130923ED

Page 17184

1 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours, we're ready. And it is

2 Mr. Clark.

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

4 [The witness entered court]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Clark.

6 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you

8 make a solemn declaration, the text of which is picked up already by you.

9 May I invite to make that solemn declaration.

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

11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12 WITNESS: JOHN CLARK

13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Clark. Please be seated.

14 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Clark, you will first be examined by

16 Ms. D'Ascoli, you'll find her to your right.

17 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours. Good morning, everyone

18 in and around the courtroom.

19 Examination by Ms. D'Ascoli:

20 Q. Sir, good morning.

21 A. Good morning.

22 Q. Could you please state your full name for the record?

23 A. John Clark.

24 Q. Mr. Clark, before we continue, I see that you have some papers,

25 documents before you. Could you briefly explain what they are?

Page 17185

1 A. Yes, these are various reports which I prepared for the Court

2 from my work in Bosnia.

3 Q. Okay. I understand these are your reports, correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Thank you, Dr. Clark. If you wish to refer to them during your

6 testimony, please do so. And if you're referring to them, please let us

7 know what you're referring to. Thank you.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Dr. Clark, what is your current profession?

10 A. I'm a forensic pathologist, in other words, a medical doctor

11 specialising in discovering why -- how people die. Until fairly recently

12 I was a full-time practicing forensic pathologist in Scotland. I'm just

13 now about to engage in full-time research. I'm still a forensic

14 pathologist but I'm changing from practical work into a research basis.

15 Q. Can you tell us for how long have you been a forensic

16 pathologist?

17 A. About 28 years probably.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask both you, Ms. D'Ascoli, but also you,

19 Mr. Clark, to make a short pause between question and answer and answer

20 and question.

21 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

22 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours.

23 Can I please have 65 ter 30291 on the screens.

24 Q. Dr. Clark, you recently provided the OTP with an updated copy of

25 your CV.

Page 17186

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Can you confirm that the document that will appear on the screen

3 is your updated CV, once we have the document?

4 A. Yes, that's it.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, I would tender this CV,

7 65 ter 30291, as a public exhibit.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter number 30291 will be

10 Exhibit P2256.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Could you repeat the number, Mr. Registrar, perhaps

12 a bit more slowly.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2256, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ORIE: P2256 is admitted.

15 MS. D'ASCOLI:

16 Q. Dr. Clark, do you recall testifying in the Krstic case on the

17 30 and 31st of May, 2000, as well as in the Karadzic case on 10 and

18 11 January, 2012?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. Yes. And please pause after my questions.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Was your testimony true, to the best of your knowledge, when you

23 gave it in those two cases?

24 A. Yes, it was.

25 Q. If you were asked the same questions today, would you provide the

Page 17187

1 same answers, in substance?

2 A. Yes, I would.

3 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, I would tender the two 65 ter

4 numbers that contain the relevant excerpts from these two cases. So the

5 first is 65 ter 30281. And the second is 65 ter 30282. I would tender

6 them pursuant to Rule 92 ter as public exhibits.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One of the usual questions which are put to

8 witnesses is whether they had an opportunity to review the transcript of

9 their previous testimony. Did you have an opportunity to do so,

10 Mr. Clark?

11 THE WITNESS: I did, yes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

15 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 30281 will be Exhibit P2257.

16 And 65 ter number 30282 will be Exhibit P2258.

17 JUDGE ORIE: P2257 and P2258 are admitted into evidence.

18 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honour, with the Chamber's permission I will

19 now briefly summarise Dr. Clark's evidence for the record and for the

20 public.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

22 MS. D'ASCOLI: Dr. John Clark is a forensic pathologist who

23 worked for the Office of the Prosecutor as the chief pathologist for

24 Bosnia exhumations from 1999 to 2001. Dr. Clark also volunteered for

25 several days as a forensic pathologist for the OTP exhumation projects

Page 17188

1 during the exhumations of 1998.

2 Dr. Clark performed autopsies of victims recovered from mass

3 graves associated with the fall of the Srebrenica enclave. He produced

4 reports in 1999, 2000, and 2001 summarising the results of the postmortem

5 examinations of bodies recovered from Kozluk, Nova Kasaba, Konjevic

6 Polje, Glogova, Lazete, Ravnice, and Zeleni Jadar.

7 Dr. Clark testifies that nearly all of the victims found in the

8 grave-sites were men. His main conclusions were that the majority of

9 victims were killed by gun-shot wounds. In addition, many of the victims

10 at the Kozluk and Lazete grave-sites were found with hand ligatures

11 and/or blindfolds.

12 And that concludes the summary, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. D'Ascoli. If you have any further

14 questions for the witness you may put them to him.

15 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes I do. Thank you.

16 Q. Dr. Clark, can you tell us briefly about your role as chief

17 pathologist in the exhumations in Bosnia between 1998 and 2001?

18 A. Yes, I was in charge of the mortuary, so an overall

19 responsibility of recruiting pathologists and other staff there,

20 overseeing their work, in addition to carrying out the routine work

21 myself, and at the end of the season, gathering together all the

22 post-mortem reports, analysing them, summarising the findings and

23 preparing the final reports which I have here.

24 Q. Thank you. And have you already testified as an expert before

25 this Tribunal in other cases?

Page 17189

1 A. Yes. Several times.

2 Q. During your employment at the ICTY, I understand you wrote

3 several reports regarding post-mortem findings on the bodies recovered

4 from these graves.

5 Now, in these reports and in the post-mortem examinations did you

6 follow any standardised protocol or methodology?

7 A. We were carrying out post-mortem examinations done by

8 pathologists who are used to carrying out post-mortem examinations, so

9 there was a basic background in approach to examination of a body,

10 looking at the surroundings of the body, the external examination of a

11 body, the internal examination, et cetera, et cetera. We did have a

12 common protocol, or form, which all pathologists had to complete as they

13 were doing the autopsy. This allowed them to record their findings in a

14 logical way, and was a prompt for looking at various -- various --

15 various things. It was not prescriptive, however. It was -- it allowed

16 the pathologist to fairly free comment in their work but it meant there

17 was a standard to work to.

18 Q. Thank you, Dr. Clark. We will see this in examining some of the

19 autopsy reports for some of these graves.

20 Dr. Clark, you wrote a report on Srebrenica related grave-sites

21 in 1999, 2000, and 2001; correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. These reports are extensively discussed in analysing your

24 testimonies in the Krstic and Karadzic cases now in evidence before this

25 Chamber.

Page 17190

1 Sir, did you have an opportunity to review those reports before

2 testifying?

3 A. Yes, I did.

4 Q. And do you stand by the analysis and conclusions of those

5 reports?

6 A. Yes.

7 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, I would tender the

8 Srebrenica-related reports as public exhibits. The first is the 1999

9 report related to the grave-sites of Kozluk, Nova Kasaba, Konjevic Polje,

10 and Glogova, and this is marked with 65 ter 04514. And it can be -- was

11 tendered as a public exhibit.

12 JUDGE ORIE: There are no objections.

13 Mr. Registrar.

14 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 04514 will be Exhibit P2259.

15 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

16 MS. D'ASCOLI: The second is a 2000 Srebrenica report related to

17 the grave-sites of Lazete, Glogova, and Ravnice, and this is marked with

18 65 ter 04537 and it can be a public exhibit as well.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

20 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 04537 will be Exhibit P2260.

21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted.

22 MS. D'ASCOLI: Finally, the third is the 2001 report related to

23 the grave-sites of Ravnice, Glogova, and Zeleni Jadar. And this is

24 marked with 65 ter 05331.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

Page 17191

1 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 05331 will Exhibit P2261,

2 Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.

4 MS. D'ASCOLI:

5 Q. Dr. Clark, did you also write reports for non-Srebrenica related

6 sites?

7 A. Yes, several of these.

8 Q. In particular, did you write reports related to Paklenik cave,

9 Ivan Polje, and Vlasenica?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And was the process and methodology used to analyse the bodies

12 recovered from these sites the same as described in your

13 Srebrenica-related reports that were just admitted into evidence?

14 A. Yes, exactly the same.

15 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review your reports on Paklenik

16 cave, Ivan Polje, and Vlasenica before testifying today?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you stand by the analysis and conclusions of the reports?

19 A. Yes.

20 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, I would tender, at this stage, these

21 reports that I just mentioned. The first is marked with 65 ter 11029 and

22 is the 2000 report related to Paklenik cave and Ivan Polje. And it can

23 be tendered as a public exhibit.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

25 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 11029 will be Exhibit P2262,

Page 17192

1 Your Honours.

2 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

3 MS. D'ASCOLI: There's a supplementary report for -- to this

4 report for the same sites. This is the dated the

5 30th of September, 2002, and is marked with 65 ter 11030.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

7 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 11030 will be Exhibit P2263,

8 Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

10 MS. D'ASCOLI: Finally, the third report which is the one related

11 to the Vlasenica grave-site is marked with 65 ter 11032 but this should

12 be under seal for the reason that the report names a witness who has

13 protective measures in this case.

14 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, Mr. Registrar, the

15 number would be ...

16 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 11032 will be Exhibit P2264, under

17 seal, Your Honours.

18 JUDGE ORIE: P2264 is admitted under seal.

19 MS. D'ASCOLI: We also have a public redacted version of this

20 report, Your Honours. I could tender it as ...

21 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think they have to be filed. They don't

22 have to be admitted. I think it is to be filed but I have to check again

23 exactly what the protocol would be ...

24 MS. D'ASCOLI: I remember your instructs were related to witness

25 statement. I don't know if it's the same for a 94 bis report. But in

Page 17193

1 any case we do have a public version ...

2 JUDGE ORIE: It would accumulate the evidence which doesn't

3 assist the Chamber. The main purpose is that finally the public will be

4 able to see in its redacted form.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE ORIE: We'll -- Ms. D'Ascoli, the Chamber -- it's Monday

7 morning, and the Chamber will -- will review exactly what our guidance on

8 it was and tell you the same.

9 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours. I proceed.

10 Q. Dr. Clark, did you also work as a chief pathologist on

11 examination of bodies recovered from the grave-sites of Kevljani,

12 Jama Lisac, Pasinac and Redak?

13 A. Yes, I did.

14 Q. Was the process of examination of bodies and the methodology used

15 there the same as the process and methodology described in your other

16 pathologist reports?

17 A. Yes, again, exactly the same.

18 Q. And as well were the difficulties and limitations of the

19 pathology evidence the same as those you described in your other reports?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Were the autopsy reports conducted also for -- yes, sorry.

22 I meant to say, did you participate to any of the autopsy reports

23 conducted for these sites?

24 A. Sorry, did I participate? Yeah, I did. I carried out

25 post-mortem examinations, yes.

Page 17194

1 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review the four reports related to

2 Kevljani, Jama Lisac, Pasinac and Redak before testifying?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And do you stand by the analysis and conclusions of the report?

5 A. Yes.

6 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can I please have 65 ter 11020 on the screen.

7 Q. Sir, now that the report is on the screen, do you recognise it?

8 A. Yes. This is the Jama Lisac report.

9 MS. D'ASCOLI: If we can go to e-court to page 2 of the English,

10 which I believe is page 3 of the B/C/S.

11 Q. Dr. Clark, we see that the minimum number of individuals exhumed

12 from this site was 51 individuals, two female and 48 male.

13 Now, can you tell us how the determination of age ranges and

14 gender of the bodies was made?

15 A. As with the bodies of nearly all of the sites that we dealt with,

16 the bodies were largely reduced to skeletons so it was only by looking at

17 the bones that we were able to give an estimation of sex and age. This

18 is possible, it's quite a well established procedure, so on that basis we

19 were able to say for virtually them all whether they were male or female

20 and we were able to give at least an age range, if not -- not the

21 specific age, but the range of ages.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I might just intervene. Dr. Clark, I see that

23 we mentioning here 51 individuals and can you explain how that came about

24 from two females and 48 males.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was going to explain that. In one of the

Page 17195

1 individuals, we were unable to say whether this was male or female and

2 this was because of the degree of damage of the bones. The determination

3 of sex is achieved by looking at the shape of the skull and certain

4 features in the pelvis.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thanks very much.

6 THE WITNESS: So that was --

7 MS. D'ASCOLI:

8 Q. And, Dr. Clark, if and when later on, say, DNA analysis would be

9 done on the bodies would that help confirm or -- to confirm or correct

10 the age ranges and the -- the gender of the victims?

11 A. Well, by identifying as an individual person then, yes, that

12 would point to the -- that would be the clearly the correct age. The

13 anthropology age is only an estimate and is not always correct but it's

14 an estimate.

15 Q. Now at page 6 of this same report, which is 10 of the B/C/S, we

16 read that the causes of death were gun-shot injuries in 46 cases. Blunt

17 force trauma into two cases, and causes unascertained in three cases.

18 MS. D'ASCOLI: Now can we please go to e-court page 10 of the

19 English.

20 Q. Dr. Clark, if you remember, there are a set of photos attached to

21 this report. And I would ask you to please give us your comments and

22 explain what we see on the screen. For example, this is the first photo

23 attached to the report.

24 A. These are simply photos as examples of the type of injuries that

25 we saw.

Page 17196

1 This is a skull. Which was in fragments which has been glued

2 together again. And from it, we were able to establish that this was a

3 gun-shot injury coming from under the chin. If you follow the arrows

4 coming from under the left side of the -- the jaw up through the face and

5 coming out of the forehead. And we can tell that's the direction because

6 of the shape of the exit hole in the forehead. So this is a typical

7 gun-shot injury from under the jaw, up through the middle of the face and

8 coming out of the forehead.

9 Q. I believe in one of your previous testimony you mention a

10 phenomenon called beveling, if you can explain us what that is and if is

11 a represented in this photo?

12 A. Yes, beveling is a -- when a bullet passes through bone --

13 because bone has a thickness in it -- the side of the bullet hits

14 initially creates a round hole but the side from it -- it comes out the

15 exit side, the hole is wider so you get this sort of V-shaped effect.

16 It's called beveling and if you look at the hole in the forehead, the

17 centre hole there, you can see that the edges shelve out all round and

18 that to us indicates, clearly to us, that this an exit -- an exit shot.

19 Q. Thank you, Dr. Clark. Can we please move to the next page?

20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask clarification of one of the previous

21 answers.

22 You were asked about DNA and gender and age. Now I do understand

23 that age is a constant factor in human life, how about age, how does age

24 and DNA match?

25 THE WITNESS: DNA does not identify age. It -- DNA will identify

Page 17197

1 an individual and then it is up to other evidence to point to how old

2 that individual is. So the DNA itself will not point to age.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that answer. And I'm just

4 looking at how it was exactly recorded. Thank you.

5 MS. D'ASCOLI:

6 Q. Dr. Clark, can you please comment on this second photo now on the

7 screen.

8 A. Yeah. This -- this -- this probably appears rather complex to

9 most people this is actually a photograph of the front of this person's

10 face. This was a woman. And probably the most identifiable feature is

11 right in the middle of the picture. You can see the top of the nose.

12 It's the sort of projecting little area coming down right in the middle

13 of the picture is -- is the nose. And if you go up from that you see

14 where the eyebrows would and the forehead.

15 The arrow is pointing to an entrance bullet hole on the right

16 side of her forehead. You can see at least half of a circular hole there

17 and that is a gun-shot entrance -- entrance hole. A lot of the bone

18 round about it has fallen away, and was not recovered. But we can see

19 still an identifiable entrance hole and the bullet came out of the back

20 of the head.

21 Q. Sir, can you tell us where this photo is taken.

22 MS. D'ASCOLI: And if we go to the next page in the meantime.

23 A. The photograph was taken in the mortuary after we had examined

24 the bodies and was carefully photographed.

25 Q. Can you please comment on this third photo now on the screens.

Page 17198

1 A. Yes. This is a hip bone the right side of the pelvis of the

2 same -- same woman. And what you see here -- the arrow is pointing to a

3 gun-shot wound. This is slightly different. If you look right in the in

4 the centre of that, you see a green area which looks the shape of a

5 bullet. Right in the centre of this hole. That in fact is the bullet --

6 the shape of the bullet -- instead of coming through forwards as a round

7 hole it is actually hitting the bone side on and so produces this

8 bullet-shaped defect.

9 As it is coming through the bone, because it is coming out of the

10 screen, it then creates this beveling effect which you can see the wide

11 -- really quite wide shelving as it's coming towards us, so that --

12 that's what that shows. It's just the top of the hip bone.

13 Q. Thank you, Dr. Clark.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Dr. Clark, I see another green colour at the

15 bottom of the bone; does that mean anything?

16 THE WITNESS: I see -- right at the -- yes, it looks very similar

17 but in fact that is just the way -- it's a hole -- a natural hole in the

18 bone that you're looking through there.

19 JUDGE ORIE: So we're looking through the green background

20 through it or is that ...

21 THE WITNESS: Yes. The top one is trauma. The bottom one is

22 natural.

23 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we please move to the next photo. It's the

24 next page.

25 Q. Again, Dr. Clark, I would like you to comment about this photo.

Page 17199

1 A. This -- this is different. This is a skull from the side on.

2 You can see the jaw down the bottom and where the arrow is pointing is a

3 general area. There is a hole, there which is not a gun-shot injury this

4 time, but there is lot of fracturing round about, and this is caused by

5 not a gun-shot but by some solid blunt force caused by something heavy

6 hitting the side of the head. And fracturing the skull in many bits.

7 It may look similar to a gun-shot injury but to the practiced eye

8 it is not. It is blunt force.

9 Q. And could you explain us the differences between an injury caused

10 by gun-shot trauma, and in this case, a blunt force trauma if they're

11 visible on the bones?

12 A. It is really the nature of the fracture lines and the directions

13 they go. And the absence of any beveling on any of the edges, so just

14 various features like that.

15 MS. D'ASCOLI: Next page, please.

16 Q. And this will be the last photo that I will show you out of this

17 set. Again, I would ask you to comment on this photo.

18 A. Again, this is rather different. This is the ribs on the left

19 side of the chest. The ribs have a big -- a natural curve, and right in

20 the middle of the photograph you'll see black areas on each of the -- of

21 the four ribs. These are healing fractures, so fractures which have

22 occurred probably several days previously which are beginning to heal and

23 the healing process involves tissue and swelling, et cetera, and that's

24 what you're seeing here.

25 Q. And when you say that these injuries must have occurred some days

Page 17200

1 previously, you mean ante-mortem, before the death of the person, I

2 assume; correct?

3 A. Yes. Yes, several days before the person died.

4 Q. Okay. Thank you.

5 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, I tender -- the Prosecution tenders

6 at this stage 65 ter 11020, the 2000 report related toot Jama Lisac

7 grave-site, as public exhibit.

8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No objection.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

10 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 11020 will be Exhibit P2265,

11 Your Honours.

12 JUDGE ORIE: P2265 is admitted into evidence.

13 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we please have on the screen 65 ter 11019.

14 Q. Sir, do you recognise this report?

15 A. Yes, it's -- my report on the Kevljani grave-site.

16 Q. Now at the end of page 1 on the screen we read that the total

17 number of bodies and body parts from the whole Kevljani site was 143 made

18 up of 73 bodies and 70 body parts.

19 Dr. Clark, this distinction between bodies and body parts appears

20 also in other of your reports -- in others of your reports. Can you

21 please explain us the difference or, better, can you explain us the

22 standard or the threshold to classify something as a body versus a body

23 part?

24 A. We regarded as a body any remains in which more of the body was

25 present than -- than was not. To typically -- perhaps somebody -- a

Page 17201

1 remains with -- with the chest and perhaps the legs, we regarded that as

2 a -- as -- as a sort of a trunk and the legs, regarded that as a body,

3 even though the head was perhaps missing. It may alternatively have been

4 a head plus the trunk, but the legs were missing. We still felt that was

5 a substantive body.

6 However, if all we were dealing with was a leg or just a small

7 part of the chest we would call that a body part.

8 It was genuinely quite easy to -- to differentiate the two -- or

9 to decide on the two, sometimes a little difficult, but that's what it

10 was. Essentially there was sort of bulk of the body there, it was a body

11 part -- a body. A body, I'm sorry.

12 Q. And were the body parts included or analysed in the final

13 calculation about causes of death and gun-shot injuries?

14 A. Not -- not specifically. I deal with them in each of the reports

15 as a separate issue, but they don't -- they're not included in the

16 main -- the main body of the report.

17 Q. Now going back to this report of Kevljani one --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one additional question.

19 On what basis did you determine whether that leg, isolated leg,

20 was not part of what was found as a body without a leg?

21 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. We -- our -- our prime purpose

22 was looking at these bodies for injuries and trauma, et cetera, and we

23 did into the have the -- the time or the facilities to concentrate on

24 identification and putting together the bodies. We knew that would be

25 done by other people at a later stage.

Page 17202

1 Really, for that sort of exercise, you would need a very large

2 room and -- and sort of going round matching up body parts with the

3 bodies.

4 Where it was obvious, perhaps from clothing, et cetera, we -- we

5 would attach it to -- to a body, but, otherwise, we did not concentrate

6 on that.

7 JUDGE ORIE: It was the way in which it was delivered to you. Is

8 that ...

9 THE WITNESS: Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it was delivered, I take it, in body bags

11 often, and then you would just assume that if it was in a separate

12 body bag it was not part of the body although leg was missing in one of

13 the other bags. Is that --

14 THE WITNESS: That's correct, yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: So it was mainly on the basis of what was found at

16 the exhumation site.

17 THE WITNESS: Indeed. They had the best view of the bodies as

18 they lay. Clearly, if they were not happy that an isolated leg belonged

19 to a particular body I think it was wrong of us, in general, to try and

20 associate them. So that's how it was done.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, you could not exclude that some of the

22 70 body part would have belonged to what you identified as a body in

23 another case.

24 THE WITNESS: Oh, undoubtedly. I'm sure that some of these body

25 parts -- and, in fact, one of the cases we did after handing the bodies

Page 17203

1 over to other authorities, the Bosnian commission, who had some time to

2 look at these cases, then they informed me of their associations and I --

3 this is in the Paklenik cave case. And I -- I changed my calculations on

4 the basis of -- of their information.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.

6 Please proceed, Ms. D'Ascoli.

7 MS. D'ASCOLI: And for the record, Your Honours, Mr. Clark was

8 referring to the supplementary report now in evidence as P2263.

9 Q. I'll continue with my questions.

10 So going back to this Kevljani report. Do you remember which

11 type of injuries was found on these bodies?

12 MS. D'ASCOLI: And if we can please go to e-court page 5 of the

13 English report, and it is page 5 of the B/C/S as well.

14 THE WITNESS: The injuries which predominated in this site were

15 blunt force injuries rather than gun-shot injuries. So these are

16 injuries caused by either the person striking against something solid or

17 something solid striking the person and breaking a bone, and that

18 predominated in this site. In comparison to nearly all of the other

19 sites in which clear gun-shot injuries predominated and blunt force

20 injuries were much less, here it's the blunt force that was dominant,

21 including healing injuries as well, not just fresh ones but healing ones.

22 MS. D'ASCOLI:

23 Q. We also read in this report that the majority of the Kevljani

24 bodies -- for the majority of these body the cause of death was labelled

25 as unascertained. Can you elaborate on that?

Page 17204

1 A. Yes. Yes, and of all the sites Kevljani was the one which we had

2 to -- there was so many unascertained.

3 The situation was that a lot of these people, most of these

4 people, did have injuries. They didn't have rib fractures. They did

5 have perhaps skull fractures or some fractures elsewhere, but people

6 don't die because of a broken bone. You die because of other

7 complications of that. So, for instance, somebody with broken ribs would

8 not -- and who survived immediately would not be breathing properly,

9 would be likely to develop pneumonia. That is something that we would

10 not be able to see at post-mortem. If somebody had injuries elsewhere,

11 they might have bleeding inside the abdomen. They might have bleeding

12 inside the head or damage to the brain. Again, in decomposed bodies, we

13 cannot tell that. So we felt on the basis of that, just because you had

14 rib fractures, I could not necessarily say that that was why they died

15 because many people get rib fractures in life and survive quite happily.

16 Q. Thank you, Dr. Clark.

17 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, the Prosecutions tenders at this

18 stage as public exhibits Dr. Clark's reports marked with 65 ter 11019

19 which is the Kevljani grave-site report.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.

21 Mr. Registrar.

22 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P2266, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE ORIE: P2266 is admitted into evidence.

24 MS. D'ASCOLI: The Prosecution tenders also 65 ter 11027, which

25 is the 2001 report related to the Pasinac cemetery.

Page 17205

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

2 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 11027 will be Exhibit P2267,

3 Your Honours.

4 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

5 MS. D'ASCOLI: And, finally, the Redak report which is marked

6 with 65 ter 11028 as a public exhibit.

7 THE WITNESS: Just as a correction, the Pasinac cemetery is 2000

8 not 2001.

9 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Dr. Clark.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

11 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 11028 will be Exhibit P2268,

12 Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

14 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can I please have on the screen 65 ter 27387.

15 Q. Sir, is this one of the autopsy reports that you performed at the

16 Kevljani?

17 A. Yes, this is a typical final post-mortem report.

18 Q. Can you please comment on the summary of the autopsy report.

19 A. The summary is just bringing together the findings so we -- we

20 initially talk about the general state of the body, how complete it was,

21 any identifying features in terms of age, sex, any possessions on -- on

22 the person. Then I talk about the ribs -- the -- the sort of injuries

23 that I found, like fractured ribs. I also have identified a fracture of

24 the bones of his left forearm. And I've commented that these most likely

25 represent what we call defence injuries, in other words, somebody using

Page 17206

1 their arms to protect themselves from blows from some weapon. It's --

2 naturally to put your arms up, and so they get broken in the process.

3 Similarly there were fractures in the face which could have been

4 direct blows from kicks or from a weapon. But despite all these

5 injuries, I could not necessarily say that they were necessarily fatal

6 and so I had to give the cause of death as unascertained.

7 Q. Does this illustrate what you were describing with regard to the

8 characteristics of this site in terms of injuries and correlations with

9 the cause of death?

10 A. Yes, the -- by the far the commonest injury were fractures ribs,

11 as you would get -- could get from being struck, by kicked, or -- or

12 beaten by weapons.

13 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we go to page 16 of this report.

14 Q. Dr. Clark, can you please explain us what we see on the screen.

15 A. This is just images of -- of skeletons which I encouraged my

16 fellow pathologists to use just to -- to indicate on the skeleton where

17 the injuries were and it gives a very rapid view. Can you see that I've

18 pointed with arrows to fractures of the left forearm bones. This is on

19 the skeleton on the left-hand side of the screen which is looking from

20 the front, and you -- the arrows are pointing there. There's also an

21 injury to his right hand, and you can see the reverse on the other

22 skeleton which is from the back.

23 Q. So is this forearm -- would this form be in all autopsy reports

24 from these sites?

25 A. The -- this diagram is available in all the reports and -- and

Page 17207

1 the pathologist would -- would generally colour this in, yes.

2 Q. And you said it was something you encouraged your fellow

3 pathologists to use.

4 A. Yes, I think it's a very easy visual way of seeing an injury

5 immediately rather than -- well, it's in addition to the text, but this

6 gives a very immediate image.

7 Q. Thank you, Dr. Clark.

8 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, I see the time. I have no more than

9 three to five minutes after the break and then I will conclude my

10 examination.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Then I would suggest if it's three to five minutes

12 that we would continue and then that you start your cross-examination

13 after the break, if that is not uncomfortable for Mr. Mladic.

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is all right, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, Ms. D'Ascoli.

16 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours. Can I now have on the

17 screen 65 ter 30308.

18 Q. Dr. Clark, in your previous testimonies and in your pathology

19 exert reports you describe the examinations that were carried out on the

20 body, on the body parts, and the autopsy reports in which all the

21 findings were recorded, so was this process followed for the analysis of

22 the bodies recovered from Jama Lisac, Redak, Pasinac, Kevljani, and

23 Vlasenica?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And did you review all the autopsy reports that were produced by

Page 17208

1 the pathologists working with you at those sites in order to write the

2 overall report for the specific site?

3 A. Yes. Every single report.

4 Q. Dr. Clark, in preparation for your testimony today were you asked

5 to review the autopsy reports listed in this chart and make your

6 observations in terms of authenticity of the documents and content as

7 well?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And were your observations recorded in this chart that we now see

10 on the screens?

11 A. Yes, they are.

12 Q. And does this chart accurately reflect your observations and

13 comments regarding the documents you reviewed?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review this chart after -- with

16 your comment?

17 A. Yes. And I've indicated that by my initials in the -- column 5.

18 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we go to the last page of the chart.

19 Q. Do you recognise the signature on this page, Dr. Clark?

20 A. Yes, it's mine.

21 Q. And, sir, are you willing to answer any additional questions the

22 Defence and the Chamber might have about this chart and the documents

23 commented in there?

24 A. Yes.

25 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, the autopsy report just discussed

Page 17209

1 with Dr. Clark was part of this chart, so I will postpone the tendering

2 of the chart and the underlying documents until after cross-examination,

3 after Mr. Stojanovic has had an opportunity to explore it with the

4 witness.

5 JUDGE ORIE: That's accepted.

6 MS. D'ASCOLI:

7 Q. Dr. Clark, my final question: Considering the limitations of the

8 pathology evidence explained in your reports, what was the finding that

9 you found in the majority of cases as cause of death?

10 A. The majority of the cases, these people died from gun-shot

11 injuries, often multiple gun-shot injuries.

12 Q. Thank you very much for answering all my questions, Dr. Clark. I

13 don't have further questions at this stage.

14 MS. D'ASCOLI: I will have to deal with the associated exhibit

15 but we can do it after the break or after the cross-examination.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. D'Ascoli. Judge Fluegge may have one

17 more question.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, only a question to you, Ms. D'Ascoli. You

19 didn't tender the 65 ter 27387.

20 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, I was explaining that that is an autopsy

21 report that is part of chart; therefore, I will postpone it.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Then it's time for a break. Could the witness be

24 escorted out of the courtroom.

25 We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.

Page 17210

1 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.

2 [The witness stands down]

3 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break, and we'll resume at five minutes

4 to 11.00.

5 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

6 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

7 JUDGE ORIE: We're waiting for the witness to be escorted into

8 the courtroom.

9 [The witness takes the stand]

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Clark, you'll now be cross-examined by

11 Mr. Stojanovic. Mr. Stojanovic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.

12 Please proceed.

13 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Professor.

15 First of all, I should like to go through your reports so you can

16 clarify some of our dilemmas. And then I would put to you a few specific

17 autopsy reports, again, with some clarifications I thought I'd need when

18 I was reading them.

19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we a see P2259 in e-court,

20 page 1, and -- in English and in B/C/S.

21 Q. Professor, let's use this just as a -- an example. Towards the

22 bottom of this page, in a report for 1999, out of these four graves,

23 Kozluk, Nova Kasaba, Konjevic Polje, Glogova, you provided a final number

24 for each of the four localities citing complete bodies and body parts

25 found in these graves. You spoke about this in response to a question

Page 17211

1 from the Trial Chamber as to what is considered to be a complete body,

2 speaking of Kevljani.

3 I should like to ask you whether the same criteria were used in

4 your work in cases concerning Srebrenica.

5 A. Yes, exactly the same approach was taken.

6 Q. During your work from 1999 through 2000 or 2001, were any changes

7 made to these criteria determining what is considered to be a complete

8 body and what is concerned -- considered to be a body part? Were there

9 any changes in your methodology?

10 A. No, not at all. No.

11 Q. This confuses me a little because --

12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] And I would like to look at

13 P2261 now, page 10 in English and page 11 in B/C/S.

14 Q. In your final report, you state -- you can see that in the bottom

15 part of page 10. It was not easy to decide what should be called body

16 and what should be called body part, even when the latter comprised a

17 large part of the body.

18 Once the mortal remains were cleaned and became visible in the

19 morgue --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel give us a reference to the

21 English text, please.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Stojanovic, the interpreters would like you to

23 give a reference to where you are reading in the page and so also do I

24 need that kind of help.

25 Where are you reading?

Page 17212

1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm reading from the final

2 report, which is now P2261, page 10 --

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: What paragraph?

4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] It would be the chapter

5 subheaded, "body parts," in the middle of this page we see in front of us

6 in smaller lettering.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We have found it now.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. You may proceed.

9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. So, Professor, from the initial assessment by the field team

11 there was a certain amount of reinterpretation in the mortuary,

12 et cetera, et cetera.

13 From your recent answer, I see a little contradiction with this

14 passage, meaning that in the course of your work, you did modify the

15 initial assessment of the field team that some cases were moved from the

16 category body parts to complete body.

17 What is this all about?

18 A. Yes, perhaps I misinterpreted your question. I -- I thought you

19 were asking me what was my personal approach in dealing with trying to

20 decide whether a body was a body part or a body. That remained the same

21 throughout the years I was involved.

22 I can see where the confusion lies, because at the start of this

23 report, quite rightly, I list for Kozluk - for instance, this is page 1

24 of the 1999 Srebrenica site - I list 233 body parts. That is what was

25 presented to us by the field team when they came to the mortuary.

Page 17213

1 We had the benefit in the mortuary of being able to clean up the

2 remains and perhaps find parts of a quite separate body in the body -- in

3 the body bag, which the field team had assumed were one body but in fact

4 clearly could not have been, and we made that into a body part.

5 That is why there's a difference in numbers. But, in terms of my

6 personal approach into deciding these things, that always remained the

7 same.

8 I don't think there's anything contradictory into what -- what

9 the field team found and to what we eventually decided, because we had

10 the advantage of time, space, and cleaning -- cleaning the remains up.

11 And that was the whole purpose of that.

12 So I understand -- I can see why there may be some confusion over

13 it, but there was no conflict between the field team and the mortuary

14 team, but we had the advantage, and that's why I get a different figure

15 in the end.

16 Q. In this text in your final report, you go on to say:

17 "Reviewing for the purposes of this final report all individual

18 autopsy reports, I made further adjustments in re-classified some of the

19 larger body parts into bodies. The original reports will, of course,

20 still have them classified as body parts but the updated

21 re-classification can be provided if required - it involves 23 cases."

22 My question, Professor, would be: Does this digression from your

23 final report impact on any way on the data you provided in this specific

24 report for 1999 Kozluk, Nova Kasaba, Konjevic Polje, et cetera?

25 A. No. The -- the -- my comments are based on what were finally --

Page 17214

1 what I finally took to be whole body -- or bodies.

2 I had the advantage, having been there much longer than some of

3 the other pathologists, of having seen far more bodies. And in reviewing

4 the cases, the individual post-mortem reports, I was -- I -- I felt able

5 to say, Well, I think we should probably call this a body, a full body,

6 rather than a body part. I've been very open about that and said that it

7 only involves a small number of cases, but the -- the -- my overall

8 reports are based on that final -- final judgement.

9 Q. Thank you. Now I should like to clear up one dilemma I had

10 during your direct examination.

11 You said earlier today, if I understood this correctly, from the

12 field aspect of the work organisation, field-workers bring in marked bags

13 body parts or complete bodies to the mortuary; and you say, if I

14 understood this correctly, that you did not have the strength, the

15 resources, the time, or the space to assemble body parts to fit the

16 "incomplete bodies," incomplete in quotation marks, because not all the

17 206 bones that are present in the human body are there.

18 Did I understood this well?

19 A. Yes, that's correct. Really, the only way to associated a body

20 part with a body at that time would be just a physical match; in other

21 words, thinking that that bone looks very similar to another one and see

22 if they fit in. Nowadays, of course, that could be done with DNA

23 connecting it and has been done. In 1999, we did not -- that facility

24 did not exist. So if we had attempted to match up every body part with

25 every body, it would have been endless, and I don't think we would have

Page 17215

1 ever finalised it. So we took the decision to concentrate our efforts on

2 what could be -- the information that could be attained from the main

3 bodies and work on that. Otherwise, I think it would -- we would never

4 have got on -- on with the work.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Clark, could I ask you the following: Do I

6 understand you well that you say by the DNA analysis, which perhaps was

7 performed later, that the whole issue of what is a body part and what is

8 a body became obsolete because they would be associated through the DNA

9 test anyhow, if there was a DNA test successfully completed on the body

10 part and the body.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm -- I'm -- I'm sure I would be right in

12 saying if we had attempted to put a body part into a body which we

13 thought physically fitted, I'm sure that subsequent DNA testing would say

14 we were wrong in that, in some cases. So I think it would have been an

15 endless exercise for us to try and match them up at that stage. DNA

16 analysis has -- has achieved a lot of reassociation since then. I'm not

17 sure if I answered your question, I'm sorry.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, to some extent yes; to some extent, no.

19 I do understand that what is classified as a body part only --

20 THE WITNESS: Yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: -- if there is a classified body which would belong

22 to the same person, through DNA testing of the two, that would become

23 apparent.

24 THE WITNESS: Yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: My next question is: You said, Well, when we

Page 17216

1 made -- when we classified a number of bones as one body --

2 THE WITNESS: Yes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: -- if we would have mixed in a separate bone which

4 did not belong to the body --

5 THE WITNESS: Yes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: -- you said that that would likely have been found

7 out. But if I have a whole body with -- with, let's say, two or three

8 bones foreign to that body --

9 THE WITNESS: Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: -- would that be detected? It -- I can imagine that

11 it has got something to do with the DNA sampling from that whole body.

12 You wouldn't take DNA from all the bones.

13 THE WITNESS: No, indeed not. No. You're right. You would have

14 to take a DNA from every single bone and try and match them up which is

15 really quite impossible. We certainly did find in some of our whole

16 bodies extra bones which clearly belonged to somebody else and we would

17 take them out and make them into a body part.

18 Yes, the whole thing is difficult. I think we achieved the best

19 we could at that time, and I think with the bodies there's a substantial

20 number of cases to work with and analyse and -- yes, it would have been

21 interested to fit in the body parts as well, but that couldn't be.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So I do understand that a later DNA test may

23 have resolved the problem of extra bones with the bodies.

24 THE WITNESS: Yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Body parts to the bodies.

Page 17217

1 THE WITNESS: That's right.

2 JUDGE ORIE: But it would not have detected, if there are any

3 foreign -- at least there is a risk that you would miss the presence of

4 bones foreign to the body even if you had made a DNA test on the body.

5 THE WITNESS: I think that's right, yes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which might also have caused that the extra

7 bones which were joined to the whole body --

8 THE WITNESS: Yes.

9 JUDGE ORIE: -- would not have been -- could not be matched to

10 other bodies or other body parts because you would not have taken DNA

11 from that specific small little bone or whatever.

12 THE WITNESS: Undoubtedly, yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I think I understood you, more or less.

14 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, please proceed.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Professor, why did I ask this? In the mortuary at Visoko as a

18 forensic pathologist, did you also verify and analyse damage to body

19 parts, separate body parts, the bones which could never be matched up to

20 any body? Or to put it more simply, for instance, you have part of a

21 femur where damage is noted that could be subject to your analysis. Did

22 you also analyse that and make an autopsy report?

23 A. Yes, I did. Every single body part was examined. For every

24 single body part a report was produced and I think you will find in the

25 overall reports a separate analysis of the body parts. And identifying

Page 17218

1 that the majority probably had no injuries at all. It was just a forearm

2 or some other limb which had come apart. But some of the body parts were

3 skulls with clear gun-shot injuries or another bone with clear gun-shot

4 injuries. We just noted that, but we did not try and match that into the

5 main -- into the main bodies. But every single body part was looked at.

6 Q. I've seen that in your reports, but I'm asking you all of this

7 for the following reason: You analysed very meticulously in your report

8 the number of gun-shots to which a body was exposed, and in each summary

9 you concluded from that how many shots a certain body received.

10 Now, if you have done that, and you have not matched body parts -

11 for instance, a forearm that was exposed to one projectile according to

12 an autopsy report - with a body that is perhaps also examined and which

13 you consider according to your methodology as a complete body that was

14 exposed to two gun-shots, how do you then draw the conclusion as to the

15 total number of gun-shots that hit that body if you have not matched them

16 up, the forearm and the body?

17 A. Yes, I fully accept what you're saying, and they will be -- in

18 that case, we will have underestimated a number of the gun-shot injuries.

19 I don't think it's a huge number, and I don't think it changes a

20 huge amount of the conclusions I brought. But you're correct, you're

21 entirely correct, that it would underestimate the shots to a particular

22 individual.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: But that notwithstanding, Doctor -- sorry.

24 That notwithstanding, you would still have the number of the

25 projectiles that hit the body --

Page 17219

1 THE WITNESS: Yes.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- and the number that hit the part.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: So --

5 THE WITNESS: But I was not able to -- I didn't know that that

6 body part belonged to that body, so --

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That would be the only difference --

8 THE WITNESS: That would be the only difference.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- that you can't put that part to the body --

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, exactly.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- but the injuries you can identify.

12 THE WITNESS: We can identify the injuries. So if you took

13 overall, forgetting identity, you -- you could get a larger number of

14 overall shots to these people. But as I say, I don't think it affects

15 the overall emphasise a great deal. Most of the body parts did not have

16 injuries.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I understand. Thank you so much.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put a follow-up question just to clarify

19 the matter.

20 If you established cause of death, the person who died because of

21 gun-shot wounds --

22 THE WITNESS: Yes.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- if there would have been more shots and wounds

24 on separate parts of the body that wouldn't change your overall

25 assessment, died by gun-shot wounds; is that correct?

Page 17220

1 THE WITNESS: If there was sufficient fatal injuries in the -- in

2 the -- in the body, shall we say, sufficient to -- as a cause of death I

3 would have given that as a cause of death. It may well be that there was

4 a separate skull which belonged to that body which also had a gun-shot

5 injury, which would also have been a cause of death, but -- but already

6 had a cause of death in the -- in the rest of the body.

7 You -- you will see in the -- and it is cited in the Paklenik

8 cave case that we did, for once, have an opportunity to reassociated some

9 of the body parts into the whole bodies, and, indeed, I did change causes

10 of death in just a few of these cases based on the findings of the body

11 part. But that was really only one case.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What was the change in that case?

13 THE WITNESS: Well, I took the view if somebody has been shot in

14 the head, that is immediately fatal and is inevitably fatal. Somebody

15 who has been -- that would be the thing that would kill them because it

16 would be very quick. So if I had said initially that this person who

17 without a skull had died from gun-shot injuries to the chest that takes

18 just a little bit longer to die, a person to die probably. Now I have

19 the head, and I can say, Well, he died really very quickly because of the

20 head wound, and I -- I would have changed perhaps the cause of death to

21 gun-shot injury to the head.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But, nevertheless, died because of gun-shot

23 injuries.

24 THE WITNESS: The important -- the important thing -- and I

25 emphasise this in all my reports. It's not so much where the shot was,

Page 17221

1 it is that they died from a gun-shot injury rather than whether it was

2 the head, the chest, whatever. They died from a gun-shot injury. And

3 that's the main important evidence.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That didn't change.

5 THE WITNESS: That did not change, no.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry to make a follow-up.

8 The converse of that argument, Doctor, would be that if the

9 injury to the part was not to the head but to an arm, and you told us a

10 little earlier that an injury to the arm is not going to cause death

11 unless there's excessive bleeding --

12 THE WITNESS: Yes.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- so, in fact, if later it turns out that that

14 arm belongs to the body --

15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- it doesn't change your determination of the

17 cause of death.

18 THE WITNESS: It does not, no. Yes.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: But could I -- but the unascertained cause of death

21 just on the basis of the body parts after being associated with the skull

22 or whatever would then -- that arm suddenly would have died from

23 bullet --

24 THE WITNESS: Yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Bullet wounds.

Page 17222

1 THE WITNESS: That's a possibility. In general, if somebody --

2 the only finding was a gun-shot injury to the arm. We did not classify

3 that as a true cause of death. That was the general principle we took.

4 You could argue that somebody with a gun-shot injury to the arm who was

5 unable to move, who would lose blood, not getting any medical help would

6 eventually die, but we could not definitely prove that, so that was left

7 as unascertained.

8 JUDGE ORIE: But once associated with a skull, then you could at

9 least determine that the person --

10 THE WITNESS: That had been shot.

11 JUDGE ORIE: -- that had been shot --

12 THE WITNESS: Yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Even if on the basis of just the arm, you couldn't

14 determine any cause of death because it might just have caused a fracture

15 and not a fatal bleeding, for example.

16 THE WITNESS: Exactly. But if that was the only injury on the

17 body, just the arm, yes, it indicates that he's been shot. But we would

18 probably still have given the cause of death as unascertained.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

20 Mr. Stojanovic, please proceed.

21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22 Q. Professor, in view of your many years of experience as a

23 pathologist could you agree with me in principle that a shot or several

24 shots in one body would indicate that this is random firing at that body

25 rather than precise targeting?

Page 17223

1 A. I don't think that's true. You could target somebody with four

2 or five shots, one after the other, that's still a target. So I don't

3 think that takes -- takes -- takes away from it at all.

4 Q. And it works the other way around. One shot with a lethal

5 outcome, could it, in principle, indicate proximity between the weapon

6 and the late person? Would that indicate precise firing or targeting?

7 A. Not necessarily, no. That could be a single shot, could be a

8 random -- so-called, random shot to a person, or it could be targeted,

9 yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: And it has got nothing to do with the distance, if I

11 understand you well.

12 THE WITNESS: Exactly, yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like us to look at

15 P2259 in e-court, please; page 2, both in English and in B/C/S.

16 Q. Professor, this is your report for 1999. I would just like us to

17 take a look at one particular section. The last paragraph on this page.

18 You are commenting upon autopsy reports, and you say: "The

19 overall structure of each report may have been similar but the

20 descriptive style and the form of words used varied considerably from

21 pathologist to pathologist, not least reflecting the ease of use of the

22 English language and the different medico-legal backgrounds from which

23 each of them came."

24 This is what I'm asking you now: These words of your here --

25 different medico-legal backgrounds from all of them or of all of them,

Page 17224

1 did this contribute to your overall task and that is ascertaining the

2 cause of death, if I understand things correctly?

3 A. No. These pathologists may have come from different countries,

4 different backgrounds but they were all pathologists. So they all worked

5 on the same principle of examination of a body, to look for findings and

6 determine cause of death. It was my task -- I mean, inevitably and you

7 have this with lawyers, with anybody, different people of a profession

8 will describe things slightly different. Somebody will use more words

9 than another one and so we had this with the pathologists. It was my job

10 afterwards to, in reviewing all these cases, to just to pick out what --

11 what they were actually meaning and analyse that information. But

12 everybody was working to the same overall protocol, if you like, trying

13 to achieve the same amount of information.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one follow-up question here as well.

15 We see the form of words used, do I understand that you're

16 referring to the phrasing of the findings? Is that what you --

17 THE WITNESS: Indeed. For instance, I found I had -- I had

18 German pathologists. They tended to be very descriptive in their

19 particular -- of an injury. Pathologists from other countries would

20 summarise more, perhaps not use so many, quite so many, technical terms,

21 but in the end, they were both describing a gun-shot injury. We also had

22 photographic proof of that that I could review. We also had the diagrams

23 that they had indicated, so from all that information, I was still able

24 to achieve -- to interpret the overall meaning.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now you said -- you referred to the ease of

Page 17225

1 the use of the English language and the different medico-legal

2 backgrounds.

3 Could you explain the -- is that what you just described and was

4 the use of the English language more technical use of language or how

5 should I understand the two categories you mentioned here?

6 THE WITNESS: It is more -- I mean, if all the pathologists spoke

7 English, some clearly better than others, so as with any translation,

8 little words are missed out and perhaps a slightly wrong word would be

9 used. But I think I had the benefit, I knew what they were trying to

10 say.

11 When I talk about different medico-legal backgrounds, I suspect

12 that some pathologists in their country are perhaps obliged to put more

13 detail about a particular thing in than, say, in other country, but

14 everyone, all the pathologists at least put all the basic information

15 which was required there. And, as I say, we had the additional benefit

16 of the photographs and diagrams, so from all that, I was able to

17 interpret the findings.

18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. At one point in time, Professor, at the mortuary in Visoko, you

20 had up to 16 pathologists and other staff working on that project. Would

21 that be an approximately accurate number? Also, they all came from

22 different countries, didn't they?

23 A. If I could just clarify. The -- at any one time, so for any one

24 day in the mortuary there would be a maximum of three pathologists,

25 myself and two others. I was there all the time. The other pathologists

Page 17226

1 would come for two-week periods -- two, three-week periods, they would

2 rotate. In the whole season we might have about 18 different

3 pathologists.

4 There were other staff anthropologists, photographers, other

5 people. So, all in all, in a particular day in the mortuary, yes, there

6 might be up to 16 people. Three pathologists and all the other people as

7 well.

8 Yes, you're right, they did come from all different countries and

9 that was a deliberate ploy to engage as many countries as possible, not

10 just from Europe, but from other continents, and I think that added

11 greatly to it.

12 Q. Now I'm going to skip something and then I'm going to ask you

13 something else and then I'll get back to this.

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] But I'd like the same document,

15 P2292 [as interpreted], but I would like to ask for page 4.

16 Q. And then you're going to see the last paragraph, Professor?

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you repeat the exhibit number, please.

18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] P2259. 2259. That is the

19 document that we're dealing with right now, from 1999.

20 Q. Professor, please take a look at what you said here, in relation

21 to the questions that were put to you right now:

22 "Problems arose, however, where the only findings were gun-shot

23 injuries to the legs or arms. Some wounds to the thighs could well have

24 damaged sufficiently large blood vessels to cause fatal haemorrhage.

25 But, generally, gun-shot injuries to the limbs would normally be

Page 17227

1 survivable."

2 And then the last sentence that I would like to us clarify. You

3 say:

4 "Unfortunately, this could not be proved or even implied. In the

5 absence of any other obvious findings therefore, the cause of death in

6 these cases was usually given as unascertained?"

7 This is what I'm asking you now, Professor: In the methodology

8 of your work, three pathologists or two pathologists working in the

9 mortuary, you're the person who represents continuity, if you will. Who

10 is the person who says what the cause of death is in that report? The

11 pathologist working on it, or you who supervises it, if you will, in a

12 case like this, when there was an injury to the limbs?

13 A. It was always the pathologist, individual pathologist, who

14 decided on his or her cause of death. In perhaps difficult cases, we

15 would consult together, because we are working physically very close to

16 each other. We would discuss findings. They would seek my advice, and

17 in the vast majority of cases, I think, we came to a mutual decision.

18 In the end, if they stuck very strongly to one opinion, that was

19 their report, and -- and they -- they gave that. I don't recall that

20 happening, but that would have been the principle. In no way did I --

21 I -- I might advise or suggest, on the basis of my experience, but it was

22 no more than that. And I -- I did not force anybody to -- I think -- I

23 think if you look at the individual post-mortem reports you'll see quite

24 a lot of variation in some of the wording of, say, gun-shot injury. Some

25 people would call it ballistic trauma or some people would call it

Page 17228

1 multiple fire-arms or something. It all, in the end, means a gun-shot

2 injury but the very fact that they are using different terminology shows

3 their independence and that I'm not forcing a particular form of words on

4 any of them.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask there a follow-up question as well.

6 Was there any disagreement among you and the colleagues, the

7 other two pathologists, about the standards to be applied, for example --

8 and that was the example that a bullet wound to a limb would not justify

9 the determination of the cause of death if there was nothing else.

10 THE WITNESS: There was no strong disagreement on that at all.

11 We might -- some might say, well -- well, they would argue the same

12 principles that I did: That somebody with a gun-shot injury of a limb,

13 if they did not get any medical help, were left, would inevitably die.

14 And I think we all agreed on that. But we could not give a specific

15 cause. They were entirely happy with the overall approach that we took.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You could not speculate on whether they got

17 any medical help, yes or no, and therefore it remained undetermined.

18 THE WITNESS: Exactly. And we had to set a line somewhere and I

19 think that's what we did.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just on that point, Doctor. Did the remains that

21 you were examining completely skeletonize or did they have tissue?

22 THE WITNESS: From all these sites the majority of people were

23 reduced to a skeleton. In some sites there was, remarkably, quite a lot

24 of tissue on, still, some the bodies.

25 The tissue didn't really help a great deal. Because even though

Page 17229

1 there's tissue there it is decomposed, it's difficult to see anything,

2 bruising or bleeding, et cetera. So, really, all our focus was on damage

3 to the bones --

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Skeletons.

5 THE WITNESS: Yes.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: And of course the skeletons can't show you whether

7 the injury would have caused death because of -- can't see whether it was

8 on a particular blood vessel.

9 THE WITNESS: Exactly. Exactly, because it doesn't show, you

10 know, your heart, or your lungs, et cetera. All it shows is the

11 bullet-hole in the rib which lies over the heart but doesn't show any

12 more.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. I am going to move ahead in this same report now so that we see

17 whether what you said a moment ago is opposite to what you say in the

18 text. So we're dealing with the same document but we need page 10 in

19 B/C/S or, rather, 11 in English.

20 That's your report again. Professor, this is what you say

21 precisely as you were commenting upon this method of ascertaining the

22 cause of death.

23 MR. STOJANOVIC: It's the middle of the page, Your Honours.

24 Q. And you say what to include in the cause of death was very much a

25 subjective one for each pathologist. Some choosing to include most or

Page 17230

1 all of the injuries present, multiple gun-shot injuries, others

2 restricting the cause to what was considered the principle and

3 necessarily fatal one, even though additional injuries were present

4 elsewhere?

5 And then you say:

6 "Certain pathologists were also more willing to regard a

7 particular injury as fatal. Others preferring to leave the cause of

8 death, in these cases, as unascertained."

9 This is what I'm asking you now: This wording that you provided

10 here, does it mean that the approach to that final conclusion - and now

11 I'm going to give you an example of that - ascertaining the cause of

12 death was different in the case of different pathologists. Some people

13 were more rigid; others were more liberal in giving a final assessment as

14 to what the cause of death was?

15 A. Yes, I take your point. It may appear contradictory. This

16 really only applies to a relatively small number of -- of cases. I can

17 think it's perhaps somebody with -- where the only finding was, perhaps a

18 gun-shot injury in the pelvis, for instance, my own view would be that

19 that would be likely to be -- very likely to be a fatal injury.

20 Sometimes a pathologist would -- would be less happy at that and would

21 give that as unascertained, and I went along with that. It only -- it

22 was only if a few -- I mean, I would have to go through all the files but

23 I can think it was only in a few cases that that ever occurred. I think

24 I would just -- I'm just trying to emphasise this was not me, although I

25 was in charge of the mortuary, this was not me dictating what was -- what

Page 17231

1 the pathologists were deciding. I was trying to make very clear that

2 these were individual professionals who took their own decisions. Yes,

3 there may be some contradiction in the words there, and I accept that.

4 JUDGE ORIE: If you say a few, we are in this report talking

5 about well over 400 bodies, I'm not talking about the body parts. Could

6 you give us an impression on those 450 bodies, how often would it happen

7 that there was some disagreement about how to interpret what was found on

8 the bones as indications for a --

9 THE WITNESS: I can imagine three or four times or a very small

10 number of cases.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So 1 per cent --

12 THE WITNESS: 1, 2 per cent, perhaps. It was small. The bulk of

13 the unascertained ones were unascertained for -- for other reasons,

14 perhaps there was no injuries at all or it was very minor injuries. So

15 it's a small number of cases, and ... as I said, I can think of no

16 instance in which there was any violent disagreements in the mortuary or

17 anything of that sort at all.

18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Professor, could we please take a look at one of these reports

20 now.

21 MR. STOJANOVIC: Could we please have 1D01287 in e-court.

22 1D01287. The first page, please.

23 Professor, I assume that this is one of your reports.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. It has an attachment too, but I would like us to focus on this

Page 17232

1 first page briefly.

2 If my colleagues have interpreted this properly for me, my

3 understanding is that your analysis focussed on a body that consisted of

4 a left leg, pelvic bones, and bones from both feet, as is stated here.

5 And then, in the second paragraph, you say that there is -- that

6 there are two gun-shot injuries to the left leg, one to the knee and the

7 other to the lower leg.

8 And then you say, in the final report, at the end of this first

9 page, rather, that you cannot determine the cause of death or, rather,

10 that it remains unascertained.

11 Do you see all of that, Professor?

12 A. Indeed yes.

13 Q. My question is: Does that mean, to us who know very little

14 anatomy, two shots in the left leg, and the knee, and the bone below the

15 knee does not provide enough information for, objectively, scientifically

16 ascertaining the cause of death and that led you to give this ultimate

17 finding?

18 A. Yes. Gun-shot injuries to the lower leg would not be inevitably

19 fatal. So, in contrast to a gun-shot wound going through the head or in

20 the front of the chest - I think we could safely say that that would be

21 fatal - so, because all I found was two injuries on the left leg, the

22 lower leg, I felt I didn't really know the precise cause of death of --

23 of this -- this person.

24 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like us to take a look at a similar report,

25 1D01286.

Page 17233

1 On the basis of this report, and it was done by your colleague, a

2 pathologist from Sri Lanka, as far as I could see, from the final report.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. It is established here, Professor, that this body consisted of

5 the skull, some bones of the vertebral column, ribs, and limb bones.

6 There are further documents here related to the body parts that were

7 found. Also, it is established that there was an injury to the left leg

8 that came from the back. This pathologist establishes as the cause of

9 death: Penetrating bullet injury of the left thigh.

10 First of all, as a -- for a pathologist, rather, would it be

11 right to say that these are similar injuries of body parts, if we look at

12 the previous report and this report?

13 A. At first glance, it may be. The injury here was higher up in the

14 leg, and there are larger blood vessels to damage.

15 Yes, this is -- okay, this is an example of where there was a

16 slight difference in interpretation. This is a very experienced

17 pathologists from Sri Lanka who has a lot of experience of gun-shot

18 injuries. He has chosen to give the cause of death here. You're right,

19 in the previous one, which is a slightly different injury, I chose not

20 to. That's professional judgement. I mean, I have to say -- that you're

21 -- that these are focussing on -- you're correctly pointing out the

22 difference but overall a very number of cases that this applies to.

23 But, yes, I accept what you're saying, and this is a --

24 demonstrating slightly different professional judgement.

25 Q. Thank you, Professor.

Page 17234

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Given that determination by this pathologist what

2 you did make of the sentence that says: "However in the absence of the

3 skull, some other parts of the skeletal system, and soft tissues whether

4 he had died due to some other injury cannot be excluded."

5 THE WITNESS: What he's saying here is that there's at least a

6 minimum cause of death. If this skull had been present and had shown a

7 gun-shot injury he almost certainly would have said gun-shot injury to

8 the skull or to the head, as the cause of death. But he is saying even

9 without that, at least we have a gun-shot injury. Which comes back to

10 the overall -- my earlier comment that the significance is not

11 particularly where the bullet was. It's the fact that they were shot at

12 all which -- which is important.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one follow-up question. But, before

14 we do so, could we have on our screens in English page 13 of this report.

15 Where you said higher up in the leg, my layman's eye would tell me that

16 it was just above of the knee.

17 THE WITNESS: Yes. I -- I take the point, and I think almost as

18 soon as I said that sentence, I realised that it was probably -- it's not

19 that much higher up, it is just slightly higher than the knee.

20 It doesn't take away from my comments that this pathologist has

21 taken that judgement. I might have taken a slightly different one.

22 That's -- that's what happens professionally. It's -- it's only -- I

23 stress, a very small -- really a relatively small number of cases that

24 this -- that these disputes ever arose.

25 JUDGE ORIE: This would be within the 1 or 2 per cent that you

Page 17235

1 mentioned earlier.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed, yes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

4 Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic. I'm also -- I'm looking at the

5 clock. Perhaps we should not proceed at this moment. Could you give us

6 an indication on whether you're on track and how much more time you would

7 still need.

8 I am aware that the Judges have -- well, not stolen but at least

9 taken some of the time.

10 Can you tell us at least where we are.

11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I believe

12 that I'm on track, that I'm going take the two and a half hours I said I

13 would. So another hour and 15, 20 minutes or so.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information.

15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Thank you, Professor.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.

18 [The witness stands down]

19 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.

20 --- Recess taken at 12.01 p.m.

21 --- On resuming at 12.26 p.m.

22 JUDGE ORIE: While the witness is brought into the courtroom,

23 Ms. D'Ascoli, I draw your attention to the transcript of Tuesday, the

24 21st of August, 2012, page 12085 [sic] for the guidance we gave at the

25 time in relation to the -- what to do with public redacted versions of

Page 17236

1 documents which are, as a whole or in part, confidential.

2 If that would change, we might have to look at that again. Then

3 we'll certainly let the parties know.

4 MS. D'ASCOLI: Sure. Thank you very much, Your Honours.

5 [The witness takes the stand]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.

7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 Q. Professor, before the break, we dealt with the criteria for

9 establishing completeness of a body, the way to determine the number of

10 gun-shots to which the body was exposed, the cause of death. And the

11 fourth subject I would like to broach now is one that we find it in every

12 analysis that you have made and that is post-mortem injuries.

13 Let me ask you: Is it correct to conclude that you as a

14 pathologist were not able to determine whether injuries were sustained

15 before or after death?

16 A. Yes, that is strictly -- strictly correct, in the sense that what

17 we were dealing with, by and large, was a skeleton with bone and that did

18 not allow us to say absolutely categorically that an injury occurred

19 before or after death.

20 Q. An additional problem in your work was the fact that you had

21 information that some of the graves had been tampered with, attacked, and

22 relocated, and that mortal remains were exposed to possible fractures and

23 damage during relocation. Is that true?

24 A. Yes. Yes, we were very well aware of that, and we took into

25 consideration in all our findings.

Page 17237

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say, Mr. Stojanovic, that graves were

2 attacked? You're quoted here as having said "that some of the graves had

3 been tampered with, attacked, and relocated." And I'm asking whether you

4 are saying that the graves were attacked.

5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.

6 In the same sense, the word can mean "damaged," "affected." Different

7 terms I used for violated the graves.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Professor, looking strictly at your science, where there is no

11 soft tissue, all injuries to the skeletal remains do not provide

12 sufficient information as to whether injuries occurred before or after

13 death.

14 A. Yes. If these are fresh injuries, in other words, before there

15 is any chance to have any healing process on the bones, you're correct,

16 that it becomes almost impossible to say that a fracture occurred just

17 before death or occurred after death -- just after death.

18 Q. Where soft tissue is present, or where remnants of soft tissue

19 are present, from the viewpoint of your expertise, would it be possible

20 to determine the cause of death and injuries to the skeleton before or

21 after death?

22 A. Soft tissue does help. And clearly in a fresh body, that's what

23 we're looking at. We're looking at the bruising, the swelling, and the

24 bleeding, which indicates to us something in life.

25 Even in -- even when tissues were present, however, in these

Page 17238

1 cases, the tissues were discoloured and any bruising or swelling was

2 still extremely difficult to see. Only in very occasional cases did we

3 see signs of what we interpret as internal bleeding inside the body,

4 perhaps in the skull or the chest, which clearly happened in life, and

5 that -- that did assess us -- assist us, yes. But generally the soft

6 tissues didn't help a great deal.

7 Q. If you can recall, Professor, would you tell us from which

8 grave-site you had bodies or body parts complete with remnants of soft

9 tissue?

10 A. I -- as I recall, I think the Lazete grave-sites had a surprising

11 amount of soft tissue remaining on the bodies. The bodies from Kozluk,

12 some had soft tissues; some didn't. The majority of the other sites, I

13 think, had -- were either completely reduced as skeleton or just had a

14 little bit of tissue -- of tissue on them. But, Lazete, as I recall,

15 had -- to our minds, got a surprising amount of soft tissue remaining.

16 Q. Why am I asking you this, if you can assist us.

17 Could that fact, according to the rules of your profession, help

18 us determine the cause of death for that body, or body part?

19 A. The -- yes. The presence of soft tissues can help -- can help

20 sometimes, in the sense as I've already explained. There may be signs of

21 bleeding inside. Also, the soft tissues may trap a bullet there. Now,

22 if the soft tissues trap a bullet, that's a good indication that the

23 person has been shot.

24 But other than that, the sort tissues didn't -- didn't help --

25 didn't help a great deal.

Page 17239

1 Q. For the piece of evidence that I will present to you now, if you

2 can assist us, I only want you to tell me: Am I correct in thinking that

3 if a body is exposed to atmospheric conditions is not buried as opposed

4 to a body that is buried and taking into account the composition of the

5 soil because we've had occasion to hear evidence from an anthropologist

6 as well, would that process proceed quicker or slower, the decomposition

7 of soft tissue?

8 A. The decomposition would be slower if the body is buried. So a

9 body that's left out on the open would decompose more quickly, because

10 it's exposed to air, animal interference, and it -- it -- it would break

11 down more -- more quickly.

12 A body buried in the soil is cooled down for a start. No air

13 gets to it, no bacteria -- or less bacteria. So it takes longer. It

14 will eventually degenerate, but the process will be slower.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at 1D01289 in

17 e-court.

18 Q. While we are waiting for it to be uploaded, it's a letter that we

19 received from the Office of the Prosecutor in the process of disclosure,

20 that one of your colleagues, Professor Moore, from the

21 Association of Doctors for Human Rights, sent to Defence counsel in

22 another case, presenting his experience in his field-work during

23 excavations and disposal of the body, precisely at the grave-site you

24 just mentioned, Lazete, where you said there was a surprising amount of

25 soft tissue.

Page 17240

1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at page 2,

2 item 2, the last paragraph. At one point, we will move on to page 3.

3 Q. But let me ask you first: Do you know Professor Snow and

4 Dr. Moore, because they worked, as far as I can see, two years prior to

5 you.

6 A. I don't know either of them, no.

7 What I do -- if I can put it in perspective, I was aware that we

8 did the Lazete grave post-mortems in 2000. This was what we determined

9 as Lazete 2. I think I've got that right. But we also did the remains

10 of this grave that I think you're alluding to here. There were some body

11 parts left behind from this excavation that we -- that we also looked at.

12 So my findings on Lazete are largely to do with a different grave from

13 what was being worked on here.

14 But to answer your question direct: I don't know either of these

15 individuals.

16 Q. All right, Professor. That's the way I understood it. But I

17 decided to ask this question because in the final report -- at least

18 that's what I call it, that's the report P2260, the report of the chief

19 pathologist, P2260. And if we could just look at its first page before

20 returning to this document.

21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] And I apologise, Your Honours,

22 from jumping from subject to subject but we need to clear this up.

23 That's the report for 2000.

24 Q. On page 1, this is precisely what you deal with. You can see it

25 here now. You say that the subject of that report is the Lazete grave;

Page 17241

1 you are right. There is a Lazete 1 and 2. And you say - Your Honours,

2 that's the second paragraph after the enumeration - one of the graves at

3 Lazete, Lazete 2, had been excavated previously in 1996 while at Glogova

4 another grave at this site had been worked on in 1999. And you say:

5 "The pathology findings in both have been reported on

6 previously."

7 And further below, you cite the final numbers for Lazete 1 and

8 Lazete 2.

9 So would my reasoning be correct if I said, Yes, what you say is

10 right, by precisely this information from Lazete 2 that was excavated in

11 1996 was dealt by you in this report by the chief pathologist from

12 February 2001; is that correct? To avoid confusion.

13 A. No. No, sorry. No, the earlier examination of Lazete 2, I've

14 never seen that report, and it's certainly not included here.

15 The bodies that I describe in Lazete 2 here are those that were

16 left behind from that exhumation that we did. But I've never seen the

17 original report.

18 Q. Very well. Thank you. We have cleared that up.

19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Now we can come back to the

20 document 1D01289. Page 2, please, the last passage straddling page 3.

21 Q. In this letter to the lawyers, Dr. Moore states:

22 "The removal of the remains," and he speaking about Lazete 2,

23 "went very fast, almost too fast; for, in some cases not all of the

24 skeletal remains (hands and feet, for example) that went with the person

25 being removed did not get into the right body bag because of crowding

Page 17242

1 within the burials (some parts have fallen off during decomposition.

2 This may account for the non-associated hands and feet as well) as other

3 skeletal elements that were recovered later in the excavation. I agree

4 with C. C. Snow that, on a good day, only 20 bodies should be removed at

5 a time."

6 Now let me ask you, Professor, working on this project, in the

7 mortuary not in the field, did you receive such samples and were you

8 familiar with such situations during field work? With your permission,

9 he also says further below:

10 "Of course, in hindsight, this contributed to the future problem

11 of determining the minimum number of individuals present in the grave."

12 The minimum of individuals. We discussed this with

13 Professor Baraybar.

14 Is your experience similar to his?

15 A. This was a different team who was doing the original exhumation.

16 I understood -- well, I was -- got the impression that our -- that ICTY

17 team were doing a very methodical job, possibly learning from lessons in

18 the past, because this first one, the PHR exhumation, was one of the very

19 first exhumations. And, as we all do, we learn from experience so year

20 by year. But I was not -- I had no impression at all that the ICTY team

21 in 2000 were in any way rushing to -- to get the bodies out. And I got

22 no -- no -- no sense that -- that -- that they'd been careless and that

23 wrong bodies were being put together, et cetera.

24 I don't know if that answers your question or not, but ...

25 Q. Yes, Professor. But it was my understanding that you confirmed

Page 17243

1 in your previous answers that there had been such situations, where you

2 received a complete body from the field, and then, in your work in the

3 mortuary, you would establish that some of the body parts, or some of the

4 bones do not correspond to that body. Or, conversely, that in some other

5 body bags, you would find body parts that the field pathologists and

6 anthropologists had not match up with a body that you called a complete

7 body.

8 Were such omissions the result of human error, or the speed of

9 their work?

10 A. No. I certainly did not get the impression it was the speed of

11 their work. The letter that you -- that's on the screen here clearly is

12 blaming the speed of -- speed of work, as I read through it. That did

13 not apply, as I understand it, with the ICTY team. Yes, it was

14 inevitable that bits of bodies would -- would still get mixed up even

15 going at a much slower speed. That's the nature of -- of a mass grave.

16 But that was not the final decision at this field because they still had

17 the stage of the mortuary to go in which we could take even more time to

18 try and sort things out.

19 So I don't think the field teams, any -- any issues with

20 reassociation was anything to do with very rapid speed of getting the

21 bodies out.

22 Q. I should like to look at one more paragraph and ask for your

23 comment.

24 Page 4 of this document, please. We should focus on the end of

25 the first paragraph on page 4 where we can read:

Page 17244

1 "Not to do this, I believe is what Dr. Snow meant by sloppy

2 science. This is reflected in questions concerning, co-mingling of the

3 remains, clothing that was discarded, the determination of MN1, the cause

4 of death, manner of death, and the OTP's review of reports, which in

5 itself is improper; for the ultimate responsibility for these reports are

6 in the purview of the forensic scientist or principal investigator."

7 Did you have knowledge at the time that the work on these

8 grave-sites involved situations where forensic evidence had been rejected

9 as irrelevant, insignificant, or unnecessary?

10 A. I'd no specific knowledge. I was aware that there had been

11 difficulties with earlier exhumations and examinations that had been --

12 there were some dissatisfactions. So all the more reason that in our own

13 work we did not rush anything, took lots of time, and, even more so, I

14 was very conscious of the fact that the chief pathologist should not be

15 dictating causes of death to other pathologists. I think we discussed

16 that earlier because that had been an implication from previous work.

17 So our -- our work was certainly not rushed at all, and I think

18 we got good answers in the end.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we admit all

21 three documents that I used now: 1D20187 [as interpreted], 1D01286, and

22 1D01289.

23 MS. D'ASCOLI: No objections, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. 65 ter number 1D20187 [sic]

Page 17245

1 will be Exhibit D369; 65 ter 1D1286 will be Exhibit D370; and 65 ter

2 1D1289 will be Exhibit D371.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The first number is wrongly recorded. The 65 ter

4 number should be "1D1287."

5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right.

6 JUDGE ORIE: D369, D370, and D371 are admitted into evidence.

7 I immediately add to that, Mr. Stojanovic, that the witness said

8 that he was not familiar with what happened at the time although he had

9 heard about it. It was not the practice that he experienced, but since

10 the Prosecution did not oppose, it is more or less from the bar table, I

11 would say, that there had been quarrels before which, of course, we know

12 already from some other parts of the evidence.

13 Please proceed.

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 Q. Professor, could you tell us a few words now about your work. It

16 is my understanding that you worked on several thousand post-mortem

17 reports, autopsy reports, during those two years of working for the

18 international Tribunal.

19 Would that figure be about right?

20 A. I think if you -- including the reports from the other

21 pathologists, that's right. I think it's about -- over 3.000 reports

22 that I have reviewed. Yes, that's correct. That includes body parts, of

23 course. But it's well over 3.000 reports.

24 Q. Precisely. That was my next question. And I'd like to use some

25 evidence here.

Page 17246

1 Could you give the Court an assessment regarding these

2 approximately 3.000 analyses of yours. How many analyses had to do with

3 injures on one bone or several bones? So not the entire body, not the

4 complete body, not a body part that consists of several bones but one

5 bone.

6 A. I -- I don't know the exact figure, but there was certainly a

7 number of these cases in which it was an isolated bone was found, and I

8 would do a report on that. If I said 50, 60, it might be around about

9 that. I can't remember precisely. But there were some, you're right, in

10 which it was just an individual bone. It's still a body part, so it had

11 to be looked at and reported on.

12 Q. I was told by the people who prepared what I'm asking about today

13 that there were several hundred reports like that. Because I must admit,

14 in all certainty, that I didn't manage to count all of it.

15 A. I --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Before you refer to your source, Mr. Stojanovic,

17 could you tell us what they are? Is it the people who prepared what you

18 are asking, have they any personal knowledge about -- happened -- what

19 happened there or did they analyse the reports? It's rather unclear what

20 the basis for your questions is.

21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll try to be specific. So the

22 pathologist that works for the Defence team and that has the

23 documentation that we have, he said that when preparing our reports he

24 came across that information.

25 Q. So now I'm asking you whether that could correspond to your own

Page 17247

1 recollection in terms of the number of autopsy reports that bore your

2 signature?

3 A. You're asking a different question now. You're asking the ones I

4 just did myself? Bore my signature? I can't -- I can't imagine that it

5 was 2- or 300 cases in which all we had was forearm bone or a leg bone,

6 et cetera. Perhaps your pathologist colleague is including the skull.

7 Hopefully he will be including the skull as a single bone. So without

8 checking actually my individual figures, I don't think I could agree with

9 2- or 300 cases in which all we looked at was just a single bone. I

10 think there was usually more, but ...

11 Q. Very well, Professor. Then I'm just going to take an example.

12 1D01288. 1D01288.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, is that an example of a single bone?

14 Because the witness has said that he vaguely thinks that there may have

15 been 50 or 60. So unless there's any other reason why you want to

16 present this to us, but the witness acknowledges that there were such

17 cases. Again, I do not know what you're heading for, but if it is to

18 establish that there were single bone case, there's no need to do that.

19 Because you would have at least 50 or 60 most likely.

20 THE WITNESS: The number may be higher but --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's a matter of counting. Parties could

22 sit together. Three thousand reports, just count the ones -- or if it's

23 a strong -- if it is an important matter for the Defence, give us the

24 numbers, and we'll have a look at -- because if your expert looked at it,

25 Mr. Stojanovic, I take it that he has taken notes as to where to find the

Page 17248

1 300.

2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, Your Honour,

3 and then we're going to proceed. However, on the basis of this example,

4 I would like to put two additional questions about this entire line of

5 questioning for the professor, with your leave, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so. If there's more than just

7 establishing the other one -- the one-bone cases, then please proceed.

8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Professor, let us accept that this would be one of those reports,

10 if you agree. This is an analysis of practically one single bone, a

11 right forearm bone, if I see it properly. And it is stated very

12 correctly that no cause of death can be determined.

13 However, I wanted to ask you something: On the basis of what you

14 said in terms of how you worked at the Visoko mortuary, was this dealt

15 with already in a number -- in another case that you were working on?

16 A. I'm sorry, this -- this examination dealt with ... I don't follow

17 your question, I'm afraid.

18 Q. I shall rephrase. Maybe I made a mistake. This is Ravnice.

19 We'll go back to that. Can you see that in the report - right? - so it's

20 the Ravnice grave-site.

21 Would it be right and possible in view of the methodology of your

22 work at the mortuary that, under quotation marks, and sorry about that,

23 the "owner" of this right forearm bone had already been registered under

24 a different number, because that's where the complete body was, and that

25 there are two numbers that actually pertain to one and the same body. In

Page 17249

1 one case, it's just one bone; and, in another case, it's the entire body

2 or a group of body parts?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I thought that I had asked the same

4 question already to Mr. Clark before and that he had answered that

5 question. Unless you think that this is a question different from one of

6 the questions I've put to you.

7 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honour. I was going to say that, yes,

8 it is perfectly true that we may have seen the rest of the body and given

9 it a different number, yes. That's why -- that's why if my calculations

10 I did not include the body parts. We always stuck to the bodies.

11 JUDGE ORIE: And did you have the impression that you had

12 answered the same question already before?

13 THE WITNESS: Yes. I thought I had.

14 JUDGE ORIE: So there's no need to put the same questions and

15 hear the same answer, Mr. Stojanovic.

16 Next question, please.

17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

18 Q. In view of the answers that you provided related to DNA analysis,

19 do you know whether the bodies that were the subject of your expertise in

20 1999, whether they were buried before the Bosnian Commission was trained

21 for DNA analysis?

22 A. As I am aware, the bodies were not buried. I think they were

23 stored, stored in Tuzla, and then DNA analysis was carried out. And once

24 identification had been established, a positive identification, the

25 bodies were then released for burial. But I'm not aware of any bodies

Page 17250

1 being buried without identification.

2 JUDGE ORIE: And by "identification," you mean through DNA?

3 THE WITNESS: DNA. A positive name put on DNA, yes.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

5 THE WITNESS: Yes.

6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Thank you. Professor, in one of the answers you provided during

8 the examination-in-chief, you mentioned ligatures that were found in some

9 graves. And you said that that was Kozluk, Lazete, and, to the best of

10 your recollection, one of the graves in Glogova.

11 A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.

12 Q. Bodies from the grave in Nova Kasaba were also the subject of

13 your analysis. And, if you remember, on two occasions, you analysed the

14 bodies from these graves from Nova Kasaba.

15 A. Yes, that's right.

16 Q. Let us not open the document now. You can look at the summary of

17 the findings for Nova Kasaba. But will we agree that in Nova Kasaba,

18 because that is not in the summary, there was not a single body that was

19 found with ligatures or blindfolds? That's page 16 of your report.

20 A. Yes, that's correct. Well, one possible. One possible

21 blindfold, but, yes. Nobody with any definite blindfold or ligature.

22 Q. Professor, these 55 bodies found in a few graves, mostly in two,

23 as you had said, you cannot actually establish the time of death of these

24 persons; is that right?

25 A. No, I can't.

Page 17251

1 Q. Professor, likewise, on the basis of the rules of your

2 profession - we are talking about Nova Kasaba now - you cannot establish

3 the locations where these persons died? I'm talking again on the basis

4 of the rules of your profession.

5 A. No. I should actually say yes there. Because you said "you

6 cannot establish," so ... you know what I mean?

7 Q. That's right. Thank you.

8 Now you can follow. I am going to move on a bit faster.

9 Konjevic Polje. The Konjevic Polje graves had also two sites, if you

10 will, a total of 12 bodies. And, again, you said in the summary,

11 page 19, Professor, so you can follow it in your report, you say that

12 these bodies had no blindfolds or ligatures.

13 A. Yes, that's correct.

14 Q. Is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I'm asking myself for the last four,

17 five questions, whether there's any dispute about these matters, if no

18 ligatures are mentioned, whether the Prosecution, nevertheless would have

19 some hidden ligatures somewhere. I mean, if the report doesn't say so,

20 then it -- at least at the starting point for the Chamber to think about

21 these matters would be that there were no ligatures reported here and,

22 therefore, that the witness would not have found any ligatures because he

23 would have reported about them, if he would have found them.

24 That's -- that's my way of thinking, and I think I'm speaking on

25 behalf of my colleagues as well.

Page 17252

1 Apart from that, Ms. D'Ascoli, any dispute about these matters?

2 MS. D'ASCOLI: No, Your Honours. We stand by what is in the

3 report.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 So, Mr. Stojanovic, to verify that everything which was not in

6 the report was not a finding by the witness doesn't make much sense.

7 Please proceed.

8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. With

9 all due respect, I also took into account what Professor Baraybar said in

10 relation to the ligatures. Thank you. I --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What Mr. Baraybar said is what Mr. Baraybar

12 found. What this witness says is what he found. And there's no reason,

13 I think, unless there's any specific question to put to this witness

14 whether he has -- because that's the suggestion, he has left anything out

15 of his report which seems to be of relevance where Mr. Baraybar would

16 have perhaps taken a different position.

17 I -- I reiterate that we should use our time as efficiently as

18 possible. And, apart from that, there's no dispute about these matters.

19 So ...

20 Please proceed.

21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Professor, my next question: Konjevic Polje, according to the

23 rules of your profession, you cannot establish the time of death for

24 those 12 persons whose bodies are in these graves; is that right?

25 A. I cannot -- cannot establish the time of death, no.

Page 17253

1 Q. And I'm going to ask you, whether, in accordance with the rules

2 of your profession as a pathologist, you allow for the possibility that

3 these bodies had been transferred from somewhere and brought to that

4 grave in Konjevic Polje, that the execution had not taken place at that

5 particular location?

6 A. Yes. Yes, I -- I had assumed that that was entirely a

7 possibility, yes.

8 Q. Thank you, Professor.

9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave,

10 may I have a minute of consultation with my client?

11 JUDGE ORIE: You may consult with your client. Briefly and not

12 audible for the other people in the courtroom. Please proceed. To

13 consult.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 [Defence counsel and Accused confer]

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Professor, just one question. Let's go back to something.

18 In view of your many years of experience and your work on these

19 cases, on the basis of the samples that you had with regard to an entire

20 body or a part of a body, on the basis of anthropological, morphological,

21 or other qualities of the skeletal remains or soft tissue remains, could

22 you establish what the race of a particular individual was?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Also I'd like to ask you, Professor, to look at page 24 of your

25 report - we'll do this together - it contains the summary for Glogova.

Page 17254

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Stojanovic, there are many reports. To which

2 report are you referring?

3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise. For the

4 transcript, P2259. We're still on that. 2259. Thank you for having

5 cautioned me about this. So it's page 24. Could we please take a look

6 at this together. Thank you. So we're looking at the last line.

7 Q. This is what I'd like to ask you, Professor, and during all these

8 years that I have been working on this case, I could not establish this

9 and I could not link all of this up:

10 "Evidence of presumed post-mortem burning of many bodies, mostly

11 the clothing, but, in several cases, involving the bones themselves."

12 Now, this is what I'd like to ask you, Professor: On the basis

13 of what is it being concluded that it's post-mortem, post-mortem burning

14 of bodies or clothing, as you say here? I'm just speaking on the basis

15 of the rules of your profession.

16 A. That -- that was an assumption. In my experience, for bone to be

17 burned, the person is almost certainly dead. I mean, to get burning

18 extending down through all the soft tissues to somebody's bone virtually

19 always implied that the person is dead because it takes such a long time

20 to do that.

21 Additionally, we found -- the burning involved -- the broken --

22 the broken surface of the bones now. That would have only been broken at

23 the time of death, so you were looking at fractures which had occurred at

24 time of death which had also been burned with the implication that it

25 must have occurred after death. But largely it was because it's -- it's

Page 17255

1 almost inconceivable that somebody would still be alive in which the fire

2 had got down to the surface of the bone and they weren't already dead.

3 Q. Professor, I assume - and that is what your report says - that

4 you were informed that Glogova is a primary grave?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Can you confirm that today as well?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And I assume, Professor, that you know that Glogova 5 and

9 Glogova 2 that you analysed had not been violated or attacked or looted

10 earlier on as is stated in certain reports. Rather, these were intact

11 graves that had been exhumed and opened?

12 A. Yes. I understood that, yes.

13 Q. Your two previous answers, would they lead to the conclusion that

14 these bodies were burned post-mortem or partly burned post-mortem at some

15 other place from where they were brought and buried in Glogova?

16 A. That -- that -- that would be my interpretation of it, yes.

17 Q. Thank you, Professor. That's what I wanted to hear about from

18 you.

19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I need to deal

20 with Ravnice, and I will require about 15 or 20 minutes for that.

21 Thereby, I think that I will be within the confines of the time that I

22 had envisaged.

23 So perhaps it would be the right time to take the break and I

24 have also discussed this with my client.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will take the break, but I have one

Page 17256

1 question before we take the break.

2 Being burned up to the bone level of bodies, I don't know whether

3 I've missed something, but were these burned bodies next to not-burned

4 bodies, or is there any possibility that they would have been burned

5 together, already being in the grave? Or if you don't know ...

6 THE WITNESS: I can't answer that specifically. I think it's

7 possible that several bodies burned at the same time were close to each

8 other, but -- and I'm sure that in the grave there were some non-burned

9 bodies and some burned bodies. I can't answer that in any detail, I'm

10 afraid.

11 JUDGE ORIE: No. But you more or less agreed with the conclusion

12 that the bodies would been burned and then taken to that grave which was

13 not -- I'm wondering whether there was any possibility that the bodies

14 were taken to the grave and then burned there, more of them. You would

15 not expect just one isolated body to be burned, but if you burn in a

16 grave with more bodies, then you would except other bodies to be affected

17 by the fire as well.

18 THE WITNESS: My impression of the burning, rightly or wrongly,

19 was that these -- this was not an attempt to get rid of bodies by

20 burning. This was bodies which had been injured and which, subsequently,

21 there was a fire beside them which caused localised burning of bones

22 because it was not the whole body that was burnt, it was just maybe one

23 part of it. And I got the impression that these were bodies very close

24 to something which was burning and that caused burning of that bone.

25 I didn't get the idea that these were -- this was a collection of

Page 17257

1 bodies which had been put together and had been set alight to try and

2 destroy them. That was not my impression.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Not collectively burned.

4 THE WITNESS: No, no.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.

6 We'll take the break. Could the usher escort the witness out of

7 the courtroom.

8 [The witness stands down]

9 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.

10 --- Recess taken at 1.20 p.m.

11 --- On resuming at 1.41 p.m.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli, if I misspoke - there's a fair chance

13 I did - in my reference to what appears in the transcript as page "12058

14 [sic]," it was "1258 [sic]." The date, 21st of August of last year, was

15 accurate.

16 MS. D'ASCOLI: That's noted. Thank you, Your Honours.

17 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

18 JUDGE ORIE: It is 1200 -- when I said 58. I'm making another

19 mistake. It was "12085." 12.000 -- that's the comedy of errors or the

20 tragedy of errors. But it was "1285." I stop immediately because I did

21 it right.

22 [The witness takes the stand]

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, please proceed.

24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] It's a Monday, after all,

25 Your Honours. Could we see P2260 in e-court, page 19 in English.

Page 17258

1 Q. Professor, that's your summary report for Lazete, Glogova, and

2 Ravnice, dated 22 February 2001. I have one question regarding -- this

3 is page 19. Thank you. Can we proceed, Professor?

4 A. Indeed, yes.

5 Q. We are still discussing excavations at Glogova. In one of the

6 graves you mentioned in the previous report, you say that you have

7 established that the type of injuries on the mortal remains were blast

8 injuries, which can happen when a shell or a rocket explodes. Such

9 injuries, could they result from mines and explosives, such as a

10 trip-wire or an anti-personnel mine?

11 A. Yes, that would be possible. These are injuries caused by

12 something exploding and parts of the casing striking the body. So

13 whether that's a mine or some other explosive object, I -- I can't really

14 say. The fact that we found pieces of, specific pieces of shrapnel,

15 which were led to believe you could find in a grenade, led to us believe

16 that at least some of these injuries were caused by grenades exploding.

17 Q. In the system where I come from, we usually ask questions about

18 juxtaposition. Would the injured person, in view of the locality of

19 these injuries, be standing, sitting, or perhaps crouching, or in another

20 position?

21 A. I don't think I can say. It could have been any of these -- any

22 of these positions.

23 Q. Thank you. Could we now look at page 26 of the same report - for

24 the record, it's P2260 - where you analyse body parts and bodies found at

25 Ravnice.

Page 17259

1 I have a few things to ask you about this grave. It's also in

2 your own report, Professor. Tell me just that I'm right in thinking that

3 it's a particular grave compared to all the others, because it includes

4 body parts and bodies that were not buried, that were on the surface all

5 the time?

6 A. Yes. Actually, the report from 2001 is a better one to look at

7 the Ravnice cases because it brings them all together. But, you're

8 right, Ravnice was different. This was not a grave, as such. This was a

9 grave-site, with bodies buried on the sur -- with bodies lying on the

10 surface.

11 Q. The fact that the bodies were on the surface would mean, if I

12 understood your previous anticipate answers correctly, were subject to

13 faster degradation; right?

14 A. That's right, and they would also be subject to interference by

15 animals who would be attacking the bodies and perhaps taking parts away

16 from them, and the bodies would get scattered all the more, yes.

17 Q. And relative to the other grave-sites where you analysed the

18 bodies at the mortuary, this grave contained the greatest number of body

19 parts, as opposed to complete bodies, precisely for the reasons you just

20 described?

21 A. That's right. I understood this -- Ravnice was on a slope so

22 when a body begins to disintegrate, bones may roll down the slope.

23 Animals almost certainly have come and taken a bone and removed it for

24 another 50 feet away, et cetera. So, yes, that's why there were so many

25 body, individual -- separate body parts.

Page 17260

1 Q. From what you analysed within your expertise, would it be correct

2 to conclude that those bodies had been transported from somewhere and

3 placed there?

4 A. That was always my assumption that these bodies were -- were

5 moved there to the top of the slope and probably just thrown over the

6 slope.

7 Q. The theory of our Defence is that those bodies had been collected

8 along the route where the 28th Division had attempted to break through.

9 I want to ask you whether you had any input information as to the

10 distance at which this column moved, in which direction it moved, and

11 where combat with this column took place?

12 A. None at all. I have no information about that.

13 Q. Would it be correct to say that, relative to the other graves,

14 that last parameter regardless of its accuracy concerning the number of

15 shots that hit one body was slightly higher than the average in the case

16 of Ravnice, unlike the other bodies in the graves?

17 A. Yes. If I can just -- just refer --

18 JUDGE ORIE: You're consulting a report?

19 THE WITNESS: I'm consulting my 2001 report which actually brings

20 all the Ravnice cases together.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: In the meantime can I ask a question,

22 Mr. Stojanovic, I'm not quite sure I understand your question. What do

23 you mean by "last parameter, regardless of its accuracy"?

24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at one point

25 earlier today during the cross-examination, the professor told us that

Page 17261

1 the information concerning the number of shots that hit one body is

2 relative, because the whole body was not assembled so that the number of

3 shots could have been higher if one or two shots were registered on

4 separate body parts. That is page 27; P2261.

5 Q. Would you be able to tell us now whether that would be correct?

6 A. Yes. We -- we worked out the average number of shots per person

7 in Ravnice was four. Some people had been clearly shot just once. One

8 man had been shot 14 times. But the overall average was about four

9 shots.

10 I think I understand what are you meaning, but because there are

11 so many individual body parts here, that perhaps that average will --

12 will go up a bit. And, yes, I agree, that's -- that's entirely possible.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have that on the screen, please.

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Then it's P2261, page 11 in

15 English; and page 13 in B/C/S. P2261.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 Q. Professor, I should like to ask you to look at the same document,

19 P2261, page 27, where we have a summary report concerning Zeleni Jadar.

20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] So it's page 27 in English.

21 Q. There it is, Professor. Page 31 in B/C/S.

22 Concerning Zeleni Jadar. Just a few questions. This grave is

23 the only atypical one that you performed your expertise on, and you were

24 told it's a secondary grave; correct?

25 A. Yes, that's correct.

Page 17262

1 Q. Were you told that the bodies brought to the mortuary at Visoko

2 where you were working from the sector of Zeleni Jadar originated from

3 several secondary graves, not one?

4 A. No, well, we understood that this all came from one specific

5 grave at Zeleni Jadar. I was aware that there were other graves at that

6 site, but this -- this seemed to be all from one grave.

7 Q. Thank you, Professor. I also believe that it follows that they

8 come from Zeleni Jadar 6, according to your report. I just wanted to ask

9 you if there was intermingling of bodies from several graves named

10 Zeleni Jadar. So your answer is no?

11 A. No. No.

12 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, according to the rules of your

13 profession, as a pathologist, you are not able to say from where those

14 bodies were brought into the secondary grave, Zeleni Jadar 6?

15 A. Generally, yes, that's the case, but there were some similarities

16 between the bodies in Zeleni Jadar and some of those in Glogova. So I

17 think in terms of shrapnel injuries. So, in that sense, we thought there

18 must be a link -- well, it was likely there was a link between Glogova

19 and this -- this grave, Zeleni Jadar 6.

20 Q. But what I mean to say is, scientifically based on those

21 similarities, could make a contention only between the body parts and

22 bodies from Zeleni Jadar and Glogova because they have identical

23 injuries, but the body parts and the complete bodies where there are no

24 such injuries cannot be traced back to Zeleni Jadar. They could come

25 from another locality; correct?