1 Monday, 18 April 2016
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honours. This is
9 case IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Before we invite the Defence to call its next witness, I'd like
12 to briefly deal with one procedural matter. I have a few others on my
13 list, but we'll leave them for a while. It is a follow-up on an
14 outstanding Rule 92 bis attestation and declaration issue.
15 In October of last year, the Chamber filed four decisions
16 granting the Defence's Rule 92 bis motions and conditionally admitted
17 into evidence the statements of Ostoja Javoric, Drazen Visnjic,
18 Radoslav Danicic, and Dusan Djenadija.
19 In each instance, the Chamber gave the Defence a six-week
20 deadline for filing the relevant attestations and declarations. In this
21 respect, to date, no such filings have been made, and in light of this,
22 the Chamber now sets a final deadline of three weeks from today's date.
23 If the attestations and declarations are not filed by this date, this
24 evidence will be marked not admitted.
25 Is the Defence ready to call its next witness, which the Chamber
1 understands will be Mr. Stankovic.
2 MR. IVETIC: That's correct. We are prepared to call Professor
3 Dr. Stankovic at this time.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the witness be escorted in the
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Stankovic. Before you give
9 evidence, the rules require that you make a solemn declaration, the text
10 of which is now handed out to you. I'd like to invite you to make that
11 solemn declaration.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
13 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: ZORAN STANKOVIC
15 [Witness testified through interpreter]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
17 Mr. Stankovic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Ivetic.
18 Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic.
19 Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
20 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Examination by Mr. Ivetic:
22 Q. Good morning, sir.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. Professor, doctor, can you please state your full name for
25 purposes of the record.
1 A. My name is Zoran Stankovic.
2 Q. And, sir, could you tell the Chamber what you are by training and
4 A. I have a degree in medicine and specialised in forensic medicine,
5 and I'm a specialist in forensic medicine. That's my job.
6 Q. And now I'd like to call up in e-court 65 ter number 1D03345.
7 MR. IVETIC: And I have a hard copy for the ease of the witness.
8 With the assistance of the usher, I can offer that at this time for him.
9 I think we have two B/C/S on the screen. If we can get an
10 English translation as well, we'll be all set. Okay.
11 Q. Now, sir, we have a curriculum vitae before us on the screen of
12 which you have a hard copy in the Serbian language in front of you. Do
13 you recognise this curriculum vitae?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. Okay. And the first thing I want to ask if you could take a look
16 through the same to see if is up to date or if there's anything major
17 that needs to be updated in relation to this curriculum vitae.
18 A. This is an updated version.
19 Q. And if I can ask you about an entry that we find on page 1 in
20 both versions, and it is the fourth paragraph from the top of the
21 document. And in this paragraph is mentioned a role as president of a
22 co-ordinating body for the municipalities of Presevo, Bujanovac and
23 Medvedja. Is that a position that you still hold today?
24 A. Yes, I am still president of the co-ordinating body for the
25 municipalities of Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja.
1 Q. And could you assist us with a description of the job duties that
2 this position entails.
3 A. After the armed conflicts in 1999 in this area, the government of
4 the Republic of Serbia established a co-ordinating body for these three
5 municipalities to co-ordinate the activities between the leadership of
6 the local government of Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja and the
7 government of the Republic of Serbia. Our role was to co-ordinate all
8 the activities between the local self-government of these three
9 municipalities and the government of the Republic of Serbia.
10 Q. And staying with page 1 of the curriculum vitae for a moment, we
11 see here that you specialised in forensic medicine at the military
12 medical academy in 1988. That's the second paragraph from the top. From
13 that point in time onwards, 1988, what branch of medicine has been your
14 primary field of practice as a medical doctor?
15 A. My primarily field of activity was forensic medicine, but I
16 practiced after specialising from 1987, that is to say, until today.
17 Q. And do you have an estimate as to the total number of autopsies
18 which you would performed during the course of your career?
19 A. In my rough estimate based on the documentation that I have and
20 that I reviewed at the military medical academy, it's somewhere between 5
21 and 7.000 post-mortems.
22 Q. And here on the last page that is visible on the English on page
23 1, and bleeding onto page 2, and this is going to be on page 2 in the
24 Serbian original, and it's going to be in the middle of page 2 of the
25 Serbian original, it says that you testified as an expert witness at the
1 Hague Tribunal. And then it later says that you are a permanent court
2 expert in Serbia - that will be on page 2 in the English - and that you
3 testified at the High Court in Thessaloniki. I want to take each of
4 these in turn.
5 First, in relation to the ICTY Tribunal, how many times and in
6 what cases have you provided services as an expert witness?
7 A. I was between seven or eight times in The Hague Tribunal. I was
8 an expert witness in the Krstic trial, also an expert witness in the
9 Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic and Lukic trial, and
10 all the way up to the Djordjevic, minister of police trial. Then I
11 testified as an expert witness in the Seselj trial. Several times I was
12 questioned by the OTP investigators and spent ten days in The Hague on
13 account of post-mortems I did in Eastern Bosnia, namely Zvornik, Kravica,
14 Fakovici, Ratkovici, Milici, Rogatica, and several times I gave
15 statements in Belgrade on different issues related to the events during
16 the war in the former Yugoslavia.
17 Q. Professor, staying with the ICTY Tribunal, can you tell us for
18 each of these cases, which party it was that was calling you as an
20 A. I've mentioned already I worked as an expert witness for the
21 Defence in the Krstic trial, in Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic,
22 Lazarevic and Lukic trial, in the trial of General Djordjevic and I was
23 an expert for the Prosecution in the trial of Vojislav Seselj.
24 Q. And you earlier indicated in one of your answers a time-period of
25 ten days when you were in The Hague, being interviewed in relation to
1 post-mortems you did in the eastern Bosnian area. Was that in relation
2 to a particular case and, if so, what party?
3 A. An OTP investigator engaged me to analyse the events, the
4 processing of the mass graves of Serbs that were found in eastern Bosnia,
5 namely in Zvornik, several times in Fakovici, in Ratkovici,in Bratunac,
6 in Milici, et cetera. It was the Naser Oric case. The Prosecutor versus
7 Naser Oric. After reviewing all these cases, at one point they asked me
8 if I wanted to attend the trial of Naser Oric as an expert witness, and I
9 told them, You decide, not I. In the end, I wasn't called. I was
10 informed verbally that my autopsy reports were accepted in the case, and
11 that was the end of it.
12 I worked also with the representatives of The Hague Tribunal on
13 the mass grave in Mrkonjic Grad which contained 181 bodies of civilians
14 and military men. John Gerns, an investigator of the Tribunal, worked
15 with me, but he left soon afterward. I also worked with OTP
16 investigators processing the refrigerator truck in Derventa containing
17 bodies of Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija. There was a lot of work in
18 the past where I was involved. In my career, I also had many contacts
19 and interviews with the first chairman of the commission for war crimes,
20 Mr. Kalshoven, with Cherif Bassiouni, with Richard Ambrovski [phoen] in
21 Zagreb, with Louise Arbour in Belgrade and The Hague, with Carla Del
22 Ponte before I became minister of defence on several occasions in
23 Belgrade. There were many of these contacts. I can't enumerate them
24 all. And many activities as well.
25 Q. And now if we could switch our focus. In relation to your time
1 as a permanent court expert in Serbia, do you have an approximation as to
2 the number of cases that you have participated in and provided testimony
3 as a permanent court expert in Serbia?
4 A. I began in 1987 when I finished my specialisation in forensic
5 medicine. I was elected expert in forensic medicine for the military
6 prosecutor's office that existed in Yugoslavia at the time. Then for
7 civilian courts. And it will be now nearly 30 years next year in which I
8 did 2 or -- to 3.000 expert reports for lower courts or the appeals
9 court, in almost all the cities of what is now the Republic of Serbia and
10 in other republics.
11 Q. And, sir, in relation to those cases where you appeared as an
12 expert before the court in Serbia, which party was it that called you in
13 the capacity of an expert witness? That is to say, was it the
14 prosecution, the defence, or someone else?
15 A. In the previous period, we could only be engaged by the
16 investigating organ in the relevant case. In the former SFRY and the
17 Republic of Serbia today, investigation was led by the investigating
18 judge of the competent court. Two or three years ago, prosecutor's
19 offices took over investigations, and I mainly did my expert reports on
20 the instructions of people involved or leading the investigation, that is
21 to say, the prosecutor's office, or at the request of the chairman of the
22 Trial Chamber overseeing the case. Since a year and a half ago, according
23 to the new law on criminal procedure in the Republic of Serbia, it is
24 allowed for the prosecutor's office, the Defence and the Trial Chamber to
25 engage so-called expert associates, advisors, and I am currently engaged
1 as such by the defence counsel of the accused in a number of cases in
2 trials ongoing before courts in Serbia.
3 Q. And, lastly, the High Court in Thessaloniki, how many cases have
4 you appeared in your expert capacity before that court?
5 A. The higher court in Thessaloniki contracted me when one Serbian student
6 was killed by a Greek policeman during a school trip in Greece. This
7 incident received wide media coverage in Greece and caused a great public
8 outcry. The Greek court engaged me to do a post-mortem of the student, whose
9 name is Bulatovic, and make an expert report. And on that account, I visited
10 Thessaloniki several times and worked there. They also wanted me to be the
11 expert in that case, but I refused because it would have been difficult with
12 the language barrier. I do not know Greek, and it would have been very
13 difficult to work as an expert in that country without knowing Greek.
14 Q. And if we can return to the first page of this CV in English and
15 focus on the fifth paragraph from the top, and this will appear at the
16 very bottom of page one in Serbian and it will continue onto the top of
17 page 2 in Serbian. In this paragraph, you identify teaching positions at
18 various academic institutions. Can you tell us which of these teaching
19 positions are still ongoing?
20 A. I taught as a professor of forensic medicine at the military
21 medical academy, also the police academy, the medical school of the
22 University of Banja Luka, the higher school of criminology in Zemun, and
23 now I teach at the Faculty of Dentistry in Nis.
24 Q. Okay. And if we could take a look back onto page 2 in the English
25 and it will be also be page 2 in the Serbian and it will be the second-to
1 last-paragraph of both languages of the CV and in this paragraph, it is
2 mentioned that you authored a book in 2015, two monographs and over 50
3 specialist academic papers. Can you tell us on what field or subject
4 matter were these various academic papers that are mentioned here?
5 A. Well, apart from this last book which has about 670 pages and
6 deals with the estimate of damage in civil lawsuits before courts in
7 Serbia, all of the other books and papers have to do with incidents
8 involving massive casualties during the war preparations in the former
9 Yugoslavia. You have to know that immediately after the beginning of the
10 war in the former Yugoslavia, I was engaged in processing mass graves.
11 The first mass grave where I was leader of the forensic team was a mass
12 grave in Vukovar, and that gave rise to several of these publications.
13 In the territory of Vukovar, we found and processed over 1.000 bodies in
14 what were practically war-time conditions. Then victims from Gospic, the
15 civilians killed by members of the Home Guard Corps at Siroka Kula. I
16 forgot to say that I was expert witness concerning the incident, I was an
17 expert witness in the higher court in Rijeka. Then I dealt with mass
18 graves elsewhere, such as Muslim bodies in April 1992 in Kula, near
19 Zvornik, then Serb victims in Zvornik. After that followed all these
20 other mass graves that I enumerated. I also worked in Herzegovina,
21 Bileca, Nevesinje, Trebinje. Then we worked in Sarajevo. The mass grave
22 in Mrkonjic Grad containing 181 bodies in the Orthodox Christian cemetery
23 and six bodies in the Muslim cemetery.
24 There were about 10-20 publications and books about all these
25 exhumations, describing the suffering and the violence involved. And I
1 also gave lectures in the country and abroad. I was in Cambridge twice.
2 At times, when it was very difficult for Serbs to travel because of the
3 blockade and the visa regime, I lectured in Paris, in the Ukraine, and in
4 the Netherlands, I lectured in The Hague, in Amsterdam, and in Utrecht.
5 So my expert papers mainly dealt with the victims in cases where
6 I worked with my team and the forms of violence involved.
7 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, at this time we tender 1D3345 as the
8 next Defence public exhibit.
9 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Therefore, Mr. Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D1446, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
12 MR. IVETIC:
13 Q. Now, Professor, can you explain for us in general terms as a
14 result of your training and experience in your career, how do you see the
15 role of a forensic pathologist? That is, what the objective of that line
16 of medical expertise?
17 A. The role of the forensic pathologist or a forensic medical
18 expert, because both terms are used internationally, is to participate in
19 investigation concerning a particular crime and with his knowledge and
20 expertise and skills, when doing post-mortems, describe all the changes
21 on the body, classify the injuries, and the tools used to inflict those
22 injuries, to verify whether the cause of death is causally linked with
23 the injuries, whether morbid conditions are registered on the body,
24 whether the death is natural or violent, and all this is done with a
25 team, on the instructions of the investigating judge or the prosecutor
1 leading the investigation, as is the case currently.
2 The pathologist also describes the clothing that was on the body
3 when it was found, and this is very important because the damage on the
4 clothing can later be linked with the injuries on the body and could help
5 explain the trajectory of the projectile or the blade or whatever other
6 tool was used to inflict the injury. After that, when all the data is
7 collected, the prosecutor or the investigating judge would ask us to
8 explain the juxtaposition of the victim and the attacker, and the
9 position of the attacker, and later in the ballistic analysis, together
10 with the ballistic expert, we would try to determine the distance from
11 which trajectiles were fired from the weapon to determine traces of
12 gunpowder on the body of the victim. So that essentially the role of the
13 forensic pathologist depends primarily on the person leading the
14 investigation and issuing the instructions to the pathologist. At the
15 same time, the pathologist is an expert, a specialist who helps the
16 leader of the investigation, pointing on the crime scene whether there
17 are any biological traces and clues that need to be collected and points
18 to all the facts that could help to clarify the instant crime.
19 And, in conclusion, I should say that the pathologist cannot work
20 independently. He is not the one making decisions on his own. He is a
21 member of the team led by the prosecutor or the investigating judge,
22 following their instructions, and he is also their expert advisor making
23 suggestions to the investigating judge or the prosecutor, whether the
24 prosecutor or the judge would accept these suggestions is another matter.
25 It's up to them.
1 Q. And you mentioned in the course of your answer the term "forensic
2 medical expert." How does that role compare to that of a forensic
3 pathologist? Are they same or do they differ?
4 A. The training is different for forensic medical experts and
5 forensic pathologists. Big countries such as the UK, France, Russia,
6 they have a separate specialisation in forensic medicine and the training
7 is three or four years, depending on the country. The person, after
8 that, gets a degree in forensic medicine and performs all these
9 activities that fall within that field, at the request of the competent
10 courts or prosecutors' offices. However, in countries like the US,
11 persons first get a degree in pathology and then have a specialist
12 training of about six months, after which they qualify as forensic
13 pathologists and then proceed to carry on the same work. Countries like
14 Serbia have a separate specialisation in forensic medicine, which is a
15 separate specialisation within the area of pathology and then you get a
16 title of expert in forensic medicine or forensic pathology both are
17 commonly currently used.
18 Q. And now I want to focus on these proceedings in the Mladic case
19 before the ICTY Tribunal. Can you tell everyone in what capacity were
20 you first engaged to be an expert for the Mladic case.
21 A. First of all, I was asked to give my opinion and my report on the
22 report of Dr. Clark concerning the mass grave in Tomasica. After that,
23 after Professor Dunjic died, the Defence team asked me in view of the
24 time needed to review that material all over again and also bearing in
25 mind that I have reviewed that material to a large extent in the Krstic
1 trial, I was asked to look over Professor Dunjic's report and the
2 methodology that he used within the time given me, which was a couple of
3 months. And I tried, within the limits of my abilities, to do that and
4 to point out certain things in that report, such as things that need to
5 be done in these situations.
6 Q. And if we could focus now on the part of your engagement dealing
7 with the Tomasica mass grave, what was your assignment or mandate in
8 relation to that part of the case?
9 A. Can I use these papers which are only in Serbian? Material from
10 the Prosecution and the report?
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think it depends on what you're referring to.
12 Could you -- whenever you use anything, could you clearly state what
13 document you have before you, and whether it's a clean copy of that
14 document or whether it contains any -- any markings or any writings on
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is Dr. Clark's report on
17 Tomasica, and it is the only report that I have been using. The report
18 is in the Serbian language and while processing the materials, I only
19 underlined certain sections with a red pen, those that I considered
20 important. And nothing else. I did not add anything or write anything.
21 The other text that I used is the forensic analysis of the report
22 which is in possession of ICTY and which I have written. It's also in
23 Serbian language. These are the only two documents relating to Tomasica
24 that I have. Nothing else.
25 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that what the witness is referring to
1 is P7443, most likely. Is there any party who would like to inspect
2 whether there's more than underlinings?
4 MR. MacDONALD: If it's simply underlinings, Your Honour, then
5 we're happy with that, certainly. I wonder if I could take a quick look
6 just at the --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could you just give a quick look, with the
8 assistance of the usher, so that we're certain that we're talking about
9 the same ...
10 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honour. It does appear to be
11 mostly underlining. But there are initials "TO" I think, written quite
12 often beside paragraphs. I wonder if the witness could just let us know
13 what that means.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could you answer that question. What TO means
15 written in the margin?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is an abbreviation and it means
17 this is important or focus on that during the testimony. Nothing else.
18 There are also some signs such as a question mark and an exclamation
19 mark. These are some signs that I also put in the margin. But that's
21 JUDGE ORIE: When you say it means it's also important or focus
22 on that during the testimony, is that that you instructed yourself to
23 focus on it or was there anyone else who suggested to you that that was
24 an important matter to focus on?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm the only one
1 underlining the documents which I'm processing. I have no consultants,
2 nor is there anyone who could suggest that this is something that's
3 important. Because this has only to do with the forensic aspect and
4 nothing else.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But even there, others could be in a situation
6 that they consider it important.
7 But you say you wrote that yourself on your own initiative.
8 Then -- and the other report we are talking about? Mr. Ivetic,
9 could you assist us? The other document would be?
10 MR. IVETIC: 1D05495.
11 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, Your Honours, there are markings on this.
12 If you -- on page 11 there seems to be the change of the name of an
13 author and page 12, there seems to be a page number changed, and I think
14 both of those are self-explanatory. On page 13, there is a comment
15 written in the Serbian language, I think it begins with the word "nema."
16 I'm not sure what that comment refers to. Perhaps the witness could
18 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if the witness could explain that.
19 Witness, the handwriting on page 13, could you please slowly read
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And in the meantime, Mr. Ivetic, could you repeat
22 the 1D number, please.
23 MR. IVETIC: Absolutely. 1D05495.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the text that I have before me
1 right now, on page 11, there is an error when cases were compared, and in
2 comparison, there was an error instead of Dr. Clark it reads professor
3 Dr. Nermin Sarajlic. So this is crossed out and it's written "Dr. Clark
5 And on page 12, when cases are discussed, the text says that it's
6 page 32. However, in Dr. Clark's report in the Serbian language, it's
7 crossed out, changed, this should be page 39. And another marking, it's
8 case number 9 where it is stated and it's disputed, it's stated that the
9 projectile was found within the heart muscle but at the same time, it
10 stated there is no description of the fracture of the mandible and the
11 right humerus, as in Dr. Clark's report. So that's the only text. It's
12 the supplement and the changes. So that's what I can see in the text
13 that I have.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is that also to be found on page 13, because the
15 question was specifically on handwriting on page 13.
16 MR. MacDONALD: I wonder if the witness might simply read out the
17 letters in red text that is handwritten on that page and then we can know
18 what he has written down.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please read out the handwritten text
20 on page 13, Mr. ...
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have already read
22 the text. The text reads: "No description of fracture of the mandible
23 and the right humerus."
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Mr. Ivetic, there may be a problem in relation to the 65 ter
1 number of the report. If I would read the following, would that be the
2 right number? 1D05945?
3 MR. IVETIC: I believe so.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's the one. And not the numbers you mentioned
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. And now, sir, if we can still remain focussed on the work that
9 you did in relation to Dr. Clark's report and the Tomasica grave site,
10 can you tell us what materials did you have access to and review for
11 purposes of your work on this case and the generating of your own report
12 as to Tomasica?
13 A. I analysed materials called in Serbian, the Tomasica grave
14 Prijedor, Bosnia, 2013/14 report on forensic findings. And then also
15 Dr. Clark's report on the forensic findings, Tomasica table, with a
16 summary of the post-mortem examination findings by Dr. Clark, and I also
17 analysed forensic reports produced by forensic technicians, Dr. Dzevad
18 Durmisevic from Bihac, and Professor Nermin Sarajlic from the University
19 of Sarajevo, and I --
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes, please.
21 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 The witness appears to be referring to a number of documents
23 brought in a white folder. I would imagine that's simply the documents
24 that he simply read out just now, but I wonder if he could just confirm
25 that to the Court. These are documents underneath the two reports he's
1 mentioned already.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please clarify. Folder with
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This bundle of papers are the main
5 cases, the forensic reports drawn up by Dr. Clark during his work in
6 Tomasica. That's the first document with the tables which are included
7 in it. Nine cases are circled with a red ball-point pen or red-felt-tip
8 pen and the forensic reports that are marked so come from other forensic
9 materials. They have been photocopied and they are contained among these
10 papers. Forensic report Tomasica volume 4, PRD 357T, case of
11 Esad Aliskovic [phoen]. Dzevad Durmisevic was in charge of the
12 post-mortem examination. And then PRD 042T, Suljo Mujadzic. Dzevad
13 Durmisevic performed the autopsy. Then PRD 088T, forensic report.
14 Dzevad Durmisevic again performed the autopsy. PRD 124 --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, may I perhaps interrupt you.
16 It is clear from your report, that's at least what I saw, that
17 you commented on P7443, P7445, and P7444. These are the three reports
18 you're referring.
19 Could you please put away anything else, and if you need to
20 consult that, then at that point in time, you're telling us that you'd
21 like to consult and then you tell us what report that exactly is. We'll
22 then verify whether it is in evidence or not and how we'll deal with
23 that. Mr. Ivetic will certainly aware be of materials being used already
24 in evidence -- being in evidence already or not. So let's just focus on
25 the two documents you gave earlier to the Prosecution for inspection and
1 put aside all the rest.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
3 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I hate to correct you, but the nine
4 cases that the witness has been reading are also covered in his report in
5 section B with the ERN numbers of these documents set forth in his
7 JUDGE ORIE: If that's the case, I missed that, and the nine
8 cases, is that not in evidence yet or are they? I must say I'm looking
9 now at part A and --
10 MR. IVETIC: It starts after paragraph 47 in the report, there
11 are the nine cases where the analysis of Dr. Clark is compared to the
12 post-mortem analysis of the Bosnian doctors -- the two Bosnian doctors.
13 And I don't believe that those actual underlying reports are in evidence.
14 I believe the Prosecution only admitted Dr. Clark's summary table of the
15 Tomasica post-mortems.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That's the reason I started with the beginning of
17 the report. But whatever is not in evidence, and you're fully aware of
18 that, Mr. Ivetic, should not be consulted. So if you would limit it for
19 the time being to the two reports that were given for inspection and
20 whatever shows up in the course of the examination which is not yet in
21 evidence, you draw our attention to that. Then we'll see whether you
22 should present it or whether the witness has a copy and what to do with
23 that part of the expertise.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. IVETIC: Okay. May I suggest before we move further that we
1 then MFI 1D5945 so that I can stop making mistakes on that 65 ter number
2 and reserve a number for it, as it will be tendered after we go through
3 it all?
4 JUDGE ORIE: I take it there are no objections. Mr. Registrar,
5 1D5945 would receive number?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1447, MFI, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Marked -- Could you please repeat?
8 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit D1447, MFI.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
12 Q. Doctor, now, you also mentioned that you were engaged for
13 purposes of providing expert services in relation to the report of the
14 late Dr. Dunjic. What exactly was your mandate or assignment in relation
15 to that part of the evidence?
16 A. I received a request to perform an analysis of the expertise of
17 Dr. Dunjic and to provide my opinion about his report. That implied the
18 methodology that Professor Dunjic applied in his work, whether the
19 methodology was acceptable, and in what sense, and also to provide my
20 opinion as to whether I would agree with the conclusions relating to the
21 processing of data, about mass graves around Srebrenica, as provided by
22 Dr. Dunjic.
23 Q. And in relation to your review of the expert report of the late
24 Dr. Dunjic and that part of the case dealing with that, what materials
25 were at your disposal to review for purposes of fulfilling that
2 A. I had at my disposal his report submitted to ICTY in the Serbian
3 language, then also I had in my possession some materials from the time
4 when I was engaged in the Krstic trial, so these were materials that I
5 had. I checked or tried to verify certain pieces of information from the
6 extant documents by reading them. I had a limited time for a very
7 extensive materials, just a few months, so these were the basic materials
8 that I used in my work.
9 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I think we're at the time for a break.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We are indeed at the time for a break.
11 But before we take that break, Mr. Stankovic, I'm going to give
12 you an instruction which I usually only give at the end of the day but
13 due to the special circumstances I prefer to do it now.
14 While you're on the stand as a witness, you should not speak or
15 communicate in whatever way with whomever about your testimony. Now,
16 this Chamber is aware that there's a television crew around who would
17 like perhaps to speak with you. Please keep in mind that you're not
18 allowed to communicate about your testimony and that is to be understood
19 in the broadest terms. Usually I only give it at the end of the day, but
20 since you might come across them even during the day, that's the reason
21 why I instruct you now already.
22 We take a break, and we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes from
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
5 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. I'd like to call up in e-court 1D05891.
6 Q. And, sir, we have a report on our screens before us. Do you
7 recognise this report?
8 A. Yes, that is Professor Dunjic's report. It's a forensic analysis
9 of reports on the exhumations of mass graves in the area of Srebrenica
10 and Eastern Bosnia.
11 Q. Okay.
12 MR. IVETIC: If we could also have this 1D5891 marked for
13 identification. We will be tendering it after we conclude asking
14 questions about it at the end of the testimony.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar under what number would it be marked
16 for identification.
17 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D1448, MFI, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 MR. IVETIC:
20 Q. Now, professor, prior to being engaged in the Mladic case to
21 perform this review of Dr. Dunjic's report, did you have occasion to know
22 Dr. Dunjic?
23 A. Yes, I knew Professor Dunjic because I specialised in forensic
24 medicine for a period of one year at the institute where Dr. Dunjic was
25 permanently employed. At the time when he was at the institute, he was a
1 mentor of some autopsies that I carried out as part of my specialisation.
2 Q. And apart from this report of Dr. Dunjic in the Mladic case, did
3 you ever have occasion to see any of his work in relation to other cases?
4 A. I saw a little bit on the Internet and on The Hague Tribunal
5 website but I'm not really too familiar with his earlier activities. I
6 know that he worked on the Karadzic case and on the Popovic case.
7 Q. And are you familiar with the work that he did in Serbia in any
9 A. Professor Dunjic was one of the leading forensic medicine experts
10 during the past 25 or 30 years, not only in the Republic of Serbia but
11 when the country was Serbia and Montenegro, and also in the Socialist
12 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. He was a very experienced forensics
13 expert who testified in courts as an expert several thousand times. He
14 carried out thousands of autopsies. He worked on the mass graves in
15 Kosovo. At the same time, this was a man, an expert, who, during the
16 past 25, 30years was a leading forensic expert. I emphasise that, a
17 leading forensic expert, who worked on the most difficult cases that were
18 brought to trial in courts of the former Yugoslavia.
19 Q. And now I want to show you in e-court 65 ter number 1D05944 and I
20 do have a hard copy of this one if -- if you need it. I know we don't
21 have both languages on the screen.
22 Do you recognise this document that we now have before us?
23 A. Yes. This is a document that I drafted, and it's overview, an
24 analysis of the reports on the exhumations of mass graves that Dr. Dunjic
25 worked on.
1 Q. Now, what can you tell us about this overview that you authored
2 as to the report of Dr. Dunjic in the Mladic case? That is to say, what
3 do you wish to highlight for us as being important?
4 A. What is particularly important in this report is that it
5 represents a comprehensive, detailed, professional, complex analysis, and
6 in order to be able to interpret it, a person would need to be very
7 familiar with forensic sciences and have experience in the field, not
8 just through study but also by taking part in the practical work and
9 scientific symposia. It's a very complex report that requires lengthy
10 analysis, and this is something that Professor Dunjic himself did.
11 Q. And now I'd like to focus on a part of your overview and it's on
12 page 2 at the bottom in English and then it goes onto the next page in
13 that language, and is on page 2, the second paragraph from the top in the
14 Serbian original. And here it states: "Professor Dr. Dunjic, in his
15 comments and observations on the reports of The Hague experts is, for the
16 most part, correct, reasoned, precise, and detailed. However, there
17 are" --
18 MR. IVETIC: And we need to go to the next page in the English.
19 Q. "... parts of the analysis from which the wrong conclusion may be
20 reached, that he overly stresses his principles in relation to The Hague
21 experts; e.g. by using three or more punctuation marks, such as question
22 and/or exclamation marks at the end of the sentence. Very often he
23 expressed his principle and opinion with a capital and/or bolded
25 Can you explain for us precisely what you mean here about the
1 wrong conclusions possibly being reached?
2 A. Since I don't see that part of the text in Serbian, I just wanted
3 to have my own copy in the Serbian. If not, perhaps I can look at the
4 Serbian text on the screen, please.
5 Q. Should be the third page, the second paragraph from the top. I
6 apologise. I had the wrong page number written. And it's the second
7 paragraph from the top.
8 A. Yes, it's the Serbian, it's page 3.
9 In looking at Professor Dunjic's analysis, I noticed some
10 details. I understood those details as a warning or as
11 Professor Dunjic's position in order to warn the Trial Chamber or a draw
12 their attention to certain activities which were not part of the normal
13 work of forensic medicine witness and these were the parts that he wanted
14 to draw the Trial Chamber's attention to. This principally refers to the
15 analysis of witness statements, such as witness Bekir Ademovic, Alic
16 Hasan, Alic Mevludin. He quotes those statements on pages 37 and 38 and
17 he draws certain conclusions which partially are part of the remit of
18 forensic medicine but there are also conclusions there which could go
19 beyond the normal expertise, as this is something that the Trial Chamber
20 and the Prosecution should argue for or against.
21 What I understood was that he wished to say that when an order is issued
22 for an expertise in courts in the Republic of Serbia, an expert needs to
23 state his observations in the form of proposal or report and submit it to
24 the person requesting the investigation. This would be the first part.
25 When we're talking about underlined parts of the text, punctuation marks,
1 question marks at the end of each sentence, sometimes there are four or
2 five exclamation or question marks, this is something -- or bold text,
3 this is something that he used in order to draw attention to certain
4 inconsistencies in the reports that he analysed. I am afraid, though,
5 that this could be understood in a different way. It was just an
6 indication that he used at his own discretion to emphasise certain things
7 and this should not be a dominant feature of the analysis. It should be
8 interpreted just as his wish to draw attention to specific details that
9 he believed were important.
10 Q. Now, in relation to your comments as to the underlining, bold
11 text and exclamation marks, do they in any way detract from the validity
12 of the conclusions and objections raised by Dr. Dunjic in his report, in
13 your opinion?
14 A. These emphasis on certain parts of the text does not reduce the
15 value of his expertise, but it can give rise to certain reactions by
16 people who could misinterpret this or interpret it in a different
17 context, and this is why I said that this is something that should not be
18 given particular attention. The primary interest should be given to the
19 actual text and the analysis that is in the report.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just ask a question.
21 Sir, you do refer to the fact that this method of writing by
22 Dr. Dunjic may lead to some wrong conclusions. Can you give an example
23 of the kind of wrong conclusion that could be reached as a result of
24 these exclamation marks?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I have the report in Serbian?
1 His report in Serbian, please.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you certainly will be aware of what the
3 witness is referring to. Could you tell us whether that is in evidence
4 and under what number.
5 MR. IVETIC: D1448, marked for identification.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, Your Honours, there appears to be -- aside
8 from underlinings and the letters TO, comments on pages 17, 30, 45, and
9 58 no more than a few words each time but I wonder if the witness might
10 read out the red text that is handwritten.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, apparently you're not working from an
12 exclusively clean copy, so would you please read what you wrote on the
13 pages just mentioned by Mr. MacDonald, and he referred you to pages - let
14 me just see - 17. Could you read what you wrote on page 17?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On page 17, paragraph 2, it says:
16 "Objective findings must be verified and transparent. In order to be
17 able to verify, there must be a detailed description of each injury."
18 This is the position of forensic practice in Europe. And this is
19 something that was written by Professor Dunjic. And then I wrote in the
20 margin: "Confirm this on the basis of literature."
21 Nothing more than that. It was a note to myself.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to explain any further but just read
23 what you added to what is not in the report itself.
24 Could you then move to page 30. And just read what you added.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Plastic bag for body marked by
1 ZOV." That's what Dr. Dunjic wrote. And I added "ZOV," and under that,
2 I wrote the expansion of the abbreviation ZOV, which means health bag for
3 autopsy. That's all. Nothing else.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Page 45, please.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On page 45, "While forming the
6 final conclusion about the cause of death and redacting the final version
7 of autopsy report, the legal assistant of ICTY, Peter McCloskey helped."
8 That's what Professor Dunjic wrote and I wrote in the right hand margin:
9 "That's what's written, check." And then I looked at the San Antonio
10 report and other reports to see whether what Dr. Dunjic has written is
11 correct or not. But on the right-hand margin it's only written, "that's
12 what's written here, check." Nothing else.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And then finally, page 58. It's sufficient if you
14 just read what you added in your own handwriting.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The margin reads: "Injuries,
16 ligatures, distribution of injuries ... and blindfolds."
17 Nothing else.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 Then I think you were asked to give an example of where the
20 report might lead to misunderstanding due to the exclamation marks and
21 others. Could you please now answer that question.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Serbian page 22, last paragraph,
23 and the last comment. "This does not exclude that this person lost the
24 life in combat, homicidium bellicum," three exclamation marks. I think
1 JUDGE ORIE: And the...
2 MR. IVETIC: That's at page 22 in the English as well of the --
3 the report that I mentioned which is D1448 MFI.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. IVETIC: I think it's the last comment on the page which
6 starts about at the middle of the page in English.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And could you please explain to us how that
8 leads to misunderstandings, those exclamation marks?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it could be interpreted as if
10 emotions dominated in Professor Dunjic during his expertise, and that
11 when he objected to somebody else's work, he used all capital letters or
12 decided to use three consecutive exclamation marks.
13 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, you think we should not misunderstand
14 the exclamation marks as depriving what was written by Professor Dunjic
15 from its rational analysis.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not as irrational but one
17 exclamation mark would have been sufficient rather than three.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
21 Q. Getting back to your overview which you authored which we have in
22 front of us on the screen, you have already answered or given us an
23 explanation of the second-to-last paragraph so I will skip ahead to the
24 last paragraph just above the signature. It's on the bottom of the page
25 in the B/C/S, where it says: "Analysing the expert report in question,
1 it is possible to claim with certainty that it expresses the forensic
2 medical opinion of a very experienced, qualified, educated and
3 responsible expert who invested great effort to point out certain
4 inconsistencies in the reports of The Hague experts and, as such,
5 deserves to have the experts whose reports he analysed declare themselves
6 about it, but also to have the views he set out explained in detail
7 before the Trial Chamber of The Hague Tribunal. It is up to the Trial
8 Chamber to weight the analysis in question, admit or dismiss the
9 statements and views expressed therein."
10 Sir, do you still adhere to the view as expressed in this
11 paragraph of your overview which you prepared earlier this year?
12 A. Yes, I still stand by that.
13 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours we would tender as the next public
14 Defence exhibit this three-page original Serbian document which is, I
15 think, two pages in the English.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: 1D5944 will be Exhibit D1449, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And I understand that there's no objection.
19 Therefore, admitted.
20 MR. IVETIC:
21 Q. Now, I want to return to a topic that you touched upon earlier
22 and that was the work that you did in relation to various mass graves and
23 I want to ask you on those occasions when you were acting as a forensic
24 medical expert in relation to those various mass graves that you listed
25 earlier today, were you acting alone or as part of a team?
1 A. Most of mass graves in which I performed autopsies of the bodies
2 I was a member of a team headed by an investigating judge, as at the time
3 in the territory of the former Yugoslavia it was the investigating judges
4 rather than the prosecutor who was normally in charge of investigation.
5 Unlike now.
6 Q. And were there any other specialists as members of the teams that
7 you were involved in?
8 A. Yes, there were other forensic specialists, and other experts who
9 performed certain expert analyses from their own purview. In relation to
10 the investigating judge there was a prosecutor and also experts such as
11 forensic specialists, then also experts in ballistics, expert
12 archaeologists, specialising in archaeological graves when that was
13 necessary and there were other experts who worked with the investigating
14 judge. Next to us was also the on-site investigation team. Those were
15 representatives of the police who had the duty to make sketches and
16 photographs, video-recordings, and everything else that's part of the
17 on-site investigation procedure and we also had orders that were signed
18 by people who were in charge of the investigation and we had specific
19 mandates that we were provided by this order, specifying our presence and
20 the processing of mass graves.
21 Q. Okay. And now I'd like to focus on one area that you mentioned.
22 You said something about 1992 near Kula, Zvornik, that there were some
23 Muslim bodies that you examined. How did you become involved in that --
24 in that work?
25 A. Before that, I had been head of the team for the autopsy of
1 bodies and forensic examination of bodies in Vukovar and also in Gospic.
2 That was the time when the state - that is to say, the SFRY - broke up.
3 The courts had local authority so that the civilian courts had their
4 local jurisdiction which extended within the borders of the republics and
5 provinces of the former SFRY. The military courts were formed
6 differently, according to the division of the country into Military
7 Districts or army commands, as that was called, so that we had a number
8 of those, the 1st, the 2nd, the 5th and the 7th, and so on, those were
9 the army commands, and their borders, the borders of their local
10 jurisdiction were somewhat different as compared to local courts. So on
11 the basis of that, we were in charge of autopsies in Vukovar, but, at the
12 same time, when the conflicts broke out, the military court in Belgrade,
13 which was headed by investigating judge Mirko Stojanovic, requested from
14 us as the experts of that court to go to Zvornik and process the bodies
15 of Muslims that had been found in and around Kula, upstream from Zvornik.
16 The bodies were scattered around the area, and this was the basis for us
17 to set off with the crime technicians from the Belgrade police to process
18 the bodies.
19 We went to Zvornik twice. The first occasion was, I think, the 30th of
20 April, 1992 and the second visit was, I think, on the 5th of May, 1992.
21 We examined more than 110 bodies that had been found in the area. We made
22 autopsy reports. We had a photo file from the first examination, 30; and the
23 second time, the forensic technicians from the MUP, the Ministry of Interior
24 from Belgrade, had some problems with equipment so there are no photographs.
25 A certain number of bodies were identified, and the documents
1 were forwarded. And now in possession of the special court where I was a
2 special witness in the trial against the then-president of the
3 municipality, Gruic and others, who I think have been sentenced in the
5 Other documents were handed over to ICTY investigators, if I'm
6 correct, and after that, we finished our work, and that was -- those were
7 the first mass casualties that I was in charge of examining in the
8 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
9 Q. And those bodies that you say were scattered around Kula that you
10 were processing as a forensic medical expert in Zvornik, how were those
11 bodies brought to you?
12 A. I was not at the site. When we did this work, the first and the
13 second time, combat was still ongoing among armed Muslim groups and
14 members of the police forces and other armed forces from Zvornik. The
15 representatives of the utilities company of Zvornik picked up those
16 bodies and brought them to the Alhos enterprise, which is at about half a
17 kilometre from the bridge in Zvornik between Zvornik and Mali Zvornik, or
18 in other words between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia. The bodies were
19 packed in black plastic bags with a ZOV marking, because that was the
20 sort of bags that the army used at the time, helping the civilian
21 services to collect dead bodies. They were in a state of advanced
22 putrefaction, covered by maggots, which practically filled the body bags
23 containing those bodies because the bodies had been left lying on the
24 ground for a number of days in the area where they were found, in Kula or
25 in the woods, and we completed the autopsies. We described the clothes
1 and the injuries, whatever was possible, of course. We took out and
2 listed personal items from the bodies. Some of them had money or
3 valuables in their clothes. We handed that over to the people in Alhos
4 and who represented the Territorial Defence of the town. And after that,
5 we did the same thing once again, following the same procedure and
6 applying everything required by the investigating judge and applying all
7 the usual norms when processing dead bodies. So the documents are
8 available, and they have been forwarded, inter alia, to ICTY.
9 Q. And you mentioned the clothing. What specific type of clothing
10 did these bodies have?
11 A. I think all of them were in civilian clothes and had civilian
13 Q. And you have mentioned that these bodies were brought in plastic
14 bags that were marked ZOV. Can you confirm for us again what the ZOV
15 designation means? What is its source or meaning?
16 A. That plastic bag was made after some of my activities when I
17 carried a soldier who was killed in a car accident. At that time, we did
18 not have adequate equipment to collect the bodies, and a woman from the
19 military medical academy and I made that bag. I said what the
20 specifications should be, and a company called Naravno Plast [phoen] from
21 Nevesinje made the bag and they patented it and marked it ZOV. To be
22 honest, at the outset I didn't know what that means, but now when I
23 analysed it, regardless of the fact that I participated in its making, I
24 now know the acronym means. It means: Sanitary autopsy bag. It means a
25 bag designed for corpses before and after post-mortem.
1 I can also add that later on other bags were made but at the
2 beginning of the war, including in 1992, mainly these bags with this
3 marking that you indicated, were used.
4 Q. To your knowledge, during what time-period were bags marked ZOV
5 in use, especially as to the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
6 A. I think they were used at the beginning of the conflict in 1992.
7 Now, I'm moving to another period that they were used, for
8 instance in the period, when I went to Sarajevo and met General Mladic.
9 When those soldiers were killed in the Dobrovoljacka Street, we went by
10 helicopter to Pale, then to Pale by trucks, carrying the bodies of the
11 soldiers that were later transported to Belgrade. They were also used in
12 1993 at the time of the Tuzla column of troops who were killed and later
13 on all the quantities were used up and since this company, Nevesinje, was
14 still active, they made their own body bag.
15 Q. If I can just ask you to clarify, you have identified the attack
16 on a -- an attack on the Tuzla column of troops. What year was that
17 attack on the Tuzla column of troops?
18 A. That was in 1992, when troops were withdrawing from Tuzla. A
19 large number of troops were killed at that time and I got an order from
20 the leadership of the army and I travelled by helicopter to Bijeljina
21 where the bodies were, where we collected them and conducted autopsies
22 because these soldiers were mainly natives of what is now Serbia, whereas
23 soldiers who were natives of Bosnia and other areas were taken over
24 before I left and buried in Bosnia and Herzegovina or wherever the
25 families wanted.
1 Q. And earlier you also mentioned being in Zvornik to work on bodies
2 of Serb victims. I'd ask you to tell us what time-period that was.
3 A. That was, I believe, the end of 1992 until 1995, 1996, when I was
4 in Srebrenica, where we found the mortal remains of some people who were
5 killed in that period. And the last post-mortem I did was not linked to
6 some these victims it was some TV reporter who was killed in a motel
7 Vidikovac, it was called, in Zvornik, but the period was 1992 to 1996.
8 Q. And do you have an idea of how many villages you visited to
9 perform post-mortem on remains of Serbian victims during that specified
11 A. Together with the investigating judge, Nikolic, of the lower court
12 in Zvornik, I think, I travelled first to Glodjanska Brda where mass graves
13 had been found containing bodies of soldiers who were killed there. It was
14 on the border-line where the armed units of Republika Srpska took over
15 those areas. I remember there was one mass grave on the very edge. We found
16 15 to 20 bodies there, including Miladin Asceric's body, a man who was
17 decapitated. And then with foreign and local reporters, we visited that
18 area. Since it was not possible to work there because of the fighting,
19 which was ongoing, we just came to collect the bodies and an exchange of
20 fire occurred between members of the VRS and Muslim armed units so we had
21 to take cover while collecting the bodies. We did post-mortems in the
22 fire-fighters' hall in Zvornik which was a convenient place, and together
23 with these people, with my crew, I went there to work. Later on we
24 worked in Sandici which is about 10, 15 kilometres from Bratunac. That
25 was a grave where we found the commander of the police station,
1 Milosevic, and another 14 bodies. That's the trial ongoing now in
2 Sarajevo of Naser Oric. I was there on the crime scene. Biljana Plavsic
3 was there, and Milan Gvero. After that we worked in Bratunac on bodies
4 that were brought in from the surrounding villages. And then I was in
5 the village of Kravica where we did autopsies. And we worked in Kravica
6 while combat was going on in February, March, I believe, so we had to
7 protect ourselves from the shelling, sniping and everything. And then we
8 want to Fakovici. It's a village near Srebrenica but roadless. We went
9 there to collect the bodies of the civilians who were killed there.
10 There was one Vinka Maksimovic, a woman, the parents of a man called
11 Pavlovic, and so on. And then I went to Milici.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald is on his feet.
13 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honours I wonder if the witness
14 could just provide dates when he went to these places because these
15 places are also concerned in the indictment.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in more general terms, Mr. Ivetic, you asked
17 how many villages did you visit and then we get an answer of three to
18 four minutes setting out all kind of details who was there, what was
19 done, et cetera. Now, it may well be that's exactly what you had on your
20 mind, but it seems to be a bit of a pattern here that you ask a simple
21 question and we get a long explanation. And the Judges may be a bit lost
22 on what you are demonstrating at this moment. Are we still talking about
23 the expertise of the witness or are we still talking about what ZOV
24 means, which you had explained, by the way, before, what the acronym
25 meant, spontaneously. So, therefore, could you try to remain focussed
1 and also put your questions in such a way that it's clear for us whether
2 you're still focussing on the experience of this witness or on certain
3 matters which are specifically important in view of the indictment so
4 that we do not have a short question and then three, four, or five
5 minutes answer.
6 MR. IVETIC: Okay. I apologise. The questions --
7 JUDGE ORIE: And then also if there's anything in detail, perhaps
8 you could -- you could elicit from the witness what time-frame he is
9 referring to. We were not seeking a long explanation but one or two
10 words on what are you doing at this moment would certainly assist us.
11 MR. IVETIC: This dealing with the fact witness aspect of this
12 witness before we go back to the analysis of Tomasica and the Dunjic
14 JUDGE ORIE: I hear that he is talking about facts but talking
15 about facts also we would appreciate if we know exactly in what context
16 those facts are presented so that we know what the relevance for this
17 case is.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
20 Q. Professor, you've heard the comments that we've just talked
21 about. Could you please tell us a little bit more in detail as to what
22 time frame, that is to say, what years or in relation to certain events
23 that you undertook this forensic work in this area in relation to Serb
24 victims in these villages that you have now, I think, identified. I
25 don't know if there are more villages. But could you help us out in
1 terms what events were under way -- when were these events under way?
2 What time-period, what years?
3 A. I apologise. There were a lot of things that I did, so please
4 stop me when I go over the limit because I don't have a clear idea of how
5 much I need to say.
6 At the time when it was done, it was all made available to the
7 Tribunal and when working on these graves, I spent ten days in The Hague
8 and another six days in Belgrade when I provided detailed information
9 about all the graves, all the bodies that I autopsied, but now I'm not
10 prepared to provide more details about the bodies because I'm not
12 JUDGE ORIE: The question was: When the events happened to which
13 you referred to in a previous answer, not whether you gave it to
14 The Hague but when these events happened you described.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm trying to say precisely that.
16 I can't tell you the exact dates. For instance, I worked on the victims
17 in Kravica in 1993, for example. It was certainly in March 1993, but I
18 am afraid to give you the wrong date and confuse my later testimony,
19 considering that I went to Zvornik at least ten times and worked on all
20 the bodies that were subsequently found from 1992 to 1995 or 1996.
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes, 1992 to
22 1996, various visits to Zvornik. That's clear.
23 Any other time frame for any of the other matters you described?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think it's mainly about the
25 graves we did in 1993, but I can't tell you for sure at this moment.
1 Because I covered practically the whole territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
2 and I went wherever needed more than once. I would have to have
3 something in writing before me to give you exact information.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We understand you are unable to give exact
5 time-frames for the other events you mentioned.
6 Mr. Ivetic, please proceed, and let's try to move on and receive
7 as much factual information, if we are still at the factual part of the
8 testimony of the witness.
9 MR. IVETIC:
10 Q. Could you help us with the ethnic makeup of the villages that you
11 visited where these bodies were located that were being processed?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
13 MR. MacDONALD: I object to that question at the moment,
14 Your Honours. I would ask my friend to lay a foundation for the
15 witness's knowledge of that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
17 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
18 Q. Did you have any information as to the ethnic makeup of the
19 villages that you identified earlier, Kravica, Bratunac, and Fakovici and
20 I believe you mentioned Skelani or Sekovici, I can't remember which one
21 that were around Zvornik where these bodies were located.
22 A. These villages --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These villages were mainly Serb.
25 That's something that I learned later. I didn't know it at the time when
1 I was working there.
2 MR. IVETIC:
3 Q. And you indicated that some of these bodies had been identified
4 and, indeed, you mentioned some names. What was the ethnicity of those
5 bodies that were identified?
6 A. We did not pay attention to the ethnicity. We determined names and
7 surnames as we worked and as we identified them. As for ethnicity, that
8 was an area of concern for the judges, not our job. We didn't deal with it.
9 Q. And you -- the local population in the areas of these villages,
10 did they have any reaction to the discovery of the bodies, and if so,
11 what was that reaction?
12 A. As long as the fighting lasted, most of the people were not in
13 the villages. All those who could leave left. Those who were unable to
14 leave, and that means the poorest people, stayed, and we had to make
15 calls through the media and inform people that we are working on a
16 particular mass grave so that people who had fled to Serbia, as most of
17 them did, should come and help us identify the bodies, based on the
18 clothing and other details.
19 Q. Okay. And did you have any personal interactions of relatives of
20 those persons who were deceased?
21 A. Well, after the identification, many of them were looking for any
22 assistance available, and they are still looking for it, and it's mainly
23 for medical assistance in view of the health situation in that area. We
24 had contacts and I still have contacts with many people who want to talk
25 about their next of kin because I did the post-mortems and they see me as
1 the person who last touched the bodies of their near and dear and learned
2 certain details by performing the autopsy. And they often ask for
3 interviews, and I talk to them as often as I can.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock. It seems to
5 be time for a break.
6 MR. IVETIC: That's fine.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
8 You may follow the usher. We take another break.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at ten minutes past midday.
11 --- Recess taken at 11.51 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 12.13 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We briefly move into private session.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 43286-43289 redacted. Private session.
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I asked for the witness to be escorted into the
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Stankovic, the break was extended slightly
20 because we had to deal with an administrative matter but Mr. Ivetic is
21 now ready to resume his examination.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
24 Q. Professor, a few more factual-related questions in respect to
25 your work in the Zvornik area, in the time-period that you specified
1 mainly 1993, but from 1992 to 1995. In relation to those bodies that
2 were in the predominant Serb villages that you mentioned, do you recall
3 anything about the age distribution of those bodies, of those victims, I
4 should say?
5 A. You mean among the Serbian victims?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. There was a 11-year-old boy among them. His last name was
8 Stojanovic. I don't remember his first name. There were women, aged --
9 like Radosava Kovacevic, for example, who was 82 and lost her life in
10 Skelani. There were people over 80 years of age such as Ergic from
11 Kravica, who was 81. There were --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald is on his feet.
13 MR. MacDONALD: I think Professor Stankovic is reading from
14 something again, Your Honours, in front of him. I'm just not certain
15 what that is, this time.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Are you reading, Mr. Stankovic? Mr. Stankovic, were
17 you reading from anything?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I've told you
19 what I have here. This is just what I remember in terms of typical
20 cases. Perhaps I find it easier to remember if I look down rather than
21 if I look in some other direction. If I am to remember the names, the
22 ages and other numbers, please feel free to check.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apparently -- I can't see what it in front of
24 you because the screens in between.
25 Mr. MacDonald, does this --
1 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, Your Honours. There's a document open and
2 I'm happy to accept that Professor Stankovic was not reading from it. I
3 wonder if we just took that away, just to make certain that we know.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If you would please put aside whatever you are not
5 reading from. And then if you want to consult any of the documents just
6 tell us that you are consulting them.
7 Yes, Mr. Stankovic, you were interrupted when answering the
8 question about the age of those bodies, and you gave, I think, a few
9 examples of very young or very old people. It would certainly assist me
10 if you would also say so many were women, so many were below the age of
11 16 or 18 years old, so many were above the age of 60 so that we get an
12 overall impression of the age of these persons that had died.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not in a position
14 now to provide you with all the information. I mentioned some individual
15 cases. The youngest victim whose autopsy I performed in the area was 11
16 years old, and the oldest was over 80. The majority of the deaths
17 occurred with people whose age was between 20 and 60. That's all I that
18 I can specify right now. Everything else would be just guess-work
19 because I never performed this sort of analysis of the data.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And by majority, male or female?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Most were men. There was a
22 significantly smaller number of women.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. And we are talking about in total
24 approximately? Because talking about Zvornik, you referred to Muslims
25 who had died and Serbs who had died, and I think the number of the Serbs
1 was considerably higher. Could you tell us what approximately the size
2 of the group of deceased people was?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we talk about Eastern Bosnia,
4 I think the group comprised around 1100 bodies, including those who were
5 certainly Muslims. That was the group that we examined in early 1992.
6 And the others were mostly Serbs from Serb-populated villages because we
7 were requested, we were called to come over and examine those bodies.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
10 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
11 Q. And I think you -- I think you mentioned that the documentation
12 had been provided to the ICTY and that you had been interviewed. Were
13 you ever called to testify in court as to these remains of Serbs from
14 these villages that we've been discussing?
15 A. I already said that at one point someone from the Prosecution
16 asked me whether I was willing to testify as a witness who performed
17 these autopsies at the Naser Oric trial. I said that if that was the
18 Prosecution's decision that I had nothing against it and that I would act
19 in compliance with the Prosecution's request. I -- and the trial ended
20 after that but I was not invited to testify before that Trial Chamber.
21 Q. Okay. Then I would like to conclude that factual part of your
22 testimony and return to the expert aspect of your appearance here and I'd
23 like to --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just put one additional question --
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- I'm not surprised by your last answer because
2 that's what you said before as well. But before you also said that your
3 expert report was admitted into evidence in that case. You didn't say
4 that now. Was it? In the Oric case.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You may have misunderstood me. I
6 said that ICTY investigators talked with me about victims whose autopsies
7 I performed in Eastern Bosnia. I don't know whether my autopsy reports
8 were admitted or not. I just know that they contacted me and asked me
9 whether I was willing to come and testify. It's possible that the
10 reports were admitted ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me read what you said and I'm referring to page
12 6 of today's transcript.
13 You said: "In the end, I wasn't called. I was informed verbally
14 that my autopsy reports were accepted in the case, and that was the end
15 of it."
16 I understood that that they would have been admitted into
17 evidence, but if this is wrongly understood - or if you don't know -
18 please tell me.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've told you what they told me,
20 but I'm not certain whether the autopsy reports were admitted into
21 evidence or not. That was something that I was told, but ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: Typically a matter on which, I think, the parties
23 could easily agree if it was the case.
24 Please proceed.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 MR. IVETIC:
2 Q. Sir, I'd like to move another matter. If we could have but not
3 broadcast Exhibit D283. And I also have a hard copy of this as well that
4 we can help -- with the help of the court usher get into your hands.
5 And, professor, I will ask you to ignore the name of the stated
6 person and focus on the diagnosis in the document that we will be looking
8 And looking at the diagnosis in the original, are you in a
9 position to identify what language the diagnosis is written in?
10 A. The diagnosis is written in the Latin tongue. And the therapy
11 and the other information is written in the Serbo-Croat-Bosnian language.
12 Q. And could you express to us what this diagnosis in Latin means in
13 relation to the injuries exhibited by this individual, again without
14 referencing the name.
15 A. It follows from the discharge list that the person spent some
16 time at the military medical institution and received treatment from the
17 16th of July, 1995 until the 11th of August, 1995. The diagnosis in
18 Latin means explosive injury in the left pelvis and the left gluteus. In
19 the epicrisis, the doctor wrote that anti-tetanus protection and
20 antibiotic therapy were provided, the bandages were changed regularly.
21 The wound is normal and discharge for outpatient care, redressing every
22 other day at the nearest outpatient clinic. Checkup with orthopaedic
23 surgeon at the Tuzla health centre as necessary.
24 So explosive injuries to the left pelvis, left hip, and left
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you. You said it was the left gluteus.
2 Could you please confirm that.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry no, it's the right one.
4 It's the right gluteus.
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... making mistakes
6 is very human.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. IVETIC:
9 Q. And in your medical opinion, what kinds of things could cause the
10 type of injury that is described here in the Latin, an explosive injury
11 of the manner that you just detailed for us?
12 A. Those injures are caused by fragmentation of mines or explosives
13 such as mortar shells or cannon shell and also such injuries may be
14 caused by the explosion of hand-grenades. So hand-grenades may also be
15 the cause of such injuries.
16 Q. How would a gun-shot wound compared [sic] to the type of wound
17 that is described in this document?
18 A. There are differences between blast wounds and gun-shot wounds.
19 Depending on the angle at which the projectile enters the body, it could
20 be round or oval in form. If the projectile has not been damaged before
21 entering the body, the edges of the wound are straight and smooth as
22 opposed to wounds caused by shrapnel, where injuries are irregular forms.
23 So are the edges. They can be of different shapes, another difference is
24 depending on the distance from which projectiles were fired. If it is
25 point blank, a gun-shot injury is probably an entry and exit wound except
1 when it hits a bone such as the hip bones, which are very thick and in
2 which a projectile may get stuck. As opposed to blast wounds where there
3 are numerous channels that destroy much more soft tissue, because the
4 shrapnel has an irregular pattern of penetrating a human body. And as
5 this person was admitted to a hospital when the wounds were dressed,
6 pieces of shrapnel are lodged at smaller depth than gun-shot projectiles.
7 And the persons who dressed the wounds can very easily make a distinction
8 between shrapnel and gun-shot projectiles and the injuries caused by
9 them. In this specific case, taking into account that the person was
10 admitted to a hospital for a period of 26 days, probably it was a mine or
11 an explosive, such as mortar shell or a cannon shell, and that these were
12 serious injuries which are not described in this discharge list, but such
13 injuries required a long period of treatment as verified by the doctors
14 in their finding.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I've had discussions with
17 Mr. McCloskey of the Prosecution and I understand there is a CLSS
18 translation of this document that has the Latin translated into -- I
19 can't remember if it's English because I only received a hard copy and I
20 lost it so I don't have the information on that. But is this sufficient
21 in terms of the meaning of the Latin or do we need to get that document
22 uploaded to complete the record?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Is it all about the explosive wound?
24 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's the issue.
1 MR. IVETIC: Yeah.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.
4 Looking at the record for this issue, I promised you many months
5 ago to get you a translation of the Latin. CLSS came back with a
6 translation that we frankly disagreed with the Defence on and we have not
7 offered it. However, Mr. Ivetic has gone to a source that has described
8 that and the way it was translated is, I think, fair, and I think we're
9 willing to stand on the old translation and the testimony of this witness
10 and he will, of course, be cross-examined.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: We leave it there for the time being.
13 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And we'll wait what later happens.
15 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
16 Q. Professor, now I wish to return to your expert work in relation
17 to the Tomasica evidence of Dr. Clark, so I would ask that we now take a
18 look at Exhibit D1447 marked for identification and that would be your
19 report as to Dr. Clark and the Tomasica material. And ... I think you
20 still have your copy in front of you as I don't have a clean copy in
21 front of me.
22 I'd like to turn to page 16 in e-court in the English and this
23 will be page 22 of the original in Serbian. And we have... oh.
24 MR. IVETIC: If we can go to the next page in the Serbian. I
25 appear to have miscounted. I see it's hard copy 22, it's in e-court, in
1 the original Serbian. But we have here a list of sources that you used
2 in your analysis and I wish to focus on two of these that are to be found
3 on the next page in both language versions of the report. And I will
4 wait for the e-court to catch up with us.
5 And they are the second and third up from the bottom of the list
6 and they deal with asanacija of the terrain or sanitisation as it has
7 been translated. One of them deals with the identification of bodies in
8 mass disasters, and the other talks about a kit, SNK69 for use in
9 identifying bodies in mass disasters. Can you tell us how you came to
10 prepare these two documents that are listed in the report as sources that
11 you used. That is to say, how did you become -- how did you come to be
12 requested to author these two documents?
13 A. The second document, "Sanitisation of terrain in mass disasters,"
14 commissioned by Belgrade was a result of mass disasters in our city
15 caused by either natural causes, earthquakes, floods or et cetera, or
16 caused by war or terrorist action. The city of Belgrade did not have
17 enough autopsy specialists who would deal with these bodies and the
18 commander of civilian protection at the time, a certain Colonel Kovacevic
19 who was in charge, knowing all this and bearing in mind the problems of
20 sanitizing the terrain at the time when a plane from Zagreb fell when it
21 was still the country of SFRY, asked that he be able to participate in
22 drafting a document that would regulate sanitisation of terrain in the
23 event of massive disasters. There were representatives of the army, the
24 police, civilian structures involved in this work, and we produced a
25 draft document that was first adopted by the Assembly -- Municipal
1 Assembly of Belgrade and then proposed it to another municipalities to
2 adopt for the same purpose.
3 What did sanitisation of terrain mean? It meant primarily taking
4 care of the terrain after an accident designating a place where bodies,
5 human corpses and carcasses would be disposed of, a place where autopsies
6 would be done. It designated who would be leaders of the teams and other
7 experts necessary, what documentation produced should look like, how it
8 would be presented, and various other related issues.
9 After this draft document was made, we designated exact locations
10 where bodies would be collected, who would be in charge of post-mortems,
11 where we would look for assistance and from whom --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, the question was how did you come to be
13 requested to you author these two documents.
14 Mr. Ivetic, it could be that witness is exactly telling what you
15 wanted to ask him anyhow, but could we try to get focussed questions,
16 focussed answers, such as this was triggered by this or that event or I
17 was asked by the municipality, rather than to explain far beyond what was
19 Please proceed.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as the first document is
21 concerned, the Assembly of Belgrade asked me to do it. At that time, I
22 was a well known expert in this area, and together with other experts, I
23 was asked to do it.
24 In the second case, it was the army who requested it because in
25 the army there was a Department for the development of war sanitary
1 equipment. They wanted a document about sanitisation in massive disaster
2 there was already one set of procedures and rules, but they wanted it to
3 be complemented and updated with an eye on how it is done in other
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. And you identified that it applies to war and terrorism et
7 cetera. What was to be done in represent to explosives, weapons, and
8 munitions found in -- in the asanacija or sanitisation process as it
9 related to war?
10 A. In some parts of the clothing of the soldiers we autopsied at the
11 military medical academy, we found grenades, explosives, ammunition,
12 bullets, and everything we found we handed over to the military police
13 and they somehow stored it and disposed of it, and they gave it to the
14 quartermaster service or whatever section in the army it is that deals
15 with it.
16 Q. And were there any instances when it was foreseen that full
17 autopsies would not be able to be performed in mass disasters; if so what
18 were those circumstances foreseen?
19 A. A complete post-mortem implied opening bodily cavities according
20 to the prescribed rules. A partial post-mortem implied an external
21 description of the body while removing the clothing to see what personal
22 items were there. A record would be made, and after that, the corpse
23 would just be externally inspected to register injuries, the location of
24 injuries, their appearance, their size, number, and whatever was possible
25 to describe at the moment, and those were the characteristic body parts
1 for identification. After that, the bodies were stored in designated
2 locations, and then the people who did the exhumations could see the
3 bodies again, if necessary, or remove parts of the body needed for DNA
4 analysis and describe the injuries in greater detail.
5 Q. Now, focussing specifically on the asanacija that applies to
6 war-time conditions or combat, what, according to the procedures was to
7 be done for bodies found in the battle-field? Corpses found in the
8 battle-field, what was to be done with them?
9 A. Well, what I said about partial autopsies, that also includes
10 recording the body and describing it, including the clothing found on the
11 body, external description of the parts that could be useful for
12 identification, the dental status that is to be compared with dental
13 records in health centres, and after that, the body, under a certain
14 number, would be buried, and after the war, the bodies could be exhumed
15 again for renewed post-mortem and collecting samples for further
17 Q. Okay. Now, I'd like to turn to page 3 in both languages of D1447
18 MFI which we have in front of us, and I'd like to address with you the
19 part A of your report which is: "Objections and unresolved issues
20 regarding deviations from acceptable standards and procedures that follow
21 from the contents of the report."
22 And here in the first numbered paragraph -- oh, I have to wait
23 for the B/C/S. Now I have to, I think, wait for the English.
24 And you have written here under number one: "How is it possible
25 for the chief ICTY pathologist in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia to
1 offer his help with the exhumation and processing of bodies in Tomasica,
2 receive his information about the grave-site in informal conversations,
3 he does not state with whom, and say that his role was 'was an unofficial
4 one' and that ICTY then requests him to draw up a report on autopsy
6 Now, I want to break this down. First of all, the unofficial
7 role of Dr. Clark in the investigations of Tomasica. Can you please tell
8 us, from the perspective of the field of practice of forensic medicine,
9 what is the standard role of a pathologist and how does it compare to
10 this unofficial role of Clark?
11 A. I've already said that if somebody participates in work on a mass
12 grave and the team is led by an investigating judge, then the leader of
13 the post-mortem team is the one who assigns roles to every member of the
14 post-mortem team. I cannot understand that somebody describes their role
15 as unofficial, that they did not have any kind of mandate since this
16 investigation was overseen by the prosecutor's office of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina, it would have been logical for the prosecutor to
18 specify the role of Dr. Clark, in co-ordination with the Tribunal or
19 something, I don't know. But, in any case it is completely impossible
20 for somebody to come in from the street and say, I want to participate
21 and help in the processing of this mass grave. From an expert point of
22 view, it's unacceptable, and I, as an expert, I would never accept such a
23 role in dealing with a mass grave.
24 And then we can't find in the papers any detailed trace of
25 Dr. Clark's role, but he proceeds to make a report on the case, although
1 he was absent at the beginning of the exhumations and although he
2 receives his information in what he calls informal conversations. Why
3 didn't he conduct formal interviews with the leading people in the
4 investigation who must have given him their approval to be there,
5 otherwise he couldn't have been there? So why didn't he ask them also to
6 give him access on all the resulting -- all the resulting information?
7 That's why I made this remark about this work procedure and this way the
8 report was written for such an important institution as the international
9 Tribunal in The Hague.
10 Q. From the perspective of your profession, what is the proper
11 procedure for obtaining information via interviews when one is a forensic
12 pathologist engaging in an investigation?
13 A. From the moment when the leaders of the investigation decide to
14 engage you, the leader decides on your level of clearance. You can have
15 contacts and hear other versions of events from other people. You can
16 talk to other people involved in the work, processing the mass grave, but
17 formally and legally, it is the investigating judge or the prosecutor who
18 determine your role and you act accordingly, in keeping with their
20 Q. And now if we could take a look at number 2 in your objections
21 and unresolved issues, you say:
22 "Why did Dr. Clark take notes and take photographs independently
23 of Dr. Dzevad Durmisevic of Bihac and Professor Nermin Sarajlic from the
24 Sarajevo University and can this be understood as mistrust of experts
25 from Bosnia and Herzegovina."
1 In your experience, where there are multiple forensic
2 pathologists working together, what would be the commonly accepted
3 procedure for this type of work, especially as to photography?
4 A. It's very odd and very unprincipled to conduct a separate
5 investigation within the framework of the investigation led by the
6 official authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And for Dr. Clark to
7 write a separate report without trying to harmonise what he wrote with
8 Dr. Sarajlic and Dr. Durmisevic. It's the first time I hear of anything
9 like that happening. Because if the doctors who were in charge got a man
10 who is doing work off his own bat, I myself would never accept to work in
11 such conditions. I would just tell the people in charge, I cannot go on.
12 If this is the way you want it, you will do it without me. Because if he
13 was officially engaged, then they had the obligation to harmonise their
14 findings. Later on, when we get to the examples, we will see exactly
15 what's wrong with it, and then the leader of the investigation should
16 have tried to harmonise their findings. If he was unable to, then he
17 would engage external experts and then we wouldn't have two different
18 causes of death for one person, parts of the body that one doctor
19 described and the other didn't, et cetera.
20 It's also beyond my understanding that he, as a person who is
21 producing a general report for the ICTY, makes his only photographs. On
22 site, there must have been a scene-of-crimes team from the official
23 authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina and he could have just pointed and
24 asked them, Please make me photos of this or that body part. I can
25 hardly imagine a forensic pathologist lowering himself to the role of a
1 simple photographer. He is a renowned specialist with great experience.
2 Q. You questioned here if Clark --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Can I seek clarification.
4 You say you can hardly imagine someone lowering -- apart from
5 whether taking photographs is lowering for someone who has other
6 capacities as well, but is there any suggestion that he did not take
7 those photographs or -- I mean, do you not believe him? Or is it just
8 that you are astonished by that cause of action which you, as a respected
9 expert, would never have followed?
10 Which of the two?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the main problem, in my view,
12 is that a forensic pathologist's main focus should have been on analysing
13 and qualifying --
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... witness, let me
15 stop you there. Could I receive an answer to my question. Is it that
16 you don't believe him that he took those photographs? Or is it that you
17 would never have done that for professional reasons to do it as he says
18 he did?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe these
20 people, but I find it hard to believe that they did this.
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I -- yes, but
22 you, nevertheless, believe it. You do not -- I'm trying to understand
23 your testimony, whether there's any suggestion that he's not telling the
24 truth or that you think that he acted very unwise.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I find it hard to believe that he
1 acted in a way that is completely dissonant with his professional
2 qualifications and that he did work that is not in his area of
3 competence. I have no dilemma that he took his own photographs. That's
4 not what I'm questioning; I believe that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. You have answered my question.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. And in the last part of this item number two, you question if
9 Clark had mistrust for experts from Bosnia-Herzegovina. What is the
10 reputation within the forensic medical community, historically as to the
11 practice of forensic medicine in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
12 A. Well, I can say that forensic medicine in Bosnia-Herzegovina
13 never had any prominent specialists in the former Yugoslavia. There was,
14 for instance, Professor Vujicic [phoen] from the military medical academy
15 who was practically the founder of forensic medicine in
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina but in this specific case I'm not able to come up with
17 any names of people who were particularly well-known in the area of
18 forensic medicine and would have been generally accepted in the territory
19 of former Yugoslavia. As for others, for instance, there was Dr. Curkic
20 [phoen] in Doboj and Dr. Cirklas [phoen] in Tuzla, with whom I used to
21 work. They are very good doctors. There is the late Dr. Dobraca, with
22 whom I also worked. In Mostar he was a solid man. There was some
23 others. I don't want to talk about them in this context. I don't know
24 about Dr. Durmisevic and Dr. Sarajlic. I first came across their names
25 through these reports.
1 Q. Now, in relation to his arrival at the Tomasica investigations,
2 and his role in the same, Dr. Clark testified in this trial and I would
3 like to ask you about some of the things that he testified about. So I'd
4 like to read to you his testimony from transcript page 36621, line 17 to
5 36623, line 16, and then I'll have some questions about that. So here
6 comes the quotation:
7 "Q. So it has to do with the procedure in the mortuary. You
8 gave us an answer today as well, stating that you became involved in what
9 is described here under number 3. You told us that the actions carried
10 out in paragraphs 1 and 2 had already been carried out by other people.
11 How long did this last, that is to say, what was described in
12 paragraphs 1 and 2, opening bags, removing clothing for washing, and then
13 cleaning the bodies themselves, all these things what the anthropologists
15 "A. That process was already under way by the time I arrived at
16 the mortuary. Really, from the time that the bodies started arriving
17 from the site into the mortuary, local staff, some of them employed by
18 ICMP, some of them probably not directly employed but they had started
19 going through the bodies, removing the clothing to wash the bodies so
20 that they could be examined by the anthropology team who would do an
21 inventory of what bones and parts of the body were present, try and
22 assess the sex of the individual from looking at the bones, and sometimes
23 taking a sample at that stage, a bone sample or a tooth sample for DNA
24 analysis. Once that was completed, the body would be sealed up again in
25 the body bag, awaiting the pathologists to have a look at that in due
1 course, examine the body in due course. We obviously could see the
2 processes going on just in the general course of events, but we had no
3 direct oversight over them.
4 "Q. I do apologise, but you did not answer my question. For how
5 long had the work already been done in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 before
6 you arrived and became involved in the Tomasica case?
7 "A. I would imagine that probably one to two months. I don't
8 know precisely the date, but it would be of that pat-- order.
9 "Q. It would be a fair assessment to say that you had no
10 knowledge whatsoever in terms of what had been done before you arrived
11 there and before you started working on the Tomasica case. Would that be
13 "A. I was aware. I was aware that procedures had been carried
14 out. I had not witnessed it directly myself.
15 "Q. How was it that you were aware of the procedures that were
17 "A. When I did arrive, these procedures were still ongoing
18 because there was so many bodies, so I was able to see the bodies being
19 washed, and I was informed that a lot of other bodies had already been
20 dealt with, so I could see -- I could see the process. It was still
21 ongoing. And I could see -- similarly, I could see the process done by
22 the anthropologists and the records that they kept and the details and
23 the photography done, so I did at least see a substantial number of cases
24 going through these procedures but only kind of -- from a distant,
25 distant point of view.
1 "Q. Did you try to intervene in relation to the procedures that
2 were different from the ones that you had applied earlier on?
3 "A. I made unofficial suggestions that this was a different way
4 of doing things, but I realised I was very much the visitor. I had no
5 official role there, that the exercise was now being run by the Bosnian
6 Commission and that, well, I had -- I had little influence to change
8 And now I'd like to ask you, professor, for your observations as
9 an expert in this field about Dr. Clark's own description of his arrival
10 on the scene and lack of involvement in the processes that were under
11 way, that he himself said were being done in a different way.
12 A. I cannot believe that he said this. If he said it and you say
13 that he did, then it would be best if he were to withdraw his whole
14 report which is now in front of us and that we would at least have a
15 report on what the experts from Bosnia-Herzegovina did and what the
16 investigation service of Bosnia-Herzegovina did.
17 Firstly, there is no -- it's team-work led by the prosecutor in
18 this specific case. The prosecutor co-ordinates all the activities. You
19 as a pathologist come to the scene and together with other team members,
20 you can see the bodies which are taken out of a mass grave. These are
21 not war-time conditions and not investigations about -- let me not say
22 anything disparaging. I believed that he was present during the
23 post-mortem examination and that he communicated not only with
24 pathologists and forensic experts but also anthropologists and
25 prosecutors and everybody else because these are very complex issues.
1 One cannot work like this and this statement shows that, in this specific
2 case, Dr. Clark made a professional error and that after such a
3 statement, this report is, in fact, I would say, such that it cannot be
4 used in a trial proceedings.
5 MR. IVETIC: I think we're at the time for the last break.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we are beyond that already. But after the long
7 quote, I didn't want to disallow you to put a question to the witness.
8 We'll take another break and we'd like to see you back in 20
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at a quarter to 2.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 1.22 p.m.
13 --- Upon commencing at 1.44 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We are waiting for the witness to be escorted into
15 the courtroom.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. Professor, I'd like to stay for a few more moments with the
20 testimony we just went through of Dr. Clark from this trial. In relation
21 to what he described, the cleaning of the remains that others did that he
22 wasn't involved in, do you have any professional comment as to the manner
23 in which it was said by Dr. Clark to have been carried out in relation to
25 A. The forensic expert should be present from the beginning of the
1 post-mortem examination. It should have been seen whether by the washing
2 of the bodies some elements or evidence may be removed that might, for
3 example, indicate a distance from which a projectile was fired because
4 traces of gunpowder explosion may remain on the surface of the body and
5 they may be partly removed but not completely. There may be gunpowder
6 elements that are suffusing the soft tissues and may be detected by
7 microscopic analysis. The projectile also has some dirt on its surface
8 and by passing through clothes or the body, the dirt also leaves trace on
9 the soft tissues or on the clothes so perhaps with this washing before
10 the insight of the pathologist, such traces may have been destroyed. So
11 it's difficult to understand how a doctor who examines the patients is
12 not present during the exhumation where the body is exhumed when found
13 and that he has no communication from the anthropologist who would
14 indicate from his point of view whether certain segments of textile or
15 body parts would need to be specifically analysed or focussed on, but
16 rather come and see only a body that has been cleaned.
17 Q. And now I wish to also read a subsequent part of Dr. Clark's
18 testimony, this time going from transcript page 36623, line 17, to 36625,
19 line 2. And here begins the quotation:
20 "Q. Could you please tell us now briefly how come you appeared
21 at that location where the autopsies are carried out. You said
22 beforehand that you were a volunteer and now you said that you were a
23 visitor. Could somebody else have come there as a volunteer or visitor,
24 whoever wished to do so?
25 "A. Perhaps I've used the word 'visitor' loosely. I mean it to
1 I was there with permission to be there but I was not in a position to
2 change anything. The reason I was specifically involved was, it was
3 suggested by Professor Sarajlic in Sarajevo that Dr. Durmisevic would
4 probably welcome, very much welcome my assistance, given my past
5 experience and my past interest in this work. So he was very welcoming
6 and made arrangements for the Prosecutor to get permission for me to be
7 there, so I wasn't just a casual visitor. I was there with specific
8 permission because of expertise; but at the same time, I was conscious
9 that I was there, I was taking my own -- making my own observations and
10 that the two Bosnian pathologists were doing the official observations
11 for their -- for their purposes for the Prosecutor. So -- and nobody
12 else could have been there without permission.
13 "Q. How come you became involved before permission was given?
14 Was this at your own initiative? Did somebody ask you to do that?
15 "A. Partly it was my initiative. I was in discussions with
16 Professor Sarajlic about doing research on cases that both of us had
17 seen -- had been involved in previously in Bosnia, particularly north of
18 Bosnia, and he happened to mention that there was going to be work at the
19 Tomasica site. It was quite a coincidence that it all happened at the
20 same time, and he suggested that it would be good for me to be involved.
21 I was able to be, and so it went on, and that -- that request was made
22 into formal permission for me to be there. So it was a chance
23 circumstance of time and availability.
24 "Q. Could we say that it was actually your own initiative?
25 "A. Yes, I didn't have to be there. The work would have gone on
1 had I not been there, certainly. My involvement was also encouraged by
2 both ICMP and ICTY. It just happened that, at that time, at that
3 particular time, it was during a major conference actually here in
4 The Hague involving ICMP and ICTY, so there was direct discussions during
5 the conference, and they both encouraged and facilitated my involvement."
6 Now, professor, from the standpoint of your profession, how do
7 you regard Dr. Clark's definition of his role into the Tomasica
8 investigative efforts as he described here in this part of his own
10 A. This part of his testimony is contrary to what he wrote in the
11 report itself. Because in the report he writes that his role was
12 unofficial, and now we are getting a different picture of his role. I
13 think that it was really good that he came to the location to help the
14 people who were working there and who did not have experience with
15 processing mortal remains from a mass grave, but I also believe that his
16 role, as described by him, including his arrival to the scene, is
17 unacceptable. I would never agree to come and work in this manner,
18 whoever invited me. I would have requested for the prosecutor of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina who was in charge of the investigation, ask for the
20 approval of ICTY, not ICMP, because they are not important. They may
21 request it, but the role and position of ICTY are important. So they
22 should have been asked for approval of my presence because someone's
23 responsibility was discussed before this Tribunal and perhaps also before
24 a court in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And it was only after that, that it
25 should have been asked for the prosecutor or investigating judge to issue
1 an order and determine the role and mandate that I would have as part of
2 the examination and processing of mortal remains of the bodies from the
3 Tomasica mass grave.
4 Q. Now, if we can focus on the next item from your Tomasica report
5 part A that is labelled as number 3 and that's at the -- whoops, at the
6 bottom of the page in the Serbian and goes onto the next page in the
7 Serbian. And it reads here: "If Dr. Clark co-operated with the forensic
8 pathologists from Bosnia and Herzegovina '(usually) agreeing' with them,
9 as he states in the report, then it follows that there were also some
10 disagreements that are not mentioned in the report, and so the question
11 arises as to whose finding and opinion the ICTY Trial Chamber accepts and
12 why it has not ordered a harmonisation of various findings, or, if
13 necessary, a new expert analysis?"
14 And the first question I have for you, professor --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Before you put that question to the witness, could
16 you first seek clarification as to what the "it" in the semi-last line
17 refers to. Is it that the Trial Chamber or is it ...
18 Who should have ordered a harmonisation of various findings?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The person who was in charge of the
20 investigation should have asked for harmonisation, in this specific case
21 the prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina or if the document was presented
22 to ICTY, then the Prosecutor from ICTY.
23 The Prosecutor was the one who presented the document to the
24 Trial Chamber so he should have requested the harmonisation. If they
25 didn't, then there is a possibility for the Trial Chamber to request that
1 the findings be harmonised between the pathologists who have different
2 opinions or then a new expert analysis that would then be presented to
3 the Trial Chamber in the form of a document that would not include
4 opposite opinions about the post-mortem examinations that were carried
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have another question before you ask the
9 Professor, is it so that, indeed, the ICTY received two
10 unharmonised reported or did they receive only one report?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this specific case, I only had
12 at my disposal one report, the report of Dr. Clark which was given to me
13 for review. I did not see the reports of Bosnian pathologists or the
14 prosecution of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And as far as I have been informed,
15 it is inexistent. But analysing the documents that were submitted to me,
16 I compared autopsy reports drawn up by Dr. Clark and autopsy reports
17 drawn up by Dr. Durmisevic and Dr. Sarajlic. In these autopsy reports,
18 there are great differences about the situation, and I list them at the
19 end of my report relating to Tomasica.
20 This is why I thought and believed that it was necessary for
21 Dr. Clark, Dr. Sarajlic and Dr. Durmisevic to sit down together and
22 harmonise all the inconsistencies and then submit the results to ICTY.
23 If Dr. Sarajlic requested that Dr. Clark should come because of
24 Dr. Durmisevic's expertise, I can say that there are drastic differences
25 between the findings of Professor Sarajlic and Dr. Clark. I found that
1 when analysing their autopsy reports. I photocopied or rather printed
2 out ten such autopsy reports drawn up by Dr. Durmisevic and Dr. Sarajlic
3 and compared them with the findings, which I have here on the desk in
4 front of me in a closed folder, so I compared them with the contents of
5 Dr. Clark's report and I noticed the differences. And I believed that
6 such an important Tribunal, founded by the most important global
7 organisation, the United Nations cannot pass a judgement on the basis of
8 such a document until the findings of the pathologists who were in charge
9 of autopsies were harmonised.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it your position that where two experts give
13 two divergent opinions on an issue, it's open for either of Prosecution
14 of this Court or of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the Tribunal to order them
15 to harmonise their differences?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that's not only my
17 position. I think that's generally accepted rules, that applies in all
18 courts, including the ICTY.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you.
20 MR. IVETIC:
21 Q. And if we can talk some more about this generally accepted
22 process of harmonisation, how is it carried out in the ordinary course of
23 forensic medical work, the harmonisation and the new expert analysis?
24 How does this usually work out?
25 A. After completing the post-mortem, if there are experts who were
1 present and whose positions differ, then the leader of the
2 investigation - that is to say, the investigative judge or the
3 prosecutor - is notified, and he has the duty of recording these
4 differences, trying to get the experts to agree. If that is impossible,
5 then he commissioned a new forensic examination by different experts who
6 have higher professional integrity and, thus, they obtain a new report,
7 new findings, that can be accepted by the Trial Chamber.
8 After providing such a report, the expert must defend their
9 findings, be it on the instructions of the prosecutor or the Trial
10 Chamber, but in any case, it all happens before the Trial Chamber.
11 Q. And in your review of Dr. Clark's report and the other materials
12 that you reviewed, was there evidence of any such process of
13 harmonisation -- attempted harmonisation or engagement of a third
14 independent expert considered or utilised?
15 A. No. In the case file, there is no mention of any harmonisation
16 of positions.
17 Q. Is there any explanation by Clark or the Bosnian pathologists of
18 why it was not done in this case relating to Srebrenica -- relating to
20 A. In the documents that I have, there is no explanation.
21 Q. And then if we look at the next of your observations in
22 paragraph 4, which is to be found on page 3 in English and page 4 in the
23 Serbian original --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, would you allow me ask one question in
1 MR. IVETIC: Yeah, go ahead.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You are pointing at the -- sometimes disagreement
3 between the experts Dr. Clark and the BiH experts. In your report, you
4 list, to start with, nine cases, where you say some of the cases in which
5 inconsistency has been observed between the autopsy reports of Dr. Clark
6 and the pathologist commissioned by the prosecutor of BiH and then you
7 have one other example, which then follows, I think, in -- it's Annex C
8 where you give cases of unacceptable conclusion and, as a matter of fact,
9 you say "cases" but it is one case.
10 Could you tell us, how many other cases you find similar
11 substantial differences? So if these are examples, I would like to know
12 how many in total you found?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I made an analysis of the entire
14 documentation, but I listed only these nine, in fact, ten examples that
15 are typical, that involve differences in findings, and I thought -- I
16 didn't record the exact number of discrepancies. That is to say,
17 opposite findings, and I'm not able to tell you how many there are now.
18 But I analysed all of them, and I singled out these as typical examples
19 where we find completely opposite findings between Dr. Clark and the
20 autopsy experts from Bosnia-Herzegovina because this is a sufficient
21 number to show that differences exist.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I would be interested to know whether these
23 are the ones that could be detected or whether there were far more on a
24 total of how many? Do you remember how many in total you compared?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think I compared about 100
1 cases. And among these hundred, not less than 20 involved differences.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you would say the ten you listed, at least
3 there is a double number which shows similar inconsistencies?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Would you be so kind - we'll adjourn in a second -
6 would you be so kind to identify those other tens you say -- those other
7 ten you say are certainly there so that we can get a better impression.
8 You said "at least another ten." But perhaps even if you find more, we'd
9 be interested to assess the proper size of the inconsistencies you have
10 found and not only by way of examples but -- have a full insight in how
11 many there are.
12 Would you be willing to spend part of your own free time to do
13 that exercise?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, Your Honour, I came here at
15 your request, and I will do whatever you want me to do. My free time
16 doesn't matter. So tomorrow ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's highly appreciated.
18 Mr. Ivetic, we are at the time where we have to adjourn anyhow.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But Judge Moloto -- yes, Mr. Ivetic, you had a
21 question. I'll not -- we intervened, if you think it's important to put
22 that question now right away, then --
23 MR. IVETIC: No. It will take at least four minutes, I think, so
24 it will put us well over the time to go to that new point.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you -- and you can live with it? It doesn't
1 disturb your --
2 MR. IVETIC: [Microphone not activated] I can live with it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm at least glad to hear that.
4 Mr. Stankovic, we'll adjourn for the day. I give you the same
5 instructions as I did before for the breaks, that is, that you should not
6 communicate, not speak, in whatever way, not communicate with whomever
7 about your testimony, and we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at
8 9.30 to continue to hear your evidence.
9 You may now follow the usher.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn for the day, and we'll resume
13 tomorrow, Tuesday, the 19th of April, 9.30 in the morning, in this same
14 courtroom, I.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 19th day of April,
17 2016, at 9.30 a.m.