160201ED

Page 42918

1 Please proceed.

2 WITNESS: DUSAN PAVLOVIC [Resumed]

3 [Witness answered through interpreter]

4 Cross-examination by Mr. MacDonald:

5 Q. Good morning, Mr. Pavlovic.

6 A. Good morning, Mr. MacDonald.

7 Q. Now, Mr. Pavlovic, I'd like to continue where you left off in

8 direct examination and discuss the list that you brought with you when

9 you came to The Hague to testify. Do you recall that list of

10 individuals, Mr. Pavlovic?

11 A. The list of what specifically?

12 Q. It's a list of individuals that you brought with you to the

13 The Hague the first time you came to testify and that you provided to the

14 Defence two days before that testimony, and it is entitled: "Overview of

15 known individuals who died during breakthrough and other disputed cases."

16 And I hope we can see it on the screen in front of us now.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, your theory, Mr. Pavlovic, is that the column that went from

19 Srebrenica to Tuzla, various members of that column died in various ways

20 and that the VRS went and picked up those bodies and bits of bodies and

21 then buried them in mass graves. That's your theory; is that right?

22 A. I don't know if that can be called a theory. I did it on the

23 basis of documents, eye-witness reports, intelligence reports of the BH

24 army, your own experts, so I don't know if you can call it a theory.

25 Q. Okay. That's what you're telling the Court happened. That's

Page 42919

1 what you're advancing isn't it?

2 A. Yes, that there is a serious ground to believe that that's what

3 happened.

4 Q. Okay. And this list, it represents exhibits that you say support

5 that theory, doesn't it?

6 A. Yes, some of the examples that could lead one to the conclusion

7 that that really happened.

8 Q. Now this list breaks down into various categories, and one of the

9 categories is people you've identified because the DNA results show them

10 as being labelled as being found in two different places; correct?

11 A. Yes, some of these persons were found - if those are the specific

12 cases you mean - on the surface. Because many persons were found in two

13 different places --

14 Q. We're going to -- Mr. Pavlovic, just a moment. Yes, we're going

15 to deal with specific examples now. I just wanted to identify the

16 category for you.

17 MR. MacDONALD: If we can turn to page 2 in the list in both

18 languages, please.

19 Q. Now, Mr. Pavlovic, before I go any further, if I can just provide

20 you with some information. Although this list is under seal so the

21 public cannot see it, we checked with ICMP as to whether we could say

22 some names in open session, and there is a list of names ICMP provided us

23 with which the court official is giving you now.

24 So I'd like to take you on the list to the name Mustafa Mehic.

25 Do you see him on the list in front of you?

Page 42920

1 A. The one I received now?

2 Q. Sorry, my apologies. I mean your list on the screen in front of

3 you. Do you see the name Mustafa Mehic?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, you discussed them in some length in your chief, and we can

6 find that at transcript 42850 to 42854. And in your list you point that

7 he is found partly -- or labelled as being found partly in Cancari Road

8 12 and partly at a place called Tisova Kosa. That's right, isn't it?

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can scroll down a little bit on the screen. Thank

10 you.

11 MR. MacDONALD:

12 Q. Yes, those are the two sites he has been labelled, Cancari Road

13 12 and Tisova Kosa.

14 A. Yes, that what's I managed to find.

15 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, are you aware that the evidence in this case shows

16 that Cancari Road 12 is a secondary grave? Are you aware of that

17 evidence?

18 A. I don't know off the cuff the list of secondary graves, but I'm

19 not disputing that it is.

20 Q. And are you aware of evidence that shows that Cancari Road 12 is

21 linked to a primary mass grave at Branjevo Military Farm?

22 A. Again, I don't know by heart any of these connections, but I'm

23 not disputing any of this.

24 Q. Are you aware of evidence that shows that a primary mass grave at

25 Branjevo Military Farm was opened, filled with bodies, and shut by

Page 42921

1 17th July 1995?

2 A. I don't know these details. I know the locality because I worked

3 on the exhumation together with Mr. Jan Hensen in 2013, 2014, and we had

4 certain doubts about this grave, but I don't know the operative details

5 regarding the event itself for the example that you just mentioned.

6 Q. So you're not aware of evidence that shows that that primary mass

7 grave was shut by July 17th, 1995?

8 A. No, I did not work on that segment, but I'm not disputing what

9 you say.

10 Q. So for your theory to be correct, someone would have to have

11 picked up Mustafa Mehic, or most of him, carried it down to the road, and

12 taken it to Branjevo Military Farm all before 17th July 1995?

13 A. As I've said before, I would not call it a theory. Furthermore,

14 if we are talking about the reconstruction of all the events in

15 Srebrenica in that period, there are witness reports that people were

16 killed, the bodies were removed in sanitization, and that could include

17 this person. So, yes, people died in combat, and one part of the mortal

18 remains of this person was found there and the other part in Cancari.

19 Q. So if you can just try on focus on what I'm asking you,

20 Mr. Pavlovic, it is that for what you say to be correct, somebody would

21 have had to picked up most of Mr. Mehic, carried it down to the road, and

22 taken it to Branjevo Military Farm before 17th July 1995?

23 MR. LUKIC: I would have to object at this moment. Because it's

24 not what Mr. Pavlovic was claiming. It's what the Prosecution was

25 actually claiming.

Page 42922

1 JUDGE ORIE: That what's he is asking. Therefore whether he --

2 what his comment is on that claim --

3 MR. LUKIC: Yes --

4 JUDGE ORIE: -- in view of the fact that Mr. MacDonald put to the

5 witness, the witness apparently unaware of it, that the Branjevo farm

6 primary grave was shut on the 17th of July. So the witness is free to

7 comment on that and that's what he is invited to do.

8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, apart from what may have happened in

10 general for this specific case and irrespective of whether you are

11 calling it a theory or whether you think it's the most reasonable

12 explanation of what happened, which is often called by others a theory,

13 but could you please respond directly in this specific case whether, in

14 your view, that body then would have been sanitized, taken to the road,

15 and brought to Branjevo farm before the 17th of -- or not later than the

16 17th of July, 1995.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I don't have enough

18 information about the creation of that grave and its progress to say

19 whether it was brought from Branjevo or from Tisova Kosa to Cancari Road

20 on the 12th. I don't know on what basis you are claiming that the grave

21 was shut not later than the 17th July and whether some more bodies were

22 added between the 17th and the date when it was opened again. Anything I

23 would say would be speculation, and I don't know want to go into that.

24 JUDGE ORIE: But do I then understand that you have no personal

25 knowledge yourself about what happened to the Branjevo farm primary

Page 42923

1 grave-site when it was shut, whether any bodies -- you have no knowledge

2 about that? Because you are asking Mr. MacDonald where his knowledge

3 comes from. Well, of course, most important is what the Chamber hears

4 about it, and therefore you're invited to tell us whatever you would know

5 about the date of shutting this primary grave and what may have happened

6 after that. Do you have any information about that?

7 THE WITNESS: No, no. No. [Interpretation] I don't have such

8 knowledge. Excuse me.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

10 MR. MacDONALD:

11 Q. Let's have a quick look at a map Mr. Pavlovic just to orient

12 ourselves.

13 MR. MacDONALD: Can we have P01087 on the screen, please. I'm

14 looking for page 19.

15 I wonder if the Court Officer could zoom in on the left-most blue

16 arrow. It's about centre left of the screen, so -- just up slightly from

17 that box. If we could just scroll up slightly that would be great. Yes,

18 if we can stop there.

19 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, looking at the left blue arrow here, do you see the

20 word "Baljkovica" that it goes through?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And just below it, not the first dotted red line but the second

23 one, do you see the words "Tisova Kosa" written almost vertically?

24 A. Yes. Yes, I can see it.

25 MR. MacDONALD: Can we turn to page 11 on this map, please -- in

Page 42924

1 this map book, rather. And if we can rotate that -- yes, thank you. And

2 perhaps scroll down. And that's fine, thank you.

3 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, do you see about centre-left on this screen a word

4 written in red, "Baljkovica"?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And we know that just below that is Tisova Kosa. So again, for

7 what you are telling the Court, Mr. Pavlovic, the VRS would have had to

8 have come back down to the road, that's the black line on the map, and

9 driven south, down past Orahovac where there was a mass execution and a

10 mass grave, to Karakaj, and then all the way north, up past Kozluk, past

11 another mass execution and mass grave-site, all the way up to Branjevo

12 Military Farm in order to put the parts of Mustafa Mehic they'd found in

13 the ground. For what you are telling the Court, that's what they would

14 have had to have done; correct?

15 A. Well, of course, I never said that or claimed that. I said that

16 the person was partly found in Tisova Kosa and partly at Cancari 12

17 grave-site so that -- that's what I said.

18 Q. Even if it were Cancari Road 12 for Mustafa Mehic, they would

19 still have to have driven down past Orahovac, down past Zvornik, all the

20 way down to the road where we see Cancari marked. So still passing a

21 mass grave and a mass execution site, aren't they?

22 A. I don't know. As I've said, I did not seriously study these

23 elements of circumstances in and around Srebrenica, whether they passed

24 along one or another road or maybe took some local roads that we're not

25 even aware that but that the locals are aware of, it's something I

Page 42925

1 couldn't comment on. We just have the facts that are at our disposal.

2 Q. Okay. Let's move to another question about Mustafa Mehic.

3 Are you aware what parts of Mustafa Mehic are labelled as being

4 found in Tisova Kosa and what parts are labelled as being found in

5 Cancari Road 12?

6 A. That's something that I could only ask you, because I had no

7 access to the forensic findings and I think that you do have them. So

8 how -- how could I know?

9 Q. Well, we do have them, Mr. Pavlovic, but we disclosed them to the

10 Defence, and I understood them to be amongst the things that you would

11 have reviewed for your report. Did you not review the forensic findings?

12 A. Mm-hm. Look, I reviewed some of it. I couldn't review

13 everything because it's a massive material, too great for one man to

14 review everything in a short time. What I needed was tracing the bodies.

15 I tried to reconstruct some situations and I tried to get the facts that

16 I needed. But what parts of a body were found in one or another

17 location, I don't see what that would change substantially. Whether it

18 was where there was combat, where people lost their lives, and which

19 parts were found in a secondary mass grave.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pavlovic, you prepared a list of disputed cases,

21 cases where not just facts are presented but where you say that there's

22 dispute about this. Did you at least for the limited number of those

23 appearing on your list, did you review the forensic information which was

24 available? I'm not talking about the whole of the large numbers, but

25 just those that you qualified as disputed. Did you review the forensics

Page 42926

1 for those?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When you talk about forensic data,

3 I did not have access to forensic findings such as photographs and from

4 what body parts the samples of bones were taken and so on.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you don't have to explain for me whether there

6 were good reasons not do or to review the forensics. I just wanted to

7 know whether did you or not.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have tried to clarify it. When

9 you say "forensic findings," do you mean the forensic reports, the

10 analysis of skeletons, or the types of wounds? It's something that did I

11 not find. I'm not sure if it exists within the materials or not, but I

12 did not find that.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you were not provided with it. You didn't ask

14 for it?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not even know that I could

16 get it. I worked on the basis of what I did receive.

17 JUDGE ORIE: And -- okay, I leave it to that. You say you had no

18 access to those forensic results.

19 Please proceed.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you do.

21 Mr. Pavlovic, Mr. MacDonald put it to that you this forensic

22 material was handed over to the Defence who would have given it to you to

23 review to prepare your report. Did the Defence not give you the

24 material?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I received a database with, I

Page 42927

1 suppose, half a million documents, and then I searched the database,

2 looking for what I believed to be important. Now whether --

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not asking you what you did with it. I'm

4 asking you did you receive any forensic material from the Defence for

5 purposes of your report, yes or no?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Directly receiving any autopsy

7 reports from them, autopsy reports as such, then the answer would be no.

8 If that is what you have in mind and if we have understood each other

9 well.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: What I have in mind is forensic material. So you

11 didn't receive any forensic material from the Defence. That's your

12 answer.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not receive autopsy reports

14 directly from them. I came across some forensic reports in the form of

15 facts relating to certain exhumations. But autopsy reports as such,

16 including photographs and everything else, is something that I never

17 received and I did not find.

18 I hope you understand me. I'm trying to be as helpful as I can.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I do not, but I'll leave it to Mr. MacDonald.

20 MR. MacDONALD:

21 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, just one more questions on this point. You've

22 worked for some years for missing persons institutes in

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina, you worked closely with ICMP, and for Mustafa Mehic

24 on your list, you're relying on ICMP data only. That's all correct,

25 isn't it?

Page 42928

1 A. No, no, that's not correct. I have used all materials that were

2 at my disposal and that I received from the Defence. These were not only

3 ICMP materials. In the republican centre --

4 Q. Just for Mustafa Mehic. If we can go back to your list, it's

5 page 2 in both languages.

6 A. Mm-hm.

7 MR. MacDONALD: Sorry, the list is MFI D01399.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can the English version be -- thank you.

9 MR. MacDONALD:

10 Q. And for Mustafa Mehic, in your description, the only information

11 you're quoting is -- it's DNA information. That's what you're relying

12 on.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. Well, Mr. Pavlovic, given how far the VRS would have had

15 to have driven if what you say to the Court is correct, we investigated

16 this victim, we found the reassociation report.

17 MR. MacDONALD: Can we have 65 ter number 33612. I'm looking for

18 page 2 in the English and page 1 in the B/C/S, please.

19 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, did you ask anybody for this reassociation report?

20 ICMP, the Missing Persons Institute, the ICTY? Did you ask anybody for

21 this?

22 A. I did not ask anyone for this specific document because I did not

23 consider it significantly important, which does not mean that it is

24 unimportant, because I had information that the person was found in these

25 two localities and that was sufficient for me.

Page 42929

1 Q. Okay. Well, perhaps we can discuss why this might be important.

2 Now you see it's talking about Mustafa Mehic, and you see where

3 it says "measures taken." It's towards the bottom in B/C/S.

4 I'm just going to read out what it says underneath that:

5 "Association of missing main part of the lower jaw (two-thirds of

6 the skeleton) marked as TS1-1-MNT1-M to the mortal remains previously

7 buried and marked as CR-12B-161.

8 "Fracture lines of bones correspond fully."

9 So, Mr. Pavlovic, what's been found in Tisova Kosa, it's

10 two-thirds of a jaw bone. You see that there?

11 A. Yes, that's what it says here.

12 MR. MacDONALD: And if we turn over the page just in the B/C/S,

13 and if we can just have the B/C/S on the screen, and I wonder if the

14 Court Officer could zoom in on the left-hand side of that photograph, the

15 extreme left where the label TS1 is. Yes. Thank you.

16 Q. And, Mr. Pavlovic, I'm not a forensic pathologist but that -- the

17 bone in the -- with the label appears to be about two-thirds of a jaw

18 bone. Is that fair?

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: For my guidance, Mr. MacDonald, which one are you

20 looking at? I see the marking TS1 but I don't see which bone you are

21 referring to as the left jaw.

22 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, Your Honour. I think underneath the marking

23 there is a bone, I think it's actually in a bag which is outlined by the

24 green, and it's the bone underneath the marking that I'm referring to.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

Page 42930

1 MR. MacDONALD:

2 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, we wrote to ICMP to ask them to check their

3 findings and they replied to us.

4 MR. MacDONALD: Can we have 65 ter number 33625 on the screen,

5 please.

6 Q. This is a letter from ICMP to us here at the ICTY. Now, it's

7 relatively long, but it deals with the reassociation of Mustafa Mehic

8 based on DNA matches. I would like to take you to the second paragraph.

9 I'm just going to read the third line, sentence beginning "In situ," and

10 that line reads:

11 "In situ photographs at the grave-site show an intact head

12 associated with this body including a complete mandible and later autopsy

13 photographs also show a mandible present."

14 And if we can go to the last paragraph, and I'm going to read the

15 first sentence:

16 "The documented presence of a fully articulated mandible

17 associated with the remains of Mustafa Mehic at the time of recovery from

18 the CR 12 grave indicates that this mandible was inadvertently separated

19 from its original case at some later point in time and came to be

20 mistakenly put in with remains considered to be from Tisova and submitted

21 for DNA testing."

22 Mr. Pavlovic, "mandible" is just another word for "jaw bone,"

23 isn't it?

24 A. Well, these are expert terms used by anthropologists and

25 pathologists, I don't know if that's exactly what it means, but I don't

Page 42931

1 dispute that it is.

2 Q. Okay. Thank you.

3 Two questions, then, Mr. Pavlovic. Seeing as ICMP has confirmed

4 that all the remains we have for Mustafa Mehic, in fact, were exhumed

5 from Cancari Road 12 and that this is just a simple case of mislabelling

6 now corrected, this example doesn't support your theory or what you're

7 telling this Court that there was any asanacija after combat, does it?

8 A. Well, you see -- may I answer? Yes? All right. Thank you.

9 This tells me that the ICMP is making errors and this raises the

10 issue how many errors like this there could be. What does it mean that

11 they have mixed up the bones? Because bone samples are labelled in situ

12 where exhumation is carried out, and a bone sample from Tisova Kosa was

13 labelled during asanacija rather than for ICMP giving it a label or a

14 name later on.

15 Also when a forensic expert takes a bone sample for the DNA, he

16 is the one who gives a label to the bone sample. He is the person who is

17 authorised by the Prosecutor to do so and not by the ICMP. So I find

18 this astonishing what you have read now, that they've mixed up the bone

19 and then returned the bone. We are serious people. Please.

20 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, if you just answer my question. Given that all of

21 Mustafa Mehic came from Cancari Road 12, he does not support what you're

22 telling this Court about asanacija at all, does he?

23 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

25 MR. LUKIC: Obviously Mr. Pavlovic doubts this report and we

Page 42932

1 really need then the report from ICMP, how many mistakes were made like

2 this --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, that's a different question. A very

4 interesting question, by the way, but a different question. And that

5 Mr. Pavlovic does not rely on this report is not true because a second

6 ago he told us how shocking it is. And would it be shocking if you

7 wouldn't believe it? No, I think he calls it shocking because he

8 believes it. So, therefore, I tend to disagree with you on whether

9 Mr. Pavlovic relies on it or not.

10 Mr. Pavlovic, there are two clearly distinct questions. The one

11 was the one that was put to you by Mr. MacDonald and the other one was

12 the question you would like to draw our attention to.

13 Now you have done the second, that you are amazed by these kind

14 of mistakes to be made. Could you now please answer the first question

15 whether this report supports or does not support - rather, the contrary -

16 to what you have pointed at, that is, that the body parts were found in a

17 place different from what this letter now tell us they came from, that

18 is, Cancari Road 12.

19 Could you please answer that question now first. You've answered

20 the second question you posed yourself.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mm-hm. In order to answer this

22 question, we have to see when the sanitation at Tisova Kosa was carried

23 out. I think it was at some point before the exhumation at another

24 location - that's Cancari Road 12 - and then when --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you were not invited to further elaborate

Page 42933

1 on possible other problems that may exist in this context. You were

2 invited to tell us whether this report does support your theory or what

3 you want to draw our attention to in your list of disputed matters or

4 whether it does, rather, not. Could you please tell us, apart from what

5 further had to be perhaps researched, whether this report supports your

6 views or whether this report does not support your views.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I could see from this

8 document, it does not support my views. It, rather, refutes them. For

9 me it raises a number of other issues about what is illogical with regard

10 to this report.

11 JUDGE ORIE: You've drawn our attention to that already before,

12 and you've now answered the question that was put to you as well.

13 Please proceed.

14 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald, I'm looking at the clock. I don't

16 know whether you are inclined to finish within one or two minutes. If

17 not, we'd rather take the break first.

18 MR. MacDONALD: It's certainly within three or four minutes,

19 Your Honour. I just have to show Mr. Pavlovic one more thing and --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And if that concludes this -- this specific

21 portion --

22 MR. MacDONALD: And then ask one question --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed, then, and finish within the

24 next five minutes.

25 MR. MacDONALD:

Page 42934

1 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, I appreciate it's the first time that you will have

2 seen this letter and you told the Court, amongst other things, that

3 sometimes bones are labelled in situ at the exhumation. So I thought we

4 could look at the photographs of Mustafa Mehic when he is exhumed. So

5 just before we leave this document, if I can draw your attention or I'll

6 simply say Mustafa Mehic is labelled as CR-12B-161.

7 MR. MacDONALD: And if we can have on the screen 65 ter number

8 33613.

9 Now this is the typed autopsy report for CR-12B-161. If we can

10 move to the second page, please, in both languages. And if we can just

11 have the English here, that's where the photographs are. Can we rotate

12 that, please, by 180 degrees. Thank you. And if we can zoom in perhaps.

13 Q. This is Mustafa Mehic in the grave, Mr. Pavlovic. There we see

14 his arm and his head, the head facing left. And from what we can see

15 there, the jaw bone, or mandible, seems intact. That's right, isn't it?

16 A. It takes really an anthropologist and a pathologist to say

17 something like that. I cannot say yes or no.

18 Q. Okay. Okay.

19 MR. MacDONALD: Can we turn to the final page in this document,

20 please.

21 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, this is a -- Mustafa Mehic on the autopsy table.

22 And just underneath the skull, would you agree with me that we see a full

23 jaw bone, or mandible, there?

24 JUDGE ORIE: Could we please zoom in on the upper part of the

25 picture.

Page 42935

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I don't know when

2 this photograph was made, whether it was after the association -- or,

3 rather, would you repeat the question? I want to make sure I understood.

4 MR. MacDONALD:

5 Q. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Pavlovic, this is a photograph taken at

6 the time he was exhumed. And the question is: Underneath the skull we

7 see a complete jaw bone, don't we?

8 A. Since I'm not an expert in the field, I can only say that an

9 expert has to establish that, and then I will agree. That's one.

10 And, two, how is it possible that if the body was exhumed whole

11 like that, a part of it ended up in different bags?

12 Q. Well, Mr. Pavlovic, the Court isn't here to answer your

13 questions. I just have one more for you before we take the break.

14 A. Mm-hm.

15 Q. Given that Mustafa Mehic was the only one in this category that

16 you spoke about, you mentioned a couple of other names, but Mustafa Mehic

17 was the only one from this DNA category of your list that you discussed,

18 why did you think it was sufficient simply to look at the ICMP data and

19 do no further investigation?

20 A. First of all, this is not the only such case in my report. There

21 are more. Certain names coincide with the names of persons who are

22 included in the reports of your experts as found both on the surface and

23 in mass graves. That's why I was surprised when Mr. McCloskey [sic] got

24 on his feet right now saying that they had never had such evidence. So

25 basically this is not the only example of this kind.

Page 42936

1 Q. I know it's not the only example. We will be dealing with other

2 examples. He was -- Mustafa Mehic was the only one that you discussed at

3 length. Why did you think it was sufficient simply to look at the ICMP

4 data and not investigate further?

5 A. I repeat, it's not the only one. I listed more and then --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Witness -- Witness, there's no need to repeat an

7 answer which was not an answer to the question. Would you please focus

8 on the question. Why was there no need to further investigate.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I understood the first part

10 of the question to claim that it's the only example of this kind. And

11 that's the first part only. Now I'm trying to answer the second part of

12 the question, if I may.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do it.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 I agree with you completely that this kind of analysis is

16 necessary in each and every case. Unfortunately, at that moment, it was

17 not objectively possible for me to go into deeper analysis. And I agree

18 with you completely that in each and every case this kind of thorough

19 analysis is necessary, especially when bodies that are found could be

20 symptomatic for different reasons. If I had the same possibilities and

21 capacities as you did, I would have done a much more thorough analysis.

22 MR. MacDONALD: I'm happy to take the break now, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take the break.

24 Witness, perhaps during the break you would think about directly

25 answering questions rather than to first answer questions you have on

Page 42937

1 your mind. If they are relevant, the Defence will certainly put them to

2 you at any later stage.

3 We'll take a break. We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, so

4 that is at 11.00. You may follow the usher.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 [The witness stands down]

7 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 11.00.

8 --- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.

9 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

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

11 Mr. MacDonald.

12 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, Your Honours. I neglected to tender the

13 documents that we discussed about Mustafa Mehic. I have spoken briefly

14 with Mr. Lukic. I understand there's no objection. So I would tender

15 65 ter 33612, that's the reassociation report.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 33612 receives number P7789.

18 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, admitted. Please

19 proceed.

20 MR. MacDONALD: 33613, that's the autopsy with the photographs.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 33613 receives number P7790.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.

24 MR. MacDONALD: And finally, 65 ter 33625, the letter from ICMP

25 addressed to Peter McCloskey dated 27 January 2016.

Page 42938

1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 33625 receives number P7791.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.

4 MR. MacDONALD: I wonder if, again to save time Your Honours, we

5 could call up the first exhibit I plan to use. That's D01399, MFI.

6 [The witness takes the stand]

7 MR. MacDONALD: And if we could go to page 6 in the English and

8 page 5 in the B/C/S, please.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: And it's under seal? And it must not be

10 published.

11 MR. MacDONALD: Indeed, Your Honour. Thank you for that.

12 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, I'd like to discuss one more example with you from

13 the category of people labelled as being in two different places. The

14 list that you brought is going to appear on the screen in front of you in

15 a moment.

16 Do you see the heading in B/C/S "asanacija," in English

17 "sanitization"?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. The third name down, Mr. Pavlovic, again it's been cleared by

20 ICMP as Salkic, Nizam. And in the description part of your lists, you

21 write:

22 "Found in mass grave Zeleni Jadar 5 and 6."

23 Are you aware that the evidence in this case shows both of those

24 graves are secondary mass graves?

25 A. I'm not disputing that. However, these persons, apart from the

Page 42939

1 first two, should not be here at all. This is part of my work analysis.

2 There's obviously a confusion if the Defence provided it to you. What I

3 submitted is a table at a later stage more finalized. This is just part

4 of my preliminary work where I only listed cases that could potentially

5 be interesting. So that numbers 3, 4, and 5 and 6, do not fall into the

6 category of bodies that were partly sanitized and partly found in mass

7 graves. This is a list of bodies that could potentially be interesting

8 and deserve further investigation. It's by mistake they remained in this

9 table. I'm not disputing, however, that these graves are secondary.

10 Q. So is this not the table that you submitted to the Defence and

11 that you're advancing before the Court?

12 A. I've just explained. I had a working table, a table with names

13 that I could work on later. I had given it to the Defence, yes, but I

14 also gave them a more finalized table. I believe that these names

15 remained here by mistake because there was some confusion just before my

16 coming to testify. I don't know exactly why --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there.

18 I'm also addressing Mr. Lukic. Mr. Lukic, this list was

19 presented as -- as I understood it, as the latest list provided to you by

20 Mr. Pavlovic, but now Mr. Pavlovic claims that there must be a more

21 updated list. Do you have any knowledge about that?

22 And, Mr. Pavlovic, I think that - I'm just talking from my

23 recollection - that you provided this list just a couple of days before

24 you testified in this court in December. When did you give the newest

25 list? Or did you provide that updated list after your testimony or still

Page 42940

1 before your testimony? Or did you only provide one list and did you

2 never give an updated list?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I explained the last time I was

4 here, I brought this with me and I showed to the Defence what I had, and

5 it was a working document, a working table. After that, I made a short

6 list that I also gave to the Defence. I suppose it's by mistake that

7 this one remained.

8 JUDGE ORIE: When did you give the short list, prior to your

9 testimony in December or after you testified in December?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before I started testifying.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, are you aware of any shorter list the

12 witness would have provided you with?

13 MR. LUKIC: This the first time I heard so I'm trying to check in

14 my computer if I have anything shorter. I cannot locate it but I have --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps meanwhile we'll --

16 MR. LUKIC: -- to check with my case manager as well.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps meanwhile we'll continue and --

18 because this comes really a bit as a surprise, especially since the

19 witness emphasised that, as he said on page 19, "we are serious people,"

20 so we are serious enough to only look at final lists.

21 By the way, you list you presented, Mr. Pavlovic, does not --

22 where do -- could we see that it is not -- it's just a list of matters

23 that needed to be further researched. It says that it's -- that the

24 title suggests otherwise. But if it's a preliminary working document, of

25 course, that should not be final but ... how could we have known, also in

Page 42941

1 view of your evidence given in December, that this was not what it claims

2 to be? That's an: "Overview of known individual who died during

3 breakthrough and other disputed cases." That's how it's titled.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understood you correctly,

5 there are several questions in this one.

6 The way in which you could know -- in fact, it wasn't planned to

7 present this. I just put them in as something that could be interesting.

8 For instance, the last three persons, as we see, were found in two

9 primary graves. That opens up the possibility --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I didn't --

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that there had been sanitization

12 if they were in primary graves, but that's an operative piece of data. I

13 did not later exclude them. Errors are possible. This is a technical

14 matter purely.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although it's not an answer to my question, I

16 do understand what you want to tell us.

17 Mr. Lukic, any response yet? If not, I'll invite Mr. MacDonald

18 to proceed. But it is a bit on a shaky basis that we're proceeding if we

19 don't know whether there's any shorter list in which perhaps some of the

20 items Mr. MacDonald would like to deal with are not appearing anymore.

21 MR. LUKIC: Maybe we should ask Mr. Pavlovic to check the whole

22 document and see what should be excluded from that.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- but apparently he has done that

24 already, as he said.

25 Do you have a copy of the most -- the most recent version of this

Page 42942

1 document?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if I have it, but I

3 could look for it today when I go back.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you mean you have it somewhere with you in

5 The Hague, I take it? You're not telling us --

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether I have it with

7 me. I would have to check. Last time I brought it and handed it over.

8 Later today, I could look at this and -- these things are obviously from

9 a different preparatory preliminary level. This is a technical error.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we're dealing with a technical error for

11 weeks and weeks in preparing for today's hearing.

12 Would you -- if Mr. MacDonald draws your attention to any item on

13 this list which you say shouldn't be there any further, would you

14 immediately tell us at the very beginning.

15 And then, Mr. MacDonald, I leave it in your hands whether -- if

16 the item you addressed is not on the list anymore, then it shouldn't be

17 there, then I wonder whether it's worth any further attention. But

18 perhaps you have a few more.

19 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, I'm not going to deal with any more of the DNA

21 category, but I do want to ask you one question in general about it.

22 You just stated to the Court that some of these people are pulled

23 out of primary mass graves, and I note that the fourth and the sixth one

24 were pulled from -- or exhumed, rather, from Glogova 5 and 7, and

25 Ravnice 1 and 2. Are you aware that those graves are linked to the

Page 42943

1 execution at Kravica warehouse?

2 A. I'm not disputing these facts if you have them. I just included

3 these in order to investigate further and see what it could be about --

4 Q. Yes, Mr. Pavlovic, if you just --

5 A. -- why one person was found in two primary graves.

6 Q. If you'll bear with me now. Well, in Kravica warehouse, the

7 evidence shows the execution was carried out with guns and with numerous

8 hand-grenades. So if amongst the packed bodies in Kravica warehouse a

9 hand-grenade rips a person in two, that would explain - or could

10 explain - why one person ends up in two primary mass graves; correct?

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just suggest a way of efficiency,

12 Mr. Pavlovic. When the question is are you aware of it, it's not

13 necessary for you say "I don't dispute." Just say whether you are aware

14 or not aware, and your answers will be much shorter and we can make

15 better progress. Thank you so much.

16 JUDGE ORIE: And then perhaps your response to the suggestion put

17 to you by Mr. MacDonald that if people are killed through a hand-grenade,

18 whether you would agree - at least that's how I understand the question -

19 that if a body is torn apart in several pieces as a result of this type

20 of killing, whether that could reasonably explain various body parts to

21 have been found in more than one primary grave, primary mass grave.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If there is a possibility for a

23 hand-grenade to tear a body apart into several pieces, then, yes; but I

24 don't know whether a hand-grenade can do that.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

Page 42944

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. MacDONALD:

3 Q. Let's move to another part of the list, Mr. Pavlovic.

4 MR. MacDONALD: If we can go to page 8 in the English and I would

5 suggest we just have the English at this point. And that should not be

6 broadcast, of course.

7 Q. Now this is the second half of your report, and I understand you

8 testified in chief that this was a separate list at the beginning but the

9 Defence have -- have presented it all as one. But you recall this part

10 of your list, Mr. Pavlovic?

11 A. Yes, that's my analysis on the same subject but in a different

12 form.

13 Q. Okay. Now, my first question, I suppose, should be: Do you

14 recognise if this is just a working copy or is this a final -- finalized

15 copy that you wish to present to the Court?

16 A. I think it's the final version. It could be improved on, but

17 this is how far I got.

18 Q. Okay. Well, as I understand this part of your report, you list a

19 number of names out to the right-hand side there, and you list them there

20 because the word "eksploziva" appears under cause of death in the death

21 certificate. That's why they're on this list, yes?

22 A. Yes. Yes, that the injuries were sustained by explosive devices.

23 Q. Okay. Just to go over what you said about these people and I

24 just want you to confirm for me that it's correct.

25 At transcript page 42868, line 11, in your examination-in-chief,

Page 42945

1 you said the following:

2 "The next group of examples refers to persons who appear in death

3 certificates that are issued after the final identification has been done

4 and are issued by the court. So next to the report of final

5 identification a death certificate is issued. On the other side of the

6 document towards the bottom, cause of death is mentioned. And while

7 examining certificates of death, in some examples I observed that some

8 persons had a sustained injuries from explosive devices and those persons

9 were exhumed from graves."

10 I'm right in saying you put this forward as support of what you

11 say because you're aware that members of the column were exposed to

12 shelling, minefields, as you say, the occasional suicide by hand-grenade,

13 and because these death certificates have the word "eksploziva," you cite

14 them in support of what you are saying. Is that right?

15 A. I was talking about death certificates issued upon final

16 identification by the acting pathologist who was authorised to perform

17 this work by the prosecutor's office, not issued by the court. And in

18 these death certificates, on the other side, on the flip side, cause of

19 death is indicated. And I did find certain cases where persons were

20 killed by blast wounds and were found in graves, and knowing the

21 circumstances of the movement of the column and the attacks they were

22 under, one can conclude that some of these people who -- killed trying

23 the breakout ended up after sanitization in these graves.

24 Q. Now, Mr. Pavlovic, Mr. Lukic only discussed one example with you

25 and that was Alic Husein, and on the list in front of us, we see him in

Page 42946

1 the third row off to the right in the second column. Now, what you said

2 about Alic Husein, and this is at transcript page 42870, line 15, is:

3 "While reviewing the certificate of death that is signed by the

4 pathologist in the investigation, I saw that the injuries the person

5 sustained were of -- were caused by explosives."

6 Do you recall saying that about this death certificate?

7 A. I probably said that. Because it says here that the injuries

8 were caused by mines and explosives.

9 Q. Did you review that death certificate personally, Mr. Pavlovic?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Okay. Well, let's have a look at it.

12 MR. MacDONALD: Can we have 65 ter number 33617 on the screen,

13 please. I think we can just do this with the B/C/S, Your Honours.

14 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, we see the name Alic Husein there; do you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 MR. MacDONALD: If we could move to the next page, please.

17 Q. Now box 21 is cause of death. Can you just read out for us the

18 B/C/S statement of the cause of death, please.

19 A. "Gun-shot or explosion, destruction of the head."

20 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, you've written the word -- or you've testified the

21 word "eksploziva" appeared in the cause of death, but you didn't mention

22 that the word "gun-shot" also appeared there, did you?

23 A. Yes, I mentioned examples where explosion is mentioned. I see

24 that there's gun-shot as well mentioned here, but I don't see what that

25 really changes. I can explain further if you'd like me to.

Page 42947

1 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, I understood you to be telling the Court that you

2 had determined these people died by explosive devices on the basis of

3 what's said in the death certificate. Now, the death certificate says

4 gun-shot/explosive. I understood it to be supporting your theory because

5 you talked about how the people in the column were subject to shelling or

6 maybe stepped on minefields. But if this cause of death could be

7 gun-shot or explosive, then it doesn't support your -- well, what you're

8 telling the Court at all, does it?

9 A. I understood that destruction was caused both by gun-shot and

10 explosion. The fact that it's gun-shot too doesn't have to mean anything

11 in itself because there were persons who were exhumed from mass graves

12 who had only gun-shot wounds, because we know that some people lost their

13 lives because of injuries inflicted with infantry weapons during the

14 breakthrough.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I just ask you now, you say it could

16 be that that person died through a gun-shot and an explosion. Just for

17 me to understand what you mean. Do you mean to say that simultaneously

18 with a shot fired at that person hitting, for example, his head, which is

19 the example here, that at the same time, simultaneously, there was an

20 explosion which then also destroyed his head? So a blast and a gun-shot

21 hitting the head exactly at the same time? Is that ...

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we talk about reconstruction,

23 I don't see a need to draw such a conclusion because it does not

24 necessarily mean that it happened simultaneously. The person may have

25 been injured after falling to the ground, for example, if a shell landed

Page 42948

1 there, then it could be shrapnel. So there's no need to assert that it

2 happened simultaneously.

3 JUDGE ORIE: But have you considered that it's possible that the

4 head was destroyed in such a way that it is very difficult to say whether

5 it was the result of a gun-shot or an explosion so that it's either of

6 the two?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that's a question for experts

8 who are of this particular profession. One or two of them should provide

9 their opinions. I just mention what the pathologist stated here.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and you draw all kind of conclusions on the

11 basis of that and those conclusions are based on a certain interpretation

12 of what this expert said. That is, that it was through an explosive that

13 he died, and that's why you think he must have been in the column because

14 that's where you would find these kind of blasts, isn't it? That's your

15 reasoning.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is just one of many examples

17 where there are --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Witness -- Witness -- Witness, I'm not talking about

19 other examples. I'm focussing on this one.

20 Did I present your reasoning well? Or did I make any mistake in

21 that respect? In this particular case.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said it could be, or may be.

23 There is this possibility that this could have happened.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you leave it open that it may have been by

25 a gun-shot wound as well, instead of an explosive wound.

Page 42949

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Which would undermine any type of conclusion as

3 you've drawn from this -- from this cause of death report?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The destruction of the head by

5 explosion is not excluded here as a possibility. It's included, rather,

6 as one of the possibilities. So that is why I took it into consideration

7 and included in my report as such.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So what you're telling us is that you cannot

9 exclude that they had -- on the basis of your material, you cannot

10 exclude that they were killed when being in a column on the basis of a

11 few assumptions, that that's where blast wounds were taking place and

12 that's where people were killed by gun-shots. It's all open.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I only raised certain issues

14 because I cannot make the reconstruction, the forensic reconstruction. I

15 just raised certain issues by specific evidence on the basis of the

16 information that we have about the movement of the column and also the

17 incidents that happened. That would include the events that took place

18 on the ground and also the source of injuries that people sustained.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

20 MR. MacDONALD:

21 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, do you know how many names and how many grave-sites

22 you cite in this part of your report?

23 A. No, no. That wasn't so important for me at all. I think that

24 there was a sufficient number of cases that one could think along certain

25 lines. I know that there are many other such cases and I think it's not

Page 42950

1 disputed at all. I suppose that you've analysed who died because of

2 blast wounds in terms of specific graves.

3 Q. Well, we looked at the entire list, if that's what you mean,

4 Mr. Pavlovic, and there are 83 persons you cite from 12 different graves.

5 Now, six of the graves are linked to Kravica warehouse and six are not,

6 and 42 of these death certificates come from victims found in graves not

7 linked to Kravica warehouse.

8 Mr. Pavlovic, are you aware, every single one of those 42 death

9 certificates, every single one says gun-shot/explosive on it?

10 A. All right. I do not dispute.

11 Q. So His Honour Judge Orie's reasoning when he says that, in

12 essence, it's all open, you can't conclude on the basis of these death

13 certificates, that applies to all 42 of those death certificates. You

14 agree with that?

15 A. I never asserted that I drew the conclusion that it was so. I

16 just said that I opened up certain possibilities.

17 Q. I'm going to move on to deal with another category in your list,

18 Mr. Pavlovic.

19 MR. MacDONALD: If we can turn to Mr. Pavlovic's list that he

20 brought with him, D01399 MFI.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Not to be broadcast.

22 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 And perhaps we can go into page 2 in both languages.

24 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, the last category I want to deal with is a category

25 where you found a statement of a person walking in the column who said

Page 42951

1 that he saw another person die, and that's the majority of the people in

2 this first half of the list.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps -- I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. MacDonald,

4 but I would like to ask one additional question in relation to what we

5 dealt with earlier.

6 I read from your transcript of today when you were talking about

7 death certificate issued upon final identification, et cetera. You said:

8 "And I did find certain cases where persons were killed by blast

9 wounds and were found in graves. And knowing the circumstances of the

10 movement of the column and the attacks they were under, one can conclude

11 that some of these people who killed," and then there's a small portion

12 illegible, "trying the breakout ended up after sanitization in these

13 graves."

14 You said:

15 "I did find certain cases where persons were killed by blast

16 wounds."

17 From the 42 autopsy reports, it does not establish that they were

18 killed by blast wounds. I think that's what you testified later this

19 morning. Do you agree?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps I didn't understand you

21 quite well. Do I agree with what?

22 JUDGE ORIE: That you later this morning testified that the cases

23 you were referring to did not indicate that they were killed by blast

24 wounds but that they indicate that they possibly were killed by blast

25 wounds, possibly by gun-shots.

Page 42952

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may just look at the question,

2 please. I am not certain that I understand this quite clearly. Let me

3 try to explain.

4 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, no. I'd rather you to answer my questions.

5 I did read to you a portion of your -- of the transcript of today

6 of your testimony in which you said you did find certain cases where

7 persons were killed by blast wounds and were found in graves. From what

8 I understood in your testimony later is that you did not find indicated

9 that people were killed by blast wounds but that people could have been

10 killed either by blast wounds or by gun-shots.

11 Would you agree with that?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the first part I already said

13 that I agree with that.

14 The second part, I have said that I understood what I read, that

15 they died by both gun-shot and blast wounds.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's what -- that was your initial

17 explanation. I think later on you even withdrew that.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not withdraw it. I only

19 said that on the basis of examples which I list, I left the possibility

20 that some of them may have been killed by blast wounds and that it may

21 have happened during their breakthrough.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you were more pertinent earlier in your

23 testimony. You said you found cases where persons were killed by blast

24 wounds, whereas you now say possibly they may have been killed by blast

25 wounds. And then you drew conclusions, "one can conclude that some of

Page 42953

1 these people," and then you said it was during the breakthrough. That's

2 all shaky conclusions on a shaky factual basis, isn't it? Because you

3 could also conclude otherwise.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this is a typical

5 reconstruction. If you have information that thousands of people died

6 during the breakthrough in the way that they died, and when you're

7 looking for the bodies there's nowhere else for them to be, there's a

8 possibility that they're in graves, so then you look for certain evidence

9 that could support conclusions that are directed that way. You have the

10 number of missing persons in connection with Srebrenica. They are all in

11 the list, both those who died during the breakthrough and those who were

12 taken prisoner, those who perished there. Just one list of missing

13 persons. So it's logical that you try to determine where the thousands

14 of people who died during the breakthrough in the way that they did are

15 buried. Where could they be? So it's something that's basic in my

16 trade.

17 JUDGE ORIE: You are explaining a long search for persons to be

18 found. You are not responding to my question. I leave it to that.

19 Mr. MacDonald.

20 But one thing: If you say you only raise issues, whereas you say

21 you can conclude, that's more than raising an issue. Would you agree

22 with me?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To conclude that there is a

24 possibility.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

Page 42954

1 Please proceed, Mr. MacDonald.

2 MR. MacDONALD:

3 Q. And, Mr. Pavlovic, I'm going to back to deal with the last

4 category in your list that you want to deal with. That is, persons where

5 you find a statement, persons -- of persons walking in the column who say

6 that they saw someone die and name that person.

7 Now, I'm right in saying that the person identifying the victim

8 is also part of the column. That's right, isn't it?

9 A. Well, if it's a case in which a person from a column saw somebody

10 die, then it's logical that that person was also a member of the column.

11 Q. Yes. And as these people are dying when they're under attack, it

12 means that the person identifying them is also under attack at that time,

13 aren't they?

14 A. It could be so but not necessarily. He could have seen him later

15 on as he walked by. There are such statements where they saw a group of

16 people who had been killed by a shell, and the person stating that walked

17 along perhaps half an hour later. So everything that you are saying is

18 an assumption.

19 Q. We'll come back to that. For those people who do identify when

20 they see the person die, they're being attacked by heavy artillery,

21 anti-aircraft munitions, potentially there are minefields. These are all

22 ways that people in the column died; correct?

23 A. It's noted in the statements the various ways in which people

24 died, and I quoted that.

25 Q. Now, the vast -- well, of the approximately 20 victims here that

Page 42955

1 were exhumed from mass graves, only one of them is identified by a family

2 member. Were you aware of that?

3 A. Are you talking about the final identification on the basis of

4 DNA or were they recognised when they died? What specifically do you

5 mean?

6 Q. I'm talking about the category where you find somebody who has

7 given a statement that they see somebody die. In that category, from the

8 people exhumed later from mass graves, only one of them is identified by

9 a family member.

10 Were you aware of that?

11 A. I did not look into the number of such persons. If I say

12 "identified," that is to say, saw him being killed during breakthrough,

13 if that's what you mean by being identified. Simply as a category.

14 Because identification that I had in mind is final identification based

15 on DNA analysis, if you talk about that. If you talk about one person

16 seeing another being killed during breakthrough and identifying him in

17 that sense, there is just one case where a family member saw another

18 person being killed during the breakthrough, it's possible.

19 Have I understood your question well?

20 Q. Yes. Yes, you have. Just for the avoidance of confusion, I know

21 that you say witness X saw victim Y die in such and such a place, and

22 then you also tend to say where this person was exhumed from, the part

23 I'm focussing on is just where witness X saw victim Y die, not where they

24 were exhumed from.

25 Do you understand me?

Page 42956

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now the column, the terrain that it's moving through is mainly

3 mountainous and heavily forested; is that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, did it ever occur to you that a person who is under

6 attack from heavy artillery or anti-aircraft munitions who is seeing

7 people die around them, when those people are not family members, who is

8 presumably terrified that they might die at any point in heavily forested

9 mountainous terrain, maybe they get their identifications wrong of the

10 person who died?

11 A. That's theoretical, and theoretically it is certainly possible.

12 But if we deal with these matters seriously, then we try to reconstruct

13 what happened. And then we know that the column moved in such a way that

14 people from the same formations from the same places, people who knew one

15 another, I'm talking about something from the statements, went together.

16 Family members, neighbours from the same places, people who knew one

17 another tended to stick together and move together. These were also

18 people who had four years of war experience and combat experience behind

19 them, so these were not people who didn't know what to do in such a

20 situation. Of course, their lives were in danger but they were used to

21 such circumstances and that has to be taken into account. But

22 theoretically, of course, anything is possible.

23 Q. I think you answered my question with your first line there, and

24 I would like to move to a concrete example to look at this. Now, if I

25 can draw your attention to the name Amir Zukanovic, third down in the

Page 42957

1 B/C/S, fifth down in the English. And the witness statement you cite

2 says that he died in the beginning of the breakthrough towards Buljim and

3 you then go on to point out he was exhumed from Cerska.

4 Are you aware of the evidence regarding the Cerska grave-site,

5 Mr. Pavlovic?

6 A. No, that was not a subject of my analysis.

7 Q. Let me just give you a brief resume of it. The evidence shows

8 that three buses full of arrested people were seen turning down that

9 road, followed by other vehicles with Bosnian Serb soldiers in them, and

10 thereafter gun-fire was heard. And in terms of forensic evidence,

11 150 bodies were taken from the primary mass grave at Cerska. 149 of them

12 were determined to have been killed by gun-shot wounds, the last one as

13 an undetermined cause of death, and 48 of the bodies exhumed from that

14 grave had ligatures.

15 Now, bearing that in mind, Mr. Pavlovic, let's look at the

16 witness statement that you cite here.

17 MR. MacDONALD: Can we have 65 ter number 33589 on the screen,

18 please, and it's page 1 of both languages. Now, in the B/C/S, it's about

19 ten lines down and it's underlined. In the English we see the second

20 name about six lines up from the bottom which is in capitals.

21 Q. Now, I just want to read that line to you, Mr. Pavlovic. In this

22 statement, it says:

23 "Immediately after we took off from Buljim, I saw Amir Zukanovic,

24 from Brakovci, Srebrenica municipality, died from the shrapnel of the

25 shell."

Page 42958

1 You see those words, Mr. Pavlovic?

2 A. Mm-hm, mm-hm. Yes.

3 Q. Now I'd like to look at the forensic evidence dealing with this

4 victim.

5 MR. MacDONALD: Can we please turn to P01982, and this is not to

6 be broadcast. And if we turn to page 7 and I'm looking for line 85.

7 Q. Now, you see the name Amir Zukanovic. And a few columns along,

8 you see the grave-site code CSK-37.

9 Do you see that, Mr. Pavlovic?

10 A. Yes, I can see it.

11 Q. So let's look at his autopsy report.

12 MR. MacDONALD: It's 65 ter number 04550a.

13 Is there a B/C/S version of this as well, I think? Yes.

14 We see in the top left case number CSK-37 and towards the bottom

15 of the page, under the heading "External examination" we see:

16 "Condition: Complete."

17 And if we can turn the page in both documents.

18 If we look down at the bottom the heading "Evidence of trauma,"

19 we see two entries that are not post-mortem. The first, a high-velocity

20 gun-shot wound, 9 millimetres, which is going from the back of the skull

21 out through the front, from left to right; and a gun-shot wound on left

22 shoulder-blade.

23 And if we can turn to the last page here.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps for those are not familiar with the sirens

25 it's the -- every month the system is tested at Monday, the first day of

Page 42959

1 the month -- first Monday of the month at 12.00 sharp. That's what you

2 hear at this moment.

3 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 My apologies. It's actually page 3 I'm looking for in both

5 documents.

6 Now just under the heading "Other evidence," we see: "Wire cuff

7 and assorted wire found loose in body bag."

8 And the Prosecution's position is that that is a ligature found

9 on Mr. Zukanovic.

10 Q. Now, Mr. Pavlovic, when the evidence in the autopsy report

11 conflicts so strongly with that in the witness statement, wouldn't you

12 agree with me that in this case the witness you cite simply got his

13 identification wrong?

14 A. There are several possibilities, including that one. What is

15 interesting is that the bullet is of a larger calibre than average, and

16 pathologists can concentrate on that type of wound instead of ligatures.

17 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt but I'm not asking you to expand upon the

18 autopsy report. I think you answered my question, when you --

19 A. Mm-hm, mm-hm.

20 Q. -- in the first line there.

21 MR. MacDONALD: I have one last question and then I think it may

22 be time for the break, Your Honours.

23 Q. Did you do any further investigation, any follow-up, anything,

24 for this victim, Amir Zukanovic, apart from find this statement that you

25 cite here?

Page 42960

1 A. Anything further would be forensic expert work, and that's done

2 by the official of the prosecutor, not me. I suppose that all persons

3 who are on the list were subjected to this type of analysis, whether they

4 got killed or they're executed, what type of wound, et cetera. The

5 question is whether pathologists and anthropologists had information

6 about the movement of the column and different ways of death --

7 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, that was not my question. My question was: Did

8 you do any further investigation on the victim Amir Zukanovic apart from

9 looking at and citing to the statement that you cite in the list? Did

10 you do any further investigation?

11 A. I think I've answered that question.

12 JUDGE ORIE: You have not. But should we understand your answer

13 to be that you did not go beyond the statement you quoted?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this specific case, no.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we were talking about this specific case.

16 Thank you for that, clarifying your answer.

17 Time for a break. Witness, we'll take a break. We'd like to see

18 you back in 20 minutes. You may follow the usher.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 [The witness stands down]

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald, I think you scheduled for three hours

23 of cross. Are you on track?

24 MR. MacDONALD: I hope so, Your Honour. I'm not 100 per cent

25 sure because I'm not sure how much time has been used by me.

Page 42961

1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you could ask Madam Registrar and she'll tell

2 you. We'll hear that after we resume.

3 We take a break and we'll resume at 25 minutes past 12.00.

4 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 12.26 p.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: While we're waiting for the witness to come into the

7 courtroom, having looked at the time and I am afraid that the Judges took

8 some time as well ...

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that I take it you've quite some time left.

11 Any chance that we could conclude the cross-examination today?

12 MR. MacDONALD: Certainly today, Your Honour, and I would hope

13 next session.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's try to aim at that.

15 [The witness takes the stand]

16 MR. MacDONALD:

17 Q. Mr. Pavlovic, I'd like to continue looking at some examples from

18 the category that we were dealing with; that is, people who testified

19 they saw someone die in the column.

20 Now, at transcript page 42866, line 3, you said you took examples

21 "where the eye-witness said they saw an individual die or get killed, not

22 that they heard but that they actually saw the person dying or being

23 killed."

24 And a little further on, after the Presiding Judge asks you a

25 question to clarify, you say, and this is transcript page 42866, lines 14

Page 42962

1 to 18:

2 "All right. Very well. I'm not sure if we can mention names.

3 Here the way it is phrased in the comment, perhaps it's not precise

4 enough, but I was taking examples that I mentioned; i.e., exclusively

5 examples where a witness said that they actually were an eye-witness and

6 saw the person get killed or die."

7 Do you remember saying that, Mr. Pavlovic?

8 A. Yes, I said that then; but after seeing this list, including

9 cases that shouldn't be there, I cannot rule out the possibility that a

10 working version of the list did not exclude the cases where there are

11 witness reports saying that they had seen somebody die. Such cases

12 should be excluded, and I see that the list is not the one I was thinking

13 I was commenting upon.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps the right time to interrupt briefly.

15 Mr. Lukic, any results from the updated new list?

16 MR. LUKIC: I cannot locate anything apart that we uploaded.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 Mr. Pavlovic, the Defence is not aware of any better or newer or

19 updated list you are talking about. Have you -- you have had no

20 opportunity yet to look at it. Perhaps you do that this afternoon to see

21 whether there's any better one. And we're still puzzled by what

22 happened. Let's leave it to that.

23 Please proceed.

24 MR. MacDONALD:

25 Q. Well, Mr. Pavlovic, I'd like to take you to one example.

Page 42963

1 MR. MacDONALD: If we can have the list on the screen, please,

2 MFI D01399. It's page 5 in the English, page 4 in the B/C/S.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And again, not to be broadcast.

4 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 If I can say at this point we are going to be moving between the

6 lists and witness statements for the next few examples, so perhaps to

7 spare my blushes, I can say whenever it's MFI D01399 it should not be

8 broadcast.

9 Q. I'm looking for the name here Azem Pasalic. He is the second

10 name down in the English and about the 12th name down in the B/C/S, four

11 from the bottom.

12 Do see him there, Mr. Pavlovic?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. This is the witness -- the victim, sorry, you were discussing

15 when His Honour Judge Orie asked you the question about how you selected

16 examples. And that can be found at transcript page 42864 to 42866. So

17 let's look at the witness statement you cite here.

18 MR. MacDONALD: That's 65 ter number 33593. It's page 16 in the

19 English and page 15 in the B/C/S.

20 And I'm looking for the second block of text, both languages, and

21 the second paragraph in BOTH languages, beginning: "Some local Serbs

22 from Srebrenica ..."

23 And what this witness is describing is crimes that took place in

24 1992, and in this paragraph he says:

25 "Some local Serbs from Srebrenica helped their Muslim neighbours

Page 42964

1 during these same events," and he gives a list of the names of the

2 survivors. And in the second bottom line, we see the name Azem Pasalic.

3 And then in parentheses, we see:

4 "(Died during the breakthrough from Srebrenica towards Tuzla in

5 July 1995)."

6 Q. Now, so far as we could tell, there was no other reference to

7 Azem Pasalic in this statement. So given this is the example you were

8 discussing in your examination-in-chief when you told the Bench that you

9 had selected exclusively examples where the person giving the statement

10 sees the person die, how do you know that this person saw Azem Pasalic

11 die?

12 A. Yes, he is not saying explicitly that he had seen this person die

13 during the breakthrough. I don't know how. But on the other hand, it

14 tells me that, unfortunately, I was right talking about this list and

15 saying that some items remained from the working version, that they were

16 not cleaned out, leaving only those who were seen to die.

17 Q. Okay. Well, let's say -- did you do any follow-up on

18 Azem Pasalic? Did you look for any other information about him?

19 A. I checked where the person was found. That was my procedure, so

20 I know. Whether I did something in addition in this particular case I

21 cannot tell you. If he doesn't feature in the statement of some other

22 witness saying that he had seen this person, if I found him only in this

23 statement and not in any other, that means that's what I managed to find

24 and see where the person was exhumed.

25 This falls in the categories of persons who could be interesting,

Page 42965

1 but the witness does not explicitly say he had seen the death. That's

2 why I didn't single him out for my final overview.

3 Q. Well, Mr. Pavlovic, we haven't seen this final overview, but you

4 talk about finding Azem Pasalic in a witness statement. We found him in

5 his widow's witness statement. So I'd just like to show that to you.

6 MR. MacDONALD: Can we have 65 ter 33608, and I'd like page 2 in

7 the English and page 1 in the B/C/S to start.

8 JUDGE ORIE: While we're waiting for that. Witness, did you

9 intend to say that that's why you did single him out for your overview or

10 you did not single him out, which sounds a bit illogical.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not include him in the final

12 list. I know which principle I followed when working --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that clarifies the issue.

14 MR. MacDONALD:

15 Q. If we look in English in the first block of text seven lines from

16 the bottom and the B/C/S, it's six lines from the bottom of the page, if

17 you look for the date July 1993, you will see a sentence that says:

18 "I married Azem Pasalic in July 1993 and moved to Srebrenica,

19 where I continued to live till the beginning of July 1995 ..."

20 And if we can turn to page 3 in the English and page 2 in the

21 B/C/S, please.

22 Yes, now this is a fairly solid block of text, but both

23 references are approximately halfway down. If you look for the name

24 Dragan Trisic. And just while you're finding that, I'll tell you that

25 the witness is talking about Potocari on 13th July 1995.

Page 42966

1 And what the witness says is:

2 "At around 1530 hours, Dragan Trisic, who was among the Chetniks,

3 came up to my husband and was saying to him that he would help us with

4 getting on the truck. My husband and I started towards the truck at

5 1600 hours, when a Chetnik grabbed my husband by the shoulder and took

6 him off the truck, because I heard Dragan Trisic say, Take him off, damn

7 him, he's rich, following which, they took my husband to an unfinished

8 house, into which I saw them take seven people more, as of when I have

9 not seen my husband ..."

10 So, Mr. Pavlovic, the last time Azem Pasalic is seen alive by his

11 widow he's being separated at Potocari and taken off to the unfinished

12 house there; correct?

13 A. That's written here.

14 Q. And somehow you found the statement that referenced him dying in

15 the breakthrough but you didn't manage to find the statement of his widow

16 talking about the last time she saw him alive.

17 A. Excuse me, I'm not disputing that this is the same person, but I

18 worked on statements made by people who participated in the breakthrough.

19 I did not look into the statements of wives and other persons who were

20 transported by bus from Potocari to Kladanj, so it's not strange why I've

21 never read this statement. I was focussing on the statements of people

22 who participated in the breakthrough and who testified about the

23 circumstances of that breakthrough.

24 My working list included everything that could potentially be

25 interesting. Only in the second stage did I do some more checking to see

Page 42967

1 whether anyone had seen them die.

2 Q. And when you say "second stage," that's this shorter overview

3 that you've been working on but that we haven't seen; is that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Okay.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us, when did you finalize this

7 shorter -- when was it created, this new list and ...

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] While I was here during

9 preparation. I finalized it here, trying to exclude everything that was

10 not 100 per cent certain. At least based on the available information.

11 You can never have 100 per cent certainty.

12 JUDGE ORIE: One second. When you were here. You were here in

13 December. You are here now in January. Do you mean in December?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Are you telling us that the list you gave to the

16 Defence a couple of days before the start of your testimony, that you

17 were able to verify so many details and were, thus, able to create a new

18 list within two, three days? Is that your testimony?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was almost finished when I

20 brought it. I just looked at the statements and I saw whether the

21 witness was saying a person had died before their eyes. That's -- that's

22 all.

23 JUDGE ORIE: You reviewed all those statements in the last couple

24 of days before you came to this courtroom to further filter your earlier

25 results?

Page 42968

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I said that job was almost

2 finished. And it's not a big job. There are a maximum of 20, 30 such

3 statements. I could just check that particular detail, what the witness

4 was saying about the death of a particular person I was looking for.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I'm still puzzled by the fact that nothing of the

6 kind was brought to our attention in December, but let's leave it to

7 that.

8 Please proceed.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just one other question.

10 Sir, when you -- excuse me. When you handed this list to the

11 Defence, did you not keep a copy for yourself to be able to testify from

12 it?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I came here it was a bit

14 chaotic because they didn't have my material at all. Everything was

15 blocked, all the files, all the computers --

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I stop you -- can I stop you? Did you not

17 keep a copy for yourself?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I would have to

19 check.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you -- I take it --

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did a lot of work here.

22 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that's in electronic format. It's not

23 just typed out, handwritten. Are you telling us that you do not know

24 whether have you even an electronic copy of the final version of your

25 list?

Page 42969

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had it and I handed it over in

2 electronic form. Whether I still have it, whether it remains somewhere,

3 I have to look. I didn't look into it before, because I had no idea the

4 situation was as it is, that the list we have here is wrong or that the

5 wrong list was disclosed or whatever you call it.

6 I would have to check where that list is. It exists because I

7 know I made it.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But do I understand you really well that you

9 had an electronic version, that you gave that electronic version

10 apparently in some -- on a stick or whatever way, to the Defence without

11 knowing for sure that you kept an electronic copy or original of that

12 electronic version you gave to the Defence?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Don't get me wrong, I just don't

14 dare to say anything that would later prove to be a mistake. I just want

15 to be sure about what I'm saying, so I need to check. If you understand

16 what I mean.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Did you look at your final list over the last month?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Because that list remained

19 with the Defence. I didn't know which version was disclosed here, so I

20 didn't pay attention. I had no reason to look into it.

21 JUDGE ORIE: When you gave it to the Defence, how did you give it

22 to the Defence? Was it a written, hard copy? Was it, you said,

23 electronic version? How did you give it to the Defence? Did you have a

24 memory stick, or did you have -- what kind of -- how did you transfer

25 these data to the Defence?

Page 42970

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot remember exactly because

2 we worked 12 hours per day. It was chaos. We were rushing to finish it

3 all.

4 Now how specifically I handed it over, I don't know. I can't

5 remember at which moment I handed it over.

6 JUDGE ORIE: But you really don't remember whether you used a USB

7 stick or whether you burned it on a CD or -- or that you sent it

8 electronically by mail as a -- you have no idea?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Thank you.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not what I said.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you said --

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not provide it on a CD. It

14 could have been done on the laptop of Mr. Lukic. Because sometimes I

15 used his laptop to finish certain things. I told you, it was chaos, we

16 worked 12 hours per day. I can't remember exactly. It could have been

17 either on a memory stick or on his laptop, but I never used any CDs.

18 JUDGE ORIE: But on his laptop, you said most of that work had

19 been done before you arrived. It was only a small portion that still had

20 to be done. You wouldn't have done that on his laptop when you were

21 still in -- at home, would you?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But I finished it here. I

23 just finalized it. Now whether ... whether I copied it from a memory

24 stick to his laptop, that's the detail I can't remember. We did a lot of

25 things during those few days. That's what I'm saying.

Page 42971

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, time to review your own laptop, I'm

2 afraid. That's -- but let's move on.

3 MR. MacDONALD:

4 Q. Just before we do, Mr. Pavlovic, do you have any idea how many

5 names would be on this short and final list that you say you gave to the

6 Defence?

7 A. No, no. I would have to go through it and see how many.

8 Q. Well, I ask because you saw this list extensively during your

9 examination-in-chief. I mean, you mentioned I think it was seven names

10 from it, from different pages. You didn't notice at any point in your

11 examination-in-chief that you were using the unfinalized list?

12 A. I don't know by heart the contents of all the statements. The

13 volume of the material I worked with is huge. I couldn't know by heart

14 what each statement states about a particular person. I would like to be

15 that kind of genius but I'm --

16 Q. That's not what I'm -- that's not what I'm asking you,

17 Mr. Pavlovic. I'm asking if you noticed at any point whether you were

18 using the wrong list. But I take it from your answer, you did not.

19 A. It never occurred to me.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: But it occurred to you now during

21 cross-examination that this is the wrong list? Yes or no?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I saw that in the specific

23 case concerning sanitizations.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

25 MR. MacDONALD:

Page 42972

1 Q. You were shown the page on sanitization during your

2 examination-in-chief and you spoke about two of the names from that list,

3 but you didn't notice then that there were four other names on it that

4 you say shouldn't have been there?

5 A. It's possible that I looked at it without noticing because I

6 wasn't focussing on that. You just asked me about a few persons who

7 shouldn't be there. That's how I noticed.

8 Q. Okay. Let's move on to another example.

9 MR. MacDONALD: If we can go back to the list, MFI D01399, page 5

10 in both languages. I'm looking for the name Mujo Turkovic, he is second

11 bottom in the English, Your Honours. Yes.

12 Q. Now you mention two witnesses here and I don't want to read out

13 the name of the -- of the first one, we'll come back to him. But the

14 first witness does say according to -- or, rather, your list does say

15 according to the witness's statement he died around Kamenica. And then

16 you mention a second witness. And you say:

17 "As well, according to Ademovic Sevala, seen to have died."

18 MR. MacDONALD: So let's look at the statement for Mr. Ademovic.

19 It is 1D06277, and I'd like page 3 in both languages, please.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you repeat the number for the record,

21 please.

22 MR. MacDONALD: Of course. 1D06277.

23 Q. Now, the second-last paragraph in both languages, beginning:

24 "Finally, I would like to point out ..."

25 And here it says:

Page 42973

1 "Finally, I would like to point out that the following died in

2 the breakthrough towards Tuzla."

3 And the second-last name, that's Mujo Turkovic. So in your list,

4 you represent this person as saying Mujo Turkovic was seen to have died.

5 How -- how do you get that from this witness statement?

6 A. This witness is mentioned in a different place. I just said in a

7 comment that he also mentions him, but I'm not sure if the witness first

8 witness saw him directly, so I don't know. In principle, this is just

9 additional information in this specific case, that there are two persons,

10 two witnesses who mention that this particular person lost his life

11 during the breakthrough.

12 Q. Okay. But --

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was going to say but is the statement of the one

14 who says he has seen him die that are you being shown now -- am I not ...

15 is this not Ademovic's statement?

16 MR. MacDONALD: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the one who says he saw him die. So it's

18 not the other witness. It's the same witness, Mr. Pavlovic. Now, he is

19 not saying he saw him die in his statement.

20 The question the Prosecution is asking how -- where did you get

21 it from that he saw him die which you wrote in your report? Could you

22 answer that question.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My table says that this witness saw

24 him die, right?

25 MR. MacDONALD:

Page 42974

1 Q. Your table says, Mr. Pavlovic:

2 "As well, according to Ademovic Sevala, seen to have died."

3 A. No, no, did I the state in the comment that this witness also saw

4 him die.

5 MR. MacDONALD: Perhaps we can go back to the list so we have it

6 on our screen in front of us, MFI D01399. It's page 5 in both languages.

7 It's the fourth from the top in the B/C/S.

8 Q. Now you can see the comment, Mr. Pavlovic. I'd invite you to

9 answer His Honour Judge Moloto's question.

10 A. It reads here:

11 "As well, according to Ademovic Sevala, seen to have died."

12 It doesn't say that Ademovic Sevala saw him die but that he was

13 seen to have died, because Sevala said they also died during the

14 breakthrough. Whether he himself saw him, we cannot say 100 per cent

15 that he didn't. Perhaps he did or he heard from somebody who was close

16 to him, but someone saw him die. There must be a way to take over

17 statements about the circumstances of this, whether Sevala Ademovic saw

18 him die or whether somebody else saw him die and then told him. I don't

19 see anything disputable about that.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pavlovic, what's the source of your claim that

21 someone saw Mujo Turkovic die?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the first person, the first

23 witness, whose name we mustn't mention. But let me say again, because I

24 see there are other instances where it was not just seen, I cannot claim

25 that the first witness saw him for sure because I don't know --

Page 42975

1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, Witness, that's the reason why I'm asking you:

2 What is the basis for your claim that someone saw Mujo Turkovic die?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Look, I refer to witness statements

4 where they say that the person died during the breakthrough.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, but --

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now the Prosecution is the one that

7 has to ...

8 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. -- you are claiming in this courtroom

9 whether Sevala Ademovic saw him die or somebody else saw him die and told

10 him: "I don't see anything disputable about this." Do you have a source

11 saying that that source saw Mr. Turkovic die, yes or no?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot claim with 100 per cent

13 certainty because I don't know what the first witness stated. Perhaps he

14 did say so, but I don't know it off the top of my head.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I leave it in the hands of -- but the

16 interesting matter is that it's in relation to this second witness that

17 you say "seen." So there there's a visual observation. And that's, I

18 think, also in your own language. If I'm not mistake the word "vizin"

19 [phoen] refers to a visual observation. You put it for the second

20 witness. Now you say it could be the first one. So let's then check --

21 I take it, Mr. --

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE ORIE: One second.

24 Could we move into private session for a second.

25 [Private session]