     can't have any specific recall of talking to -- to Jan about that, but he

20     was around at the time I was being briefed and I may well have spoken to

21     him about it.

22        Q.   Okay.  Does this document appear to be something that remember

23     having been advised of or having seen before?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   Okay.

Page 14754

 1             If we can turn to page 3 of the document, I'd like to --

 2        A.   Sorry, sorry.  When I read the document a bit further -- yes, I

 3     was aware of a document which was in -- related to something about

 4     San Antonio, and I believe that to be the document.

 5        Q.   Thank you, sir.  If we can turn to page 3 of the document, I'd

 6     like to ask you about something in Roman numeral IV, and it's the last

 7     half of that paragraph, and it begins:

 8             "Even within their own country, there were differences in

 9     investigation and autopsy techniques, interpretation of findings, and

10     differences between professional disciplines (pathology, anthropology,

11     criminal investigatory procedure, and evidence collection).  There was

12     also a potential, if not real, conflict between the UN and PHR personnel,

13     as well as variations on legal opinion for cause and manner of death.

14     There was attempt to use the Minnesota Protocol, a standardised form for

15     the autopsy recording which was developed in the early 1980s."

16             And I'd like to ask you, sir --

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please slow down.

18             MR. IVETIC:

19        Q.   First of all with respect to the concerns that were voiced, is

20     this background information that would have been available to you at the

21     time that you were briefed by the Prosecution in commencing your work?

22        A.   Yes.  I -- this relates to work done in 1996.  I -- I was briefed

23     by -- about this by the South African investigator Frank, I am not sure I

24     remember his second name.  But, yes, this was discussed and I was asked

25     to consider this in -- in my work.

Page 14755

 1        Q.   Now the Minnesota Protocol that was mentioned, am I correct that

 2     that is a standardised method of collecting and preserving evidence and

 3     entry of forensic findings on a written record developed by the

 4     Physicians for Human Rights group in the United States?

 5        A.   Yes, it is.

 6        Q.   Did you and your team use the Minnesota Protocol in the work that

 7     you did in 1998?

 8        A.   No, the document -- sorry, I'll slow down.  The document deals

 9     with a lot of issues in relation to torture and quite a lot of the

10     document - which is a somewhat dated document I have to say as well -

11     would not have been directly relevant to the -- I am familiar with the

12     Minnesota Protocol.  And when I prepared my reports, the -- the -- the

13     pro forma documents, I considered some of the issues that were raised in

14     the Minnesota Protocol, but I did not use that as the standard form.  It

15     just isn't relevant enough.

16        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Now are you familiar, then, with the Istanbul

17     Protocol that would have been developed, I believe, in the 1990s, that

18     specifically related to torture and cruel treatment and the types of

19     steps that needed to be taken if opinions were to be rendered in relation

20     to that area?

21        A.   Not specifically, I would have to say, no.

22        Q.   Okay.  Can I take it then that your team did not employ the

23     Istanbul Protocol in your work in Bosnia?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   And if we look at the next page of the document, and

Page 14756

 1     Roman numeral number VI, we will see a list of comments by some of the

 2     members of that mission, the 1996 mission.  I'd like to highlight

 3     something that's contained in number 4 here to get your take on it, and

 4     it says, under Andrew Thomson, in the middle of his comment, it says.

 5             "Sixty-four (64) bodies removed in one day at Ovcara to spite

 6     UNTAES photographer.  Not all bodies were fluoroscoped.  'Tension'

 7     between Drs. Haglund and Kirschner."'

 8             Now, as to this complaint that not all bodies were being

 9     fluoroscoped, would you agree that, if true, this would run afoul of one

10     of the most basic first steps in the examination of human remains?

11        A.   Can I ask where we're going with this?

12        Q.   I'm asking your opinion about what's written in this document,

13     sir.  That's -- is fluoroscoping one of the most basic first steps in the

14     process of --

15        A.   Well, all of our major -- all of our whole bodies and major body

16     parts were fluoroscoped in any of the cases that we thought were

17     significant, were fluoroscoped because it is an important part of the

18     investigation.

19        Q.   If we can turn to the next page of the document, and it continues

20     with the comments.  First of all, sir, if I can focus on number 12, and

21     Dr. Milewski, the -- a medical examiner from, I believe, the Bronx, she

22     was a member of the team that assisted you, I believe, on three of the

23     graves that you reported on.

24        A.   Yes, that's right.

25        Q.   And here she is talking about the predecessor mission, and she

Page 14757

 1     complained that she was instructed how to list the cause of death by

 2     Dr. Kirschner.  Was that one of the problems that you had been told about

 3     in relation to the predecessor investigations that had been performed?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And if we can look at number 13, we also have there Ms. Gallagher

 6     stating that Dr. Kirschner changed autopsy reports and instructed her to

 7     do so while processing the reports, "her" being Ms. Gallagher, the

 8     anthropologist.  As a practitioner in the field of forensic pathology,

 9     would you agree that these charges, again if accurate, and if relating to

10     reports of autopsies performed by other pathologists, would be a

11     deviation from the standard of practice that is customary?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And now I want to step away from this report.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Lee.

15             MS. LEE:  Yes.  I would object to this question.  We don't know

16     what we mean by the word "change" here and -- but --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the question has been answered but, of course,

18     the relevance of the answer, and, Mr. Ivetic, I think you would agree

19     with me, very much depends on whether the substance of the report was

20     changed or just the format or -- we do not know, at least it's not clear

21     from here.  And if you have any information about that, I think it would

22     be worthwhile for the Chamber to see that.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.  Perhaps not with this witness --

25             MR. IVETIC:  Right.

Page 14758

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  -- who might not have no personal knowledge about

 2     it.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Exactly.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  But you put these questions to him.  And do you know

 5     exactly what changes are referred to?  Apart from that you shouldn't

 6     change anything, but we easily agree on that, but do you know what kind

 7     of changes are hinted at in this?

 8             THE WITNESS:  It was my understanding, from information I was

 9     told, that the cause of death had been changed on some of the reports.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And would that be detrimental for anyone who would

11     have been suspected for having caused the death of that person?  I mean,

12     "undetermined" is relatively favourable, whereas a gun-shot wound would,

13     perhaps for someone who would have to stand in a -- in a trial for

14     manslaughter --

15             THE WITNESS:  Yes, yes.  And my understanding is yes, it would --

16     it would probably have been.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Unfavourable for anyone for having to stand

18     trial for having played a role in the death of this person.

19             THE WITNESS:  Please understand, this is what would probably be

20     regarded as hearsay --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             THE WITNESS:  -- in an Australian jurisdiction.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You were quite clear on that you have no

24     personal observation.

25             THE WITNESS:  But yes, I understand that in a number of the cases

Page 14759

 1     the cause of death was changed.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do you have any idea about the quantity of --

 3     of the number of reports and on what total?

 4             THE WITNESS:  No.  No, I don't.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 6             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

 8        Q.   Now -- again, stepping away from the report and focusing on your

 9     work that came in 1998, in terms of the autopsies and the collection of

10     all documentation from the autopsies, and provision of all information or

11     documentation which would have been requested to be reviewed by

12     pathologists performing the autopsies, am I correct that this role was

13     undertaken by a Mr. Dean Manning and other Prosecution investigators or

14     staff?  Or if you don't recall, that's fine too.  I mean ...

15        A.   I'm still trying to -- I'm not sure I quite understand what

16     you're asking there.

17        Q.   In terms of collecting the reports or collecting artefacts that

18     would have been recovered from the autopsy, would that work have been

19     done by members of the Prosecution staff including a Mr. Dean Manning?

20        A.   Yes.  It would have been done.  I would also have viewed the

21     reports to collect, but, yes, Dean Manning would have -- would have taken

22     the material.

23        Q.   Now, if a pathologist such as yourself needed some information

24     and wanted to get some additional information relating to either the

25     grave or anything else, would the source of that information likewise be

Page 14760

 1     Prosecution staff including Mr. Dean Manning?

 2        A.   I would have imagined that the primary source would be the source

 3     where you'd get that information from, the actual reports.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May I just get clarification.  And this I ask from

 5     you, Mr. Ivetic.

 6             Your first question at line 11 of page 39, you said:

 7             "In terms of the autopsies and the collection of all

 8     documentation from the autopsies and provision of all information or

 9     documentation which would have been requested to be reviewed by

10     pathologists ..."

11             That was your question there.

12             Now at line 20, you said:

13             "In terms of collecting the report or collecting artefacts ..."

14             Now, I would imagine that artefacts are -- is -- would be things

15     that are collected around the grave, around -- and they are not

16     necessarily documentation that would be -- that would come from

17     autopsies.  These artefacts would be items that would form the report in

18     the autopsy if they are provided to the pathologist.

19             MR. IVETIC:  And it's my understanding that pathologists, when

20     examining a body, photograph artefacts that would be found within the

21     body that might not have been located at the gravesite.  That was how I

22     intended my question and I hope that's how it was received.

23             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I understood that.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, now I'm clearer.  Thank you so much.

25             MR. IVETIC:  And if we can turn to 1D1142, page 13 in e-court,

Page 14761

 1     which should correlate to 7382 of that underlying case.  And if we could

 2     focus on the -- if we could focus on the bottom four lines and then we'll

 3     be going on the next page on the top of the page.

 4        Q.   Sir, I'd like to revisit the questions and answers you had at

 5     line 22 onwards.

 6             "Q.  And based on your experience, is it possible to determine

 7     the manner of death --"

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Line 22?  The line 22 on my screen says:

 9             "And could you please define that for us ..."

10             MR. IVETIC:  I see that.  If we could zoom back out so that I can

11     see which page we're on, I can direct ...

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Page 22 as we have it.  Let me see, no.

13             MR. IVETIC:  If we zoom out so I could see the top of the page I

14     can see what transcript page we're on and direct to go ... 1382, that's

15     what we're --

16             MS. LEE:  If I could assist, I believe it's the next page --

17             MR. IVETIC:  Next page.

18             MS. LEE:  -- at page 7383 of the transcript, the Tolimir

19     transcript.

20             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you to my colleague.

21        Q.   And now, sir, if you can follow along from line 22 onward:

22             "Q.  And based on your experience, is it possible to determine

23     the manner of death when the cause of death is unknown?

24             "A.  In some cases, yes, but often no.  If I can give an example,

25     one might have a, as I had in the United States, case where a person had

Page 14762

 1     been," if we can go to the next page, "buried in a clandestine grave and

 2     was quite badly decomposed.  It was not clear exactly what had caused

 3     death, but I concluded because of the nature -- of the way the body had

 4     been concealed that the manner of death was homicide.  So it is possible

 5     to have an undetermined cause of death and a determined manner of death,

 6     but it's not particularly common."

 7             Does this accurately reflect your testimony?

 8        A.   Yes.  It relates to my general practice of forensic pathology

 9     more so than Srebrenica case, but, yes, that's true.

10        Q.   In relation to the Srebrenica case, were your findings strictly

11     related to clinically observed physical condition of remains, or did you

12     also take into account circumstantial facts including the nature of the

13     graves and what had been relayed to you by investigators?

14        A.   I considered what I saw at autopsy.  I considered factors like

15     artefacts such as the ligatures and blindfolds.  I think those are the --

16     those are the factors that I did consider in.

17        Q.   Okay.  Now, sir, at this trial, protected Witness RM306

18     testified, and this would be at transcript pages 11472 through 11473,

19     that per the requirements of the Yugoslavian sanitisation procedures,

20     bodies of deceased combatants would have been buried in mass or communal

21     graves, and that, in fact, some bodies found by the roadside were so

22     buried in a mass or communal grave in Bratunac municipality at the

23     Glogova site.  Was such information known or conveyed to you when you

24     were doing your work?

25        A.   I -- I don't think I was specifically told that information, no.

Page 14763

 1        Q.   If I can ask just one more thing, RM306 also testified at

 2     transcript page 11485 through 11486 of a mass or communal grave dating

 3     from 1992 and containing 150 or 100 bodies that had been robbed in 1995

 4     at the same time that bodies from Glogova had been removed from that site

 5     and taken away.  Was such information known or conveyed to you, sir?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   Okay.  If in relation to the diggings and the exhumations --

 8     strike that.  Am I correct that in relation to the difference between

 9     primary and secondary graves and as to which grave was a primary and

10     secondary, you were entirely reliant upon Professor --

11     Dr. Richard Wright?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And did you at any time get information conveyed to you that the

14     graves located along, for instance, Hodzici Road and Cancari Road were

15     located in all instances within 5 kilometres of sites where there had

16     been combat activity in July 1995 between the column of Bosnian Muslim

17     males and Bosnian Serb forces?

18        A.   No.

19             MR. IVETIC:  And if we can turn --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps if I could ask another question.

21             During the whole of your work, did you find indications either in

22     support or contradicting the option that one or more or even many of the

23     bodies you have examined were combat casualties?

24             THE WITNESS:  I didn't see any case -- I -- obviously in relation

25     to Zeleni Jadar, because of the presence of large numbers of shrapnel

Page 14764

 1     injuries, I considered the possibility that the -- some of these could be

 2     combat fatalities.  In relation to the other sites, the presence of the

 3     blindfolds and ligatures and age -- the old age and young age of the

 4     clients, I thought that most of them -- sorry, I thought that they were

 5     probably not combatants, but I had limited information regarding that.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I was just asking about whether you find

 7     anything very specifically, but this is, as far as you can tell us,

 8     partly --

 9             THE WITNESS:  My examination in -- the examinations that I made

10     and observations I made seem to be consistent with the information that I

11     was told and did not seem to contradict the information that I was told.

12     But that's all I can really say.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it -- could I ask you the following:  If you

14     find -- if you would find a grave with a large number of people being

15     shot in their head, entry wound at the back of the head, would you

16     consider this to be an indication pro or contra combat?

17             THE WITNESS:  I think if it was clear-cut that you had a single

18     gun-shot wound in the back of the head, as some of the war crime graves

19     in the Second World War may have shown, yes, that would be strong

20     indication that that's the case.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And in your experience during your --

22             THE WITNESS:  In -- in this, these bodies, they were -- it was

23     very hard to ascertain in many case the directionality of the bullets and

24     it was not nearly as clear-cut as that.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may just follow-up on that one, again the

Page 14765

 1     question was:

 2             "Would that be an indication pro or contra to combat?"

 3             And then your answer was:

 4             "It would be an indication of that --"

 5             THE WITNESS:  Oh, sorry, it would indicate to me, I think, that

 6     the person had been executed.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  If I may, I would like to skip ahead to another

 9     top -- to this same topic since Your Honours have raised it.

10        Q.   And I would like to revisit with you something from the Popovic

11     trial.

12             MR. IVETIC:  1D1141 in e-court, page 29 of the same, which should

13     correlate to transcript page 7542 of that transcript.

14        Q.   And beginning at line 7 and onward, I believe, is a summary of

15     the analysis that you performed to determine whether combatants were

16     contained in the graves, and I would like to go through that with you to

17     see if -- if it's complete.  From line 7:

18             "Q.  Doctor, earlier this afternoon, when you were asked by my

19     learned friend Mr. Lazarevic, on page 78 and 79, he asked you, just so we

20     can put it in context, 'Do you believe that finding weapons in mass grave

21     and finding bodies dressed in uniforms is important in order to establish

22     whether the deceased was a civilian or a military serviceman?'  And your

23     answer, which appears on line 4 of page 79, is, 'It's one of the points

24     of evidence which might answer that question.'

25             "Do you remember that generally?"

Page 14766

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   We're reading the transcript.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The transcript says also "yes."

 5             MR. IVETIC:  I realise that.

 6        Q.   And then the question was posed:

 7             "What other points my help us answer that question?"

 8             And now I would like to read your answer in it's entirety and

 9     then ask you some follow-up questions.

10             "A.  I -- I think the circumstances -- I find it difficult to

11     believe that people who are blindfolded and have their hands tied behind

12     their backs are probably combatants at the time that they are in fact

13     killed.  I guess the other things are the general patterns of injuries

14     that you expect to see.  In modern combat, one would normally expect to

15     see a lot of the casualties come from shrapnel, explosive devices.

16             "It verifies from conflict to conflict, but you would expect the

17     majority of people to have shrapnel injuries in a conflict, not gun-shot

18     wounds, so the high -- the high number of gun-shot wounds would be odd in

19     those circumstances.

20             "The other thing that, frankly, I found odd was that, and this

21     applies in forensic pathology generally, when you found that somebody has

22     gone to some effort to conceal the body, particularly to bury them and

23     rebury them, it's usually an indication that they're trying conceal a

24     death.  And I don't understand why someone would go to so much trouble if

25     these were just armed conflict deaths."

Page 14767

 1             First of all, sir, does this --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I --

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- where it reads "verifies," may I take it, that's

 5     at the previous page, that you may have said "varies."

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then that's hereby clarified.

 8             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 9             MR. IVETIC:

10        Q.   And with that clarification, does this significantly convey the

11     testimony that you would convey as to this question if you were asked it

12     today?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And so in this instance, the circumstantial factors or

15     information relating to the locations of the graves and the information

16     that you receive from the Office of the Prosecutor as to their reburial

17     did play a role in the conclusions and the determinations that you

18     reached in your forensic role?

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see, Mr. Ivetic, before the witness answers

20     the question.

21             Conclusions.  The whole questions are focused on making a

22     distinction between combatants and noncombatants.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  So therefore the question would be whether on this

25     basis the witness has concluded that some of the bodies he performed an

Page 14768

 1     autopsy upon, that he defined them as combatants or noncombatants.  Is

 2     that what you want to ask?

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Uh --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Because the witness is asked to develop all kind of

 5     thoughts --

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- on matters --

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Yeah.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- in which he seems not to be an expert.  And then

10     you say:  Therefore this has influenced your conclusions.  Now, since the

11     questioning is about the distinction between combatants and

12     noncombatants, my first question is whether the conclusions are

13     distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants, because then I can

14     see the link.  Otherwise, it's just, if I could say, informed thoughts

15     or -- well, whatever you would qualify it as.  Could you please phrase

16     your question in such a way that it's clear --

17             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- also in view in matters I raised.

19             MR. IVETIC:

20        Q.   Sir, in the course of your work, did you come to a conclusion

21     that these bodies could be -- that you examined, excluded as combatants

22     and combatant fatalities?

23        A.   I -- I think that there were some cases where I thought it was

24     extremely unlikely that they were combatants.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may --

Page 14769

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Yeah.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may ask, Doctor, was that part of your brief?

 3             THE WITNESS:  Um.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Did you have to make those conclusions?

 5             THE WITNESS:  I thought it was relevant in considering the

 6     circumstances, yes.  I can't specifically recall if I was asked to do

 7     that.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But would it be relevant to your -- the expertise

 9     that you were asked to provide to make that conclusion?

10             THE WITNESS:  I provided the information that I thought might be

11     useful in resolving the issue.  Obviously, the ultimate issue goes to the

12     court.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Indeed.  As I understand, the expert -- your

14     expertise, and as I understand what I thought you were asked to do by

15     those who gave you a brief, was to determine the cause of death.

16             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now was determining the status of the deceased

18     part of your brief?  That's my question.  Whether it's a civilian or

19     combatant, was that part of your brief and did you make that conclusion?

20             THE WITNESS:  I think the answer is that in some of the cases

21     I -- where I observed evidence that to me suggested that they weren't

22     combatants, I included that information --

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand you perfectly, Doctor.  That's your

24     observation.  My question is:  Were you asked to make that determination

25     by those who instructed you?

Page 14770

 1             THE WITNESS:  No.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's my question.  Thank you so much.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And my next question would be:  Did you do that?

 4     Because I looked at your first answer.  You said:

 5             "I think that there were some cases where I thought it was

 6     extremely unlikely that they were combatants."

 7             Did you put -- did you write it down in your report?  Did you

 8     share your thoughts with anyone, and if so, in what way?  And of course

 9     in this respect only.  Did you draw the attention to the fact that they

10     were blindfolded or did you say that they were blindfolded and therefore

11     they were not combatants?

12             Ms. Lee, you are on your feet.

13             MS. LEE:  Yes.  Yes, Your Honours.  The witness has answered on

14     page 49 at line 21:

15             "I observed the evidence to me suggested that they weren't

16     combatants.  And I included that information ..."

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, now let me -- one second.  One second.  "I

18     included that information" makes unclear, and that's what I was asking,

19     what -- whether it was written down in the report, and if so, what was

20     written down, because "I included the information" is a rather vague

21     notice, and therefore I asked the witness whether what he included in the

22     report, what he observed he thought to be indicative for, perhaps, the

23     status of the deceased person, and -- or whether he also included any

24     conclusions on basis of that in his report in writing.

25             That is what I -- and that's not answered by what I read in

Page 14771

 1     line 21 and following.

 2             Could you please answer my question.

 3             THE WITNESS:  I think I expressed an -- I wouldn't -- I expressed

 4     an opinion on some of the cases that I thought it was unlikely that these

 5     were combatants.  Now --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And did you then refer to any evidence you observed?

 7             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  The -- the things like the ligatures, the --

 8     or, for example, the -- the injured person who then had a ligature

 9     applied to him and was then shot.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             THE WITNESS:  I expressed -- I -- it was my -- it was an

12     observation that I made that led me to include that the person was

13     probably not.  Now, I guess it comes down to my level of certainty on

14     that.  And --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, perhaps not.  Perhaps it comes down to what

16     you were asked to do and what you did --

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- rather than the level of certainty.  But you are

19     entering a new -- into this matter, and we leave it to Mr. Ivetic whether

20     he wants you to do that, yes or no.

21             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

22             MR. IVETIC:

23        Q.   Now I believe you indicated that with some of the bodies the

24     determination or your determination that they would not have been

25     combatants was based upon their advanced age or physiological conditions

Page 14772

 1     or infirmaries [sic].  Am I correct that this conclusion would be based

 2     on your understanding of conventional armies such as the Australian or

 3     United States models?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Did you have in mind or any information about the conscript

 6     armies and the Law of Total People's Defence in the former Yugoslavia

 7     that envisioned all persons between the ages of 15 and 65 to be part of

 8     the Territorial Defence forces?

 9        A.   No.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You answered one of the previous questions with

11     "yes," but I am afraid I do not fully understand what you answered "yes"

12     to.

13             THE WITNESS:  Sorry, I understood the question to be do I think

14     that the body -- that the person who I saw the body of would have been a

15     member of the -- a conventional army in Australia or the United States.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see what the question was.  The question is

17     about your determination that they would not have been combatants, was

18     that based upon the advanced age, I think you answered that question

19     earlier, physiological conditions or in ... Mr. Ivetic, could you help

20     us, the transcript is not complete there.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Infirmaries, infirmaries, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Infirmaries.  And then the question is:  Am I

23     correct that this understanding would have been based of your

24     understanding of the conventional armies such as the Australian and

25     United States models.  Now, do I understand that you wanted to ask, at

Page 14773

 1     least that's -- whether, if you say, older people or infirm people, that

 2     you would think of normal armies?

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  That's a simple question.  It's -- it took me five

 5     times to read it.  Yes.

 6             And, Mr. Ivetic, just for my understanding, the witness mentioned

 7     other factors as well.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  They are not included in this question, such as

10     ligatures or blindfolds.

11             MR. IVETIC:  No, Your Honour.  I'm going through each one.  I

12     don't want to do a compound question.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then try to put the questions such that I

14     even understand it.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

16        Q.   We've had evidence at this trial of the Bosnian Muslim column

17     being comprised of both persons armed and those unarmed, arranged by

18     Territorial Defence brigades for purposes of their trek towards

19     Muslim-held territory.  Was that kind of information available to you at

20     the time that you were reaching your conclusions as to whether or not

21     these bodies could be excluded as having been combatant fatalities?

22        A.   Not specifically, no.

23        Q.   Now, I believe in your reports you talk about the lack of

24     uniforms present on the remains except for an odd occasion or two where

25     there was a military jacket, I believe, as another reason that you ruled

Page 14774

 1     out the likelihood of combatant casualties; is that right?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And would this also be rooted in your understanding of a

 4     traditional and professional army like in Australia or the United States?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Okay.  We've had evidence that the Bosnian Muslim column did not

 7     have proper uniforms and that, in fact, civilians were mixed with

 8     soldiers.  Did you have such information or did you consider such

 9     information?

10        A.   I did not have such information.  I did consider the possibility.

11        Q.   Okay.  If I can revisit some information that you did have,

12     1D1144.  Page --

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before we go to that one, I just wanted to find

14     out as an addition to the list of questions we've just been putting to

15     the witnesses, did you by any chance receive information that some of

16     this -- these battle areas were also heavily mined?

17             THE WITNESS:  From my experiences in Bosnia, I would have assumed

18     that.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

20             You may proceed, Mr. Lukic.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Ivetic.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Ivetic.  It's okay, Your Honour.

24             If we can turn to 1D1144, and page 49 in e-court.

25        Q.   And, sir, if you can follow along with me.  I'm interested at

Page 14775

 1     lines -- lines 11 through 16.  And the questions and answers recorded

 2     there as follows:

 3             "Q.  Yes, there it is.  Were you told -- was there a suggestion

 4     made to you that all these individuals were prisoners or people captured

 5     who were executed in the month of July of 1995, or were you also given a

 6     possibility that these were grave-sites dating back to various periods

 7     and various seasons?

 8             "A.  No, I was told that there were prisoners who were executed."

 9             First of all, sir, is this answer accurate as to your knowledge

10     of what you were told?

11        A.   The phrasing of it may not have been how I was told it.

12        Q.   And --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I again here try to --

14             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that Mr. Karadzic has put a question to you

16     which is a question which gives two options, whereas there may have been

17     five or ten options possible.  It's more or less hidden in this question.

18     The question was were you told:

19             "Were you told -- was there a suggestion made to you that all

20     these individuals were prisoners or people captured who were executed in

21     the month of July 1995, or were you also given a possibility that these

22     were grave-sites dating back to various periods and various seasons?"

23             That is, were they all prisoners or were these grave-sites dating

24     back to various periods and various seasons.  Now, when you said, "I was

25     told there were prisoners who were executed," did you -- is that to be

Page 14776

 1     understood as that you were told that all these individuals were

 2     prisoners or people captured who were executed?  Or was it that there

 3     were such among them?  The question is problematic and therefore I'm

 4     analysing the question before I ask you to confirm or comment on the

 5     answer you gave.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Look, I'm trying to recall something that I did

 7     15 years ago.  I can't specifically recall whether it -- which of those I

 8     was -- I mean I -- I was given information to suggest that these were --

 9     that these were prisoners who had been executed.  Whether I was given

10     information about -- that they could have been an admixture of other

11     cases, I don't recall.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  But you just told us that in your findings it came

13     to your mind that those who had injuries caused by shrapnel, that you

14     would consider them perhaps likely not to be prisoners but combat

15     casualties.

16             THE WITNESS:  I think, and again I'm trying, you know, it's --

17     I'm trying to recall what my processes are, having been through court

18     three or four times now.  I think if you were to ask me, I would be -- I

19     regarded Zeleni Jadar as being a different sort of grave and in that I

20     would have had to consider the possibility that some of the shrapnel

21     injury fatalities could actually be combatants.  But I -- I can't, from

22     looking at the injuries, say that.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             Now, Mr. Ivetic, just for my understanding.  I take it that you

25     put these questions in an effort to establish whether the witness worked

Page 14777

 1     on assumption that these were all prisoners.  Now, that's a very direct

 2     question.  I think it's about the same.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you perform your duties and did you -- and were

 5     you led, in whatever way, in your work by the assumption that all or most

 6     of these persons were persons captured and then executed?

 7             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I think that's -- that's true.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That seems to be the issue, Mr. Ivetic, you

 9     would like to establish.

10             Let's proceed.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I believe we are past the time for the

12     break.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  You are right, Mr. Ivetic.  We will take a break,

14     but not until after the witness has been escorted out of the courtroom.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  We will resume at quarter past 12.00.

17                           --- Recess taken at 11.57 a.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 12.21 p.m.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

20             Mr. Vanderpuye.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Good afternoon, Mr. President.  Good afternoon

22     Your Honours, everyone.

23             Just briefly, Mr. President, at the conclusion of the testimony

24     of this witness, we would ask to be able to address an evidentiary issue

25     that arose in relation to another witness, RM506.  We've been in contact

Page 14778

 1     with the Defence regarding this matter, and we believe we will be able to

 2     have sufficient time at the conclusion of this witness's testimony to

 3     address the matter.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6                           [The witness takes the stand]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please be seated.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  If we can briefly look at 65 ter number 4579, which

 9     I believe is relating to the Cancari Road 3 site.  And if we could have

10     page 19 of this document in e-court.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Just for the record, this is Exhibit P1808.

12     Thank you.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

14        Q.   And if we look at the top paragraph on this page, sir, the

15     description of the remains indicates as follows:

16             "Many of the bodies were wearing 2 or 3 layers of clothing,

17     e.g. trousers, long underwear, and shorts."

18             First of all, the reference to shorts, am I correct in

19     understanding that to be undergarments, underwear?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Did you have any information as to what the temperatures were

22     like in July of 1995 in Srebrenica?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Did you consider as part of your analysis or review whether this

25     area of clothing would have been unusual relative to the summertime in

Page 14779

 1     that region?

 2        A.   I -- it -- sorry.  I did not consider that the -- the clothing to

 3     be an indication of the time of year.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Did you consider or revise your working assumption as to

 5     the source of the bodies to take into account the possibility that some

 6     of the bodies so attired may date from another incident or another time,

 7     perhaps fall or winter in the years prior to 1995?

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm sorry, Mr. Ivetic.  I'm not understanding your

 9     question.

10             "Did you consider or revise your working assumption as to the

11     source of the bodies ...?"

12             What did you mean by "source of the bodies"?

13             MR. IVETIC:  I believe, Your Honour, that the last --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you intend to refer to people being imprisoned

15     being executed?

16             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, yes, that's the simple way of dealing with it.

18             So the question now is whether you considered or you revised your

19     working assumption - and I have a question about that - as to whether

20     these were people detained and executed, taking into account the

21     possibility that some of the bodies so attired may date from another

22     incident or other time, fall, winter?

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm sorry.  I still don't understand the question.

24     It's too long and compound.  I'm not sure what it seeks.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I rephrase it then in --

Page 14780

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour, please do.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  -- my own words and see whether -- you, when

 3     working, you assumed, on the basis of what you had heard, that the

 4     persons were captured and executed.  Now, did the fact that they were

 5     dressed as they are reported to have dressed bring to your mind as an

 6     option that they may have died in a different season, a season where it

 7     is colder than July?

 8             Mr. Ivetic, that's --

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].

11             THE WITNESS:  No, it didn't.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, in the original question I said I would have

13     another question on that working assumption.

14             I heard you say that when working, you assumed that that

15     information was accurate.  Now, in what way did that -- or at least that

16     you -- you said you assumed that it was rather prisoners executed than

17     the other group referred to by Mr. Karadzic.  Now, in what way did this

18     acceptance of such an assumption, did that in any way influence your work

19     and your findings?  And if so, to what extent?  How?

20             THE WITNESS:  One of the dangers of getting any information is

21     that it may bias your interpretation of what you do, and I am fully aware

22     of the risks of that and try and avoid it.  I think I said earlier in --

23     in my -- in my testimonies at some point it is partly my job to test the

24     information I've been given to see if it matches what I've observed.  A

25     lot of the bodies that I observed were wearing multiple layers of

Page 14781

 1     clothing, and I assumed that that was probably because they had been

 2     displaced from somewhere and were carrying most of their clothing on

 3     them.  It did not occur to me at the time that it indicated that the --

 4     the deaths had occurred at a different time of the year.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now it's not a full answer to my question.  My

 6     question was also in what way the assumptions based on information you

 7     had received influenced the way in which you worked; that is, in which

 8     you performed your autopsies and drew conclusions from your findings?

 9             THE WITNESS:  The autopsies were carried out as we would normally

10     carry them out.  I don't think they were influenced by the information

11     I'd been provided.  The information that I provided in my reports

12     included material that I thought needed to be highlighted as it may be

13     significant in subsequent court considerations.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But separate from the strict findings of you

15     as someone who performed the autopsy.

16             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.  The observations were the observations.

17     They are -- they were not biased by -- I believe, not biassed by what I'd

18     been told.  My decision to -- in -- include information that I thought

19     might be relevant was done so for somebody to subsequently look at and

20     reach a conclusion.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I have one additional question.  You told us

22     that receiving information carries a risk of bias.  Does not receiving

23     information also carry a risk of missing relevant points?  It came to my

24     mind that you said in this case where you had to review your findings

25     that you did not receive the information that the person was a smoker.

Page 14782

 1     I'm thinking about whether --

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  -- comparing receiving information and not receiving

 4     information as an element which may influence the accuracy of the

 5     findings.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes, absolutely.  There are risks associated with

 7     not having any information, there are risks associated with having the

 8     information.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may just follow-up.  Is -- does that risk

11     relate to the 60 to 70 per cent determination that you make by visual

12     observation and information received, or does it also impact on the

13     clinical autopsy that you carry out?  Or is it the other way around, that

14     the clinical autopsy may either confirm or disprove the information

15     received?

16             THE WITNESS:  I think the second.  It -- look, this is a complex

17     issue, and I think the 60 per cent figure may have, I think, created a

18     wrong impression.  What I'm saying is that you -- on information in

19     external looking at the body, you can reach some conclusions but it's not

20     particularly accurate.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's definitive, yeah.

22             THE WITNESS:  It's better to have all the information and do

23     the -- the exact information, but the information can still bias your

24     conclusions.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  In what way if -- I would have thought that the

Page 14783

 1     autopsy would be a scientific exercise that would come out irrespective

 2     of what information one had received?  Put it this way:  If I make a

 3     determination after an autopsy that person died because of a stab wound,

 4     and I can see the scar there, how does that -- how can that be influenced

 5     by any information I've received about the behaviour of this person

 6     before?

 7             THE WITNESS:  I think what it -- in a straight-forward case it

 8     doesn't, but the interpretation of a more complex injury could

 9     potentially be biased by -- by knowledge.  I'm not saying a

10     straight-forward -- gun-shot wound, there would be no question.  But, for

11     example, in a case where you had a possible gun-shot wound, the

12     information could potentially bias your interpretation.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

14             MR. IVETIC:

15        Q.   If I can just follow-up on what Judge Moloto asked:  Would a

16     situation where most of the soft tissue is gone and the remains are

17     mostly skeletonised also be a situation where there might be more cause

18     for interpretation of physical condition or physical injuries that were

19     reviewed?

20        A.   I think it would be fair to say that the interpretation of a

21     skeletonised body may be more subjective than the examination of a full

22     body.

23        Q.   Okay.  Now the report we are looking at on the screen is for

24     Cancari 3.  Would you agree with me that the either grave-sites exhibited

25     the same phenomena of persons wearing several layers of clothing and, if

Page 14784

 1     so, would that be noted in all of the reports?

 2        A.   Yeah.  I think -- I think that was -- I think that phrase was

 3     standard in all the reports.

 4        Q.   Now I would like to move on to another criteria that you listed

 5     that we haven't gotten to, the blindfolds and the ligatures as a criteria

 6     used to exclude someone as being a combatant and to confirm the working

 7     hypothesis that they were prisoners that were executed.  Now --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic --

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Where is it that the witness says "on that basis I

11     exclude"?

12             MR. IVETIC:  I believe we started off with a quotation from the

13     Popovic case, transcript page 2542, page 29 of 1D1141, where there was

14     the discussion of that, I believe.  But I'm just trying to find it right

15     now.  Maybe it's better just to ask the witness.

16        Q.   Sir, was the presence --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  No --

18             MR. IVETIC:

19        Q.   -- of ligatures and blindfolds something else that you considered

20     to exclude whether the remains was a combatant and to reinforce the

21     assumption that they were a prisoner that had been executed as you had

22     been told by the Prosecution?

23        A.   I -- I think it -- my -- my personal opinion was that it was

24     unlikely that a person who was -- who died with a ligature on was a

25     combatant at the time they died.

Page 14785

 1        Q.   And so that would only apply to persons who actually had -- to

 2     remains, pardon me, that had a ligature attached to them --

 3        A.   I think that's -- sorry, that's the only -- that would be the

 4     only cases that I was specifically referring to.

 5        Q.   And would you agree with me that where such a body or such

 6     remains, if it's not a complete body, were located in a mass grave with

 7     others that did not have evidence of ligatures or blindfolds, that the

 8     same conclusions could not be imputed to those remaining bodies or

 9     remains that did not have ligatures or blindfolds?

10        A.   I couldn't -- I could not make any comment about that.

11        Q.   Okay.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And I go back to my earlier question:  You did not

13     make any reports about the status of the people, did you?

14             THE WITNESS:  No.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

16             MR. IVETIC:

17        Q.   And am I correct, sir, that out of the 883 total bodies that are

18     the subject of your report, there are only 83 suspected ligatures found

19     in these same graves and that not all were affixed or attached to a body

20     somewhere, just unknotted cloth found in the grave?

21        A.   Yes.  I think I -- I did say that there were only 53 definitive

22     ligatures where they were ligatures that were in the right place.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Now --

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  53 or 83?

25             THE WITNESS:  There were 83 pieces of cloth that I considered to

Page 14786

 1     be potential ligatures, but only 53 were found in a position that I

 2     thought indicated that they definitely were ligatures.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

 5        Q.   And the same question now in relation to blindfolds.  Am I

 6     correct that there were 103 suspected blindfolds recovered but only a

 7     portion of those were actually situated or affixed to a body in a place

 8     for you to conclude they were blindfolds?

 9        A.   Yes.  Similarly, there -- 44 were in positions that led me to

10     conclude that they were blindfolds, but there were 103 that were of a

11     similar configuration.

12        Q.   Okay.  In the course of doing your work, can I take it that you

13     did not access to any military records of casualties that would have

14     predated July of 1995 from the armija BiH side in the conflict?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   And am I also correct that at the time that you were doing your

17     work, while you took DNA samples from the remains, the results of the DNA

18     testing were not yet known to you?

19        A.   Yes, that's correct.

20        Q.   Okay.

21             MR. IVETIC:  At this time I would like to call up 1D1148 but not

22     broadcast the same because it does have some identifications from ICMP

23     that I believe are not to be the subject of disclosure.  Whoops.  11 --

24     pardon me.  1153.  1D1153.  But not broadcast the same.

25        Q.   Sir, this is a document used and admitted into evidence in the

Page 14787

 1     Popovic trial.  It is a -- produced by a demographic expert,

 2     Ms. Svetlana Radovanovic and this list, part in English, part in B/C/S,

 3     is based on material received from the BiH Ministry of Defence by the

 4     Prosecution as to records of its soldier casualties from Srebrenica.  And

 5     just so we can all follow, I would like to read so that the English

 6     translation of the headings on the left are clear.  On the left side we

 7     have first a main heading that in B/C/S says:  "Spisak tuzilastva,"

 8     "spisak tuzilastva."

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now it has been pronounced by you as part of

10     the English transcript, although in a different language.  Do you have

11     any suggestion of what it could mean Mr. --

12             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, I could do that.  "Spisak tuzilastva," I

13     believe means --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  List of the Prosecution.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Yeah.

16        Q.   And then the five sub-columns are "prezime" which would be last

17     name, "ime" which would be name, "ime oca" which would be father's name,

18     "datum rodjenja" which would be date of birth, "datum smrti Brunborg"

19     which would be date of death according to Brunborg.  And then in the

20     middle we have two columns with the heading "Spisak Armije BiH," "list of

21     the Army of BiH," and two sub-columns "datum rodjenja," date of birth,

22     and "datum smrti," date of death.  And then I think the rest of the --

23     yes, the rest is in English on the columns so that we can understand what

24     this is.

25             Now, I have highlighted on the first page the one set of remains

Page 14788

 1     that were identified from Zeleni Jadar by DNA testing to be the

 2     individual who is named and who, according to the records of the BiH, was

 3     a casualty in either October 1994 or January 1994 depending on --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Lee is on her feet.

 5             Ms. Lee.

 6             MS. LEE:  Yes, Your Honour.  Just in relation to this document

 7     itself, I just wanted to point out that this was a Prosecution document

 8     and the information contained on the left side, the Prosecution list from

 9     ABiH, that formed part of the annex of a Defence expert report in the

10     Popovic case.  However, the information contained on the right, ICMP

11     information, was not included in that expert report, and I just wanted to

12     have a clarification on the document itself before the -- before the

13     witness testifies on it, just so that the witness has the relevant

14     information.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  It very much depends on whether the questions are

16     about that.  We do not know yet.  I think it would have been wiser to

17     wait for a second and see whether that portion of the document came into

18     play, yes or no.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. IVETIC:

21        Q.   As I was saying, the date for this one individual whom I have

22     highlighted is listed as 10-01-1994, which probably means January 10th

23     but could also mean October the 1st, so I'm not going to make a

24     conclusion one way or another.  But would -- would this information cause

25     you to feel uncomfortable with the working assumption or presumption that

Page 14789

 1     the bodies in, at least Zeleni Jadar, were prisoners who were executed in

 2     July of 1995 or that all the bodies were?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Lee.

 4             MS. LEE:  And before the witness can answer, the information

 5     contained on the left side -- the information coming from the ABiH,

 6     those -- the facts contained in that chart had been contested and they

 7     were contested to have been inaccurate.  And so it's just having -- it

 8     may be misinterpreted or misrepresenting the facts if we put the -- if we

 9     put it to the witness that these are the actual facts of the case.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, let's -- let's keep matters simple.  For you

11     as well, Mr. Ivetic, but also for you, Ms. Lee.

12             What you apparently want to ask the witness, whether if he would

13     have known that a list existed in which the various sources give

14     different date of death, one source considerably before July 1995 in most

15     cases, and if that list would consist of - let me make an estimate -

16     120 people, I see there are four pages, whether that inconsistency would

17     have made the witness uncomfortable in the assumption he had in his mind

18     when he performed his autopsies.

19             That's apparently, what you --

20             MR. IVETIC:  More or less.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  If not, please be --

22             MR. IVETIC:  That's a good question as well, so we should --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.

24             Could you please answer that question, that with knowledge of the

25     existence of lists of discrepancies in the dates on which [overlapping

Page 14790

 1     speakers] --

 2             THE WITNESS:  First let -- sorry.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think it was clear enough.  Though I have

 4     not ...

 5             THE WITNESS:  First, let me say I haven't seen this document and

 6     I have no idea about its accuracy or anything.  But if I had been

 7     provided a list that was reliable that indicated that they were -- that

 8     this person may have died at a different time, yes, I would have

 9     considered it.

10             MR. IVETIC:

11        Q.   And if this information contained on this list is verified as to

12     the one individual from Zeleni Jadar, and I can tell you there's three

13     other individuals listed from Zeleni Jadar 5, if it is verified as to

14     those individuals, would that give you cause to rethink whether all of

15     the bodies in that grave-site could be linked to executions in July of

16     1995?

17        A.   I think I've already indicated to you that Zeleni Jadar was a

18     different grave to the others and that there were a lot of shrapnel --

19     there were a lot more shrapnel injuries and that I would consider the

20     possibility in Zeleni Jadar that some of the fatalities were combat

21     fatalities based on the presence of the shrapnel injuries.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And could I ask you one question:  You are talking

23     about three which were verified.  Has an attempt been made for the others

24     to be verified and what's the result of that?

25             MR. IVETIC:  If that's how it came into the transcript, I

Page 14791

 1     apologise.  I was asking if these come to be verified.  Not that they

 2     have been verified, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, yes.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  And with respect --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So it's a hypothetical --

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.  And if we could turn to page 2 of the

 9     document.

10        Q.   And, sir, here I have also highlighted others that again,

11     according to this information which has not been verified, were

12     identified by DNA as being remains located in the Cancari Road 3,

13     Hodzici Road 4, Hodzici Road 5, and Liplje 2 sites that you worked on.

14     For each of these, again, if you are able to subsequently verify that

15     this information as reflected in this chart is accurate as to their dates

16     of death being in the years prior to 1995, would that give you cause to

17     reconsider and step away from the assumption that all the bodies in those

18     graves would have come from the same -- from the same event in July of

19     1995?

20        A.   Look, I'm sorry.  I'm being asked to examine a document I've

21     never seen before and asked a whole series of questions on it.  I think

22     it's a little bit unfair.  I don't -- I don't know what this document

23     really represents and I haven't seen it.  If it's -- oh, sorry.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's keep matters simple, again.

25             What Mr. Ivetic is asking you, that if information not yet

Page 14792

 1     verified would be verified, that these people died at a different date,

 2     or at least at a different period in time, whether you would change for

 3     those persons your assumption that they died in Srebrenica as prisoners

 4     and being executed?

 5             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Yeah -- in the hypothetical situation that

 6     that proved to be case, yes, I would.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, exactly where these people died and how they

 8     died, to what extent we find details of that in your report, I mean,

 9     would it have had an impact on the outcome?  You find a --

10             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, yeah --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- skeletonised body, would you -- are your

12     conclusions this was 15th July, 1995, or would you say -- yes, Ms. Lee.

13             MS. LEE:  Yes.  I would like to point out that Dr. Lawrence does

14     not deal with time of death.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  That's exactly --

16             MS. LEE:  And --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  -- of course why I'm asking.

18             MS. LEE:  -- so it is --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  You don't have to answer the question for the

20     witness, Ms. Lee.

21             MS. LEE:  I understand.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  There is no need to that.  There is, of course, a

23     strong suggestion in the questions that if you would have known that

24     people did not die in July, would you have taken a different assumption?

25             Now, I would say it seems to me that if the assumption is people

Page 14793

 1     die in July and if it's proven that they did not die in July, you have to

 2     review that they died in July.  If it's not "yes," then it's -- it isn't

 3     as you thought it was.  That --

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that's --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  -- seems to be the simple matter.

 6             THE WITNESS:  That is correct.  Remember this report was prepared

 7     at the end of -- in 1999.  If I was given further information that was

 8     verified, yes, I would change my report.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  You -- but to what extent in your report -- or at

10     least in the individual cases, because we are not talking about all, we

11     are talking about a list of -- Mr. Ivetic, you may have counted them, but

12     I came to approximately 100 or 120, approximately 30 a page.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.  And 15 of which were from the sites --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

15             MR. IVETIC:  -- that this witness dealt with.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Would that have changed your findings as to the

17     cause of death for the bodies?

18             THE WITNESS:  No.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  Thank you.

20             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

21             MR. IVETIC:

22        Q.   Would the -- again in the hypothetical, if these dates of death

23     are confirmed for these identified remains, would the presence of those

24     bodies in those graves also affect the working assumptions or conclusions

25     that would have been in place when doing the autopsies and performing the

Page 14794

 1     reviews for all the other bodies that had as of yet been unidentified?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I have to establish that you are doing

 3     again what I -- where I earlier intervened; that is, to make a kind of an

 4     implicit assumption, that what you call the working assumption was

 5     directly related to the outcome of the autopsy findings where the witness

 6     told us -- where the witness told us that the working assumption may have

 7     led to incidental observations which he thought to be relevant and not

 8     directly related to the establishment of the cause of death, if I

 9     understood your testimony well.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that is not the way you put it to the

12     witness.  And you may again ask a question about this subject but then in

13     an appropriate way.

14             MR. IVETIC:

15        Q.   When looking at the physical damage apparent on the remains as

16     part of your forensic review, if you're work -- if your working

17     assumption doesn't have all the information, might it cause a bias in

18     terms of how you interpret the physical condition of the remains --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please phrase a question which is

20     understandable for normal persons as this Court.  It's a lot of words, a

21     lot of no coherence.  Please put clear questions to the witness.  Even if

22     the witness understands the question, the Chamber does not as you phrased

23     it a second ago.

24             MR. IVETIC:  I will try to make it clearer.

25        Q.   If -- if the information that you received that was the basis of

Page 14795

 1     your working assumption could, as you testified, create a bias, is it

 2     possible for that bias to affect your physical review of the remains such

 3     that qualification of the injuries or damage to the remains would be

 4     qualified as "gun-shot wound" or "probable gun-shot wound" as opposed to

 5     some other form of injury?

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That question has been asked and answered,

 7     Mr. Ivetic.  I put the question to the witness and he said no.  Of

 8     course, not in the -- in the words that you are using, in a much simpler

 9     way I asked him if those assumptions, the information he receives, does

10     it impact his clinical autopsy that he undertakes, and he said no.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  If you would not mind, let's try to do it.

13             The witness also said that information carries a risk of bias

14     such as a lack of information may carry a risk of bias as well.

15             On the basis of the information you received, would you consider

16     the risk of bias to include the possibility that a gun-shot wound rather

17     than a probable gun-shot wound would be the conclusion?  I'm exploring

18     the range of the impact of this risk of bias.

19             THE WITNESS:  I -- I've -- to be honest, I think that

20     irrespective of the information I was provided, the definite gun-shot

21     wounds would be the same.  It is possible that in things like possible

22     gun-shot wounds, the information could bias it, but I don't think it

23     would significantly bias the definite gun-shot wounds.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And if you say "could bias," then to become probable

25     gun-shot wounds?  Possible to probable?  Is that in the range of where

Page 14796

 1     the --

 2             THE WITNESS:  The answer is I don't know the answer to that

 3     question.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  But you do not exclude for the possibility that that

 5     risk of bias would result in moving from one category to another,

 6     although you almost for certain exclude that you would move into the

 7     category of definite gun-shot wound?

 8             THE WITNESS:  We --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  If you say, I can't say --

10             THE WITNESS:  I can't say.  I really can't say.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, next question, please.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.  I think for the moment we've gone as far as

13     we can with this document.  Again, we'll have to check to see whether the

14     date that is recorded as coming from the Army of BiH is accurate and I

15     accept that we will do that.

16        Q.   Sir, I would like to move on, then, to another topic,

17     disarticulation of bodies.  There has been suggestions that the

18     disarticulation of bodies, and by that I mean in layman's terms the

19     dismemberment of bones from the main body, was the result of the reburial

20     process.  Am I also correct that disarticulation also occurs as part of

21     the decomposition process as the flesh degrades and melts away from

22     the -- from the -- from the body as well as the sinews and the muscles

23     degrading?

24        A.   Yes, that's correct.  The two processes, the separation of limbs

25     and the loss of the soft tissue, the ligaments in the joints tend to hold

Page 14797

 1     together slightly longer than the tissue.  So one would normally get

 2     decomposition and then disarticulation.

 3        Q.   Now in the cases of bodies that have been left out in the open

 4     for some time, let's say in a battle-field, that only come to be

 5     collected at some later point in time, weeks, months, or years later when

 6     decomposition has already begun, would there be a possibility for those

 7     parts to disarticulate at the time when those bodies are lifted or

 8     cleared to be --

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And we've had some evidence that the column of Bosnian Muslim men

11     was subjected to minefields, as Judge Moloto has pointed out, and also

12     that there was the use of heavy calibre machine-guns, including

13     anti-aircraft guns, shooting at the column.  Would such heavy weapons be

14     another potential cause for disarticulation of bodies?

15        A.   They could be, yes.

16        Q.   And in those circumstances, unless the rounds were buried with

17     the bodies and recovered during the autopsy, you would not have the

18     information available to either exclude or include that as the potential

19     injury; is that accurate?

20        A.   We were making -- we were examining carefully for shrapnel as

21     opposed to -- sorry, or pieces of larger weapons rather than small arms,

22     rifles.  And I would -- we did find a number of cases and I would assume

23     we would find it if -- if there was parts of, say, for example, shells as

24     opposed to bullets.

25        Q.   But what about heavy calibre shells?  Pardon me, heavy calibre

Page 14798

 1     bullets of machine-guns?  Would they not pass through the body in all

 2     likelihood?

 3        A.   Look, again we're getting into areas that I'm not an expert on in

 4     terms of military ordinance and so forth.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  The question may be very relevant.  Is there --

 6     where would the Chamber have to look in order to find information about

 7     the ammunition found near or close to bodies?  Because we know about

 8     bullets but my recollection doesn't serve me well to know whether there

 9     was any heavy machine ammunition found?

10             I'm addressing both parties at this moment, Witness.  Unless you

11     would know something about it then -- Ms. Lee.

12             MS. LEE:  Yes, those issues are -- are found in the testimony of

13     other experts.  There is --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Still to come?

15             MS. LEE:  Well, it was contained in Mr. Manning's reports,

16     Jean-Rene Ruez, and anthropologists's reports.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I may have -- my recollection doesn't serve me

18     sufficiently.  But if the witness would know anything about it, of

19     course, he can tell us.

20             Yes.

21             MS. LEE:  The witness's report mentioned --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's ask the witness.

23             Yes.

24             THE WITNESS:  They are -- as I say, I am not an expert --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no.

Page 14799

 1             THE WITNESS:  -- on ballistics, but I have attempted to describe

 2     what we found.  I did not identify anything.  Sorry, most of the -- most

 3     of the bullets that we found appeared to be standard small arms fire.  I

 4     did not find any evidence of larger ordinance except in the cases that

 5     had shrapnel injuries.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. IVETIC:

 9        Q.   And is it also correct, sir, that you did not recover all the

10     projectiles from the bodies that would account for all of the holes that

11     were in the clothing related to those bodies?

12        A.   Yes.  Yes.  In some cases the -- the projectiles had passed

13     through the body and we did not recover them.

14        Q.   And in that instance, the calibre of those projectiles that were

15     unrecovered would be unknown?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Be unknown also even by looking at the hole?  At

19     least as a distinction between small arms and heavy arms.

20             THE WITNESS:  In a general concept in forensic pathology, it is

21     not a very good idea to try and estimate the size of the bullet from the

22     size of the hole.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

24             MR. IVETIC:

25        Q.   Sir, switching gears, am I correct that you have a working

Page 14800

 1     knowledge of forensic entomology?  Entomology being the study of insect

 2     evidence in forensics.

 3        A.   Look, I'm again a forensic pathologist.  I've used forensic

 4     entomology on occasions.  I would not claim to be an expert.

 5        Q.   Did you see any evidence of things like pupal cases or other

 6     entomological evidence in the remains that you looked at that would be of

 7     assistance in assessing the time of death?

 8        A.   The short answer to that is no.  In Cancari Road 12 we did find

 9     some small maggots, but I suspect that they are a consequence of

10     re-infestation of the body once they'd been exhumed and that they would

11     not be of any use in assessing time since death.

12        Q.   And if bodies were in the ground for several years, would you

13     expect such entomological evidence to even still be there?

14        A.   I don't know.

15        Q.   Fair enough.  I would next like to return briefly to the topic of

16     blindfolds and ligatures.

17             MR. IVETIC:  And if we can call up 1D1145 in e-court.  And in

18     e-court we have a surrogate sheet for the video that was given in full to

19     the Prosecution, and then we have some photo stills from that video.  I

20     am only concerned with the photo stills, but I did want to provide the

21     source of the photos.  So if we can turn to the --

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's 1D?

23             MR. IVETIC:  1145.  So if we can turn to the part in e-court that

24     is the stills, and if we can have page 2 of the document.

25        Q.   And, sir, these are stills from a video of some combatants from

Page 14801

 1     the time-period, and you'll see that the soldier on the right appears to

 2     have a pink ribbon affixed to his left arm.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  And if we can go to the third page in this document.

 4        Q.   We have here a soldier with a bandana, and then next to the --

 5     what is an Army of BiH emblem, we also appear to have a pink cloth

 6     affixed to his uniform.  Did you have information provided to you at the

 7     time that you were doing your review that soldiers in the region would

 8     affix coloured cloth to themselves as means of identifying friendly

 9     forces.

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   Okay.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Ivetic, how do we identify this man as a BiH

13     soldier?

14             MR. IVETIC:  The patch on the uniform, Your Honours, is --

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, I see -- I see the patch, but I don't see

16     anything that says what army he belongs to.  And of course, I don't know

17     the BiH patch.

18             MR. IVETIC:  No, I apologise.  It appears to be a blue shield

19     with a white line going through it and there would be lilies.  It's

20     the -- it's the -- I believe that's the emblem of the BiH Army.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, that's what you are testifying to.  But I'm

22     saying from looking at this, I want you to tell me how I must identify

23     this as a BiH uniform.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Or in the alternative, perhaps whether the parties

25     agree on it?  The parties do not agree on it.

Page 14802

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  No, Mr. Mladic.  Switch off your microphone, that's

 3     one.  Second -- Ms. Lee.

 4             MS. LEE:  The -- the agreement on the emblem itself, I mean,

 5     there is no issue with that.  The only --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So apparently this emblem, whether worn by

 7     whomever, but the emblem indicates that -- is the BH Army emblem?

 8             MS. LEE:  We have -- we have not specifically looked at the

 9     emblem itself, so that's something that we could discuss later on.  At

10     this moment, there is no agreement on its own.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No agreement.

12             MS. LEE:  But the question itself is irrelevant --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  But we asked you whether there was agreement --

14             MS. LEE:  Oh.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  -- that's what I -- I tried to shorten matters, but

16     I failed to achieve that.

17             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

18             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

19        Q.   Sir, in relation to the manner in which this individual in the

20     uniform is wearing the bandana on his head, and we see he has hair, he

21     has a certain amount of body fat, skin, if an individual wearing a

22     bandana in this manner becomes deceased, would you agree with me once

23     decomposition begins, the hair, skin, body fat begins to dissolve, would

24     not this bandana slide potentially downward and cover the eyes on the

25     skull?

Page 14803

 1        A.   It could.

 2        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now I'd like --

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  But aren't we talking about facts of common

 5     knowledge?  I -- I've seen many people outside any army situation, if you

 6     fall, it can slip without even being dead.  I mean, let's keep matters

 7     simple.

 8             Ms. Lee -- or would you say that it's impossible that either

 9     before death or after death this bandana would slip into a slightly

10     different position?

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  It's -- I mean, I would consider it almost a matter

13     of common knowledge which, as we all know, doesn't need any proof.

14             Yes, but I first had a question to Ms. Lee whether she would

15     dispute that --

16             MS. LEE:  The question -- the possibility, no, but I would --

17     that is a question that should be put to the witness and not me.  The

18     possibility itself we're not disputing that.  But --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then there is no dispute about the

20     possibility that this may have happened.  Whether it happened, the

21     witness said he couldn't tell us.  And, of course, this person, very

22     specific, at least I do not know of him having died so that whatever

23     may --

24             MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...

25             JUDGE ORIE:  -- have happened, we -- it's just guessing and it is

Page 14804

 1     speculation and let's stay away from that.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.  The hypothetical question put to you,

 3     Mr. Lawrence, by Mr. Ivetic was that it would fall down to his face.  The

 4     question is:  So there is something that blocks it from going down to the

 5     chin, down to the neck?  It would just stop at the face?  That was the

 6     underlying assumption of that question.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Well, yes.  The ears.  But isn't that just general

 8     knowledge?

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is it general knowledge that it will stop at the

10     eyes?  Or that it could slip down?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  I think you missed the answer.  The answer was

12     that the ears may have blocked it falling down too much further.

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that?

15             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Have I understood your answer to be that?

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  That clarifies.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, I believe we are at the time for the

20     break.  I might have just two minutes or three minutes of questions

21     after.  If I reconstruct my questions during break, I am sure I could

22     finish within five minutes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll give you an opportunity to do that.

24             Ms. Lee, any estimate yet about the time you would need?

25             MS. LEE:  Five to ten minutes.  It's going to be very short.

Page 14805

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 2             Could the witness follow the usher.  We'd like to see you back in

 3     20 minutes.

 4                           [The witness stands down]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 25 minutes to 12.00.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 1.15 p.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 1.35 p.m.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, while we wait for the witness, I have,

10     during the break, disassociated the video stills from the video, as I was

11     told that that would be a complication in e-court.  So the now the video

12     stills we're looking at are 65 ter number 1D1154 and that change is put

13     on the record.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And may I take it that there is no objection against

15     admission, Ms. Lee?

16             MS. LEE:  No, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, the number would be?

18             MS. LEE:  Excuse me, Your Honours, I have -- I -- Your Honours?

19                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

20                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  In order to shorten matters, we -- we assumed that

22     you wanted to tender it, because otherwise it would not have made much

23     sense to separate them from the video.

24             MR. IVETIC:  You are correct.  I do want to tender it.  I have

25     not yet tendered it, but I do give notice of wanting to tender it now --

Page 14806

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and I took that Ms. Lee would have no

 2     objections.

 3             MS. LEE:  No Your Honours.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Shall be assigned Exhibit number D339.  Thank

 5     you.

 6                           [The witness takes the stand]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 8             Please be seated, Mr. Lawrence.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

10             One more item from this stills exhibit.  If I could have page 7

11     in e-court.

12        Q.   And, sir, in page 7 you will note that there is a strip of,

13     again, it looks like pink cloth hanging from the medic's shoulder, and if

14     we go to the next page, I think we'll see is a similar pink strip again

15     on the shoulder of the wounded soldier.  With respect to those suspected

16     blindfolds or suspected ligatures that were found loose in the graves,

17     can you exclude the possibility beyond medical or scientific certainty

18     that they are not simply cloths used for identification in the manner

19     that we have seen in these photographs from this exhibit?

20        A.   No.

21             MR. IVETIC:  If we can turn to 1D1148.  This is another set of

22     still photographs from a video.  The video in question is the so-called

23     Srebrenica trial video which is already in evidence.  If it --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  The last one we looked at was not included yet in

25     the still that was admitted into evidence?

Page 14807

 1             MR. IVETIC:  The ones we looked at are all in the still that has

 2     been admitted into evidence.  It's the --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Also the ones we have not seen yet?

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Okay.  Then we were perhaps a bit premature.

 6     Please proceed.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  If we can turn to page 2 of this document.

 8        Q.   Sir, the Srebrenica trial video has footage of the survivors of

 9     the column of Bosnian Muslim men when they reached Tuzla and this image

10     is taken from that 37 minutes and 37 seconds of that film.  And we see

11     that this individual who is -- who does not appear to be wearing a

12     uniform but does have a rifle, has a loop of cloth around his neck and

13     one around his head.  And if we turn to the next page, I think we will

14     see the other side of his body.  And that shows the other view of his --

15     of the -- of the cloth around his head.  Looking at these -- this

16     photograph, can you exclude that -- can you exclude to a degree of

17     scientific certainty that some of the ligatures and/or suspected

18     blindfolds found in the graves might not in fact be this type of cloth

19     used in the manner that this soldier -- pardon me, that the individual is

20     using?  And if you like, we can go back to the first picture.

21        A.   Yes.  Can you show me again?

22             MR. IVETIC:  If we could go back to page 2.

23             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  It's possible that some of the unassociated

24     ligatures and blindfolds we see could be similar to this.

25             MR. IVETIC:

Page 14808

 1        Q.   And, sir, perhaps you might not be able to know this without

 2     looking at your records, but do you recall if there were any instances

 3     where suspected blindfolds were found around the neck of a body?

 4        A.   No, I don't think we -- we found any of the -- that --

 5        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] --

 6        A.   -- low down, no.

 7        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now in respect to the suspected ligatures, am I

 8     correct that for, I believe, four of the sites that you reviewed bodies

 9     from - that is to say, Petkovici Dam, Hodzici Road 3, Hodzici Road 4,

10     Hodzici Road 5, and Zeleni Jadar, I guess that's five - there were either

11     no ligatures or only one ligature located from those mass graves?

12        A.   Sorry, I've -- I just have to just check in my mind.

13        Q.   If you want, we can go through them one by one.

14        A.   Yeah.  I just --

15        Q.   Let's do it this way, sir.  Petkovici Dam, am I correct that

16     there was only one ligature recovered from that location?

17        A.   Yes, that's correct.

18        Q.   Hodzici Road 3, am I correct that there were no ligatures

19     recovered from that location?

20        A.   Yes, that's correct.

21        Q.   Hodzici Road 4, am I correct only one ligature suspected was

22     recovered from that location?

23        A.   Yes.  I think on Hodzici 4 I listed it only as a possible.

24        Q.   Exactly.  And Hodzici Road --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, are we at this moment just repeating

Page 14809

 1     what is found in the report about this?

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, I believe so.  I --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any specific reason to do that?  Or would

 4     we just see what is in the report and then know how many were retrieved

 5     from the various graves?

 6             MR. IVETIC:  That's a fair comment, sir.  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 8             MR. IVETIC:

 9        Q.   Sir, I thank you for answering my questions today.

10             MR. IVETIC:  I have no further questions for this witness.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I would have one matter to be addressed.  Is

12     there agreement among the parties that the person being shown on this

13     picture is carrying a hunting rifle and that he is without shoes?

14             MR. IVETIC:  I could even -- I think in the video it's -- I'd say

15     it's a shot-gun, hunting rifle.  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             MS. LEE:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't have the --

19             MR. IVETIC:  No.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  -- details of the video available immediately.  Then

21     that seems to be no problem.

22             MR. IVETIC:  Should we tender -- this is the next Defence

23     exhibit, Your Honour.  I haven't tendered it yet.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  It's this one.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

Page 14810

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  It was unclear to me what was by the first series

 2     but this is now the second series.

 3             MS. LEE:  No objection.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Registrar.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Shall be assigned Exhibit number D340.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  D340 is admitted into evidence.

 7             Ms. Lee, any further questions for the witness?

 8             MS. LEE:  Yes, thank you, Your Honours.  I only have two

 9     questions.

10             May I please have P1532, and if we could go to page 7.  If we

11     could go to page 7?  Yes.

12                           Re-examination by Ms. Lee:

13        Q.   And, Dr. Lawrence, if you could take a look at the clothing worn

14     by the people appearing in this picture.

15             MS. LEE:  And if we could please go to page 8.  And now if we

16     could go to page 9.

17        Q.   Dr. Lawrence, you were asked questions about layers of clothes

18     worn by the bodies that you examined.  Is this -- are these the type of

19     clothing consistent with the type of clothing that you've observed on the

20     bodies that you examined?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And, Dr. Lawrence, you testified today about the bodies found in

23     the Zeleni Jadar 5 grave-site.  And if you were to learn or if you had

24     known that the bodies found at Zeleni Jadar 5 were linked to the Kravica

25     warehouse massacre and that hand grenades and other explosives were used

Page 14811

 1     in killing individuals -- those individuals, would the circumstances

 2     surrounding their death, would that be consistent with your findings,

 3     particularly concerning the high numbers of shrapnel injuries that were

 4     found on the bodies in that grave-site?

 5        A.   Yes, it would be.

 6             MS. LEE:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Lee.

 8             Mr. Lawrence, since the Chamber has no further questions for you

 9     either, this concludes your testimony in this court.  I'd like to thank

10     you very much for coming a long way to The Hague and for having answered

11     all the questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench,

12     and I wish you a safe return home again.

13             THE WITNESS:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.  And as this is

14     the last time I think I will attend, I would like to thank the ICTY staff

15     for their courtesy and their help.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  They'll certainly appreciate this word of thanks.

17     Whether it's the last time or not is not in the hands of this Chamber.

18     You may follow the usher.

19                           [The witness withdrew]

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the suggestion was by the Prosecution that

22     we would not call any further witnesses.  There is only one thing I would

23     like to briefly raise.

24             The Chamber has expressed its intention to have a housekeeping

25     session.  The Chamber would prefer to do that on Thursday but wants to

Page 14812

 1     consult the parties, whether there is any objection to doing that.  We do

 2     not think it will take the whole of the day but perhaps one and a half

 3     session looking at the list of --

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  -- MFIs.  Is that --

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.  It seems to suit our schedule rather well,

 7     in fact.  But if there is any issue, I will discuss it with the Defence,

 8     but --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- for the moment I would say that we are fine.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  And as matters stand now, Mr. Lukic, no problem to

12     have it on Thursday?  Then the Chamber schedules this housekeeping

13     session on Thursday and we will consider, most likely on Wednesday,

14     whether it will be in the beginning of the session or the second part of

15     the morning session of Thursday, the 25th of July.

16             We stand adjourned --

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Sorry to interrupt you.  We had one issue that

20     we would like to address related to the evidentiary matter concerning

21     RM506.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And we would have to go into private session for

24     that, please.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we move into private session.

Page 14813

 1                           [Private session]

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 14814

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12                           [Open session]

13             THE REGISTRAR:  We're back in open session, Your Honours.  Thank

14     you.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

16             We adjourn for the day and will resume on Monday, the 22nd of

17     July, at 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom III?  Yes.  Same

18     courtroom III.  We stand adjourned.

19                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.55 p.m.,

20                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 22nd day of July,

21                           2013, at 9.30 a.m.