131028IT

Page 18382

1 JUDGE ORIE: -- I take it.

2 Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you make a

3 solemn declaration, the text of which is now handed out to you.

4 May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.

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

6 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

7 WITNESS: FREDY PECCERELLI

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Peccerelli. Please be seated.

9 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Peccerelli, you'll first be examined by

11 Ms. MacGregor. You'll find her to your right.

12 Ms. MacGregor, you may proceed.

13 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you, Mr. President.

14 Examination by Ms. MacGregor:

15 Q. Good morning. Can you please state your full name for the

16 record.

17 A. My name is Fredy Peccerelli.

18 Q. I see that you have brought into the courtroom some materials.

19 Can you please let the Chamber know what you have there in front of you.

20 A. Yes. I have Lazete 1 report, the Lazete 2 report, as well as the

21 site logs for both Lazete 1 and Lazete 2.

22 Q. And if you feel that you need to look into a report or a document

23 before answering a question, please first let the Chamber know that you

24 wish to look at them.

25 MS. MacGREGOR: Can I ask the Court Officer to please show on the

Page 18383

1 screen 65 ter 30443.

2 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honours, this is a new copy of

3 Mr. Peccerelli's CV which we received last night. We've e-mailed it to

4 the Defence. There's currently not a B/C/S translation, although we will

5 get one.

6 Oh. Excuse me, Your Honours, the number is 30433.

7 Q. Mr. Peccerelli, as we wait for that document to load, I'll ask

8 you to just identify what the document is for the Chamber once you see it

9 on your screen.

10 A. Yes. This is my curriculum vitae in its -- in its most recent

11 version.

12 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honours, the Prosecution first seeks to add

13 this document to its 65 ter list and then to tender it into evidence.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Leave is granted.

15 Madam Registrar, the number would be...

16 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30433 receives number P2548,

17 Your Honours.

18 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

19 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you. And we no longer need that document

20 on the screen.

21 Q. Mr. Peccerelli, you have testified before at this Tribunal as an

22 expert about your work conducting excavations on what are known as the

23 Lazete graves; is that correct?

24 A. Yes, that is correct. I have testified three previous times.

25 Q. And were those in the trials of Popovic, Tolimir, and Karadzic?

Page 18384

1 A. Yes, that is correct.

2 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review the statement which the

3 Prosecution is tendering for you today, which is parts of your Tolimir

4 and Karadzic testimony?

5 A. Yes, I have. I have reviewed it.

6 MS. MacGREGOR: Can the Court Officer please show 65 ter 04589;

7 e-court page 24.

8 Q. And while this loads, I'm showing you a page from your Lazete 1

9 report. During your Tolimir testimony, at transcript page 8464, line 10,

10 were you discussing the picture that you now see on the screen in front

11 of you at the bottom on the English version on the bottom.

12 MS. MacGREGOR: And, Court Officer, I'll don't think we'll need

13 the B/C/S version since I'm just focussing on the pictures.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Could we zoom in on the lower of the three pictures.

15 MS. MacGREGOR:

16 Q. If you see that picture, Mr. Peccerelli, you described in your

17 testimony a wire ligature around the person's leg. Is that description

18 correct of what we're looking at?

19 A. No, that is incorrect. This is, in fact, a ligature using a -- a

20 piece of material. There is, however, a wire ligature in one of the

21 previous two photographs, and I must have been mistaken when I mentioned

22 that it was this case.

23 MS. MacGREGOR: And we no longer need the picture on the screen.

24 Q. Including the correction we've just made, is this testimony --

25 was the testimony you gave in Tolimir and Karadzic true to the best of

Page 18385

1 your knowledge, when you gave it?

2 A. Yes. Yes, it was true.

3 Q. And would you give the same answers, in substance, if you were

4 asked the same questions today?

5 A. I believe so.

6 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honour, the Prosecution seeks leave to

7 add the 92 ter statement of this witness to its 65 ter exhibit list, as

8 well as a very brief table of concordance which shows which exhibit

9 numbers in the previous cases correlate with the exhibit numbers in our

10 case, and I can provide those 65 ter numbers when you're ready.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic.

12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No objection, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. MacGregor, you started by saying "seeks leave to

14 add..." and then you said that's a 92 ter statement of this witness.

15 MS. MacGREGOR: My understanding was that the -- when we took the

16 transcript excerpts and had to give them a 65 ter number which wasn't

17 previously on the Prosecution's exhibit list as submitted at the

18 beginning of the case.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Leave is granted.

20 Could you please give then the -- provide the 65 ter numbers.

21 MS. MacGREGOR: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.

22 The Tolimir excerpt has 65 ter 30418.

23 And the excerpt from Mr. Peccerelli's Karadzic testimony has

24 65 ter number 30419.

25 And, finally, the table of concordance is 30420.

Page 18386

1 At this stage, Your Honour, may I please read a summary briefly

2 of Mr. Peccerelli's evidence into the record.

3 JUDGE ORIE: You seek admission of --

4 MS. MacGREGOR: Yes, Your Honour. Sorry. I seek admission of

5 the two excerpts and the table of concordance which were just added to

6 the 65 ter exhibit list.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then since there are no objections, 30418

8 receives number...

9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, document is not in e-court.

10 JUDGE ORIE: The document is not in e-court.

11 MS. MacGREGOR: Can you give me a moment, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

14 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honours -- oh, excuse me.

15 Your Honours, I'm informed by Ms. Stewart that they've been

16 released into e-court.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, for the first one, 30418.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, I still cannot see them. It will

19 take some time but, if you wish, I can assign numbers.

20 JUDGE ORIE: We'll deal with that -- we'll deal with that in a

21 second once all the technicalities are completed.

22 Ms. MacGregor, you asked whether you could read the summary. You

23 may proceed.

24 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you, Your Honours.

25 Mr. Peccerelli is a forensic pathologist. He worked for the ICTY

Page 18387

1 on the excavation and exhumation of mass graves from 1997 through 2000.

2 In 2000, he held the position of deputy senior director of the

3 archaeology team under Professor Richard Wright. He was responsible for

4 finding a grave, recovering its contents, ensuring the chain of custody,

5 and placing human remains recovered from the grave in a refrigerated

6 container to be send to the morgue in Visoko.

7 In 2000, Mr. Peccerelli, headed the team-working on the Lazete 1

8 mass grave. The grave contained 127 bodies and two further bodies were

9 found in an adjacent ditch. Eighty-nine of the bodies had probable

10 blindfolds. It was clear that the bodies had previously been removed

11 from the grave, since in some places the team only found body parts and

12 the soil was different from the rest of the grave.

13 The same year, 2000, Mr. Peccerelli, also supervised the

14 excavation of the part of the Lazete 2 grave which was very nearby. This

15 grave had previously been excavated in 1996 by a team from Physicians

16 for Human Rights, or PHR, led by Dr. Bill Haglund. In addition to the

17 1996 PHR excavation, it was clear that bodies had been previously removed

18 from the Lazete 2 grave in a robbing event, since in someplace, the team

19 only found body parts and there were truncated bodies at the edge of the

20 robbing areas. Mr. Peccerelli's team recovered 16 bodies from the grave

21 as well as body parts and a large number of artefacts mostly comprising

22 shell casings.

23 Mr. Peccerelli completed reports on these excavations for the

24 OTP.

25 Your Honours, if I may put a few questions to the witness.

Page 18388

1 JUDGE ORIE: You may, Ms. MacGregor.

2 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you.

3 Q. Mr. Peccerelli, in the summary I just provided I provided to two

4 reports which the Prosecution is tendering, your report on Lazete 1 and

5 Lazete 2. Did you happen -- have an opportunity to review these two

6 reports before your testimony today?

7 A. Yes, I did.

8 Q. Do you still stand by the analysis and the conclusions of these

9 reports?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. Before you worked for the OTP in 2000, did you have prior

12 experience or training with mass grave excavations?

13 A. Yes. I started working in the exhumation of mass graves in 1995

14 in Guatemala. At that time we were exhuming graves of similar size as a

15 result of the internal armed conflict in Guatemala.

16 Q. And did have any prior experience --

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I interrupt you for a moment. The

18 court reporter is asking to you pause between question and answer and the

19 next question, and to slow down a little bit.

20 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Q. Mr. Peccerelli, I should have asked at the beginning and reminded

22 both of us as we both speak English.

23 Did you have prior experience in Bosnia with mass grave

24 excavations before 2000?

25 A. Yes, I took part in the 1997 exhumations of Brcko, as well as in

Page 18389

1 1998 I participated in the exhumations of several sites related to the

2 Srebrenica case.

3 Q. Specifically relating to Lazete 1 and 2, were you present for the

4 duration of those exhumations?

5 A. Yes, I was present the entire time.

6 Q. And when you drafted these two reports for the Office of the

7 Prosecutor, what sources of your own did you review in order to write the

8 reports?

9 A. I had field notes, digital images, as well as copies of the site

10 logs and of the skeletal sheets that we used to exhume all the bodies,

11 body parts and artefacts.

12 Q. And did you review or use sources from anyone else?

13 A. No, I did not. Well, let me, I guess, clarify that.

14 As part of the team, there was a Ian Hanson, who was a surveyor,

15 so he was doing some of the, I guess, drawings that are shown in both

16 reports at my request.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders into

19 evidence the two reports, Lazete 1, and Lazete 1, completed by

20 Mr. Peccerelli. I can provide those 65 ter numbers.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we first go back to the previous numbers

22 which are now - let me see - 30418.

23 Madam Registrar, receives...

24 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P2549, Your Honours.

25 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

Page 18390

1 Then 65 ter 30419.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P2550, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ORIE: And the last one, 30420.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P2551, Your Honours.

5 MS. MacGREGOR: The 65 ter number for report on Lazete 1 is

6 04589.

7 The 65 ter number for Lazete 2 report is 11044.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.

9 04589, Madam Registrar, receives number...

10 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P2552, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE ORIE: And admitted into evidence.

12 65 ter 11044.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P2553, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted.

15 Please proceed.

16 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you, Mr. President. If the Court Officer

17 can please show Exhibit P2552, e-court page 1.

18 Q. Mr. Peccerelli, while this loads, I've asked them to show the

19 cover of your Lazete 1 report. And this, again, it is sufficient to show

20 just the English version since I'm going to be focussing on the

21 photograph.

22 Mr. Peccerelli, looking at the photo in front of you, can you

23 describe what we're looking at?

24 A. Yes. This is an aerial photograph that was taken by our

25 photographer, Tim Loveless, during a helicopter flight over the Lazete 1

Page 18391

1 site while we were conducting the excavation. You can actually see the

2 site which lies between the road, the main road, and train tracks. The

3 main road would be on the left, if you look at the picture straight

4 ahead, and the train tracks would be on the right. There's also a dirt

5 track that goes from the main road and then underneath the train tracks,

6 that then turns right into another dirt road, and there's a clearing in

7 the right bottom part of the picture. That clearing is where we later

8 began the surface recovery and excavation procedures for the location of

9 Lazete 2.

10 Q. And to be clear, can you identify where the Lazete 1 excavation

11 is happening in this picture?

12 A. Yes. May I use a pointer?

13 Q. I can -- it's actually easier if you can describe for the record.

14 A. Okay. On the main road and where the dirt track turns to the

15 right about dead centre in this picture, there is soil movements that are

16 different in colour from the surrounding area. You can see planted

17 fields all around it, and some tree lines, but within this area where you

18 can see are some vehicles, some light-coloured brown soil, and in the

19 middle of that you see an oval shape hole. That oval shape hole is the

20 Lazete 1 grave and it lies between the road, the main road, just below

21 the dirt track and to the left of the train tracks.

22 MS. MacGREGOR: Can the Court Officer please turn to page 12 in

23 this same document, e-court page 12, and zoom in on the picture at the

24 top of that page.

25 Q. Mr. Peccerelli, according to your report, these are also aerial

Page 18392

1 images of the same area. Can you orient us in this picture using a

2 reference to the railroad and where it is located in this picture so we

3 are oriented similarly to how you oriented us in the last picture?

4 A. Yes, of course. Well, this is actually two different images of

5 the same field, and the difference between the previous and this one is

6 that they're both -- they're both turned slightly to the right. The

7 train track would be the white line that cuts across slightly off centre

8 in the right bottom part. It's very clear. It's very straight. One

9 image has the date of 5th of July, 1995, and the other image has a date

10 of the 27th of July, 1995. Where the 5th of July label stands is

11 where -- right underneath the 1995 is where we found the location of

12 Lazete 1 grave, and in the lower right quadrant just off a small dirt

13 track that runs parallel and to the right of the train tracks is where we

14 found the Lazete 2 grave.

15 On the picture on the left, you don't see any disturbance. This

16 picture was shown to me by ICTY investigators, and they also gave me the

17 picture on the right, the image on the right, which shows an oval-shaped

18 lighter colour pointed to as Lazete 1. This was a disturbance that

19 occurred between the 5th of July and the 27th of July. And there's also

20 another disturbance just below to the right of the train tracks, a much

21 larger disturbance. What these are, actually soil movements. That's why

22 they show a different colour in the imagery, and this is also pointed

23 as -- that is pointed as Lazete 2 [Realtime transcript read in error "1"]

24 grave.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 18393

1 MS. MacGREGOR: Can the Court Officer please turn to e-court

2 page 14 of this same document and, again, it's the photograph that I want

3 to look at so it can be just the English version. If you can zoom in

4 actually on the second photograph rather than the top, it is actually a

5 little clearer.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would kindly ask for one clarification.

7 The last sentence of your answer, Mr. Peccerelli, is recorded as,

8 "This also pointed as Lazete 1 grave." If I'm not mistaken you said

9 "Lazete 2 grave."

10 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour. I did say Lazete 2.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

12 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. According to your report, this picture on your screen now,

14 Mr. Peccerelli, is 127 bodies found when you dug into the Lazete 1 grave.

15 Now, why are the bodies left in place rather than removed as each

16 body is discovered?

17 A. We used instances that we -- as we exhume, we remove layer by

18 layer in reverse order of deposit. In other words, what you are seeing

19 here are the last bodies to be put in this grave. And the first bodies

20 to be put in this grave would be in the bottom. What we do is uncover

21 the entire grave so we can understand the layout and so that we can make

22 assessments as far as when or if these bodies were deposited in a single

23 event. Are there cuts into the grave that would allow us to make

24 determinations of why the bodies are in such an odd formation, as well as

25 understanding the entire layout of the grave.

Page 18394

1 Q. To be clear for the record, I think what you said was

2 stratographic methodology; is that correct?

3 A. Stratographic, yes.

4 Q. Thank you. Sir -- sir, sorry, I'm getting very bad feedback in

5 my mike -- in my earphones. I'll just stay it like this.

6 Is there any effect to the decomposition of the bodies to leave

7 them exposed as they are in this picture, to the air?

8 A. Yes. Because these bodies have been buried for several years,

9 once the grave is open, decomposition will accelerate. There was a

10 mixture of decomposition. There was skeletonisation and saponification,

11 both on this grave. So what happens, for example, is the saponified

12 tissue or adipocere will begin to dry and become brittle on the bodies

13 exposed to the sunlight, but all it does is attract or creates a foul

14 odour and attracts some insects. This will not, however, have a

15 long-term effect on the -- on the skeletal remains and the exposure was

16 limited to several days, not to several weeks or months.

17 Q. [Microphone not activated]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone, please.

19 MS. MacGREGOR:

20 Q. You've used the word saponification. If you can just in lay

21 terms explain what that means, please.

22 A. Well, saponification is a decomposition stage whereas the

23 traditional way a body decomposes would be through putrefaction. In

24 other words, the tissues become liquified through insect activity and

25 other factors. In adipocere formation or saponification, what you have

Page 18395

1 is the tissues turning into fat. In other words, the fat becomes this

2 white-ish lardy [Realtime transcript read in error "hardy"] substance,

3 sometimes -- I mean, if you look up the word saponification it literally

4 means to turn into soap, so it's termed sort of as grave grease in lay

5 terms. But it a stage that usually is accompanied by very humid

6 environments and we see it here on some of the bodies, and some of the

7 bodies, at least the bodies on the outer edges, are more skeletonised and

8 less susceptible to this type of decomposition which we found to be

9 normal in many of the graves in this region.

10 Q. [Microphone not activated] -- you used a word at line 18. It's

11 captured in the transcript as "hardy." I think what you said was

12 "lardy," as in like lard; is that correct?

13 A. That is what I meant. I meant lardy, lard. I don't know if

14 lardy is a word but lard in the idea of a waxy, wax substance.

15 Q. Thank you. My final question is also related to the different

16 types of decomposition, and it relates -- if the Court Officer can

17 actually bring up the Lazete 2 report which has exhibit number 30 --

18 excuse me, P2550. Excuse me --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Lazete 2 report is P2553.

20 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you. Yes. E-court page 19. And, again,

21 we're just looking at the picture in the -- in this page.

22 Q. As this loads, Mr. Peccerelli, according to your report, you

23 state that it's probable that the bodies shown in this picture were

24 truncated during a grave robbing and you've talked about different types

25 and forms and methods of decomposition. Why is it that you conclude that

Page 18396

1 this body has been truncated by some activity rather than that this same

2 body may have been exposed to different types or rates of decomposition?

3 A. Okay. One of the main facts that we used to determine that these

4 bodies were at the edges of the robbing was the fact that they were

5 truncated. In other words, the bodies were separated from the rest of

6 the body. These body parts, let's say. They were cut via very abrupt

7 forces that ripped the rest of the body from this portion of the body.

8 The bodies are skeletonised here. But, once again, I must refer

9 to the fact that each body decomposes differently even within a grave.

10 However, these bodies were at the edge of the robbing and we must

11 remember that one of the factors that influences decomposition is depth

12 or the availability of the body to aerobic bacteria. So being close to

13 these edges of the robbing area could have exposed these bodies to a

14 faster decomposition.

15 However, that is not the point in these images. More the point

16 is to understand that this grave was altered and that bodies that lay

17 there -- initially parts of bodies that lay there initially and probably

18 bodies that lay there as well, were removed and taken elsewhere.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honours, I have no further questions for the

21 witness.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. MacGregor.

23 Mr. Stojanovic, are you ready --

24 Mr. Peccerelli, you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Stojanovic

25 is counsel for Mr. Mladic.

Page 18397

1 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

2 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir.

3 A. Good morning, sir.

4 Q. Reading your biography I found there that as early as 1995 you

5 were involved in the activities of the Foundation of Forensic

6 Anthropology in Guatemala and that at the same time, you established the

7 first forensic genetics laboratory in Guatemala; is that correct?

8 A. Yes, I was involved as early as 1995, but the forensic genetics

9 laboratory was not established till November of 2008.

10 Q. Would it be correct to say that your professional training and

11 work experience includes both branches of forensic -- forensic science,

12 anthropological and genetic?

13 A. My studies are in forensic anthropology and in practicing

14 forensic anthropology in Guatemala I noticed a great deficiency in having

15 the availability of technology used for human identification. That is

16 why I began in the year 2000 to write proposals to bring this type of

17 technology to Guatemala, and, in doing so, I have had some training as I

18 state also in my CV, but I do not consider myself an expert in genetics.

19 I -- as executive director, I do hired experts in genetics. However, I

20 do oversee all identifications at the FAFG. Since we do not consider

21 identifications to be only based on one aspect, they are

22 multi-disciplinary identifications where we must check not only the

23 result from the investigations of victims and their families but also the

24 archaeology, the anthropology and the genetics to understand an entire

25 case.

Page 18398

1 Q. The laboratory you spoke about in Guatemala was it accredited,

2 and, if so, by whom?

3 A. Yes. The Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology DNA Laboratory is

4 accredited under international standards, organisation rule 170252005.

5 It is accredited by the office, the Guatemalan Office of Accreditation,

6 which belongs to the Ministry of Economics in Guatemala. But what it

7 does is it -- it audits the FAFG to make sure that all of -- is

8 administrative as well as scientific procedures are mapped up to the

9 standard of this rule.

10 Q. Did you have an opportunity to acquaint yourself with the

11 experiences and the work of the ICMP which is a similar laboratory in

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

13 A. Our laboratory or the installation of our laboratory in Guatemala

14 led us to look at other experiences. One of them was the identification

15 of the victims of the World Trade Centre in New York and the other was

16 the experience of the ICMP in the Balkans. One of the things that I did

17 was I hired Mr. John Cruise [phoen] who had worked for ICMP during

18 implementation stage of its laboratories in Bosnia and later went on to

19 work to -- for the Bode Technology Group, a laboratory in Virginia in the

20 United States that worked on the identifications of the victims of the

21 World Trade Centre. So what I was looking for was the experience of

22 establishing a laboratory as well as having technical experience in

23 extracting DNA from bone, and Mr. John Cruise had this experience by

24 working both in Bosnia and in the World Trade Centre case.

25 Q. Is the laboratory in Guatemala you spoke about registered as a

Page 18399

1 state-owned or public organisation or as a non-profit organisation?

2 A. The laboratory is registered under the

3 Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation which is a non-governmental

4 organisation.

5 Q. And the ICMP in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is it also registered as

6 an NGO to the extent of your knowledge and taking into consideration the

7 level of your co-operation?

8 A. To my knowledge, I don't know how ICMP is registered within

9 Bosnia. I have participated in several meetings with some ICMP members,

10 and I understand that it was formed by several states and it has an

11 international organisation standing, from what I believe.

12 Q. Thank you. Let me now move onto another topic, namely, the

13 procedures and protocols in your work.

14 Having been hired to work in Bosnia by the OTP of the ICTY, did

15 you acquaint yourself with the procedures to obey while exhuming and

16 excavating grave-sites?

17 A. Although I worked for ICMP -- I mean, I'm sorry, ICTY, my

18 understanding was in 2000, at least, that I had technical control of the

19 investigation, and in no time did anyone at ICTY or the OTP interfere

20 with the technical control. I was instructed, however, where I should

21 work but not how I should work.

22 Q. Would it be correct to say that upon arriving at the Lazete

23 grave-site you had previously prepared procedures you were supposed to

24 comply with while working on those two grave-sites?

25 A. I was part of the initial ICTY exhumation team in 1997, when

Page 18400

1 Professor Richard Wright first took over the role of senior forensic

2 archaeologist for ICTY. Together, he and the rest of the team, we came

3 to a consensus of the procedures that we should be using to exhume these

4 graves. These are the procedures that were used in all of the

5 excavations and they were altered or changed, according to the necessity

6 of each one of these investigations. But, in theory, they remained

7 pretty much the same, whereby we had a clear idea of how things should be

8 done on the site. And I also had a clear idea in 2000 that, if

9 necessary, I could change some of that methodology according to the

10 necessity of the site.

11 Q. Could we now get from e-court P2553, page 7 in both languages.

12 Please focus on chapter 5, the first paragraph of that chapter,

13 where you say that Richard Wright wrote a guide-line for the excavation

14 of bodies, body parts and artefactual evidence during ICTY exhumations.

15 Then you say:

16 "I briefly revised and adopted these general exhumation

17 procedure... for the excavation and exhumation of LZ02C. A copy of these

18 procedures was given to each of the archaeologists and anthropologists

19 prior to the excavation and exhumation."

20 My first question is in what your revision of these procedures

21 consists?

22 A. I don't recall if we changed any procedures. I mean, revised can

23 also mean to check, to look over, and if the initial procedures were

24 sufficient, then we didn't change anything. I would have to look at each

25 one of these and the original to try to determine if we changed anything.

Page 18401

1 Lazete 2 was a very complex exhumation, and one of the things

2 that we changed, as far as the methodology went, is that we started this

3 site while Lazete 1 was still going on. So what I would do is I would go

4 back and forth. We did not assign a person to be at the grave-site till

5 we were finished with Lazete 1. However, we did have an archaeologist on

6 site the entire time as we were also recording the surface finds. I am

7 guessing it was along those lines but I would have to review it very

8 carefully and line by line against the original sites, again, like I

9 said. And it's stated there these initial procedures were written in

10 1997 and they were found to be very useful and methodologically adequate,

11 and there was an evolution of these throughout the years but I can't

12 think of anything off the top of my head.

13 Q. Let me then phrase my question differently.

14 When you read your report by which you stand, would you say that

15 this revision and adoption only applied to Lazete 1 rather than Lazete 1.

16 Do you remember that?

17 A. No. When I read my report, it's -- the report is saying what we

18 used, not what it was changed from. What it was changed from in either

19 case it was not recorded. More than that, what was recorded is what we

20 used in each specific case. From my recollection, I don't think there

21 was much variation between Lazete 1 and Lazete 2 methodology.

22 Q. Thank you. Let me now ask you the following. According to you,

23 is Professor Snow a person of undisputed authority in your line of work?

24 A. Professor Clyde Snow is the single individual that we attribute

25 the application of forensic anthropology techniques to the investigation

Page 18402

1 of mass human rights abuses. He started in 1984 in Argentina, then later

2 in 1987 in Chile, and then later in 1991 and 1992 in Guatemala.

3 Dr. Clyde Snow happens to be my mentor and we have a very close

4 relationship as he is one of the advisors, permanent advisors of the

5 FAFG, so I do hold him in very high standing.

6 Q. Did you have the opportunity to acquaint yourself with the fact

7 that he, as a high authority in your line of work, was also involved in

8 exhumations in former Yugoslavia, or more specifically

9 Bosnia and Herzegovina at one point?

10 A. I know of Clyde's -- or Dr. Snow's involvement in the Balkans in

11 a site -- I'm trying to remember the name. In a site in Croatia, if I'm

12 not mistaken, by a hospital. I don't know of any sites that he worked in

13 Bosnia. I might be mistaken. Vukovar. There you go. Vukovar was the

14 name of the site that I know that he worked and that he mentioned to me.

15 But that's the only case that he's ever mentioned to me in the region.

16 Q. You have already been asked in early trials about the San Antonio

17 report which is a summary of a scientific conference from November 1997.

18 Let me ask you if you inquired into the results or conclusions of

19 that conference concerning the methodology and protocols used in the work

20 in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

21 A. I was asked about this San Antonio report previously, and as I

22 answered previously, I have never seen it or know exactly what it

23 pertains to. I've never read it. So I really don't know what it -- what

24 it specifies.

25 Q. Would you be so kind then to take a look at some of the excerpts

Page 18403

1 and I would like to hear your opinion regarding the procedures that you

2 applied as the basis in your work in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] But, Your Honour, before we move

4 on to this specific subject, maybe we should take a break.

5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take that break.

6 But could we first ask the witness to be escorted out of the

7 courtroom.

8 We take a break of 20 minutes, Mr. Peccerelli.

9 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.

10 [The witness stands down]

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I gained the impression that we're

12 now slowly moving to an issue after 20 minutes. Whereas, I have -- I

13 would be surprised if some of the matters you raised are really in

14 dispute. For example, ESO accreditation. All that. I mean, did we

15 really need all that in order to now come close to apparently what seems

16 to be the first issue with which the Chamber is familiar already,

17 because we have looked extensively to that report.

18 Could you please be focussed and come to your point not after

19 20 minutes but immediately.

20 We take a break, and we resume at ten minutes to 11.00.

21 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

22 --- On resuming at 11.15 a.m.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Stojanovic, could you inform

24 the Chamber about the Defence position in relation to the reconsideration

25 of the decision on P1060?

Page 18404

1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my colleague,

2 Mr. Ivetic, will give you an answer in a minute.

3 MR. IVETIC: Good morning, Your Honours, in relation to P1060 and

4 the Prosecution motion for reconsideration, lead counsel, Mr. Lukic, has

5 asked that we convey the Defence position that we oppose the motion for

6 reconsideration in full and stand by our original objection.

7 Thank you.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ORIE: I immediately give the decision of the Chamber.

10 The Chamber hereby reconsiders the oral decision on admission of

11 P1060 with regard to the entries related to the underlying documents

12 indicated by the Prosecution in the informal communication dated the

13 25th of October.

14 These entries are 3 through 8; 13; 15; 17; and 19 through 21. As

15 stated in the Chamber's decision on the 23rd of October, the relevance

16 and probative value are dependant on whether the underlying documents are

17 in evidence.

18 Therefore, the Chamber defers its decision on admission of the

19 entries of the comment chart until the decision of admission of the

20 underlying documents has been taken. The seven-day deadline granted on

21 the 25th of October to the Prosecution for the military justice bar table

22 reply is running as of today, the 28th of October.

23 Then could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

24 [The witness takes the stand]

25 JUDGE ORIE: I meanwhile put on the record that our late start

Page 18405

1 was due to technical problems with the transcribing system.

2 Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have document D371 in

4 e-court. Under 65 ter, it's marked 1D01289, and we need page 4 of this

5 document. But before that, can we take a look at page number 1 so that

6 we can see what this is about.

7 Q. This is a letter, and you can see it for yourself,

8 Mr. Peccerelli, written by Dr. Moore to the Defence team of one of the

9 accused in the Srebrenica case, which pertains to the excavations in the

10 Lazete 2 that your report deals with.

11 Now can we take a look together at the last paragraph on page 2

12 and part of page 3 of this report. So, first, let's look at this

13 paragraph which has been marked.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first hear what Ms. MacGregor would like to

15 submit.

16 MS. MacGREGOR: Thank you, Mr. President.

17 Mr. Stojanovic characterises this as being -- line 18, it

18 "pertains to the excavations in Lazete 2 that your report deals with."

19 As I understand the document the Defence is using -- it relates

20 to the excavations done at Lazete 2 in 1996. So just to be clear that

21 what time-frame we're talking about that this document relates to,

22 especially as the witness has already stated he knows very little about

23 what happened in 1996 at that excavation.

24 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you agree that it's about the 1996

25 exhumations? Or excavations.

Page 18406

1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honours.

2 That is correct, Your Honours. We are talking about 1996 exhumations,

3 which are described in this letter, but it relates to this specific area,

4 Lazete 2. Among other things, Dr. Moore says the following: That his

5 impression was that digging out of human remains went very fast, even too

6 fast because in some particular cases, all parts of the skeleton, for

7 example, hands and feet that belonged the same person, were not put in

8 the same bag due to the overcrowding of the grave and other bodies were

9 in the way of accessing other bodies, or other parts of the bodies were

10 not found due to disintegration. This could be the reason why these

11 limbs had not been found. And he says:

12 "I agree with Dr. Snow that only 20 bodies should be removed

13 during a day."

14 Q. First of all, in the procedures that you adopted from

15 Professor Richard Wright, was the dynamic or the pace of your work laid

16 down and the methodology to be applied in your work?

17 A. The methodology obviously was laid out, to a certain degree, but

18 once you get into a grave, mass graves of this type tend to be

19 complicated, and the bodies tend to overlap and intertwine. It is very

20 difficult, and there is very little written about how to do it.

21 However, we concentrate on maintaining the integrity of the body

22 and in maximum recovery of the body.

23 As far as the pace, I don't recall there being a specific part in

24 the methodology that limits whether a low number or a high number of

25 bodies per day. However, I do tend to agree with Dr. Clyde Snow, maybe

Page 18407

1 not with the specific figure, but the fact that a manageable number for

2 the team should be respected. To be able to recover each body and

3 document each body properly is important during this -- the recovery

4 process, and sometimes there have to be decisions made as far as why you

5 would alter that. In other words, there have been times when I have

6 heard in other instances where an exhumation team has recovered many

7 bodies. This was in a well, and the walls were caving in, so they took

8 many of the bodies out in a hurry, understanding that that would

9 co-mingle the bodies; in other words, would not be easily identifiable.

10 But, nonetheless there are instances where it is difficult or impossible

11 to follow the proper methodology and logic behind it. Although, they

12 should again -- maximum recovery of the evidence and the bodies is of the

13 utmost concern.

14 Q. Professor, can we be as brief as possible, and I'll be consistent

15 and short as possible.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have

17 65 ter 2008 [as interpreted]. It concerns the San Antonio conference

18 that we mentioned before the break. If we can have page 4, paragraph 5

19 of this report, and as I understand it, Professor Snow participated in

20 this conference. Among other things, it says -- so page 4, item 5.

21 That's paragraph of chapter 6, paragraph 5. It's the last one on the

22 page, where Dr. Snow whilst commenting on the work of forensic experts on

23 the ground says that, according to him, it was, quote/unquote, sloppy

24 science.

25 Would you agree that the work that had been done prior to your

Page 18408

1 arrival could be described in this manner as Professor Snow put it, that

2 is to say, as sloppy science.

3 JUDGE ORIE: We find on the record that it is 65 ter number

4 "2008," but it must be a mistake -- oh, it's 20008.

5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honours.

6 I believe that it should be 10 -- 120008.

7 Q. So my question, Professor, is: Would you agree with this opinion

8 of Professor Snow?

9 A. My interpretation of what was done at the site was that the

10 methodology that we used in 2000 was very different than whatever was

11 used in 1996. And this -- this is because of initially the surface

12 finds, the lack of determination of one grave, the lack of determination

13 of the size of the grave, as well as of the robbing incidents. However,

14 I was not there, and I don't know the reason for this deviation from the

15 standard methodology, and I would have to agree that when one reviews the

16 result, it -- it does not appear to be consistent with proper

17 methodology.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you explain this. You say if you review the

19 results. Where did you find the methodology not to be proper? What

20 impropriety did you find?

21 THE WITNESS: Well, initially when we got there the first thing

22 that we noticed is that a surface search had not been conducted and we

23 were able to recover several hundred, if I'm not mistaken, 671 bullet

24 casings among other ballistic evidence that were all lying on the surface

25 of the field, not directly over the grave but on the field, and this is

Page 18409

1 very standard. You initially -- before you begin to excavate into the

2 ground, you're supposed to look on what's laying on the surface and how

3 that relates to -- to -- to the grave itself. And I mean, I can

4 continue, but among the other things is that the decision from what we

5 found was to trench, which is a methodology used all over the world.

6 However, the lack of determination of one larger grave shows a -- either

7 a time constraint, personnel constraint, or lack of methodology to be

8 able to follow the grave outline to understand the extent of the entire

9 grave.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. This flawed methodology that was dubbed by Professor Snow as

13 sloppy science, does this allow a possibility for speculation that, for

14 example, the cartridges that were discovered in situ in Lazete 2 that you

15 spoke about, may not perhaps have been there in 1996 but due to whatever

16 reason remained there or were used in the period between 1996 and 2000,

17 which is the year when you came to the site?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I intervene here for a moment. In order to

19 avoid sloppy fact-finding, the witness told us that because he found

20 cartridges, surface examination, that it's either lack of time, lack of

21 staff, or improper methodology.

22 Now, your next question starts from a totally different point of

23 view, although you started by saying, This flawed methodology.

24 Now, if there were no cartridges in 1996, I think the witness

25 would agree with us, that the fact that those cartridges were found later

Page 18410

1 does not indicate flawed methodology because there was just nothing to

2 recover at the time.

3 So, therefore, linking the flawed methodology to putting the

4 cartridges there later, are two totally different scenarios, and you are

5 mixing them up in this one question.

6 Would you please refrain from doing that and put your questions

7 to the witness in such a way that such confusion will not appear.

8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Professor, I'm going to divide my question.

10 Can you tell us, do you know or were you able to establish the

11 time since those cartridges were in the area of Lazete?

12 A. In both cases, in Lazete 1 and Lazete 2, what we can say is that

13 the cartridges were lying for an undetermined amount of time but enough

14 time to be covered by secondary vegetation as well as about half a

15 centimetre of soil. There is no specific, exact time-frame for that.

16 However, it is prior to the time that we were there.

17 Q. And my next question is: On the basis of what you did in 2000,

18 you're not able now to say whether those cartridges were there back in

19 1996 at all when the first works were being done on this grave.

20 A. I cannot make that estimation because the excavation did not

21 contemplate the area where the cartridges were found. In other words,

22 the 1996 excavations focussed very specifically on two areas of the grave

23 which were -- I -- I need to see the map, but they were a distance away

24 from where the majority of the -- of the bullet casings were found, or

25 the ballistic evidence was found. However, I do have to say that it is

Page 18411

1 difficult to make these determinations without taking the entire case

2 into consideration. Each one of these cases, if you do ballistic

3 analysis on them, can be traced to specific weapons, and there is also

4 the same type of scenario in Lazete 1 as there is in Lazete 2. Lazete 1

5 had not been previously excavated by any other excavation team.

6 So I think if we look at the entire scenario, we can probably

7 make a better determination of that.

8 JUDGE ORIE: The one related question. You earlier said it was

9 bad methodology not to look to a surface because you found many

10 cartridges there. If they had not been there in 1996 it would not be an

11 indicator for bad methodology, therefore. Would you agree?

12 THE WITNESS: Yes --

13 JUDGE ORIE: So your judgement was a bit quick.

14 THE WITNESS: My judgement is based on Lazete 1. When we looked

15 on the surface of Lazete 1, we found the cartridges cases. When we

16 looked in Lazete 2, logic told us that these both were linked by many

17 things, not just by the bullet casings, also by the scalloped pieces of

18 material. And, again, this can be also looked at from afar by looking at

19 the identification of the bodies and the specific time when these people

20 were reported as missing individuals, so I think focussing on such a very

21 specific area of it can lead us to make erroneous conclusions.

22 JUDGE ORIE: But for Lazete 1, could you determine whether those

23 cartridges had been there in 1996?

24 THE WITNESS: No, we could not determine a specific --

25 JUDGE ORIE: No, then you --

Page 18412

1 THE WITNESS: -- period. We could determine they were there

2 prior to our excavation, sometime. No specific time.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So your judgement that it was flawed

4 methodology for Lazete 1 was a quick and not fully founded judgement I --

5 as well.

6 THE WITNESS: Lazete 1 was not previously excavated so there was

7 no flawed methodology because there was nothing conducted on the site

8 before.

9 What I said was the possibility of there being this type of --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But let me stop you there.

11 Whatever happened before, merely on the basis of the fact that

12 you found a lot of cartridges whether it would be Lazete 1 or Lazete 2,

13 not knowing whether they had been there in 1996 does not allow for a

14 judgement on flawed methodology on that basis.

15 Would you agree?

16 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I'm not making it only on that basis. I

17 also mention time constraints, personnel constraints and also the way the

18 grave was dug. I'm just using that as an example.

19 JUDGE ORIE: If there were no cartridge there in 1996, time

20 restraint cannot explain why they were overlooked. Personnel restraints

21 could not explain why they were overlooked. Therefore, I'm -- there is

22 nothing wrong in just saying that the basis, the conclusions you drew

23 there, are solely drawn on the basis of an assumption that the cartridges

24 would have been there in 1996.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes. The assumption is that the cartridges were

Page 18413

1 there since July 1995. You are right.

2 JUDGE ORIE: And that was at the basis of your conclusion.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. In this same document, let us take a look at page 10, item

7 number 9, chapter entitled: Discussion and conclusions. I'm sorry, I

8 think we need page 11 in English. That's the next page.

9 There, the experts concerned, in line with the debates, says in

10 assessment of the work done so far that there was too much subjectivity

11 and lack of unbiased exhumations and post-mortem analysis. Does this

12 conclusion stem from the fact that you mentioned earlier, and is that the

13 ground on which you agreed with what Professor Snow said about the

14 scientific methodology?

15 A. I'll sorry, but I would have to read these one by one. And, once

16 again, I had never seen this report before. My appreciation of the work

17 done prior to our investigations is very specific to our appreciations.

18 It is very difficult to make a determination on methodology used

19 somewhere when I wasn't there in 1996 or -- if you'd like, you can read

20 these. But obviously I didn't use any of these - I've never read them

21 before - to make my conclusion.

22 Q. Thank you, Professor, for your effort.

23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to

24 tender document, which is the San Antonio report, which is 65 ter 20008.

25 I'd like to have this admitted into evidence, and then I will proceed

Page 18414

1 with my questions.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. MacGregor.

3 MS. MacGREGOR: I'm not sure there's been a clear foundation for

4 the document laid. As this particular witness has stated over and over

5 again, he's never seen this report before. He's not familiar with much

6 of the process of writing it.

7 So we'd object.

8 JUDGE ORIE: And as a bar table document, would you object as

9 well?

10 MS. MacGREGOR: No.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Would you tender it as a bar table document,

12 Mr. Stojanovic? If you'd like to have it in evidence, that might be a

13 solution.

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have no problem

15 with that. Technically speaking, that is an approach to take. Given the

16 fact that the OTP is not opposed, we can tender it this way.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I must say that I have a recollection

18 that we have looked at it before. I do not -- my recollection doesn't

19 tell me why it was not tendered or admitted at that point in time.

20 MS. MacGREGOR: [Microphone not activated]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, we'd like to -- or if any of the parties

22 could assist me.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.

25 This document has been used before.

Page 18415

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE ORIE: It -- it -- could the parties assist me in -- in --

3 since I have a vivid recollection of this document, now find it, however,

4 not to be tendered or at least not to be admitted, what the reason for

5 that was before we decide now otherwise.

6 One second, please.

7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

8 JUDGE ORIE: The document will meanwhile be marked for

9 identification so as to find what exactly was said about it when

10 Witness Haglund testified.

11 Yes, Ms. MacGregor.

12 MS. MacGREGOR: I think you just echoed what I am about to say

13 which is we are trying to zone in -- write in when it was tendered but

14 that our [Overlapping speakers] ...

15 JUDGE ORIE: Twenty-four, 25th of July, if I --

16 MS. MacGREGOR: Yeah. Was through Witness Haglund. And also the

17 document that we were looking at just before this it looks like was

18 already entered into evidence. So I think that also may be the

19 familiarity.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have -- let's analyse -- let's try to find out

21 what happened when we earlier looked at this document and have the

22 document, meanwhile, be marked for identification.

23 Madam Registrar, the number would be...

24 THE REGISTRAR: Document 20008 receives number D391,

25 Your Honours.

Page 18416

1 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.

2 Please proceed.

3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 Q. Professor, the casings that were found, do you know if they were

5 ever analysed ballistically, as you have been saying?

6 A. I do not have that information. I don't know.

7 Q. And I will finish with these casings by asking if you were able

8 to see the year of manufacture embossed on the casings.

9 A. Our -- our job was to document the evidence. There might be

10 pictures. However, we did not analyse the evidence, and so -- however, I

11 don't -- that's -- that's why it's not in the report because we did not

12 analyse this evidence.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have just been

15 informed by my colleagues that the San Antonio report is an exhibit in

16 this trial and has the -- bears the number D329. Therefore, I apologise

17 for my motion to tender it.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Indeed, that seems to be the same document.

19 It's a bit alarming if you prepare for cross-examination, Mr. Stojanovic,

20 that the Chamber has a better recollection of the evidence presented by

21 the Defence than the Defence itself has. But please proceed, meanwhile.

22 The last number assigned, which was D391, is vacated.

23 Please proceed.

24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Professor, why did I ask you all those questions about

Page 18417

1 methodology? When you came to the field and were introduced to the area

2 of Lazete 1 and 2, were you able to observe the exact localities where

3 the PHR excavated the grave-sites in 1996?

4 A. If I may, when I got to Lazete 1, there was no intent of going

5 into Lazete 2, so we did not -- we were not instructed or were not shown

6 the site, at all. It wasn't until later, if I remember correctly,

7 August the 2nd, which was almost towards the end of the investigation of

8 Lazete 1, did I receive a phone call asking me to please go look at the

9 area on the other side of the train tracks, which was named Lazete 2.

10 On initial inspection, we could not see the areas that PHR had

11 exhumed. However, after scraping the surface, off the -- over the

12 ground, over the grave, we were able to see that the grave was expanded

13 very specifically in two areas. These two areas are called Lazete 2A and

14 B in my report. And our excavation is referred to as Lazete 2C, if I'm

15 not mistaken.

16 Q. How much time elapsed from the moment you started working or

17 possibly finished working on Lazete 1 to the moment you started working

18 on Lazete 2C?

19 A. We started working on Lazete 1 on July 13th. So you just have to

20 calculate something like three weeks before we started working on

21 Lazete 2C. And there was an overlap of six days.

22 Q. To make things perfectly clear, let me ask you if Lazete 2A and

23 Lazete 2B are physically separate graves that were excavated by the -- by

24 the previous investigative team in 1996?

25 A. After conducting the investigation there, my conclusion is that

Page 18418

1 graves -- as they were called, 2A and 2B - were not separate graves but

2 were body concentrations inside of a larger grave, which we called

3 Lazete 2C.

4 Q. Was the Lazete 2C grave excavated in 1996?

5 A. Not completely. Two parts of Lazete 2C were excavated only, not

6 the entire grave.

7 Q. Do you know which technique was used to fill the graves after

8 those first works back in 1996?

9 A. From the look of it, they were filled in with machinery because

10 of the type of soil and the way the soil was arranged. But we couldn't

11 really tell much more than that.

12 Q. Let us together look at document P2523 [as interpreted], pages --

13 page 3 in both languages. It's a summary of your report for Lazete 2.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say 2523, Mr. Stojanovic?

15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 2553. Page 3.

16 Q. Please, Professor, focus on spots (h) and (i), or, rather,

17 items (h) and (i) where you say concerning the situation that the PHR

18 team exhumed two clusters of bodies within a large grave but they did not

19 excavate the entire grave.

20 Here's my question: Do you know, or were you told when you began

21 to work on Lazete 2, that there were bodies there that had been uncovered

22 and then buried again by the previous investigative team in 1996?

23 A. On the initial phone call, I was told that there was a team

24 member from 1996 that had reported that there was some bodies left

25 behind. But that's -- that's about it.

Page 18419

1 Q. Do you remember if there was any mention of the time during which

2 those bodies were uncovered - that is, exposed to weather - in 1996?

3 A. I -- I don't recall when that exhumation occurred, I'm sorry.

4 Q. Were you told at any point or possibly I misunderstood when that

5 exhumation was done. In your item (f), you state that:

6 "In 1996, the PHR exhumation team conducted an investigation at

7 this site..."

8 A. Yes, I -- I obviously put in it was 1996. But you asked whether

9 I knew when in 1996, and I don't know when in 1996. I know it was during

10 1996 at some point.

11 Q. My question was whether, at any point before you began to

12 excavate Lazete 2 you had information about the duration of time during

13 which the bodies were exposed to the elements; that is, uncovered.

14 A. Since there was three previous interventions on this grave, you

15 need to clarify when you're talking about. Because there was the initial

16 excavation of the grave; there was a later -- what we call robbing of the

17 grave; and then there was a later excavation by the PHR team. I'm not

18 sure if you're referring to any of those two previous ones or if you're

19 only referring to the PHR team. I'm sorry.

20 Q. Professor, that is exactly what I mean, the excavation conducted

21 by the PHR in 1996.

22 JUDGE ORIE: But could I then -- Mr. Stojanovic, just to

23 understand everything, are you referring to the bodies that were left

24 behind, how long they had been exposed to the -- to the elements? Is

25 that what you're asking?

Page 18420

1 Let's then first clarify what the witness told us.

2 You said that you heard from one member of the 1996 team that

3 some bodies were left behind. Did -- was this ever corroborated by other

4 reports or other persons, or was that your one and only source?

5 THE WITNESS: It was my one and own source but it was a secondary

6 source. I never spoke to this team member. I was only told this by

7 investigators.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Second-hand hearsay, therefore.

9 THE WITNESS: There you go, yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Now, did that information that bodies were left

11 behind include anything as to whether these bodies were ever been brought

12 to the surface and exposed to the elements or whether they were -- it was

13 a message that not all the bodies that, most likely, there were more

14 bodies still to be exhumed there? Was there any such information part of

15 that second-hand hearsay evidence?

16 THE WITNESS: From my understanding, what I gathered, was that

17 the investigators had knowledge that there was more bodies in the grave

18 and therefore that's the reason why they wanted to go and get the rest of

19 the bodies.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But whether they had already been exposed to

21 the elements, was that part of that information that they were or were

22 not?

23 THE WITNESS: No, it was not. Although, if you understand what

24 this secondary information when a team members says that they saw another

25 body, probably means, from what I understand, in one of the walls of the

Page 18421

1 grave, and part of it probably was exposed. But, again, this is -- I

2 wasn't there. It's very difficult to understand what this person saw

3 from my point of view. I went in there to recover the rest of the

4 bodies.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

6 Mr. Stojanovic, I'm asking these questions because you -- your

7 questions started on the assumption that the bodies which were left

8 behind were exposed to the elements, which was not yet established. And

9 I -- from the latest answer of the witness, it's even likely that he'll

10 not be able to answer such questions, not even through hearsay.

11 But please proceed.

12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for your help,

13 Your Honours. This is what I had supposed.

14 Q. But please tell me once more whether at any point you had

15 indirect information about the number of bodies that had remained in

16 Lazete 2 after the end of the work of the PHR team in 1996.

17 A. We did not have any prior knowledge to the amount of bodies that

18 could have been left behind.

19 Q. Professor, taking into consideration your experience and your

20 work on this site - I'm referring to Lazete 2 - can you tell us how many

21 times this grave, after the initial excavation and the burial of the

22 bodies therein, was opened and filled in again?

23 A. The grave was opened twice after the initial excavation of the

24 grave, prior to our excavation.

25 Q. Thank you. Please tell me whether, in your opinion, the bodies

Page 18422

1 there were the result of primary burial, or is it something else? I'm

2 referring to the 16 bodies found at Lazete 2.

3 A. The 16 bodies we found were -- well, comprised a primary mass

4 grave. The result: They were there because they were very close to the

5 walls, and during a robbing excavation of those areas, those bodies were

6 missed. However, they were found in situ in the original location that

7 they had been buried.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- could I again try to carefully look at what

9 the evidence at this moment is.

10 I take you back to one of your previous questions,

11 Mr. Stojanovic. You asked, in relation to Lazete 2:

12 "Can you tell us how many times this grave, after the initial

13 excavation and the burial of the bodies therein, was opened and filled in

14 again."

15 The word "excavation" was used.

16 Today, that word has been used in a different way as well, as

17 "exhumation."

18 Did you mean to say, to ask, how many times the graves was opened

19 after the burial of the first persons in that grave were deposited

20 there --

21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] And that is why -- let us

24 clarify. This -- I don't consider this first digging instance an

25 exhumation.

Page 18423

1 JUDGE ORIE: No. Then let's carefully look at what the witness

2 then told us.

3 The witness said:

4 "The grave was opened twice after the initial excavation of the

5 grave."

6 Could you, Witness, be precise on what instances you were

7 referring to?

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, the initial instance is the moment when the

9 ground was dug up, and at that point it was a hole in the ground. When

10 bodies were deposited into it, it became a grave.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was the first you mentioned or did you

12 start from that point in time [Overlapping speakers] ...

13 THE WITNESS: That was the first one I mentioned, and that, if

14 you look at the images we have a date for, it is between July 5th and

15 July 27th, 1995.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 THE WITNESS: After that, that grave was opened twice. Once

18 during the robbing excavations; and the second time, during the PHR

19 excavation and exhumation process, as part of the investigation; and,

20 finally, a -- a third time, when we got there in -- in 2000.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the answer is three times instead of two.

22 But because the question is unclear as to what is the starting point.

23 I do understand now that initially a hole was dug in the earth,

24 bodies were put in there, the grave was filled again, then it was once

25 re-opened at what we call the instance of the grave being robbed, filled

Page 18424

1 again, after that, the 1996 exhumation which was incomplete, and then

2 your work, which is then the fourth time or the third time after the

3 grave was dug.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE ORIE: I think there's no confusion now anymore.

6 Mr. Stojanovic, we take a break. We'll take a break of

7 20 minutes, but not until after the witness has been escorted out of the

8 courtroom.

9 [The witness stands down]

10 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and we'll resume at 25 minutes

11 to 1.00.

12 --- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.

13 --- On resuming at 12.41 p.m.

14 JUDGE ORIE: While the witness is being brought in, we had a few

15 delays, and especially in the start of the second series but we are now

16 late as well, and -- I wouldn't say that the Chamber apologises for it,

17 but I do apologise for it. That's not the same.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And I do as well.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, two apologies.

20 Mr. Stojanovic, in terms of time, do you think that we will be

21 able to conclude the testimony of this witness this morning?

22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. I reckon I

23 will need one hour more, and I have notified the OTP about that.

24 JUDGE ORIE: And, Ms. MacGregor, that would leave you sufficient

25 time --

Page 18425

1 MS. MacGREGOR: Yes, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: -- for re-examination.

3 [The witness takes the stand]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Professor, we dealt with Lazete 2C and the exhumation of 16

7 bodies bound in that grave.

8 My next question is: Can you tell us, were you able, at any

9 point, on the basis of your expertise, the time of death of these bodies?

10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: To determine the

11 time of death of these bodies.

12 THE WITNESS: The time of death was not a determination that the

13 field team had to make. That would be a determination that would take

14 place in the lab. The information we had pertains specifically to the

15 images of when the grave was created and filled.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. According to the images that you had at your disposal, these

18 graves were created, as you said, between the 5th of July and the 27th of

19 July; is that correct?

20 A. Yes, that is correct.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly move away from the

22 microphone slightly. Thank you.

23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. These aerial images do not provide any information whatsoever

25 about the time when the bodies were deposited in the grave?

Page 18426

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, looking at these images, I could

2 tell you the answer. Of course, they do not say anything. They give one

3 picture, the 5th; one picture, 27th. Whether the bodies were put there

4 after the 27th or before the 27th, but likely not after the 5th, that's

5 obvious from the material which you have gone through again and again in

6 view of many graves.

7 Please proceed.

8 Unless the witness would disagree with me. You have listened to

9 me. I see you're nodding no. No disagreement.

10 Please proceed.

11 MR. STOJANOVIC: Thank you.

12 Q. Tell me, Professor, the artefacts you discovered in Lazete 2C,

13 who were they passed on to for further analysis?

14 A. All the evidence recovered at the scene was given to the

15 scene-of-crime officer and, from my understanding, handed over to the

16 morgue in Visoko or the investigators.

17 Q. Did you have any information at any point about the commission

18 that worked in 1996, how many bodies they had dug out at the time?

19 A. I do not recall having that information, no.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we now have a

22 photograph from P1132 in e-court, marked in e-court 153.

23 Q. Professor, do you recognise this area, especially on the

24 left-hand side of the photograph?

25 A. Yes. That appears to be the field where the Lazete 1 grave was

Page 18427

1 found. The picture appears to be taken from the train tracks.

2 Q. Is this consistent with your recollection that this area marked

3 with an ellipsis is exactly the area where you located Lazete 1?

4 A. Exactly, no; but it's in the area, yes.

5 Q. You had never been told that any of the ICTY investigators prior

6 to your arrival did anything in connection with exhumations in this

7 particular area.

8 A. No, I was not told that.

9 Q. Now, as for your work, did it lead you to believe and/or to

10 determine as to how many times this particular grave had been opened?

11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. MacGregor.

12 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honours, I'm going to object. There's no

13 foundation laid to establish why he's -- why the witness is being asked

14 about Lazete 1 being previously excavated, which is what I understand

15 this line of questioning.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, does this trigger you to rephrase

17 your question?

18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will do so, Your Honours.

19 Q. So, Professor, I'm looking at your report on Lazete 1, and I

20 wanted to ask you this: In the course of your work regarding the

21 exhumations in Lazete 1, did you establish that this grave had been

22 disturbed?

23 A. May I look at my report, Your Honour?

24 JUDGE ORIE: You may. Unless the Prosecution has any objections

25 to it. No.

Page 18428

1 Please look at your report.

2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. I can also

4 ask that we have now P2552, pages 4 -- or, rather, page 3 in both

5 versions, and this will clarify the direction and the line of my

6 questioning.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The document is on the screen, Mr. Stojanovic.

8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honours.

9 I'm just waiting for the professor to take a look at his notes.

10 Q. So, Professor, I'm going to ask you this -- or, rather, repeat my

11 question.

12 Taking into account what is written here - I will not repeat

13 myself - now, in the course of your work at Lazete 1, was it possible to

14 draw any conclusions as to how many this particular area had been

15 re-excavated or re-exhumed prior to the year 2000?

16 A. We had other aerial images, figures 14A and 14B of the report on

17 page 11, which give us a close-up to the field of where Lazete 1 is

18 located. And what we can see there, there's an image again dated

19 September 7 1995 when we can see an oval shape with some clear edges and

20 then that next to it there's an image dating September 27 1995. The

21 images of the oval shape have been extended. The borders of the oval

22 shape had been extended. There's a track --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Could we -- could we -- was it page 11?

24 THE WITNESS: Page 11 on the written report.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have a look at the relevant page. I do not

Page 18429

1 know whether page 11 is also e-court 11. Could you look at your screen

2 whether that is one of the pictures you were.

3 THE WITNESS: It's the next page.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Next page, one page further, please.

5 THE WITNESS: And the close-up would have to be in the second

6 line of images. There.

7 So looking at this image, what we thought happened was that the

8 grave was re-opened at some point, and can you see the track marks

9 leading from the grave to the main road and also from the grave to the

10 dirt track on the side. This was supported when we exhumed the grave by

11 two areas that were located within the grave called robbing area A and

12 robbing area B where most body parts were located and also at the edges

13 where truncated bodies were also located. So with the initial hypothesis

14 drawn from these images and then later with the physical evidence drawn

15 from the grave, I ascertained that the grave was reopened between the

16 dates of 7th September, 1995, and the 27th of September, 1995, as well.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- could I ask one clarifying question.

18 Is there any way to determine whether that has been a one-time

19 occasion or whether it may have happened even more than one time?

20 THE WITNESS: At the locations within the grave, if the

21 exhumations, if the extraction of the bodies was smaller than the

22 original, it could have happened more than once. However, what we see is

23 clear borders of an extraction of bodies. These could have been done on

24 separate days but it could have been on the same day, but there's two

25 areas. And from the images, we gather that they occurred between those

Page 18430

1 dates but we cannot say if it was a single event or if it was two.

2 And there's also an image on page 15 of the report where you can

3 see the grave and the outlines of the robbing. That would be four pages

4 ahead of this one. There you go; at the bottom there.

5 There's also an image previous page where you can see the body

6 location of the remaining bodies in the grave. In the bottom.

7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Professor, we need this image for my next question.

9 Would it be correct to say that the area that you have here

10 contained the largest number of body, both the area marked Roman

11 numeral I and number III, and was that an area that was included in the

12 aerial images taken in September 1995? In other words, was this area

13 already robbed at the time, or attacked.

14 A. This grave -- this is one grave. The images show the exact shape

15 of this grave on the ground on both satellite images.

16 So this -- everything that occurred here occurred in two moments,

17 the initial interment or burial of the bodies, and the second time when

18 some of the bodies were removed from the two areas that I mentioned.

19 Q. My question is: Is it a possible scenario that, in September, in

20 the areas marked I and III in this sketch, bodies were buried? The

21 bodies that you discovered in 2000 and dug out.

22 A. It is not a likely scenario. The grave is uniform on its

23 borders. The bodies are co-mingled and show the same amount of

24 decomposition. There is a continuation to this grave which shows that it

25 is a single event that occurred. According to my estimates, the initial

Page 18431

1 deposit between 19 -- between -- was it July 5th and July 27th of 1995.

2 Q. What is the basis on which you are drawing this conclusion in

3 terms of the timing of the burial, these specific bodies?

4 A. Well, these specific bodies are the bodies that are -- that make

5 up the grave. The grave, the actual hole, is a hole that has

6 continuation. It has uniformity. All of the body concentrations are at

7 the same height. There are truncated bodies on the edges of the robbing

8 areas in body concentration I, body concentration II, and body

9 concentration III, which actually means that some probably large piece of

10 equipment truncated those bodies while removing bodies that occupated

11 those now empty areas. The depth of the grave is an average of 140. The

12 bodies are -- they have no separate stratigraphy among them; in other

13 words, they were deposited in a single event. So all those things lead

14 me to believe that all of these bodies were put in there in a single

15 event, and the bodies that are missing were taken out, like I said,

16 probably in one event, but could be two, and that also created the body

17 parts that were also found only around the areas where the robbing

18 occurring.

19 Q. Professor, did the investigators draw your attention at any point

20 to the fact that this grave was located in the vicinity of the fiercest

21 fighting in the summer of 1995 between the BH army column that was

22 fighting its way through, on the one hand, and the

23 Army of Republika Srpska, on the other?

24 A. No, they did not.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I first -- did you pay attention at all

Page 18432

1 whether the persons [indiscernible] were casualties from fighting or

2 whether they were killed in another way?

3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, that is an analysis that can be done.

4 As a matter of fact, there is a way of doing it and that is by the

5 analysis of trauma patterns and the location on the trauma. From my

6 looking at these bodies, I can tell you that many of them had -- 89 of

7 them had what appeared to be blindfolds around their heads, most of them

8 directly around their eyes. We did not find weapons of fighting. The

9 concentration of bullet cases that we found were only on one side. There

10 didn't seem to be opposing concentration of bullet cases. There was

11 nothing that I found that would lead me to believe that this was a result

12 of -- of -- of a combat, and, again, to make that conclusion, you

13 actually do have to go and look at the analysis of the bodies. You do

14 expect to get only about two out of ten people suffering from fatal

15 wounds in combat. This is published information. When you go over that

16 amount of fatalities in a combat, it -- it's suggesting something else.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. --

18 But my question was mainly focussed on you did not make final

19 determinations on whether they were war casualties -- I mean, war

20 casualties -- I mean combat casualties or others but you have given us

21 some observations which make you believe that it's unlikely that they

22 were all - or most of them were - combat casualties.

23 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour. I do not treat that

24 in my report. However, I do have a point of view on that.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

Page 18433

1 Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 Q. Professor, the theory in this case is that the said bodies or

4 part of the bodies were not the result of executions but, rather, that

5 they were killed in action, not in this specific location but some

6 4 kilometres from this area in the forested region, and that the bodies

7 have been collected during the hygiene and sanitation procedure, and then

8 subsequently buried in this grave.

9 My question is: From the point of view of your expertise and

10 your knowledge that I asked you about at the beginning of my

11 cross-examination, can one rule out this situation?

12 A. This is a very complex question to answer only with archaeology.

13 Once again, I must bring to your attention that to make that

14 determination, which I don't make in this report because I don't have all

15 the information but one must look at the analysis, the result of the

16 analysis of the remains; one must look at the results of the

17 identification process; one must look, again, at the analysis of the

18 ballistics, and many other things that would help us to determine that

19 specifically.

20 However, from what I see here, the scenario in the grave and

21 around the grave tells us that it doesn't coincide with that theory,

22 mainly because of this large grouping of shell cases around one specific

23 area of the body -- of the grave. However, if there is other evidence

24 that suggests otherwise, it should be evaluated.

25 Q. Thank you, Professor. Now I'd like to ask you this: Within the

Page 18434

1 rules of your profession, is there any explanation why would anyone who

2 is trying to conceal a crime would rob a grave in order to conceal the

3 crime and leave so many bodies behind after having dug up the grave,

4 opened it, and then put them back into the grave?

5 JUDGE ORIE: Please.

6 MS. MacGREGOR: Your Honour, we object. This calls for

7 speculation well beyond Mr. Peccerelli's area of expertise.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 Mr. Stojanovic, without having laid a foundation that part of the

10 expertise of a witness is why someone would conceal or not conceal under

11 certain circumstances, I think the question should not have been put to

12 him.

13 So if you want -- if you find it important enough, then you could

14 consider to try to establish that.

15 If not, please proceed.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will try, Your Honours.

17 Could we again get P2552, page 4 in both English and B/C/S of the

18 witness's report about Lazete 1.

19 Q. I will try to introduce you into this step by step.

20 Did you deal with -- or did you estimate how many bodies were

21 robbed from that grave? How many bodies were removed?

22 A. Yes, I did. In Conclusion L, which I will read. It says:

23 "The robbing excavation affected two areas, approximately

24 35 per cent of the entire grave. This suggests that if 127 bodies were

25 recovered from approximately 65 per cent of the grave, and estimated

Page 18435

1 total of 195 bodies were originally interred inside the grave. The

2 approximate number of robbed bodies is 68."

3 Q. Is this speculation about the number of bodies absent from the

4 site while you are exhuming?

5 A. This is a hypothesis for the search of the missing bodies from

6 this grave from known secondary graves. The idea here was to establish a

7 base-line so that we may look for those bodies using a mathematical

8 equation to establish a probable missing number. And that's what it is,

9 a possibility.

10 Q. Did you have an opportunity to acquaint yourself with the work of

11 Professor Baraybar?

12 A. If what you mean is have I read his reports, the answer is no.

13 However, I did work under Jose Pablo Baraybar in 1997 and in

14 1998, both in Brcko and in some of the exhumation sites related to the

15 Srebrenica case.

16 Q. If I understood you correctly, in the conclusion under item L,

17 you make an estimate that the total number of bodies would be 195, if

18 there had been no robbing of the grave.

19 A. Yes, that's what L says.

20 Q. Why am I asking? Could we please get P2088 on our screens. This

21 is a report made by Professor Baraybar about Lazete 1, which we're now

22 discussing and which you also worked on.

23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please get page 8 in

24 both B/C/S and English.

25 Q. Professor Baraybar says here that the preliminary results from

Page 18436

1 the site of Lazete 1 are:

2 "The calculation of the minimal number of individuals is 250."

3 He testified here and explained the methodology used to arrive at

4 this figure -- or, rather, number.

5 I'm now asking you if your report preceded Professor Baraybar's

6 in time. Was there a connection for the drawing of general conclusion?

7 I mean, was there a connection between the two of you?

8 A. I have no knowledge of when he presented his report, and we have

9 never discussed this case.

10 Q. Would you agree with me when I say that here, in this estimate,

11 because both reports are based on estimates, there is a difference of

12 over 25 percent of the number of bodies in Lazete 1?

13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. MacGregor.

14 MS. MacGREGOR: The witness has already testified he's not

15 familiar with this report, which includes the date, how it was done,

16 methodology, what -- what Mr. Baraybar based the report on. Mr. Baraybar

17 was here as a witness, available to talk about how he did that. And

18 without further information put to this witness about those -- those

19 factors, I don't see how he can make a judgement call about the

20 differences in conclusions.

21 JUDGE ORIE: We were not yet, I think, at any question. There's

22 a difference of over 25 percent. Okay. That was not yet a question, I

23 take it.

24 MS. MacGREGOR: [Microphone not activated]

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Prosecutor, please.

Page 18437

1 MS. MacGREGOR: Yes. Because the -- the -- the phrase that's

2 being used in this report is this concept of a minimum number of

3 individuals and that is not the same thing as what Mr. Peccerelli has

4 been talking about in terms of bodies found, an estimation of bodies in

5 the grave. They're slightly different and I'm sure he could go into it

6 if asked. But it's comparing apples and oranges at this point to just

7 show him one sentence about Lazete 1 without having any more information

8 and ask him to make a -- I mean, we can all see these are different

9 numbers and what the mathematical differentiation is.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it seems that it -- we did not go any further

11 than that yet. Whether the witness is able to give explanations, that is

12 a different matter.

13 But, Mr. Stojanovic, please keep mind that an analysis of all

14 that, apart from saying one figure is 25 percent more than another

15 figure, which doesn't tell us that much, that needs perhaps more thorough

16 analysis.

17 Proceed, as you deem fit.

18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I

19 would like to consult my client for a brief moment.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

21 [Defence counsel and Accused confer]

22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.

24 MR. GROOME: While Mr. Stojanovic is consulting with Mr. Mladic,

25 it would be helpful for the Prosecution to know whether the next witness,

Page 18438

1 Mr. Rechner, will be required today. As the Chamber will recall, he

2 was ill last week and he is not fully recovered and we would leave him at

3 the hotel if he will not be called.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think we would not need him before tomorrow.

5 MR. GROOME: Thank you.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can continue,

8 with your leave.

9 Q. Professor, it is not our intention here to mix apples and

10 oranges.

11 My question was: Considering what you have just seen and the

12 rule used to determine the minimum number of individuals in Lazete 1, can

13 you, based on your expertise, tell us, whether you still stand by the

14 estimate stated in your report; namely, that there were 195 bodies there

15 in all?

16 A. Well, based on a the minimum number of individuals determined,

17 obviously this is done with physical evidence. So my estimate obviously

18 is under the number -- minimum number of individuals.

19 However, I do have to say that - and this is to clarify - we

20 label bodies and body parts. One of the body parts is also the loose

21 bone bag and in the loose bone bag you have fragments of bodies, of

22 fragments of bones which are later used to determine this minimum of

23 individuals, so I would have to say that my estimate was low and that

24 Mr. Jose Pablo Baraybar's estimates are based on the actual analysis of

25 the remains. We were -- I was only there during the recovery and I had

Page 18439

1 limited access to the information of the bodies.

2 Q. Professor, perhaps I have not understood.

3 Can you tell us if Professor Baraybar at any point had access to

4 the report about the number of bodies that you found in Lazete 1? Or is

5 his analysis based only on an analysis of a secondary site, or secondary

6 sites, Hodzici 3 and 4?

7 JUDGE ORIE: Could we first try to establish whether the witness

8 has any knowledge about all this. And what you mean by bodies that you

9 found in Lazete 1, is that the bodies that were exhumed and which were

10 the basis for the extrapolation of the guess or the estimate of the

11 others?

12 Could you be precise? Do you have any knowledge about the basis,

13 any detailed knowledge about the basis on a which Professor Baraybar

14 based his numbers?

15 THE WITNESS: I have procedural knowledge, Your Honour, which

16 every single body and body sheet, the bodies, the evidence, the rest of

17 the evidence, and the body sheets were all loaded onto refrigerated

18 containers, as well as other containers sent down to Visoko for the

19 analysis which Mr. Jose Pablo Baraybar led. I expect that that's exactly

20 what happened. If there are other secondary graves that derived from

21 this one, that is exactly what would have happened as well. So he would

22 have had information on all of these bodies to be able to make that

23 determination without looking at my report, my report is limited in the

24 overall picture of what happened because of these missing sections,

25 Your Honour.

Page 18440

1 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand you well, in your view,

2 Professor Baraybar would have had better information to come to more

3 accurate numbers.

4 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it's different information at

5 different stages of the process. But to make a minimum number of

6 individuals determination, then, yes, it is better information because he

7 had the bodies in the morgue.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

9 Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Professor, you mentioned that you found strips of cloth tied

12 around the heads or -- of 89 individuals. Could you now take a look at a

13 photograph from your report. I think it's P2552, and we need page 24.

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] It's the photograph we saw at

15 the outset, Your Honours, when you started to -- or, rather, when the

16 direct examination of the witness began. I would like the third

17 photograph enlarged, please.

18 Q. This is one of the bodies or body parts you spoke about exhumed

19 from Lazete 1.

20 You told the Prosecutor that what we see is not a wire but a

21 ribbon. Please tell us around which part of the body the ribbon is tied?

22 A. This is a piece of cloth tied around the leg. I would have to

23 look at the actual exhumation form to tell you which leg or if it's both.

24 But it's -- it's the legs.

25 Q. Is this piece of cloth or, rather, the body around which it is

Page 18441

1 tied one of those 89 that you mentioned in your summary report about

2 Lazete 1?

3 A. I -- if -- if I may consult, I -- just from this image, this

4 image is showing ligatures on other parts of the body differentiated from

5 possible blindfolds. I don't know if this one had a possible blindfold

6 on top of it. If it did, then, yes, it would be included; and, if no, it

7 would not be included.

8 May I look at the...

9 JUDGE ORIE: You may look at your report.

10 THE WITNESS: According to the exhumation form, it only had a

11 strip of material around the left leg. Then the right leg and going into

12 the lower leg. So it's -- appears to be two pieces of material but one

13 of them connects from the higher thigh to the knee area, as you can sort

14 of make out in this image.

15 So the answer is no, this one does not have a possible blindfold.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Is this one of the 89 bodies on which blindfolds were found as

18 you stated in your report for Lazete 1?

19 JUDGE ORIE: I did understand your previous answer to be that

20 this was because no blindfold was found that it's not among the 89 where

21 you established that you found blindfolds.

22 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour. This is not part of

23 the 89.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic. And please try to

25 focus your answers -- your questions.

Page 18442

1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps this is a

2 convenient time for a break. I can finish within ten minutes or even

3 less. I have only two documents left to deal with.

4 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest, since we started late, that is, we

5 started a quarter to -- at 20 minutes to 1.00, that you use the last ten

6 minutes of this one hour to complete your examination -- your

7 cross-examination.

8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please get on our

9 screens D339.

10 Q. And while we wait for the document to appear, Professor, do you

11 know that members of the BH army often wore ribbons round their heads or

12 upper arms as a sign of -- as something to be recognised by?

13 A. The first time I heard that was in my last testimony when

14 Mr. Karadzic mentioned it. Prior to that, no, I had no knowledge of it.

15 Q. Let us together take a look at a number of stills from this

16 video-clip, which has already been used in this trial, and we can comment

17 on them together.

18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could you kindly open this

19 document now.

20 JUDGE ORIE: The document is -- do we need a specific page or --

21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Here it is. This is

22 the first document.

23 Q. The ribbon as the one we can see round the left arm of this

24 soldier, does it -- is it like the ones you found in Lazete 1 by its size

25 and shape and by the quality of the cloth?

Page 18443

1 A. It is difficult to make those determinations, obviously because

2 it's an image. But it appears to be similar to those that were found in

3 the graves, yes.

4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please get the next

5 still.

6 Q. Professor, here, in this still, this member of the BH army is

7 wearing on his head, or, actually, on his forehead a piece of cloth.

8 Would such pieces of cloth be also like the ones you found in Lazete 1?

9 A. I think only as far as it's a piece of cloth. It doesn't seem to

10 be too similar to the ones we found. But it appears to be a piece of

11 cloth around his forehead.

12 Q. Thank you. Would it be possible for such a cloth to be found

13 to -- at that part of the head where the eyes were upon the decay of soft

14 tissue?

15 A. Because of decomposition and the movement of the bodies, yes, the

16 pieces of cloth, in some cases, did move.

17 Q. I know that this is a pathologist's job which is done in a

18 morgue, but I'm asking you due to your expertise anyway, whether, with

19 regard to the bodies in Lazete 1 and 2, you were able to observe injuries

20 that may have been due to fire from larger-calibre weapons or mines and

21 explosive devices?

22 A. No, we would not be able to determine that. What we documented

23 were fractures that existed previous to the recovery of the body or holes

24 as they were simplified in the -- in the body recovery form. And that is

25 documented, and -- and can be counted.

Page 18444

1 As far as larger -- I guess what you mean by larger weapons is

2 bigger than a small projectile from a rifle or explosives or mines of any

3 type, I don't remember that we saw that evidence on the bodies, again, in

4 the field, while the bodies were in situ.

5 Q. And, finally, let us look at 1D01358 from the 65 ter list.

6 Professor, you can look what you have in front of you, but this

7 document is also in e-court. If I understand correctly, this is a

8 publication of the British Forensic Sciences Academy from July 2006.

9 Please look at paragraphs 2 and 3 on this page.

10 The authors, stated above, put forward the results of their

11 analysis. They said that they sent a questionnaire to 65 forensic

12 pathologists who have been involved in the ICTY missions. The rate of

13 answer was 38 per cent. Whereas, 18 did not know how the medical legal

14 data were exploited by the ICTY; three of them have been subjected to

15 pressures, as we read here; three of them were aware of mass grave-sites

16 wittingly not investigated by the ICTY; 15 considered that the ICTY

17 respected the elementary rules of law; and four of them questioned the

18 impartiality of the justice led by the ICTY.

19 Did you, at any point, get this questionnaire to fill in about

20 your work?

21 A. I don't think so. I don't believe so.

22 Q. Did you have an opportunity to see this analysis and the report?

23 A. No, I did not.

24 Q. Does the name of the author of this paper mean anything to you

25 within the circles of your expertise; and did you have an occasion to

Page 18445

1 familiarise yourself with his work?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I don't know what you're asking.

3 I see -- I don't know what is on your question list and I don't

4 know whether you prepared it yourself. But I see four authors. Were you

5 referring to all four or... or have you not looked at it? Because you're

6 asking about "the author."

7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. There are

8 four authors listed in the heading, and that's what I see in front of me.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you asked about "the author," and

10 familiarise yourself with his work, which doesn't refer to a plurality.

11 Witness, are the names Lorin De la Grandmaison, Durigon, Moutel,

12 or Herve, are they familiar to you?

13 THE WITNESS: No, they are not, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

15 You said ten minutes or less. It's -- we're now at 12.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, I'm going to

17 conclude.

18 Q. And I would like to thank the Professor for the answers he has

19 given us.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. You have concluded, therefore,

21 Mr. Stojanovic?

22 Ms. MacGregor, could you give us an indication as to how much

23 time would you need?

24 MS. MacGREGOR: It will be a very brief re-direct.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Brief is a flexible term as I've learned in my work