1 Tuesday, 19 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 very much.
11 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom. And meanwhile
12 I'll deal with a -- the following matter.
13 On the 14th of March of 2014, the Chamber filed its decision on
14 the trial sitting schedule instructing the Registry to arrange for the
15 expert medical examination of the accused every four months, and to file
16 the experts' reports. This medical report and regime was established in
17 order to enable the Chamber to assess the impact of the trial sitting
18 schedule on the accused's health. While there are a limited number of
19 sitting days remaining, the Chamber maintains an interest in monitoring
20 the accused's health albeit less frequently. In light of the foregoing,
21 the Chamber hereby varies its 14th of March decision solely in relation
22 to the frequency of the expert medical examination to once every six
23 months as opposed to once every four months. Unless the Chamber hears
24 further from the parties, this decision will take effect as of the 22nd
25 of April, 2016.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Stankovic.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'll later ask you about the homework I asked to you
5 do. I first give an opportunity to Mr. Ivetic to continue his
6 examination-in-chief. And perhaps unnecessary I'd like to remind you as
7 well that you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you've given
8 at the beginning of your testimony, that you'll speak the truth, the
9 whole truth and nothing but the truth.
10 Mr. Ivetic.
11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
12 WITNESS: ZORAN STANKOVIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness testified through interpreter]
14 Examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]
15 Q. Good morning, professor.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. We left off dealing with Tomasica and I would like to again call
18 up in e-court D1447, MFI, which will be your report as to Tomasica. And
19 once we get there, I'd like to look at page 3 in English and page 4 in
20 the Serbian.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No -- I don't know, Mr. Ivetic, if you see
22 anything on your screen.
23 MR. IVETIC: I do not. That's why --
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just black. Now there it is.
25 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. I assumed as much. That's why I was
1 waiting patiently.
2 Q. Professor, I'd like to look first at paragraph number 4 here in
3 your report, and I would ask for you to please explain for us a little
4 bit what your observations were in relation to this part of your Tomasica
5 report and what is the significance of same.
6 A. Dr. Clark states in his report that there is a systemic list of main
7 autopsy findings and other materials. That would mean that there is an also
8 a systemic list of other autopsy reports and materials which are not main.
9 It's not possible to explain anything in this way because there are
10 markings in medicine which are used during the examination of mortal
11 remains, and if they are well preserved, then there may be a special list
12 as preserved body parts. If it is just one body part or bones, then
13 another special group of mortal remains is made, and these body parts may
14 later be joined to other body parts which are better preserved. If there
15 are only bones, they are also marked in a special way and examined.
16 So in this case, what follows from Dr. Clark's findings, he only
17 examined the well-preserved bodies, those with fewer parts missing,
18 which, in my view, should have been different. He should have examined
19 the remaining bodily parts and bones as well.
20 Q. And if we could then move onto the next paragraph, paragraph 5
21 which is here at the bottom of the page in English and bleeds over onto
22 the next page and here you have written: "It is noted that the mortuary
23 facilities at Sekovaca were basic but that it was still possible to carry
24 out a reasonably full and detailed examination in each case. Can bodies
25 from mass graves of people who lost their lives in work conditions be
1 fully examined without adequate equipment, as, for example, an X-ray
2 machine or a fluoroscope?"
3 First of all, professor, in your professional opinion, can bodies
4 be subjected to a reasonably full and detailed examination without both
5 an X-ray and a fluoroscope?
6 A. Well, the X-ray machine and the fluoroscope have become part of
7 the standard equipment for processing mortal remains, not only from mass
8 graves but in the ordinary work as well, so practically -- all mortuaries
9 and institutions that have forensic medicine well developed have such
10 equipment. It's strange that in such a mass grave with so many mortal
11 remains as this one, with the bodies being processed in peacetime, that
12 the person who requested the examination of the bodies did not provide an
13 X-ray machine or a fluoroscope and, in that way, reduced the possibility
14 for the findings made during the autopsy to be all-encompassing and
15 detailed and much more acceptable than the given finding.
16 Q. If we can stay on this topic --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I can just ask a question. This sentence, you
18 say, for example, an X-ray machine or a fluoroscope. Is it fact, in
19 fact, that these two were not there? Dr. Clark says the place was basic,
20 doesn't tell us exactly what it is that was available or not. You're
21 giving examples of a fluoroscope and an X-ray and I'm asking you is it a
22 fact, in fact, that there was no X-ray and there was no fluoroscope?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dr. Clark mentions in detail in his
24 report that there was no fluoroscope and no X-ray machine available. Let
25 me just find the exact page reference.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you.
2 MR. IVETIC: In English, it would be page 5 under radiology.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] thank you.
4 MR. IVETIC:
5 Q. Professor, dealing with the X-ray and fluoroscope equipment, how
6 prevalent or how difficult to find are such devices in the region of the
8 A. I think it's not difficult to obtain them as all because they
9 were used during the processing of certain mass graves around Srebrenica,
10 much earlier than the exhumation of the mass grave in Tomasica.
11 Q. And there are transportable or mobile versions of this equipment
12 in existence and in use in the region?
13 A. Yes, there are the so-called transportable X-rays which are used
14 in operating theatres, and the military medical academy had some such
15 machines in its possession while I was working there. They are movable
16 and not stationary, not fixed. They can be moved because they have their
17 wheels -- these are so-called transportable X-ray machines.
18 Q. Earlier today you mentioned that the X-ray and the fluoroscope
19 had become a standard part of the review of mortal remains. Could you
20 briefly tell us what are the use and purpose of both an X-ray and
21 fluoroscope in the process of performing forensic review of mortal
23 A. Sometimes it's very difficult to find a projectile or metal body
24 which caused the injuries in a person's dead body. That's why the best
25 possible way to detect such metal bodies was resorted to and that is the
1 use of those machines or equipment. The whole body is screened and that
2 allows to detect any such bodies. Therefore, it is much more difficult
3 for a pathologist could work without such equipment because then have you
4 a can examine each body really in detail in order to find fragments of
5 projectiles or mines and explosives that would indicate or explain the
6 existence of injuries which are registered during the autopsy.
7 Q. Sir, you indicated a few moments ago that X-rays and fluoroscopes
8 were utilised during the processing of certain mass graves around
9 Srebrenica much earlier than Tomasica. Which processing --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... are we talking about? Who
12 was involved in that?
13 A. I would have to look at the materials relating to Srebrenica, but
14 the materials that I saw mentioned that the persons who processed the
15 mortal remains around Srebrenica had at their disposal both an X-ray and
16 a fluoroscope and that can be found in the relevant documents. I cannot
17 point to exact portions, but I've read that and I can tell you that this
18 was part of the procedure that was in place during the processing of
19 mortal remains in grave-sites around Srebrenica.
20 Q. Fair enough --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, may I put a question at this moment
22 to the witness.
23 Mr. Stankovic, you said a moment ago it's much more difficult for
24 a pathologist to work without such equipment because then you have to --
25 you can examine each body really in detail in order to find fragments ...
1 Have you any information how Dr. Clark and his colleagues worked?
2 Did they do just that what you described as an alternative way to find
3 the projectiles in a body?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judging from Dr. Clark's report,
5 they did not have an X-ray or a fluoroscope and they examined the mortal
6 remains without those pieces of equipment. However, judging from the
7 descriptions included in the reports of Dr. Clark as well as
8 Dr. Durmisevic and Dr. Sarajlic, it does not follow that they examined
9 the mortal remains in a more detailed way than usual. That also follows
10 from the descriptions of the injuries that are included in their
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. Professor, could you explain the last part of your answer to
15 Judge Fluegge's question, where you said that also follows from the
16 description of the injuries included in the findings. What would you say
17 about the description of the injuries that are included in their
19 A. The description of injuries in the autopsy reports is, to put it
20 mildly, unacceptable from the point of view of forensic medicine because
21 it provides few information that would allow conclusions to be made
22 primarily about the trajectory of projectile through any given body.
23 Fractures are mentioned but the fractures are described in such a way
24 that, for example, that there are multiple fractures of the skull bones
25 or that pieces are missing and that's the entire description and then a
1 conclusion follows that the injuries were caused, for example, by the
2 impact of projectiles fired from a hand-held gun. That' precisely why we
3 have this situation. Last night I determined this once again when reading
4 this document. For example, Dr. Clark says that an injury was caused by
5 projectiles and Dr. Durmisevic, that it was caused by swinging a heavy,
6 blunt mechanical weapon. So the question arises how one is to interpret
7 such injuries if they are described in such a superficial way, that is to
8 say, if in the autopsy report there is just one single sentence which is
9 verified, which any of the people present may check for themselves.
10 Q. And now, I'd like to look at item number 7 which we see here at
11 the bottom of the page in English. It will be on page 5 in the Serbian
12 of your report as to Tomasica.
13 And I'd like to ask you what would be the normally accepted
14 procedure for this aspect of the investigation; that is, describing the
15 layout and the structure of the grave-site? What would be the normally
16 accepted procedure in this type of forensic review?
17 A. Well, the structure and the disposition of the grave is noted by
18 the duty archaeologist. It is not usual for the forensic medical officer
19 or doctor to enter such details, the disposition of the bodies in a grave
20 and so on. But it is even more strange that Dr. Clark was not present
21 when the grave was exhumed but then he did make a sketch of the
22 exhumation on the basis of information that he received from some other
23 people. It would have been logical for the head of investigations, that
24 is to say, the prosecutor to have an archaeologist on the scene who would
25 make such a sketch of the grave and the position of the bodies and
1 everything else that archaeologists normally do in such situations, and
2 for Dr. Clark to attach such a sketch and state that it was received from
3 the investigating judge or the prosecutor who is in charge of the
4 investigation in the given case.
5 Q. And now, in his report, I believe Dr. Clark, at page 2 in English
6 and page 3 in Serbian talks about visiting the grave-site in
7 December after all the bodies have been removed.
8 From a medical and scientific standpoint what would be the
9 purpose of such a visit to the work of Dr. Clark as a pathologist at that
10 point in time when all the bodies are removed?
11 A. I don't see any reason, but it's possible that he wanted to see
12 the ground, to see if it was wet or if it was clay. In this particular
13 case, it was an iron-ore mine, so probably that was his wish. But I
14 don't think that in that part of the grave he would really get any
15 important information from that. So I don't really understand why he
16 wanted that.
17 Q. Is the presence of a pathologist --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
19 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Your Honour. It's just for the record
20 I think my learned friend said it was on page 2 of the report. It is
21 actually at the top of page 3 in the English.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It is hereby on the record.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. Professor, when -- are there instances when the presence of a
1 pathologist is necessary at a grave-site during the exhumation process?
2 A. I already said yesterday that the presence of a court pathologist
3 is obligatory at the beginning of the exhumation or, rather, the
4 inspection of the ground where it is expected that the mass grave is to
5 be found and then after a visit to the field he should also be there to
6 notice everything that is important for a forensic medical officer. What
7 were the bodies that were on the surface? Are there any differences with
8 regards to the degree of putrefaction in between the bodies that were on
9 the surface or deeper underground? Is there a difference in the material
10 with which the mortal remains were covered? Is it stones or such was the
11 case with ethnic Albanians in Bajina Basta who had been brought there in
12 a refrigerator truck or whether the ground is without any hard substance
13 such as stone and similar material. And then after that, he should also
14 see how the bodies looked like while they were in the grave. So I think
15 that forensic medical officer or a court pathologist should have been
16 present all along during the exhumation in Tomasica which was not the
17 case with Dr. Clark.
18 Q. And from the materials submitted by Dr. Clark, do you know if
19 someone else was present during this time-period for the Tomasica
20 exhumations; and, if so, whom?
21 A. As for forensic medical specialist from Bosnia-Herzegovina in
22 their autopsy reports, it's not noted that they were present during
23 exhumation, that is to say, that they were present while the body that
24 they were in charge of processing was still in the grave.
25 Q. Okay. Now, returning to your report as to the Tomasica material,
1 I'd like to look at your questions raised in paragraph 8. You note that
2 Dr. Clark says there may be a degree of misinformation. What problems do
3 you see arising from this fact? What is the significance of this?
4 A. Any expert witness submitting materials to a Trial Chamber or the
5 prosecutor or whoever requested an autopsy, has to describe in detail all
6 the mistakes or errors and what he or she implies by an error, what is
7 the degree of the error, and whether noting that there is an error may
8 burden an autopsy report in any way.
9 Dr. Clark's report does not include that, so it follows that the
10 statement that there is a degree of error implies that the degree of
11 error doesn't really exist. So it was necessary for Dr. Clark to explain
12 in more detail what he implies by that and to point out to the
13 Prosecutor, that is to say, the Trial Chamber, what that was about.
14 Q. In the next two paragraphs of your report, 9 and 10, found on
15 page 4 in English, page 5 in the Serbian, you discuss the differing
16 degree of preservation of the bodies that are reported by Dr. Clark for
17 the Tomasica grave-site. And I want to ask you, first of all, what is
18 your expert opinion as to the questions posed in paragraphs 9 and 10 and
19 the percentages of 61 per cent preserved and 39 per cent exhibiting
20 complete skeletonization?
21 A. Well, it's Dr. Clark's finding. I have no objections to it.
22 There's nothing for me to dispute on the basis of what they did in the
23 grave. He analysed the percentages and he stated the situation that was
24 established. What is important is that this degree of decomposition of
25 soft tissue in the bodies that were buried may point to a number of
1 reasons that need be to explained. Namely, whether the death of the
2 people who were buried in the mass grave occurred at more or less the
3 same time; secondly, whether some of the bodies that were buried there
4 were buried at different times, whether some mortal remains were buried
5 at a later stage. Then it ought to be determined whether some bodies
6 were out in the open, after death, and may have been attacked by insects
7 or animals and damaged in that way. So, in my opinion, all these
8 possibilities ought to have been explained in the report. Why such a
9 difference among the bodies with 61 per cent of mostly preserved soft
10 tissues and 39 per cent that were in the state of skeletonization.
11 Q. From a forensic medical point of view, how drastic or benign is
12 the difference in the preservation of the corpses that were moved from
13 the Tomasica mass grave, the varying degree of preservation?
14 A. Well, you would need to know the post-mortem changes,
15 specifically the complete skeletonization of the body out in the open,
16 under the effect of insects. For this, two months are required. That's
17 how long it takes for the body to be stripped down to the bone by insects
18 and animals. At the same time, if the body is buried, then complete
19 skeletonization would occur after a year, depending on the type of soil,
20 is it clay or loose or sandy or rocky soil. So these would be -- these
21 drastic differences may occur in one grave. It's possible for 61 bodies
22 to be well-preserved and for 39 to be completely skeletonized. This is a
23 phenomenon that Dr. Clark should have explained, as well as
24 Dr. Durmisevic and Dr. Sarajlic. They should have done that for one
25 simple reason. The preservation of body parts in this grave where we're
1 talking about saponification for the most part, and this is a process of
2 the transformations of fats when firm structures change into a runny
3 substance that is similar to soap. And this phenomenon begins to occur
4 after one or two months, then it's very pronounced after six months.
5 After six months or longer, then this structure is turned into a kind of
6 hard surface, and it resembles something like --
7 Well, therefore, after six months, we have pronounced changes of
8 the soft tissues. They turn into a kind of sticky substance which
9 resembles soap and this is why this process is called saponification.
10 After a year or more, these soft tissues can harden, and they begin to
11 resemble limestone or gypsum and that's how they're described. We have
12 records of such changes and this is where we have this difference.
13 Therefore, if there's an explanation stating that, for example, that
14 bodies on the surface, which were on the surface of the grave
15 disintegrated much faster compared to the other bodies, this is due to
16 the putrefaction of soft tissue. Then we also have to say that we have a
17 situation that if the bodies are marked in the order that they are
18 exhumed from the grave, let's say the first body was on the surface, then
19 the next ten bodies were also on the surface, then we have a specific
20 situation that bodies of -- marked with high numbers, those that were
21 exhumed last, are completely skeletonized, but in this explanation, that
22 they were at a great depth and pressed by the other bodies and this is
23 how -- this is the reason why soft tissue was preserved, this is
24 something that cannot be concluded on the basis of the autopsy reports
25 done by Dr. Durmisevic, Dr. Sarajlic and Dr. Clark.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question.
2 In paragraph 10 you say you're referring to the 61 per cent and
3 39 per cent and skeletonization. And you say: "Is it possible to claim
4 that all the persons lost their lives at approximately the same time or
6 I can imagine that's a very interesting question. Does Dr. Clark
7 or any of the other experts, do they claim to know whether they all died
8 at the same time?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the information in Dr. Clark's
10 report, we can conclude that they think that all the people lost their
11 lives more or less at the same time and that there were no subsequent
13 JUDGE ORIE: Where exactly -- because you say you can conclude.
14 Does he state it anywhere, that they died more or less at the same time?
15 Could you help me to understand where in the report I find that?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just give me a moment, please.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to take time over the next break, then
18 you're invited to do so. We -- it's not that I need an answer
19 immediately. Yes? Thank you.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
21 MR. IVETIC:
22 Q. If we look at item number 11 on the bottom of page 4 in the
23 English, and at the bottom of page 5 in the Serbian, and here it said:
24 "In his report, the forensic pathologist classified gun-shot injuries as
25 definite, probable and possible gun-shot injuries, but he only counted
1 definite and probable injuries in analysing overall findings. The
2 question arises as to why gun-shot injuries have not been counted per
3 each of the groups into which they were classified."
4 Why, in your opinion, is this important.
5 A. Well, I believe it's important because what is definitely
6 established should be verified and it should represent a part of the
7 table in which all these facts would be entered as definite and verified.
8 There would be a second part of the table, with probable injuries which
9 is not definite injuries. These injuries should be classified in this
10 second column of the table with probable gun-shot wounds. There should
11 be a third column with possible gun-shot wounds.
12 In this case, in Dr. Clark's report, he added up definite and
13 probable injuries, and on the basis of that, he did his analysis,
14 counting the number of projectiles or injuries from ammunition on the
15 bodies that he recorded. In my opinion, this is unacceptable. If
16 something is definite, then it's definite. If it's probable, it's
17 probable but it doesn't have to be so. If it's possible, it's possible
18 but that doesn't necessarily have to be so. A more professional approach
19 would be that he counted these injuries in the way he explained in the
20 last section of the report. Based on this, it's very difficult to reach
21 conclusions. On the basis of probable and definite injuries, he
22 estimates the number of projectiles which caused the injuries and that's
23 something that we would see later in the report.
24 Q. Thank you. If we could turn to the next page in both versions of
25 your Tomasica report. Paragraph 1 deals with X-ray and fluoroscope which
1 we've also covered so I would like to move to paragraph 13.
2 Here you say: "Why is the given analysis of post-mortem findings
3 based entirely on the initial examinations, with no recognition of
4 identifications subsequently established or body parts reassociated?"
5 First of all, can you explain for us what are initial
6 examinations in an autopsy and how the autopsy proceeds per normal
7 practice after that point?
8 A. As it says in Dr. Clark's reports, there were preserved body
9 parts, there were preserved bodies, there were body parts that were
10 exhumed separately where most of the actual body was missing, and then
11 there were also bones. While working and during the DNA analysis and
12 this you can see from the autopsy reports that were made by Durmisevic
13 and Sarajlic, some of those body parts were identified and associated to
14 the preserved body parts. The customary thing is that an autopsy is not
15 complete until the moment when all the found body parts are given their
16 first and last name associated with the proper person and only after
17 that, the autopsy reports are collated which imply that these
18 subsequently identified body parts are associated to the main, mostly
19 preserved body parts. And in that way you have a complete analysis
20 giving you the number of projectiles that the person was injured with and
21 then also establishing whether there were any other injuries on the body,
22 and that's when a complete autopsy, a final autopsy, is done, taking all
23 of these factors into account.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put a question at this point in time.
25 I understand that you described a perfect procedure. But what --
1 what is -- has to be done if the pathologist doesn't know the name of the
2 person? Should he ignore everything else he looked at?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. An autopsy is not completed at
4 the point in time when the corpse is examined. There are places where
5 dead bodies are kept until the moment when it's possible to verify the
6 identity of the bodily remains. The body is not buried until this
7 identification is done, and is there -- the bodies are not handed over to
8 the family until then. And during that period, the staff continues to
9 work, providing descriptions of body parts. For example, you have a body
10 with a missing right leg, and then analysing the reports. I happened to
11 see that first there was a description of a body with a missing right
12 leg. With a subsequent DNA analysis, it was established that the right
13 leg belongs to a person that has been identified and then a report is
14 made, and then that part of the body is associated to this part of the
15 body that the leg belongs to. And only after that, the autopsy report is
16 worked on further, adding this description of the state of the right leg,
17 if there are any gun-shot wounds, any changes, any other injuries. This
18 is then added to the original autopsy report, and then you make a new
19 report with all these analysis and descriptions. So it's not necessary
20 to wait with the actual autopsy. Work continues, but then when the
21 analysis, such as the DNA analysis arrives, then the pathologist goes
22 back to that autopsy and then associates that part of the body to the
23 more preserved part of the body and then he drafts a supplement report
24 and adds it to the original autopsy report.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I understand from your answer you're describing
1 an ideal situation. Thank you.
2 Mr. Ivetic.
3 Mr. Ivetic.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. Professor, given what you know about the Tomasica investigations,
7 were there any limitations that would prevent this procedure from being
8 employed in the Tomasica investigation?
9 A. No. The mass grave was processed in peacetime. There was enough
10 time for the pathologist to process the bodies in this way and that way.
11 If somebody were to ask me, did I work like this, if I worked in wartime
12 conditions, then I would say that in wartime conditions we worked and we
13 were exposed to artillery and projectile shooting. We had to work very
14 quickly. And we would note that at the beginning of our report: Due to
15 this, this, and that, we worked quickly on the autopsies. But in the
16 specific case, there was enough time, there were enough staff, and enough
17 resources to work at our own pace, and to apply all the well-known and
18 accepted procedures in our work.
19 Q. And the method you've described for reassociations, based on the
20 materials provided by Dr. Clark, was that adhered to in the Tomasica
22 A. Dr. Clark, or, rather, the people who were carrying out the
23 exhumations, adhered to the method that all the body parts or complete
24 bodies that were found were marked in the proper way, packed, and placed
25 in one place, either a sheet or a bag or something like that. Therefore,
1 as far as the registering of the bodies and the body parts from the grave
2 was carried out according to the proper procedures, so this was not
3 something that was placed into question.
4 Q. And if we could now deal with -- I'll deal with paragraphs 14 and
5 16 in one group and I apologise, I'm going a little bit fast. I have a
6 tendency to speed up and I'd ask, doctor that you also bear in mind also
7 to try to speak more slowly so that our translators can keep up.
8 In relation to paragraphs 14 and 16 of your report you posit some
9 observations and questions as to the work on determining age ranges.
10 First off, in the documentation that was provided for the autopsies
11 relating to the Tomasica grave-site, did you, in fact, see the type of
12 anthropological reporting or data that would be expected for such autopsy
13 reports, as to age, sex, et cetera?
14 A. In the analysis that was carried out -- I can only see what I
15 said -- well, let me just look at paragraph 16 to see what I said.
16 Q. It should be on the next page in the B/C/S on the screen.
17 A. We're talking about the conclusion that in the table on page 8 of
18 Dr. Clark's report in the Serbian, on the left side of the chart, we have
19 age groups of persons under 20. There are groups. So persons under 20
20 and persons of 50-plus. Whereas, in the textual part of the report, it
21 says that anthropological analyses verified that there were persons of 15
22 or under and 60-plus. So what is the actual situation? If that's the
23 aim range, why does the table say that the age range is between 15 and 20
24 or persons of 60 and above? So this kind of conclusion is not acceptable
25 because it does not arise from the actual table which I referred to on
1 page 8 in the Serbian version. I don't know what page it is in the
2 English version.
3 Q. And in paragraph 14, you say that: "The question therefore
4 arises is whether the persons who carried out the anthropological
5 analysis were fully trained to perform the task that was entrusted to
7 From the review of the autopsy reports, do we have information as
8 to who performed the anthropological review?
9 A. None of the documents, either in Dr. Clark's reports or the
10 reports of the Bosnian forensic specialists provide the name of the
11 anthropologist whose services they use. The autopsy findings of
12 Dr. Durmisevic and Dr. Sarajlic do refer to an age estimate, but it says
13 that they made that estimate. This can be concluded on the basis of the
14 autopsy report. This was done by them and not by somebody else. We
15 don't have the name of any anthropologists who worked on that mass grave.
16 So as a forensic pathologist, I don't feel that I'm qualified to do the
17 work of a forensic anthropologist, other than to note what is illogical
18 in the types of conclusions that I already spoke about.
19 Q. What are the generally accepted standards for such information in
20 autopsy reports? What is expected to be present as to the
21 anthropological review?
22 A. Forensic anthropologists describe the mortal remains, they
23 describe the age, they determine the age group that the mortal remains
24 belong to, and they determine if it's a male or a female body, or if it's
25 a child.
1 Q. And do those reports typically indicate the identity of the
2 person performing the review or not?
3 A. Of course, yes. The autopsy report states the source of
4 information used to determine the age. Dr. Durmisevic and Dr. Sarajlic
5 did refer to the age groups, and they did that very properly by using the
6 ID documents that were found in the clothing of the victims, but there
7 are estimates of age that are stated without providing the source of
8 information, in terms of whether it was they who made this determination
9 or if it was somebody else. Based on the autopsy reports themselves, we
10 can conclude that they themselves did that. Had somebody else given that
11 estimate, they would be obliged to state that in their autopsy
13 Q. And moving away from Tomasica just for a brief instant, in
14 relation to the autopsy reports from the ICTY exhumations in the
15 Srebrenica area where Dr. Clark and other OTP experts worked, did those
16 reports have the identities of those performing the anthropological
18 A. Yes, they did. One of the best known forensic anthropologist,
19 Professor Harland, worked in the Srebrenica area. There were also others
20 whose names were given. The people who had worked on these issues in the
21 Srebrenica area. While I was working in Bosnia, specifically Sarajevo, I
22 worked with international anthropologists. I think there was a person
23 from Peru; I think her name was Eva. She was assisting me and I would
24 refer to that in my reports. She helped me to determine the sex and the
25 age of the mortal remains that we were examining.
1 Q. Okay. Are there any additional observations that you feel you
2 need to make in relation to items 15 and 16 of your report before we move
4 A. I think that everything has been covered.
5 Q. Then I would move to item number 17 here on the same page in both
6 versions. And here you state: "Any conclusion about the health of
7 persons whose bodies were in a state of saponification, advanced
8 putrefaction and skeletonization made without possession of their medical
9 records or statements of health workers or family members, is
10 unacceptable, and the question arises why Dr. Clark stated his view with
11 regard to this."
12 The first question I have for you is: Why in your expert opinion
13 is it essential to have access to medical records as to the health of
14 persons whose remains are being examined?
15 A. Autopsy reports of any victim or of any person in court
16 proceedings such as this one, is something that is easily verified. So
17 if somebody puts something in an autopsy report, they have to be very
18 careful about what they will be asked, either by the Defence or by the
19 Prosecution or by the Trial Chamber in a given court proceedings. So
20 they should not refer to information that they did not themselves
21 ascertain. In the specific case of Dr. Clark, there's a conclusion that
22 these were healthy people. In one case, he found a catheter. In another
23 case, he refers to finding a -- medicines in a pocket of the victim's
24 clothing, and then in other cases, he comes to the conclusion that these
25 were all healthy people. This type of procedure to get to a certain
1 conclusion is not acceptable, it represents a professional error, and it
2 is not something that can be applied for purposes of court proceedings
3 such as this one, a court that was formed by one of the most important
4 international bodies.
5 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I see we're just over the time for the
6 first break.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We are. We take a break. And we'd like to see you
8 back in 20 minutes. You may now follow the usher.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and we'll resume at 8 minutes to 11.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, before we continue, I think I asked you a
17 question about where Dr. Clark claims that they were killed at the same
18 time. Is it that you were referring to the preservation paragraph which
19 starts with: "One of the most striking features of the Tomasica bodies
20 was the degree of preservation, despite them reportedly having been in
21 the ground for over 21 years."
22 Is that what you refer to? Or is there something else?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I had the -- a different
24 section in mind, and it's the report, the second paragraph from
25 beginning, on page 1, where Dr. Clark says: "If, on the basis of
1 unofficial conversation, I learned the people in the grave were mostly
2 men who were mostly from a group of villages to the west of Prijedor were
3 killed there in July 1992, and within several days, their bodies were
4 moved to Tomasica and buried in a deep mass grave."
5 That is the section.
6 And another one, on page 3, the Tomasica grave, paragraph 2:
7 "During exhumation it became clear that the bodies were grouped in
8 various areas which, as believed was the consequence of the fact that
9 they were laid there at different times."
10 It's not specified at what times. So these were the two sections
11 of the report that I had in mind.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, the first section you referred to doesn't
13 contain any conclusion by Dr. Clark on the basis of his work but he just
14 refers to what he was told. Would you agree with that?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree. But in his report, he
16 never mentions that later and does not explain the time of death of these
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he says something in his conclusions, I think,
19 at the very last page of his report. He says: "What explains the
20 difference in preservation," he says, "there was a preservation of many
21 bodies" -- "the degree of preservation of many bodies was striking,
22 despite having been in the ground for so many years."
23 And the last line of that paragraph: "The reason for such
24 variation is open to speculation."
25 What he says: I don't know. And he deals with it by saying that
1 he doesn't know. Would you agree with that?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree. But I thought that
3 perhaps he could have explained that in more detail.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if you don't know something, it's very
5 difficult to explain, isn't it? I mean, you are requiring an explanation
6 where someone says, I have no explanation which is perhaps not what you'd
7 like to hear but -- and, of course, everyone would like to have an
8 explanation, but if you don't know what that explanation would be, then I
9 think it's proper to say: I don't know what the explanation is. And we
10 all wished we had an explanation.
11 Would you agree with that?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree. But in this specific
13 case, there are variations that would be more acceptable than just
14 saying: I don't know. For example, why, in 60 per cent of the bodies
15 found in Tomasica, those soft tissues were present and with 40 per cent
16 they are absent. So on the basis of those findings - and Dr. Clark
17 surely knows this - a possibility may be stated in order to avoid any
18 dilemma. Then I would have nothing to ask here in front of this
19 Tribunal, because Dr. Clark would have already explained that, and that
20 was his obligation, inter alia.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see what you're telling us. You're telling
22 us that a possibility may be stated. If he would have done so, he might
23 have been accused of speculation because a mere possibility is not a
24 scientific finding, is it?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But he could have provided
1 explanation that I have given now, that before burial, the bodies may
2 have been out in the open for a long time and --
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Insects and animals may have had an
5 impact on them.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But what he says, that would be speculation,
7 and I take it that -- of course, you can think of perhaps five or ten or
8 a 100 possible explanations. But if you don't know, would you agree that
9 from a scientific point of view, it's better to say: I don't know and if
10 I wanted to invite him to give ten or 100 possible explanations, then
11 you're asking something which he apparently considered not to be his
12 task. That is, to speculate, on what possibly could have been the case.
13 Would you agree with that?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Partly so and partly not.
15 His duty is to explain why there is a difference with regard to
16 the presence of soft tissues with 60 per cent of the bodies exhumed from
17 Tomasica and absent in the 40 per cent of bodies. He has theoretical
18 possibilities to give a theoretical explanation. It's not just assuming;
19 it's a theoretical explanation on the basis of the available information
20 and what he knows about decomposition of dead bodies over a certain
21 period and under certain circumstances. So that's it. And if he said
22 just, I don't know, I'm not disputing it. I'm not willing to go into it
23 any further and dispute his finding. If he said he didn't know, all
24 right, fine, I accept that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on. Please proceed.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, sorry.
2 I would like to take you back to paragraph 10 of your report.
3 You put the question: Is it possible to claim that all the
4 persons lost their lives at approximately the same time or not? That was
5 the trigger appointed of the discussion we just had. Are you still
6 claiming the same? And I would like to take you back to page 14 of
7 today's transcript, line 2, you said: "From the information in
8 Dr. Clark' report, we can conclude that they think that all the people
9 lost their lives more or less at the same time and that there were no
10 subsequent burials."
11 Do you stand by that after we had just this discussion about
12 Dr. Clark's report? Or would you like to change your testimony?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will accept Dr. Clark's statement
14 in what Judge Orie said at the end. It follows that he actually says: I
15 don't know. Because if he doesn't know why there is a different degree
16 of putrefaction then he doesn't know whether all the deaths occurred at
17 one and the same time. If that is so, I would then accept that fully.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: He doesn't claim that they died all at the same time
20 because that also triggered our discussion because in your report, you
21 say: Can you claim? I asked you: Does Dr. Clark claim? And then you
22 said: Yes, well, we could conclude that and from your answers until now,
23 I've not heard any clear unambiguous claim by Dr. Clark that he could --
24 that he did conclude that all people died at the same time. From your
25 sources mentioned, I conclude that that was what was reported to him and
1 on which he takes no position.
2 Would you agree with that?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. If we could turn to page 6 in the English and page 7 in the
7 Serbian of your report, here at paragraph number 18, you discuss
8 Dr. Clark's observations as to the multiple layers of clothing exhibited
9 by some of the bodies from Tomasica, and just to refresh everyone's
10 recollection on page 7 of Dr. Clark's Tomasica report in English, which
11 is on the bottom of page 8 and the top of page 9 in the Serbian,
12 Dr. Clark says: "Some had outdoor jackets and for some the amount of
13 clothing appeared excessive, e.g. multiple upper layers, more than one
14 pair of trousers, et cetera, but this was the exception and generally,
15 the style of dress would fit with people who had died in the summer
17 To you, what does this multiple layers of clothing indicate?
18 Does it indicate people who had died in the summer months as Dr. Clark
19 has --
20 A. Multiple layers of clothing are inappropriate for the hot months
21 of the year. That's generally known and I see no reason why in July they
22 would be wearing multiple layers of clothing so that was the basic
23 question and the basic reason for the question. Multiple layers of
24 clothing are worn, as is generally known, when the weather is cold and
25 when one wants to protect the body from low temperatures.
1 Q. Now --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could you first of all, the transcript
3 is not complete. Could you repeat exactly what you said in your
4 question. Especially about to you what does the multiple layers of
5 clothing indicate. You see that the transcript is not complete there.
6 Could you repeat that question.
7 MR. IVETIC: I cannot repeat it verbatim since I was following
8 this from the discussions that we had and it differed from my script.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You see what is missing and could you please -- I'll
10 read to you what I have on my transcript.
11 "To you what does this multiple layers of clothing indicate?
12 Does it indicate people who had died in the summer months as Clark
13 has --" and what then followed?
14 MR. IVETIC: Stated, I think, stated.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then we need perhaps an analysis of what Dr. Clark
16 states and have a close reading. He said: "Some had outdoor jackets,
17 and for some, the amount of clothing appeared excessive, e.g. multiple
18 upper layers, more than one pair of trousers, et cetera, but this was the
19 exception and generally the style of dress would fit with people who had
20 died in the summer months.
21 So I do understand what Dr. Clark says is that the multiple
22 layers and a lot of clothing that was seen but that was the exception
23 overall generally, people were dressed differently which would fit into
24 dying in the summer. And I think, as a matter of fact, the way in which
25 you phrased your question was the opposite of what I understand Dr. Clark
1 to say here.
2 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, I read the quote. Now I see
3 that the quote I read is not in the transcript, so maybe that is the
4 confusion here. But I read precisely the language the exact same way you
5 did to the witness.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then it's about how you phrased your
7 question. Your question was phrased suggesting that Dr. Clark claims
8 that the multiple layers and the excessive clothing would demonstrate
9 that people would have died in summer. And that's exactly what I am
10 unable to read in what Dr. Clark says. And if need be, we could, of
11 course, listen to the audio of your question to see whether -- because
12 it's missing at this moment in the transcript and it will be worked over.
13 MR. IVETIC: I thought I read the quotation and presented that to
14 the witness, so I [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but it's not the quotation that bothers me.
16 It's the question you phrased that bothers me which, in my view distorts
17 the meaning of the quote.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. Well, perhaps we can ask the witness how he understood, from a
20 forensic point of view, Dr. Clark's findings as to clothing in the report
21 that he reviewed.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, most important is how we do read it and
23 textual analysis of clothing and summer and winter is not within the
24 specific expertise of a forensic pathologist. It's just ordinary
1 And let me see. You said: "I read the quote" ... one second.
2 I think as recorded, it certainly was not a quote literally read.
3 It's something different. Some had outdoor jackets and for some the
4 amount of clothing appeared excessive. But this was the exception and
5 fit with people who were there, the whole thing about generally is taken
6 out so it is not a literal quote, Mr. Ivetic, as it is recorded in the
8 Let's move on.
9 MR. IVETIC: My recollection is I read the quote verbatim, Your
10 Honours. I stand by that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll verify that on the audio so it's
12 important to have no doubts about this and that would then cover both the
13 reading of your quote and the way in which you phrased your question.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. IVETIC:
16 Q. In relation to your item number 19 which is on the page in both
17 languages that we have on the screen, you talk of signs of burning on the
18 clothing of some bodies.
19 Now, first of all, have you in your career had any experience
20 with review of bodies that showed evidence of exposure to burning?
21 A. Yes. I have extensive experience, and I've written a paper of 24
22 pages which is in literature. It's about 24 carbonised bodies, the
23 autopsy of which I performed in Siroka Kula, who perished in Gospic and
24 the surrounding area in 1991.
25 Q. And then based upon that background could you explain for us the
1 significance of what you're pointing out in relation to the Tomasica
2 review and Dr. Clark's review of bodies that showed evidence of burning
3 as highlighted in paragraph 19 of your report?
4 A. I think that these are traces of burning on the clothes, not on
5 the bodies, but on the clothes. Six persons are in question, and one may
6 wonder where the bodies were and why the clothing burned. Perhaps they
7 were in a building that was on fire or it may have been a consequence of
8 the impact of mines or explosives. Or it may have been some other reason
9 that fire caught some part of the clothes and caused the burning, but it
10 indicates that the persons on whose clothing the traces of burning have
11 been registered were in contact with flames.
12 Q. And in relation to item number 20 of your report, and this is
13 located on page 8 at the top in the Serbian version, you talk about
14 Dr. Clark's conclusion that none of the clothing was of military type and
15 that no one was carrying weapons.
16 In your own career, have you ever found bodies in civilian
17 clothing for which there was information from other sources indicating
18 that they were potentially combatants?
19 A. On the basis of clothing, it's not possible to determine with
20 certainty whether someone is a combatant or not and whether he or she
21 participated in combat operations or not. Regardless of the clothes they
22 wear, people may carry weapon, shoot, kill, or be killed. Therefore, it
23 is no evidence whether these were military personnel or not. In
24 July 1992, as far as I remember, members of the Muslim armed forces still
25 had no uniforms. Most of them - this is my personal knowledge - wore
1 civilian clothes. Those who lost their lives at Kula near Zvornik all
2 wore civilian clothes so that does not indicated whether someone is a
3 member of a military formations or not.
4 Secondly, at the beginning of the war, the Muslims did not have
5 sufficient amounts of weapons. In my practice, I never saw, including
6 their mass graves around Srebrenica, that the dead were buried together
7 with their weapons. I never saw that at any of the sites where I worked.
8 And I think that the reports that I saw about the mass graves around
9 Srebrenica that it never occurred there either.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Stankovic, can you direct our attention to
11 Dr. Clark's report where he says these people were not combatants?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me say again: The people may
13 have been combatants or may not have been combatants. But in this
14 specific case, it does not follow from Dr. Clark's report nor is it a
15 part of his jurisdiction to establish whether they were combatants or
16 not. Somebody else is to establish that; the one who is in charge of the
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did Dr. Clark establish that they were combatants
19 or not? Where in his report can we find that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, if you allow me to find it
21 during the next break, I may point to the exact portion.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I just wanted to warn you, you should not
23 criticise Dr. Clark for something which he didn't do. We had one example
24 already and please be very careful in that respect and let us know after
25 the next break where we can find that in his report.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
2 MR. IVETIC: Is it page 7 in the English where Dr. Clark says:
3 "Anticipating the assertion that these men may have been combat
4 casualties, none of the clothing was of military type and no one was
5 carrying any weapons."
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is, indeed, totally different from what the
7 witness claims in paragraph 20.
8 MR. IVETIC: That's why I was asking him if this was the section
9 he was referring to.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then let's be clear. If that's the
11 paragraph you're referring to, Dr. Stankovic, Professor Stankovic, your
12 task is not to tell us that we should not make any mistakes in drawing
13 conclusions on what is factually described by Dr. Clark. If you comment
14 on his report, then it should be the substance of the report, not on how
15 we should read it. That's argument, and certainly Mr. Ivetic and the
16 Prosecution will tell us what we could or what we could not conclude on
17 the basis of Dr. Clark's report, together with all the other evidence we
18 may have received on matters which are perhaps sometimes marginally
19 touched upon in Dr. Clark's report.
20 But you're invited not to comment on claims Dr. Clark did not
21 make and he did not claim that he could determine whether the persons
22 found in those graves were combatants, yes or no. He only explained here
23 why he considered it relevant to pay attention to clothing of those
24 persons which he then described in factual terms.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
1 MR. IVETIC: And if we look at item 20 Mr. Stankovic' report, the
2 conclusions of Dr. Clark that he commenting upon that are quotation marks
3 are precisely what I just read from Dr. Clark's report. He is very
4 clearly and very accurately reporting Dr. Clark's conclusions in his
6 I am at a loss now to understand what is going on in this
7 courtroom, given that the passage I just read from Dr. Clark has been
8 quoted with the exact words that are in the English translation in
9 Dr. Stankovic's report, and now he's being criticised for commenting on
10 those conclusions which are taken verbatim from the report.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We are commenting on the answers Dr. Stankovic gave.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. Now, if we look at item number 22 on the same page, you state as
15 follows: "How is it possible that 'the clothing was often amazingly well
16 preserved' and that just as many tears and other defects were present as
17 to make confident identification of bullet damage very difficult and
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could we just move down a little bit so that we can
20 see the footnote, what footnote 26 refers us to. Thank you.
21 MR. IVETIC:
22 Q. Why do you raise this? What is the significance?
23 A. If something is well preserved such as clothing, then it is
24 realistic to observe projectile damage made on the clothing.
25 Q. Okay. And ... and in relation to item number 23 of your
1 observations as to Tomasica, which is on the same page in both languages,
2 what would you provide to the answers that you pose in this
3 paragraph based on your training and experience?
4 A. I think that I already answered this question earlier today, that
5 definite gun-shot wounds should not be counted together with possible
6 gun-shot wounds in view of the fact that they do not represent the same
8 Q. And I will deal with items 24 and 25 together, since I think they
9 are related, so we'll have to go onto the next page in both versions at
10 the appropriate point, but I'll read the full two paragraphs.
11 In paragraph 24 you say: "If it is noted in the analysis that
12 the bodies were exhumed 21 years after death, that they were in a state
13 of saponification, advanced putrefaction or skeletonization, what is the
14 basis for Dr. Clark's claims that, e.g., 88 persons were shot with one
15 shot and 78 persons with two shots? "
16 And then in 25 you say: "Based on what parameters is it claimed
17 that only 709 shots were fired at the 293 persons, i.e., that the average
18 was 2.5 shots per person?"
19 And the question I have for you: Do you consider these
20 conclusions by Dr. Clark as to the number of shots to be reliable in
22 A. No. I believe that Dr. Clark could have formulated it
23 differently. He could have said: Due to lack of soft tissues and
24 certain body parts on the corpses that were processed, 88 persons were
25 shot with at least one projectile and 78 persons were shot with at least
1 two projectiles, and then 25 -- actually 293 persons were hit with at
2 least 709 projectiles and that on, average, 2.5 projectiles were fired
3 per person in view of the fact that no one can say that the missing soft
4 tissues and missing body parts did not also show signs of gun-shot
5 wounds. So this is a conclusion that it is not possible to accept.
6 Q. And in paragraph 26 of your report, you talk about the wearing of
7 helmets and injuries to the -- gun-shot injuries to the head in relation
8 to the same.
9 I want to ask a more general question: In relation to the
10 discussion of gun-shot wounds and their location, do you have any
11 information as to the training typically given to soldiers in various
12 armies as to what part of the enemy combatant's body should be targeted
13 in the course of combat operations?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
15 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, Your Honour. I object to that question. I
16 don't think it's within the expertise of Professor Stankovic to answer
17 something like this.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could you lay a specific foundation as
19 to how he has gained factual information about what you asked him about.
20 MR. IVETIC: I thought I had yesterday, but let me try again.
21 Q. Dr. Stankovic, we looked at your CV yesterday and could you tell
22 us during what period of time you were minister of defence?
23 A. I was minister of defence from November 2005 until May 2007.
24 Q. And what was your rank within the military at the time that you
25 were retired?
1 A. I was a medical Major-General of the Army of the Republic of
2 Serbia and Montenegro, of the Army of the Republic of Serbia.
3 Q. And during what time-period were you the director of the military
4 medical institute?
5 A. This is the military medical academy, and I was the chief of the
6 VMA, the top military medical institution, in the period from the 17th of
7 January, 2002 until the 24th of April, 2005. Generally speaking, it's an
8 institution with 1200 beds, 14 floors, 6.000 rooms, and 18 power
9 stations, which provide the electricity to run the institution.
10 Q. And, sir, during the course of all those positions that you held
11 and your career in the medical field, did you have occasion to obtain
12 knowledge of the training of soldiers in relation to targeting enemy
13 combatants during combat?
14 A. Yes. And as part of the manufacture of military equipment during
15 war, plans were made to produce helmets, bullet-proof jackets and so on,
16 there were analyses carried out as to which body parts most often sustain
17 injuries during combat between warring parties.
18 Q. And what were the results of that analysis as to what body parts
19 most often sustain injuries during combat between warring parties?
20 A. There were two doctrines for armed conflict, two doctrines
21 regarding injuries.
22 The first one was that the enemy soldier should be shot in the
23 area of the head or the left side of the chest because the brain and
24 heart were located there, and shots to that part of body led to death and
25 disqualification of that enemy soldier.
1 The second doctrine was that wounding would be directed at the
2 lower extremities or other parts of the bodies which do not lead to a
3 quick death, i.e., which then require the engagement of another two
4 soldiers in order to help the wounded troops and, in that way, one
5 reduces the number of soldiers putting up resistance during a conflict
6 between two warring sides.
7 These two doctrines were developed in the department
8 and accordingly the manufacture of helmets of body and bullet-proof
9 jackets was planned --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down and repeat
11 what he said.
12 MR. IVETIC:
13 Q. Professor, you have been asked to slow down and to please repeat
14 what you just said as the translators require some assistance?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you read where the interpreters had
16 difficulties to follow him.
17 MR. IVETIC:
18 Q. Professor, the last words we heard are as follows: "These two
19 doctrines were developed in the department and accordingly the
20 manufacture of helmets, of body and bullet-proof jackets was planned ..."
21 And then we lost the rest of your words, and, therefore, could
22 you please take up from there and continue.
23 A. In view of the fact that those parts of the body, or by hitting
24 those parts of the body, soldiers would be killed or would very quickly
25 lose consciousness and die and thereby the number of fighters in a
1 conflict would be reduced, that is why special teams were worked to
2 develop safety devices for those parts of body, including, I mean,
3 helmets and bullet-proof vests.
4 The second doctrine was to strike parts of the body that would
5 lead to wounding and strong pain for the victims, such as lower
6 extremities, possibly upper extremities, because in such situations, the
7 wounded persons would be unable to move. They would be in substantial
8 pain and would require other fighters in combat to assist them in taking
9 the wounded out of the combat zone, thus reducing the number of fighters
10 which could lead to the other side having a greater number of fighters.
11 And then you would get the outcome of the battle that would be desired by
12 one of the parties in the conflict.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, we are hearing a lot about theories and
14 what --
15 Could you tell us now exactly what in paragraph 26, what
16 criticism, if there's any criticism in it, you are launching to
17 Dr. Clark, or whether you are suggesting an explanation which, I then
18 take it, you consider that Dr. Clark should have given it?
19 Can you focus on paragraph 26. What are you claiming? Because
20 the first part of the sentence is a question: Did he have information;
21 and then the second part of 26, perhaps, but I'm not quite certain about
22 that, that you're suggesting an explanation or -- what it exactly that
23 you are doing in paragraph 26?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In analysing the number of
25 projectiles which struck body parts, Dr. Clark analyses and indicates
1 that the majority of gun-shot wounds were inflicted on the head or the
2 chest. Those head injuries and chest wounds are parts of the body that
3 are most often hit in combat by soldiers of the opposing side.
4 This is the main question, i.e., the distribution of wounds on
5 the bodies that were found on persons in the Tomasica mass grave, and
6 that indicates that these injuries could have been inflicted during
7 combat between two warring sides.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But Dr. Clark apparently refrains from
9 describing possibilities. Sometimes he even uses the word "speculation"
10 and just describes the facts he found. What's wrong with that from a
11 scientific point of view?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I already said that
13 Dr. Clark did not establish the precise number of injuries to the head
14 and the chest because the majority of the bodies that he examined were
15 without soft tissue through which the --
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... you've explained
17 that. He's concluding possible gun-shots. He puts them aside and say: I
18 only rely -- and we have heard your criticism about that. I only rely on
19 what is definite or what is probable gun-shots. Fine. You have
20 explained that.
21 But just starting from there, what's then wrong with presenting
22 it as he did?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He comments the number of gun-shot
24 wounds to the head and to the chest area and draws a conclusion on
25 injuries to those parts of the bodies being the most frequent injuries
1 that occurred, and that is why my finding and opinion, I said that this
2 was a usual finding in all circumstances when we have combat.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you expected him to say therefore it must
4 have been in combat? Is that how we have to understand your observation?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm sorry, Your Honours, just
6 give me a minute. I did not put this question to the Trial Chamber. I
7 put this question to Dr. Clark, and you said earlier that I was asking
8 you -- well, the best thing would be to have Dr. Clark in the courtroom
9 so that we could examine this question together before you. This is
10 something that we most frequently do in our work.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In courts in Serbia.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Dr. Clark was here, and any question a party
14 considered to be relevant could be put to Dr. Clark.
15 But I do that understand in paragraph 26 you're not suggesting --
16 you're just putting a question to Dr. Clark without suggesting what the
17 answer would be or should be?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it would depend on
19 Dr. Clark's answer.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just ask one question.
22 Is it also not possible that outside combat people who are being
23 shot at could be shot at either through the head or through the left side
24 of the trunk? What I'm trying to say is that kind of shooting does not
25 only take place in combat. Would you agree with that?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I agree that you would observe
2 those kind of wounds in the case of executions.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
4 MR. IVETIC:
5 Q. If we turn to the next page in the Serbian version to catch up
6 with the English version of the report, I think we've already dealt with
7 29 and 30 which were related to the items we've just discussed. So then
8 I would go to the next page in English to deal with your item 32 through
9 34. And here you are talking in reference to a table from Dr. Clark's
11 MR. IVETIC: At this point in time, I would ask for us to look at
12 that table, which is P7443, and it will be on page 11 in the English and
13 page 14 in the Serbian. And I think it should be Table number 6. And
14 we'll just wait for the B/C/S version.
15 Q. With Table 6 in front of us, sir, I would ask you to elaborate
16 and explain your observations in paragraphs 32 through 34 of the Tomasica
18 A. The table indicates that 45 of the total 246 shots were registered
19 as shots to the back of the head which is 16 per cent of all shots fired
20 at these 293 persons. Then there is 59 per cent of injuries to the trunk
21 and arms, and legs, 4 per cent. Based on this information and in view of
22 the way the conclusion was reached regarding 703 bullets, if I'm not
23 mistaken, it's possible to conditionally accept the conclusions in view
24 of the fact that you cannot be certain about the -- this kind of
25 registered wounds from Tomasica because of the missing soft tissues.
1 Also, another characteristic is that on the basis of this data, you could
2 have drawn a conclusion about the position of the victim and the attacker,
3 meaning whether the victim was turned away or facing the attacker at the
4 time of death, which would then help to decide whether the injuries were
5 sustained during execution or combat when one warring side was completely
6 surrounded by the other side to the conflicts, and that is why there are
7 the remarks made in my paragraphs from 30 to 36. I wouldn't deal with
8 any other details unless there are questions about that.
9 What is also very important here, if somebody was hit with a
10 bullet to the back of the head, then the first thing that the forensics
11 experts would observe would be that the wound was inflicted when the
12 victim was in a submissive position. He was turned to the attacker with
13 his back when he was attacked. Then we would analyse situations in which
14 these injuries could take place. I think that Dr. Clark could have
15 provided a kind of explanation which, in the specific case, he did not
17 Q. Did the Bosnian experts undertaking the post-mortem autopsy
18 reviews, did they provide any of the explanations that you just talked
19 about that Dr. Clark did not provide?
20 A. The Bosnian experts did provide certain opinions regarding
21 certain cases. But like I said in my analysis, when I analysed the
22 cases, there were instances when the Bosnian experts said that the entry
23 wound was on the front of the head; whereas, Dr. Clark said that the
24 entry wounds was on the back of the head, so I pointed to these
25 inconsistencies in a small number of cases because I believed that if
1 these cases existed, then the entire analysis could be brought into
2 question and it would need to be repeated in order for it to be valid.
3 MR. IVETIC: I think we're at the time for the next break.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It is, Mr. Ivetic.
5 Witness, we take another break of 20 minutes, and we'd like to
6 see you back at 10 minutes past midday.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 JUDGE ORIE: We take the break and resume as announced.
9 --- Recess taken at 11.50 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.10 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We'll use the time for something -- to put something
12 on the record.
13 On the 12th of April of this year, the Prosecution informed the
14 Defence and the Chamber via e-mail of the expected scope of its rebuttal
15 case and, on this basis, the Chamber informed the parties on that same
16 day that they should expect to file their final trial briefs by the 1st
17 of September of this year, and this communication is hereby put on the
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Professor, I'd like to now return to your Tomasica report which
23 we should call up in e-court as D1447, marked for identification, and I
24 would ask for page 8 in the English and page 11 in the Serbian to be
25 displayed with a focus on item number 35, which will be at the middle of
1 the -- just under the middle of the page in English.
2 In item number 35, you are focussing on intact bullets that were
3 recovered from the remains. As a forensic medical expert, what does the
4 presence of an intact bullet of this nature in a body tell you? What
5 conclusions can be drawn?
6 A. If an intact bullet is found in a body, it means that during its
7 trajectory the bullet did not pass through any hard surface or hit any
8 bone inside the body. That seems to indicate that the projectile was
9 fired from a distance.
10 Q. Okay. And what part of that indicates that the projectile was
11 fired from a distance? What is normally indicative of projectiles fired
12 from a distance when found in bodies?
13 A. Considering that only 7.62-millimetre projectiles were described
14 and that's the ammunition for semi-automatic or automatic rifles that has
15 a great impact and penetrative power, it means that in case the injuries
16 were inflicted from a short distance, point blank or several metres or a
17 dozen metres, they would cause an entry and exit wound rather than the
18 bullet being lodged in the soft tissue structures of a man. That
19 indicates that the projectile was fired from a distance of at least
20 several dozen metres, possibly even 100 or more metres, taking into
21 account the penetrative power that such bullets have.
22 Q. And if we could look at item number 36, the next item of your
23 Tomasica report, I'd like to ask you to explain the meaning and
24 significance of this paragraph, of what is raised in this paragraph.
25 A. If a projectile with a great velocity of bullet caused certain
1 injuries on the body, that is to say, the bones, it does not necessarily
2 mean that bones will be always shattered. Whether the shattering of bone
3 will occur or not depends primarily on the angle at which the projectile
4 entered the victim's body. In my practice, I had a chance to see many
5 entry and exit wounds to the head in which the bones were not shattered.
6 After the passage of such a projectile, you only had the entry and the
7 exit wounds, and there were line fractures spreading out from the entry
8 or exit wound but no shattering of bone.
9 Q. And if we can move to item number 37 which is at the bottom of
10 the page and then continues onto the next page in the Serbian and it is
11 completely on the page in English.
12 Here, you say: "The following conclusion: 'Two of the three
13 women found in the grave (cases 227T and 230T) appeared to have been shot
14 by a handgun, one with a single entrance wound above the left eye and the
15 other with two entry wounds towards the back of the head' is
16 unacceptable, as in such cases degrees of likelihood are used in the
17 assessment of the condition in which these bodies were found, and so the
18 question arises why in this specific case, this principle was not adhered
20 Now, first of all, sir, in relation to Dr. Clark's reporting as
21 to these two bodies, how would you describe the specificity and quality
22 of opinions as expressed by Dr. Clark?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could Mr. Mladic speak at a volume which is
24 inaudible for us.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure what you mean by --
1 what is meant by the term "looks" or "seems."
2 Perhaps like at the beginning of this report, it could be said
3 probable, possible, or certain, injuries that were registered in the
4 heads of these women were possibly, probably or certainly inflicted by a
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. Do you have find anything else of significance to discuss as to
8 the findings as to the women that are discussed in this paragraph?
9 A. No, this is sufficient.
10 Q. Moving along then to item number 38 which is at the bottom of the
11 English of the page that we have now, and it is on page 12 in Serbian.
12 You say: "In which cases is it possible to find portions of no less than
13 six bullets in and around a skull, as noted in case of 317T."
14 Now, before I ask you any additional questions about this, I'd
15 like to actually look at this particular part of Dr. Clark's report.
16 MR. IVETIC: So if we can have P7443 and it will be page 16,
17 paragraph 5, in the Serbian; and page 13 in English, also the fifth
19 Q. And here in Dr. Clark's report, it says: "In one man, there were
20 portions of no less than six bullets in and around his fragmented skull,
21 probably from a burst of fire directed upwards through the left side of
22 his jaw (371T). In most cases, however, far fewer were found - recovered
23 either during the initial washing of the body where they presumably fell
24 out as clothing was removed, or during the post-mortem examination itself
25 when discovered still within the tissues."
1 Now, that we've seen what you have highlighted and what Dr. Clark
2 says, from the standpoint of an expert in forensic medicine, can you
3 explain for us why this is significant; that is to say, why you posed the
4 question that you did in paragraph 38 of your Tomasica report?
5 A. When I read this section of the report of Dr. Clark's, I found it
6 very suspicious how it is possible that fragments of at least six bullets
7 were found in a skull. It's practically impossible. However, I think
8 that there was a confusion here, that Dr. Clark, if the translation is
9 good, made an error, because when analysing the autopsy report 317T [as
10 interpreted], after I provided this opinion, I noticed that the
11 pathologist mentions one projectile fragmented into six fragments. So it
12 was just one projectile with six fragments, which is possible,
13 considering the bone that it hit.
14 So, therefore, this section of Clark's report should perhaps be
15 corrected, that it's not at least six bullets but at least six fragments
16 of one projectile. Therefore, I would change my question. It follows
17 from this that the autopsy report was wrongly or erroneously interpreted
18 in the report.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, you say that you -- it -- it's practically
20 impossible to find six bullets in the skull.
21 What makes that impossible? If six shots were shot into the
22 skull, why would it be impossible to find fragments of six bullets in the
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For a very simple reason. During
25 the entry of projectiles to the skull, destruction of soft tissues and
1 bones would occur, and after that, the other projectiles would inflict
2 entry and exit wounds, and because of that, after a burst of fire is shot
3 to the head of a victim, it's impossible to find as many as six bullets.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Even if each one of the bullets was hitting a
5 different part of the skull?
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The interpreters didn't hear your answer. Could
9 you please repeat yourself.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Even in such cases.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
12 MR. IVETIC:
13 Q. Now --
14 MR. MacDONALD: Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald.
16 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you. Just for the record, I think
17 Professor Stankovic repeats the code 317T, but I think in Professor
18 Clark's report, we see the code is, in fact, 371T, just to avoid
19 confusion later on.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. IVETIC:
23 Q. And --
24 A. The report reads 317T in the Serbian language version. And in
25 English, it's 371T. However, in Serbian, the number is 317T.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: The transcript doesn't say what the interpreter
2 just said. You said the report says 371T in the Serbian language
3 version. Is that what you said?
4 JUDGE ORIE: No. I think we can easily establish ourselves that
5 the English version refers to 371T and the B/C/S version refers to 317T.
6 So that there's a difference in the two versions. But I think there's no
7 further confusion caused by it.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. IVETIC:
10 Q. If we can now return to your Tomasica report, D1447, marked for
11 identification, and this time I think we should go to page 9 in e-court
12 in English and page 12 in e-court in Serbian. And I'd like to look at
13 item number 40.
14 In item 40, you state: "If bullets fired from hand-held
15 fire-arms from contact or close range leave more or less marked traces of
16 gunpowder explosion on the surface of clothing, soft tissues or bones of
17 the skull, is it possible that they disappear and cannot be registered,
18 and if so, in which cases?"
19 And I'd like to ask for you to explain or elucidate on this topic
20 in relation to the Tomasica investigation and the materials you reviewed.
21 A. Projectiles fired from contact or close range, after firing
22 depending on the distance of the muzzle of the hand-held fire-arm from
23 the surface of clothing or the surface of the body leave traces of the
24 gunpowder explosion in the form of unburned gunpowder residue, burns or
25 grease on parts of clothing or tissue or bone.
1 In this specific case, if bullets were fired from contact or
2 close range in the preserved soft tissue structures unburned gunpowder
3 residue may have been registered by scanning electronic microscopy [as
4 interpreted] as parts of them remain in the soft tissue and with
5 saponification would not have caused such drastic changes that it would
6 not be possible to identify them by a specific procedure. Also, if a
7 projectile was fired and there was greasing of the surface of bones or
8 soft tissue structures, by the impurities and grease which the projectile
9 contains on its surface then it's realistic to expect that these layers
10 of grease cannot be destroyed unless being washed, but even then, it's
11 quite difficult unless they are washed by a brush. If there was burning
12 of bone then it is realistic to expect that traces of such burning would
13 be identifiable on the entry wound especially if talking about skull
14 bones and that's something that happened. After the body -- I mean, the
15 boy I mentioned in my expert analysis, after four years, I managed to
16 find burn residue traces on the skull bones which indicated that the
17 projectile had been fired from a contact or close range.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could I ask the witness --
19 What does this exactly refer to in the report of Dr. Clark? I
20 see some observations you are making. As a matter of fact, it is a
21 question. How does it relate? Where do we find the link to -- in
22 Dr. Clark's report?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a part of the report that
24 indicates the distance from which the projectiles were shot. It's page
25 17 of the Serbian version.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That seems to be page 14 in the English.
2 Now, can you tell us exactly how it is linked to what we read
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Even though the pattern of gun-shot
5 injuries on the back of the head might imply that the shots were fired
6 from a close distance, on the basis of a pathologist's finding, that
7 cannot be proved. That's the position of Dr. Clark under item 5.
8 And I believe, judging by my experience, that if these injuries
9 had been caused from a close range, the traces of gunpowder explosion
10 that I mentioned - not all of them but some - could be identified and
11 registered on the surface of the clothing, that is to say, the surface of
12 the human body which is being examined.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say it is possible to --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Yes, I say that it's
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, if you don't find anything of the kind,
17 then you still would not know whether -- then you still would not know
18 whether it's either fired from close range and that the traces were not
19 detected or that it was fired from a long distance where traces could not
20 be detected.
21 Is that well understood or did I miss something?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then the -- in the autopsy
23 report, I would only state: on the basis of the finding it is not
24 possible to establish the distance from which the projectile was fired.
25 Not just on the basis of the autopsy finding.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But in both instances, you wouldn't know?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in both cases, it would not be
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. If we look at item number 41 in your Tomasica report, it will be
7 on page -- oh, we're on that page already.
8 It reads as follows: "Why does Dr. Clark claim that ' close
9 inspection of wounds through hair is also never easy,' when this is a
10 part of the body that is very accessible for any kind of inspection an
11 analysis during autopsy."
12 Professor, for those of us don't have experience of how autopsies
13 are performed, can you explain to us why do you say that hairs and wounds
14 in that region of the body are accessible for inspection during autopsy?
15 A. Because everyone knows that the tissue of the skull, of the head, in
16 which hair grows but there are persons who don't have hair, like myself,
17 it's very easy to get the tissue, to take it off from -- remove it from the
18 bones of the skull, and after that, have a very clear insight in the kinds
19 of injuries existing not only on the bones, but also in the remaining tissue
20 of the head which is very easy to analyse. Whether hair can be shaved and
21 then you have a clean surface remaining or you look at the inside layer of
22 the scalp tissue where hematoma may be detected, or it is more suffused
23 with blood, or there are injuries in the form of crash wounds, et cetera.
24 Q. And then I'd like to move to item number --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you do, would such an inspection of an
1 injury that is not on hair be equally accessible or would it be more
2 accessible than the one on the head?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Equally accessible as registering
4 injuries located under hair.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. And if we could move to item number 43 of your report - and we
8 have to go to the next page in the Serbian on e-court - and in relation
9 to this paragraph, can you explain for us what is the significance of the
10 question you pose in relation to the cited text from Dr. Clark's report?
11 A. By analysing the fact of the distance from which the projectiles
12 were fired, if a hand-held fire-arm were to be placed against the
13 clothing one of the effects would be the so-called effect of flame, which
14 could be detected on the entry wounds, the damage to the textile fabric,
15 some changes caused by burning, caused by flame. Such changes on
16 clothing do not disappear by being in the ground. The evidence of that
17 are changes to clothing in six cases in which Dr. Clark registered traces
18 of burning. Therefore, if the injuries to the bodies were from
19 contact -- caused from contact range, it is realistic to expect that
20 flame damage would also be detected on the clothing. And in those
21 specific cases, no such damage to the clothing was registered.
22 Q. Now, in paragraph 44 of your report, you pose a question why
23 there has been no harmonisation of views. I think that we have already
24 covered this when we talked yesterday. Are we talking about the same
25 thing we were talking about here yesterday, or is this something else
1 that you're talking about?
2 A. No. Here I'm talking about the same thing that I talked about
3 yesterday because the customary thing when the person conducting the
4 examination, the investigating judge or the prosecutor, once they note
5 differences between experts in the submitted material, differences in
6 their opinion and findings, that person in charge would instruct them to
7 harmonise their findings. If they're not able to harmonise their
8 findings, then he would order a new investigation with new experts who
9 would then provide their own opinion which would be acceptable for the
10 trial proceedings that were being conducted. And the Trial Chamber would
11 decide about the credibility of each of the findings. And, again, I
12 apologise, as it was just said that I intended to give tasks to the Trial
13 Chamber – I do not, in any way. I apologise if I left such an impression,
14 I am using this opportunity to say that.
15 Q. Then I'd like to move onto number 46 which brings us to page 14
16 of the Serbian version and the next page in the English version. And
17 here you say: "Based on what parameters does Dr. Clark conclude the
18 following: 'From the nature of these unascertained cases there must be a
19 strong likelihood that a number of the 12 did die from a gun-shot injury,
20 but the evidence was not there to prove it.'"
21 From the standpoint of a forensic medical expert, how would you
22 categorise or respond to the use of these words by Dr. Clark in the
23 performance of his duties as a forensic pathologist?
24 A. If 12 bodies, particularly referred to by Dr. Clark in his report
25 on page 19, did not have any observable injuries, and Dr. Clark states
1 the probability that they were possibly -- had sustained gun-shot wounds,
2 it's very difficult. There's no possibility of drawing that conclusion.
3 He could have said six bodies - or 12 bodies, I apologise - in an advanced
4 state of putrefaction, so that for them the definite cause of death cannot
5 be determined with certainty by autopsy alone. And it's a different matter
6 whether then other people who lead the investigation could establish
7 through other investigative actions the cause of death of those people,
8 perhaps based on witness statements, or other factors.
9 Q. And in your last numbered item from your -- from the Tomasica report,
10 paragraph 47, you pose a question: "Can the cause of death be determined
11 with certainty for bodies in a state of saponification, advanced
12 putrefaction or skeletonization, and if so, based on what parameters?"
13 What would be your answer to this question posed?
14 A. In my findings, subject to the training that I underwent, i.e. the
15 forensic medicine school that I graduated from and that was recognised in
16 the territory of the former Yugoslavia, my conclusion would be that a
17 corpse in an advanced state of putrefaction or skeletonization is one for
18 which cause of death cannot definitely be established. If there are
19 entry-exit gun-shot wounds observed in the head, I would note these
20 injuries and perhaps other injuries, but then again, I would say that the
21 person conducting the investigation would need to use other types of
22 evidence, such as witness statements or other types of evidence to
23 qualify the cause of death of that person later.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Can I ask one question. Do I understand you well
25 that Dr. Clark should have started interviewing witnesses?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. Dr. Clark is in the
2 Prosecutor's team and the Prosecutor is in charge of the investigation.
3 So Dr. Clark can tell the Prosecutor only as much as he is able to tell him
4 and the Prosecutor is the one who subsequently, in view of the observed --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, do you know whether the Prosecution did this or not?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on the information in the
7 case file, no.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Which case file?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The ones that were available to me,
10 and that's the report of Dr. Clark, the autopsy report, a summary of the
11 autopsy reports of Dr. Clark, autopsy reports that were drafted by
12 Drs. Durmisevic and Sarajlic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What you're telling us the forensic
14 pathologist did not take such action. At the same time, you tell me that
15 you didn't expect Dr. Clark to do that. But what the Prosecution did, do
16 you have any knowledge about that? What witnesses they interviewed, what
17 evidence they presented in court, what DNA analysis was presented here?
18 Do you know anything about that?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't have any detailed
20 information about that. No.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Because I'm a bit confused. What I understand
22 you're telling us is that if you establish what you have established in
23 this report, you should do other things to establish what happened.
24 Now, that is not the same as saying Dr. Clark did right or wrong.
25 I thought you were commenting on Dr. Clark's report; but what you're
1 telling us now is what others should do on the basis of sometimes the
2 lack of findings by Dr. Clark. Is that well understood?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am commenting on the fact
4 that the cause of death that -- what I'm saying is that Dr. Clark gave
5 his comments on causes of death and then he said in his findings that
6 death was caused as a consequence of gun-shot wounds to the heads. I'm
7 not disputing that. What I'm looking at is the way we come to such
8 conclusions. I'm not disputing what Dr. Clark said. All I said was that
9 the best way to formulate that is to say that the corpse was in a state
10 of advanced decomposition that such-and-such wounds were observed on the
11 head. It's possible that the causes of death is in a casual relationship
12 to those wounding but as to whether the actual cause of death is due to
13 gun-shot wounds would something that would be in the remit of the
14 Prosecutor. That is not something that is in this material. And it
15 shouldn't be.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So I understand that you do not disagree,
17 apart from how he formulated it, and that perhaps he should have
18 suggested to give it any follow-up from others. But you do not contest
19 what he finds and what he concludes but others should give it a
20 follow-up. Is that ...
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But all that has to be there
22 is to say that the corpse is in an advance state of decomposition and
23 that one should not determine the cause and origin of death with any
24 certainty. Other than that, everything else is fine.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
2 MR. IVETIC:
3 Q. To follow up on the Judge's question, I want to go back to your
4 paragraph 46, which, again, is dealing exactly with what Dr. Clark did
5 in, in fact, say. So we're talking about what Dr. Clark did, in fact,
7 And for these bodies, were these bodies, as described by Clark in
8 an advanced state of putrefaction?
9 A. I would just need to look at page 19.
10 Q. Okay.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And could you give us the English page, Mr. Ivetic.
12 That would certainly assist me.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the Serbian, it's page 18.
14 MR. IVETIC: In the English, that will be on page 15. Yes,
15 bottom of page 15.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Of Dr. Clark's report?
17 MR. IVETIC: Of Dr. Clark's report.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. Could we have it on the screen, please.
19 MR. IVETIC: So that's P7443. Page 15 at the bottom on English.
20 And if we could have page 18 of the same in the B/C/S.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you may, in this table, you can
22 see a case where we have 013E on the left side and then comments, for
23 example, for case 013E Clark says: "Third female victim, only
24 post-mortem injuries visible." And then after that --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Let me just correct you, it's 013T.
1 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
2 MR. IVETIC: I don't think we've got a translation of the last
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you please repeat what you last said.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was saying that on the left
6 side -- actually looking, it's on the right side but looking from my left
7 side we have the case numbers. In the middle, we have the comments. And
8 then after this table there is Dr. Clark's general commentary to which I
9 am objecting. It says: "013T, the third of the women victims; apparent
10 post-mortem injuries only." Meaning injuries sustained after death. And
11 then we have: "169T, gun-shot injury of shoulder not considered
12 necessarily fatal but also head missing."
13 "194T, apparent bullet hole in shirt."
14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the numbers.
15 MR. IVETIC:
16 Q. Professor, the translators are having difficulty keeping up with
17 you. Could you please repeat the last number that you gave. The last
18 part that we heard the gun-shot injury of the shoulder not considered
19 necessarily fatal but also head missing.
20 If you could please take up your answer from that point, and
21 please try to slow down in the manner of speech so that the translators
22 can adequately follow what you are telling us.
23 A. "122, no gun-shot injuries in parts present but head missing.
24 After that, "136T, no gun-shot injuries. Although blunt force
25 trauma to skull, not clear whether before or after death."
1 And so on. I can read all of it, but on the basis of these
2 descriptions and on the basis of such sketchy data, Dr. Clark allows for
3 the possibility that there were gun-shot wounds. I'm not disputing that
4 fact, but you cannot draw conclusions on the basis of assumptions. This
5 is completely without basis, and it's unacceptable from a forensic
6 medical point of view.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But what conclusions does he draw from that? You
8 say it's possible that they died from bullet injuries. Does ...
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In his findings below the table,
10 Dr. Clark states - I'm reading:
11 "From the nature of these unascertained cases there must be a
12 strong likelihood that a number of the 12 did die from a gun-shot injury,
13 but the evidence was not there to prove it."
14 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand this to be that he cannot draw any
15 conclusions apart that he considers it likely that some of them may have
16 died from bullet wounds but he refrains and says cause of death is
17 unascertained. From what I understand, you agree with him on that final
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with the final conclusions
20 but I don't agree with the manner in which the conclusion was made.
21 Because it is not usual.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. If we can now return to your report, and it's D1477 MFI.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: 1447.
2 MR. IVETIC:
3 Q. And if we can -- I apologise. I lost my page number. If we can
4 look at -- I believe it's part B of your report where you talk about
5 various cases that you selected - one moment please - yes. And the
6 heading is: "Some of the cases in which inconsistency has been observed
7 between the autopsy reports of Dr. Clark and the pathologists
8 commissioned by the prosecutor of Bosnia-Herzegovina."
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Page 10 in English.
10 MR. IVETIC: 10 in English.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps it's also the right time to inquire about
12 what the witness may have found out overnight.
13 MR. IVETIC: Yeah.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Would you like me to do it?
15 Then, Mr. Stankovic, have you found any other cases of
16 inconsistencies; and how many?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you gave me the
18 assignment to find ten. I found ten. I could have gone on. To tell the
19 truth, I was tired, so I couldn't continue with the work. But we have
20 case 051T, Redzep Karupovic [phoen], the difference -- well, it's just
21 one detail. Gun-shot wounds, according to Dr. Durmisevic, in the area of
22 the ribs and the right pelvic bone which he indicated to be gun-shot
23 wounds, according to Dr. Clark, are considered to be post-mortem
25 Then Dr. Durmisevic cannot ascertain what was the cause of the
1 injury in the left lower jaw. However, Dr. Clark believes that it's a
2 gun-shot wound.
3 Then 081T, the autopsy report for Fekir Kadiric [phoen]. There
4 is a difference. Dr. Durmisevic looks at a fracture on the left side of
5 the skull. Dr. Clark claims that this injury was a gun-shot injury.
6 Dr. Durmisevic explained that the left rib area injury was caused by
7 projectiles; whereas, Dr. Clark believes that these were injuries of the
8 ribs which were sustained post-mortem.
9 108T, Hasan Kamenac [phoen]. According to Dr. Durmisevic, the
10 injuries were inflicted by at least two projectiles, whereas, according
11 to doctor projectiles [as interpreted], it was at least one projectile.
12 Dr. Clark did not describe the fractures at all of the first and second
13 joint, whereas, Dr. Durmisevic did describe those injuries.
14 Case 157T, it's an unknown person. What are the differences?
15 Dr. Sarajlic allows for the possibilities that both gun-shots were caused
16 by one projectile, whereas Dr. Clark states that the injuries were
17 inflicted by at least two projectiles.
18 Case 220T, an unidentified person. The inconsistency lies with a
19 number of projectiles that caused the gun-shot injuries and in the
20 possible mechanism of inflicting two gun-shot wounds by one projectile.
21 Case 380T, Smajl Zahirovic [phoen]. Dr. Nermin Sarajlic states
22 that there is a minimum of three projectiles and assumes on page 3 that
23 the fragmentation of the skull bones indicates the action of a projectile
24 but that this was not possible to prove with any certainty. Dr. Clark
25 believes there were at least four hits.
1 Case 399T. I'm talking about the autopsy. It's an unidentified
2 person. Dr. Sarajlic does not rule out the possibility that there was
3 more than one gun-shot wound to the head, whereas Dr. Clark rules out
4 that possibility. Dr. Clark describes the possibility of gun-shot
5 injuries of the left elbow, whereas, Sarajlic talks about the right thumb
6 bone. I think he probably thinks of -- is thinking of the radius which
7 was fractured by a blunt mechanical force. So in one case it could be a
8 gun-shot wound or in the other case it could be blunt force. Dr. Clark
9 does not provide a description as to where the part of the projectile was
10 found that is described by Dr. Clark [as interpreted].
11 Case 408T, unidentified person. Dr. Sarajlic says that the
12 injuries were inflicted by at least five projectiles whereas Dr. Clark
13 says that it is at least three projectiles.
14 Case 417T, unidentified person. There is a difference in the
15 number of observed injuries. And then Sarajlic, in paragraph 4 of his
16 opinion, does not rule out the possibility of one more injury in the
17 chest area, which means that Professor Sarajlic says at least four
18 gun-shots wounds, of which three in the head area and at least one in the
19 chest area. Whereas, Dr. Clark says that there are three injuries in the
20 back of the head and two in the chest area.
21 And autopsy number 420T, unidentified corpse. In that case, the
22 difference is as follows. It's in the difference of the direction of the
23 channel of the gun-shot wound. Dr. Clark sees two gun-shot injuries.
24 Dr. Sarajlic thinks that perhaps there were three possible gun-shot
25 wounds to the head. Dr. Clark says entrance wound is in the right back
1 part of the head, and Dr. Sarajlic in the right and central part of the
2 skull. Dr. Sarajlic concludes that it's a gun-shot wound and that metal
3 items were found subcutaneously that resemble projectile fragments,
4 whereas Clark says that three projectile parts were found. If projectile
5 parts were found in the head, then it's a different type of gun-shot
6 wound. There is no entry-exit wound, but only an entry wound.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I have one additional question. If, for example,
8 there's some inconsistency in whether there were two shots to the head or
9 two fragments or three fragments, in how many of these ten cases you just
10 mentioned, would these inconsistency affect the finding? I mean, that if
11 you follow the one, that you come to a different finding as to the cause
12 of death compared to the other one? In how many cases would the
13 inconsistency have such an impact?
14 If you want to further analyse it, I don't require you to
15 immediately answer the question.
16 It's time for a break anyhow, but ...
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I would need to analyse the
18 documents in order to be able to draw any conclusions. I focussed only
19 on the differences in the description of the injuries. I did not talk
20 about other inconsistencies that are there. These were just
21 inconsistencies regarding the description of the wounds, there are
22 inconsistencies in the description of the clothing as well as the state
23 of the actual body, and I did not go into those.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's time for a break. We'd like to see you
25 back in 20 minutes.
1 Mr. Ivetic, could you give us any indication as to where we are
2 at this moment in terms of time?
3 MR. IVETIC: I was still on track to finish within the seven
4 hours allocated.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 MR. IVETIC: And I think, given the estimate that I was given
7 before the beginning of this session, we're still on par to attain that,
8 plus or minus a little bit but not significant.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Which would mean that, in another two hours
10 approximately, you would conclude your examination-in-chief.
11 MR. IVETIC: I think that's probably right.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 We take a break, and we resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 1.12 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 1.35 p.m.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We'll wait until the witness enters the courtroom.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
19 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
20 Q. Professor, now I propose to go through your cases which you
21 highlighted in your Tomasica report under section B. And we have case
22 number 1 appearing on the bottom of the page in Serbian and it will
23 continue onto the next page in Serbian.
24 And, first of all, before I ask you any questions I would like to
25 at this time indicate that given the discussions in court yesterday and
1 the instructions from the Chamber as to these items, we have uploaded the
2 Bosnian autopsy report as disclosed to us by the Office of the Prosecutor
3 for case number 1, which is the footnote 49 in Dr. Stankovic's report as
4 1D05948 and would then move for it to be admitted alongside the report so
5 the Chamber may have the full information. Unfortunately, we don't have
6 the English translations since those were not provided in the disclosure
7 from the Prosecution, and it -- therefore the -- the -- the -- it should
8 be MFI'd pending translation by the translation unit, since they'll need
9 time to do that. We have -- yeah, go ahead.
10 MR. MacDONALD: I wonder if I might assist here.
11 Your Honours, the Prosecution has also uploaded them. There was
12 a regrettable lack of communication here, for which I apologise. Our
13 uploads do, in fact, contain English translations so perhaps if we could
14 upload them instead, or rather use them instead.
15 MR. IVETIC: That's fine. We'll deal with that outside of
16 Your Honours' time.
17 Q. Okay, so, Professor, case number 1 which we have on the page,
18 could you tell us what made you determine to highlight this case as an
19 inconsistency in your report?
20 A. The first case indicates an entry wound which, according to
21 Dr. Durmisevic, is in the area of the left parietal bone and according to
22 Dr. Clark, on the left side of the face, whereas the exit wound is in the
23 area of the left parietal bone. Whereas Dr. Durmisevic, let me repeat,
24 claims that it's the entry wound. From a forensic point of view, this is
25 unacceptable, because this raises the question whether the person was hit
1 from the direction of the left parietal bone or whether that's the exit
2 wound. This is the inconsistency that needs to be clarified because on
3 the basis of such a finding, it's not possible to reconstruct the
4 position of the attacker and the victim.
5 Q. And, Professor, we earlier talked about the degree of specificity
6 in the descriptions of the autopsy reports. In relation to this
7 particular case, what comment do you have as to the level of specificity
8 in the injury reports and the findings?
9 A. In this specific case, it follows from the autopsy finding that
10 Dr. Durmisevic -- and as I have a photocopy of his minutes, if I may be
11 allowed to take it and look at the details.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Stankovic,
13 excuse me, for my ignorance not knowing what the parietal bone is. But I
14 see that according to Dr. Clark, the entry seems to have been on the left
15 side of the face and the exit is also on the left parietal bone. Could
16 there be a typo here or is it possible for the bullet to come through the
17 left side and come out through this left side as well.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's just possible, just at the
19 left parietal bone means in translation the left back of the head. So in
20 translation once the Latin word is used and the other time it's a
21 translation from the Latin. So that may be the only difference that
22 might be confusing. But the left parietal bone and the left back of the
23 head is one and the same thing.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said you had a photograph, if I remember
2 MR. IVETIC: Photocopy, I think.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it's the photocopy of the
4 pathology report.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. A photocopy of the pathology report. Is that
6 in evidence yet? Is there any way that we could look over the shoulders
7 of the --
8 MR. IVETIC: That's just what I was trying to introduce or get an
9 MFI for that my colleague on the other side said that they have uploaded
10 them under their own numbers.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. IVETIC: With translations.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. MacDonald, could you inform us as what to look
15 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, Your Honours. I wonder if Mr. Ivetic could
16 provide the ERN number for us on that case.
17 MR. IVETIC: X024-2126.
18 MR. MacDONALD: I think that's 65 ter number 33729.
19 We're just releasing that just now, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if there would be any possibility to
21 already give the numbers to the Prosecution for any future --
22 MR. IVETIC: I think we -- I think we sent a list yesterday and
23 they should be in the order of the cases. So they're in chronological
25 MR. MacDONALD: We'll work on releasing all of them just now,
1 Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah. Thank you.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. IVETIC:
5 Q. Do you have any comment as to the level of specificity as to the
6 descriptions used in the autopsy report that we have before us which was
7 your case number 1 that I highlighted?
8 A. As for the injuries, the report drawn up by Dr. Durmisevic
9 describes the surfaces of fractures and the defects on the bones, and on
10 the basis of that, he made the existing report.
11 Dr. Clark, on page 87, 88 of his summary, also --
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I just interrupt for a moment. Is it proper
13 to broadcast this? Because there are names and identification by DNA.
14 MR. MacDONALD: I discussed that with my colleagues, Your Honour.
15 The names came out through the discussion of the list on the last session
16 and we felt that the names were acceptable. In terms of the identifying
17 characteristics, if they're not going to be discussed, then perhaps it's
18 better not to broadcast these documents.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It seems that Mr. Ivetic does not object to
20 that. Then we'll not broadcast those details, whereas the names are
22 Please proceed.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have it back. Thank you.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. Professor, could please continue. You were talking about
1 Dr. Clark, I think, and page 87, 88 in the summary. Could you please
2 continue your answer.
3 A. Dr. Clark describes in a short way that this is an entry wound to
4 the head with the entry wound probably on the left side of the face where
5 the left eye socket with the surrounding area is damaged. It seems that
6 the exit wound is on the crown of the head on the left parietal bone
7 where there is big damage with edges which are funnel-like opened
8 outwards. So on the basis of this description he concluded and that the
9 direction of the channel is from the left side of the face towards the
10 left part of the crown and ends there.
11 By contrast, Dr. Durmisevic says in item 3 of his opinion, the
12 nature of the injuries to the head corresponds with the impact of a
13 projectile fired from a fire-arm probably from the direction of the left
14 parietal bone towards the back and the exit wound knocking out the squama
15 of the frontal bone. So he does not even link the injuries and does not
16 say that the exit wound is in the left side of the face but he says that
17 it's in the frontal bone, which is the area of the forehead. So that's
18 the inconsistency that can be seen in the findings of these two experts.
19 MR. IVETIC: Then I would ask at this time that we introduce
20 65 ter number 33729 as the next Defence exhibit number and my question is
21 does this now need to be under seal or ... or maybe provisionally under
23 JUDGE ORIE: I think we should have it under seal if we want to
24 the details not to become public.
25 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 33729 will be Exhibit D1450, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, under seal. And ...
4 THE REGISTRAR: D1450, under seal.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. And now if we could turn to your report, D1447 marked for
7 identification, page 11 in English, page 14 -- page 15 in the Serbian.
8 And at the top above case number 3 we have case number 2, and I wanted to
9 ask you, professor, in relation to the discrepancy between
10 Dr. Durmisevic, on the one hand, and Dr. Clark on the other hand, how
11 significant is the discrepancy of these two pathologists in relation to
12 this particular case?
13 A. The discrepancy is quite significant because Dr. Durmisevic, in
14 this finding, states, in paragraph 3 of his opinion, the nature of said
15 injuries to the bones of the head, the hips, the trunk and upper
16 extremities corresponds with impact from a fire-arm.
17 And Dr. Clark, on page 12, in his notes on case 042T states that
18 the fractures of the right radius and ulna, that is say, the bones of the
19 right lower arm occurred post-mortem, and the damage to the right fibula,
20 that is the thinner bone in the right lower leg, may have occurred only
21 after death. It is not known on the basis of what parameters
22 Dr. Durmisevic declared that these injuries were sustained while the
23 person was alive and that they were gun-shot injuries and Dr. Clark
24 claims that they occurred after death. Such a discrepancy of opinion is
25 unacceptable from any point of view and would necessitate a harmonisation
1 of positions or, otherwise, a new expert analysis.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just ask a question, please.
3 Mr. Stankovic, I'm looking at your report, the sentence relating
4 to Dr. Durmisevic. It says: "Autopsy finding describes all injuries as
5 being caused by bullets." I don't see any reference to it being caused
6 before death and it looks like he's just telling us how the injuries were
7 caused by a bullet and Dr. Clark seems not to be talking about how they
8 happened but just talking about the fact that they were occurred on the
9 radius and ulna, and that they occurred post-mortem. It doesn't look
10 like they are talking to the same point here.
11 Would you agree with me?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Partly, yes.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... they were
14 injured and when they were injured. The other one talks about how they
15 were injured.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The autopsy report that I have
17 before me, the full autopsy report signed by Dr. Durmisevic, includes
18 item 4, injuries, where he states where the injuries were registered.
19 Inter alia, he notes or lists the injuries on the body of this specific
20 person Suljo Mujadzic, those that were registered. And he describes the
21 injuries in his report. He says that all the -- all the injuries were
22 caused by gun-shot impacts. He does not say for a single injury that it
23 occurred after death. By contrast, Dr. Clark says that the injuries that
24 I talked about to the bones of the right lower arm and the thinner bone
25 of the right lower leg occurred after death. He does not say at all that
1 they were the consequence of impact of projectiles. He does not describe
2 how they were caused or by what tool they were caused.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's precisely the point I'm making. I'm saying
4 the one is talking about how they were killed, how they were shot or
5 injured. They were injured from bullets. That's what Dr. Durmisevic
6 says. On the contrary, Dr. Clark doesn't talk about how they were -- the
7 injuries were inflicted. He talks about where the injuries were
8 inflicted and when they were inflicted. He says that they were inflicted
9 on the radius and ulna and they were inflicted post-mortem. So the two
10 are not talking about the same thing. Therefore, I -- I fail to see how
11 it can be said that they are inconsistent. Because they're describing
12 two different aspects. At least three; one is where and when and the
13 other one is how.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In his report, Dr. Clark notes that
15 the injuries to the head, the multiple injuries to the chest with the
16 fragmentation of the right scapula, the injuries to the hip area and to
17 the right lower leg are gun-shot injuries caused by at least five
18 projectiles but that does not include the injuries to the right lower arm
19 and the right lower leg. So both of them describe gun-shot injuries to
20 the body. But whereas Dr. Durmisevic says that they were caused by
21 projectiles, or bullets, Dr. Clark states that the injuries that I noted,
22 so some of those injuries, may have occurred after death.
23 So what is the truth then? If we are talking about one and the
24 same injuries, the right lower arm and the right lower leg, the thinner
25 bone of the right lower leg, can there be two different opinions about
1 these injuries? Did they occur in lifetime or after death? And what
2 were they caused by, if they were caused after death then it may have
3 been the consequence of burial for some other reason perhaps let me not
4 go into detail but this is a discrepancy that should not exist in autopsy
5 reports relating to one and the same case.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: It does seem as if you looking also at Dr. Clark's
7 full report before you which I don't have before me. I'm talking about
8 what is written in your report, and what is written in your report, I am
9 still saying, based on that, the topics are different. Dr. Durmisevic
10 talks about the instrument used to injure, whereas Dr. Clark talks about
11 the parts of the body that were injured and that they were injured after
12 death. Dr. Durmisevic doesn't say whether they were injured before or
13 after death. That sentence is silent on when it took place. So to me,
14 it looks like we are comparing apples with oranges here.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not mixing anything,
16 Your Honour. You don't have the summary report of Dr. Clark, which
17 categorically talks about the gun-shot injuries that he registered and
18 the injuries that occurred post-mortem. I believe that this is part of
19 Dr. Clark's report and that you must have that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But let's now try to be clear.
21 In your last answer you talked about Dr. Clark talking about
22 bullet injuries which I think is not what we find in your summary because
23 there it's about fractures. The only way to resolve the matter is to
24 look at both, the one next to the other, and since the witness does
25 understand some English, I would suggest that we would have both the
1 relevant portion of Dr. Clark's report next to the report of -- of -- of
2 the -- the -- the Bosnian experts and to see to what extent it is,
3 indeed, about the same matters or whether we're talking about different
4 matters. Because I was also struck by the fact that one is talking about
5 bullet injuries and the other one is talking about fractures; whereas I
6 understand from the witness that Dr. Clark also says something about
7 bullet injuries.
8 So, therefore, what we need to fully understand these issues is
9 to have the -- the Clark report next to the other report and then find
10 out what the inconsistency exactly comes down to.
11 MR. IVETIC: My understanding is that Dr. Stankovic has reviewed
12 the B/C/S translation of Dr. Stankovic's chart which is an exhibit in
13 this case so there's a B/C/S translation. He has reviewed the B/C/S
14 autopsy findings of Dr. Durmisevic and Dr. Sarajlic which, now with the
15 assistant of my friends from the Prosecution, I have their numbers and
16 I'm able to offer those for admission into evidence for all of the
17 cases --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- all ten cases. If you want to go through all
19 ten of them, then we would like to have all these detailed reports in
20 evidence and, also to start with, on our screens so that we can compare
21 what the one report says and look at what Dr. Clark tell us about it.
22 That may require some preparation.
23 MR. IVETIC: That may require preparation since I don't have the
24 English translations or even the B/C/S at the time that I had prepared
25 because we were not going to go into that in great detail.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Now, we can do two things. To bother about it for
2 the next ten minutes, and see how we can organize it. I think the best
3 way of doing it is that to postpone --
4 MR. IVETIC: Okay --
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- the -- the -- the list of ten reported by
6 Professor Stankovic and then move on perhaps with another subject.
7 But I'd like to come back to the first one, because my question
8 to you would be whatever the differences are on how the damage to the
9 skull is described precisely, is there any disagreement between the
10 experts that the death was caused by the damage to the head of the victim
11 as described in not exactly the same wordings?
12 Do you remember the injury with the parietal bone?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
14 Dr. Durmisevic, in his report, notes that the death was a violent
15 one caused by a gun-shot injury to the head. That's paragraph 5 in the
16 said autopsy report.
17 Dr. Clark -- what's the page? - Dr. Clark -- excuse me.
18 Dr. Clark notes that a gun-shot injury to the head, minimum number of
19 shots, one, great velocity hits, and he does not say anything about the
20 cause of death in this section of the report that I have at my disposal.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you consider it a possibility that with
22 the damage to the head described that someone would survive that.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It's just that I believe when
24 I made this observation and when I said the position between the attacker
25 and the victim in the case as cited by Dr. Durmisevic saying that it
1 comes from the left parietal bone, that means that the attacker would be
2 behind and above the victims. This is what I was talking about. I was
3 not talking about --
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... no, I see that.
5 But my question was about the cause of death, irrespective of whether it
6 came from the left or to the right. But the experts do agree that a
7 gun-shot wound to the head, which you say you couldn't survive, is -- is
8 described by both of them, one explicitly telling us that that's the
9 cause of death, if I understood you well. And I'm talking about the
10 first in the list.
11 Mr. MacDonald, you're on your feet.
12 MR. MacDONALD: Yes, Your Honours. I'd just like to make sure
13 there is no confusion here. I heard Professor Stankovic say that
14 Dr. Clark says nothing about cause of death in the report he has. I
15 would just like to make sure that Dr. Stankovic is looking at P07444 with
16 that, the long summary list. I just want to make sure that's what he's
17 saying. Otherwise he is [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stankovic may not be familiar with the numbers
19 of documents. But there seems to -- to that extent, no disagreement that
20 Professor Stankovic agrees, whether it's written by Dr. Clark or not,
21 it's an injury which you couldn't survive. And if it's described in that
22 way and if we accept the expertise of both Dr. Clark and
23 Professor Stankovic, then there seems to be no reason to dispute that
24 this caused death or do you, Mr. Ivetic.
25 MR. IVETIC: No.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No. Okay. Then that has been clarified.
2 Before we continue, I have another five minutes. I had not put
3 on the record clearly that 65 ter 33729, I assigned Exhibit D1450 is
4 admitted, under seal.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
6 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
7 Q. Professor, with the caveat that we will return to these cases
8 tomorrow, I'd like to ask you if you could summarise for us overall what
9 was the most significant conclusion you had as to the material that you
10 reviewed from the Tomasica investigation, if you had to sum everything
12 A. In my report on Tomasica, by putting questions in a certain way,
13 I also presented certain unclear matters which were presented in the main
14 report as facts, and this is why I wanted to indicate by questions like
15 this that there were many conclusions in the Tomasica report which were
16 not based on the generally accepted forensic medicine positions on
17 conclusion-making, and on the basis of the finding certain conclusions
18 which were verified in the analysis should not have been reached. And
19 this is the question which I was answering throughout my work. I believed
20 that analysis like this or findings such as these ones and differences in
21 the autopsy reports which exists between Dr. Durmisevic, Professor Sarajlic
22 and Dr. Clark had to have been harmonised and then presented to the court
23 in that way. I do not wish to give lessons to anybody, including the
24 Prosecutor. I'm only speaking on the basis of my experience and on the
25 basis of the education that I received and that obliges us to do this.
1 Thus, if there are inconsistencies, and we did discuss this to a certain
2 degree, and I did provide some explanations about that, I said something
3 about that, it's important, then, that all these inconsistencies be
4 looked at by those who drafted the report and they were -- they should
5 have provided a harmonised opinion and harmonised findings, and this is
6 actually what I was trying to get at in my own testimony.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I have to deal with a matter briefly.
8 Therefore, I suggest that we already, at least for today, release the
10 Professor Stankovic, we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning,
11 not at 9.30 as usual, but at 9.00, and I inform the parties that there is
12 a chance that the final part may be either 15 bis or that we even adjourn
13 a little bit earlier than usual.
14 Mr. Stankovic, I again instruct you that you should not speak or
15 communicate in whatever way with whomever about your testimony, whether
16 already given or still to be given. If that's clear to you, you may
17 follow the usher.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am old enough to be able to
19 understand you very well and to listen to what you are telling me. Thank
20 you. Thank you.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then that matter I would like to briefly deal with
23 the issue on the -- if I could say the winter or summer clothing,
24 Mr. Ivetic. The transcript was verified, and from what I see here, but
25 it -- a copy will be given to you. Indeed, you made a full quote which
1 includes the line: "... but this was the exception and generally the
2 style of dress would fit with people who had died in the summer months."
3 And then as far as your question is concerned, the question was:
4 "To you what does this multiple layers of clothing indicate? Does it
5 indicate people who had died in the summer months, as Dr. Clark has --"
6 and there it becomes inaudible.
7 From the answer of the witness, I took it that you in one way or
8 another, must have said that Dr. Clark claimed that, or suggested, or
9 whatever, but whether that's the case or not, I do not know. It may well
10 be that the witness also has not heard part of your question or that it
11 was -- I don't know whether it was translated to him. Perhaps we could
12 also listen to the B/C/S audio to see how this was interpreted for
13 Dr. Clark [sic] but at this moment on the basis of the English
14 transcript, it just ends in: "... as Dr. Clark has," and then it stops.
15 The parties should be provided with a copy of this quick
16 verification of the transcript, and I think it might be useful to have
17 the translation in B/C/S verified as well so that we know at least what
18 the witness supposed -- supposedly had heard when he started answering
19 the question, how the B/C/S interpreters have understood what you said in
20 English, which is not reflected in the English transcript.
21 We ...
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then if the parties are preparing anyhow to have
24 kind of a comparative demonstration of what the one report says and what
25 the other report says, it certainly would help the Trial Chamber if you
1 would prepare a hard copy of the ten items so to have both the Dr. Clark
2 and the other -- and the BiH report for us in hard copy, which may save
3 some time in having it before us.
4 Having invited you to do that and to give that to -- to send that
5 to Chamber's staff, we adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow,
6 Wednesday, the 20th of April, 9.00 in the morning.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 20th day of
9 April, 2016, at 9.00 a.m.