Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 43479

 1                           Thursday, 21 April 2016

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is

 9     case IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             The Chamber was informed that the Defence would raise a

12     preliminary matter.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  And we should do this

14     one outside the presence of the witness, I think.

15             The Defence is addressing Your Honours to obtain guidance to see

16     how to most effectively proceed with the proceedings and to ensure that

17     fairness is upheld for the Defence.

18             Last night, we received from the Prosecution several e-mails from

19     their -- that they had received from their expert witness Dr. Clark and

20     included in the e-mails are several photographs from -- I believe from

21     the autopsies at Tomasica which were being disclosed for the first time

22     to the Defence.  And so I have photographs now that to me, as an

23     untrained layperson, I can't draw conclusions from them and know what to

24     ask in re-direct, because I no longer have access to my forensic

25     pathologist to tell me what is important and what isn't.  And since they

Page 43480

 1     were not disclosed to the Defence previously, we did not have a chance to

 2     go over those photographs during the proofing prior to the testimony.

 3             So in that instance, then I would ask for at least, at the very

 4     at least after the Prosecution's cross is completed to be able to consult

 5     with the expert as to the photographs, to see if there's anything that I

 6     need to ask in re-direct arising from the photographs because we did not

 7     have an opportunity to do so prior.  And I guess the bigger question,

 8     then, is how many other photographs relating to the autopsies at Tomasica

 9     does the Prosecution's expert have which were never given to the Defence?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Would the Prosecution like to respond?

11             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.

12             After the testimony where Dr. Stankovic mentioned that he didn't

13     think six bullets could be in the head at the end of the day, I spoke to

14     Dr. Clark and mentioned that to him and he responded that he had

15     photographs of that.  And I said, Okay, can you send them to me.  So he

16     did, and we passed them on to Mr. Ivetic and put them on our list for

17     cross-examination.  And that's where we are.  I have no objection to

18     Mr. Ivetic having a chance to talk with Dr. Stankovic about it, perhaps

19     after cross-examination would be, I think, our preference, but certainly

20     he should have a chance to do that.  It's not something that it was in

21     our possession beforehand.  I just -- we learned about it after the

22     testimony.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it just about one or more photographs about six

24     bullets in the head or is there more?

25             MR. McCLOSKEY:  There's two other photographs on the issue of --

Page 43481

 1     you may remember Dr. Stankovic talked about a difference between

 2     Dr. Clark's opinion on the path of a bullet through a skull versus the

 3     Muslim pathologist's opinion that thought it took another path.  And so

 4     there was a couple of pictures on that that Dr. Clark also sent.  He'd

 5     had a chance to look at some of the testimony online.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And I think that was on a case where the cause of

 7     death was undetermined by both experts.  No, both -- no, both damage to

 8     the head.  I mean, they were united on that --

 9             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I think that's right.  I think I remember you

10     asking about that.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So we are talking about a limited number of

12     photographs?

13             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just confer with my colleagues.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber has considered the present situation.  I

17     think when Dr. Clark was here, no doubts were raised in relation to the

18     six bullets in the head at the time, but the matter has been raised now,

19     and the Chamber thinks that it's in the interests of justice to have some

20     additional material.  But, at the same time, the Chamber thinks that it's

21     also a requirement of fairness that the Defence would have an opportunity

22     to briefly discuss it but then after cross-examination so that -- that

23     we'll be best informed about possible disagreements between the parties

24     and what the factual basis for that is.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.  But we also have the issue

Page 43482

 1     of -- we don't know what other photographs of these remains that

 2     Dr. Clark has in his possession.  He has picked two.  That's my problem,

 3     that I don't know what the universe is of other photographs.  I ...

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. McCloskey, have you disclosed all the

 7     photographs you received from Dr. Clark recently to the Defence?

 8             MR. McCLOSKEY:  All the photos we got from Dr. Clark recently we

 9     disclosed, and we didn't have any before that, as far as I know.  And I'm

10     told Dr. Clark mentioned that he -- in his report that he took

11     photographs and no one seemed to --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  To bother.

13             MR. McCLOSKEY:  -- to bother.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then you have fulfilled your disclosure obligation

15     in this respect.  Whether Dr. Clark has any more or not, Mr. Ivetic, we

16     don't know.  Mr. McCloskey apparently has not asked him.  I think during

17     his examination it was not asked to him either, whether he would make

18     them available, yes or no.

19             So that's where we stand at this moment in respect of

20     availability and disclosure of photographs.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And then if you consult with Professor Stankovic

23     after the cross-examination, it should be limited to those photographs,

24     nothing else.  I hope that that's clear for you and we'll tell

25     Dr. Stankovic as well.


Page 43483

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honours.  Obviously.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             Then could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Professor Stankovic.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, I'd like to remind you that

 9     you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the

10     beginning of your testimony.

11             You'll now be cross-examined by Mr. MacDonald.  You find

12     Mr. MacDonald to your right.  Mr. MacDonald is counsel for the

13     Prosecution.

14                           WITNESS:  ZORAN STANKOVIC [Resumed]

15                           [Witness testified through interpreter]

16                           Cross-examination by Mr. MacDonald:

17        Q.   Good morning, Professor Stankovic.

18        A.   Good morning.

19        Q.   Professor I'd like to discuss with an issue with regard to your

20     autopsies in Zvornik in 1992.  Now, on Monday, at transcript page 43275

21     to 43276, you testified that you went to Zvornik twice, once on 30th

22     April and once on 5th May 1992, and you performed autopsies on the bodies

23     of Muslims that had been found in and around Kula.

24             You also said that documents from those autopsies were in the

25     possession of the special court and that you were actually a witness in

Page 43484

 1     the case against Grujic et al.

 2             I'd just like to confirm the timeline here, professor.  You

 3     performed the autopsies in 1992.  What year did you testify against

 4     Grujic et al?

 5        A.   I think that this was in 2013 or 2014 at the Special Court in

 6     Belgrade.

 7        Q.   Well, if I can have 65 ter number 25862, I'm just going to try to

 8     refresh your memory, Professor Stankovic.

 9             And we should have the indictment here against Grujic et al.

10             And just to stay on the first page, it's just the date that I'm

11     looking for.  We see that it's the district court in Belgrade, war crimes

12     chamber.  We see the indictment against Grujic is the first name accused

13     and then there are six others, including Branko Popovic, and it's dated

14     12th August, 2005.  So that it was the years -- the immediate years

15     following that indictment that you testified?

16        A.   I've said 2013 or 2014, unless I'm mistaken.  So it was at some

17     point after the year 2000 that I testified.

18        Q.   Okay.  Have you testified in any other case against Grujic et al?

19        A.   No, it was just this one single case.

20        Q.   And are you aware of any other proceedings that you were taken

21     against Branko Grujic and the others, apart from this case?

22        A.   It's possible that there were others, but I'm not sure about

23     that.

24        Q.   Okay.  Now, at temporary transcript page 34 to 35 yesterday,

25     during a discussion over your claim regarding people shot after they were

Page 43485

 1     already dead, you gave the example of Zvornik and you went on to say:

 2     "In principle, we did not have special teams that carried the bodies of

 3     those who lost their lives in armed conflict.  It was the other

 4     combatants who were present and who then transported the bodies."

 5             Now, I'd like to clarify this as well, professor.  You were

 6     testifying in this case against Grujic et al because you performed the

 7     autopsies on the victims in that case.  That's right, isn't it?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And those victims hadn't died in armed conflict; they were, in

10     fact, murdered, or at least some of them were murdered.  That's right,

11     isn't it?

12        A.   I cannot talk about that.  I talked about the injuries and the

13     cause of death of these people and whether they died in armed conflict or

14     whether it was a consequence of something else, it is not up to me to

15     determine that.

16             MR. MacDONALD:  Could we have 65 ter number 33754, please.  We're

17     just looking at the first page in both.

18        Q.   This is the judgement at first instance against Branko Grujic and

19     Branko Popovic.

20             On the page there, you'll see judgement, the accused, and the

21     first name in bold is Branko Grujic.

22             MR. MacDONALD:  And if we can go to the second page in both

23     languages, please.

24        Q.   And all I'm looking for here, you can see the second accused name

25     in bold, Branko Popovic.

Page 43486

 1             MR. MacDONALD:  If we can go to the next page in both

 2     languages -- sorry.  Before we do, you'll see the words "are guilty" and

 3     then "of having."  And if we go to the next page in both languages.

 4        Q.   Under the number I, we see:  "As per a prior arrangement and

 5     joint decision, on two occasion, they took hostage civilians, men of

 6     Muslim ethnicity fit for military service."

 7             And then later on in the text in the bold, we see:  "Forcibly

 8     displaced on 26 June 1992 the Muslim population of the village of

 9     Kozluk."

10             MR. MacDONALD:  Now, if we can move, please, to page 13 in the

11     English and page 10 in the B/C/S, and here the judgement is discussing --

12     sorry.  If we can go back one page in the English.  My apologies.  Page

13     12 in the English.

14        Q.   And there at number 2, and you see it in the B/C/S as well, is

15     the charge or the count, "Failure to take measures to protect the

16     hostages taken."  And it starts:  "During the period from 29th May up

17     until approximately 1st July, 1992," and it talks about 162 hostages

18     confined at Dom Kulture.

19             And if we now turn the page in the English, please, to 13.

20             We stay on the same page in the B/C/S and just where you see the

21     indented paragraphs, we see the name Dusan Vukovic, and it says he killed

22     16 and wounded 20 persons.

23             The next paragraph, Dragan Slavkovic, for killing two persons.

24             And there are a number of other persons in the last indented

25     paragraph.

Page 43487

 1             And, finally, if we can turn over the page in the B/C/S and move

 2     to page 14 in the English, I'm looking for the number 100.  It's about

 3     ten pages down in the English -- ten lines down, sorry, and it's about

 4     midway down the first paragraph in the B/C/S.  And it states around 100

 5     persons were killed in this way.

 6             So, Professor Stankovic, I just wanted to clarify this matter

 7     that was perhaps raised that potentially the bodies that you autopsied

 8     were killed at armed conflict.  This judgement is quite clear that at

 9     least some of the bodies you autopsied that you were testifying about in

10     this judgement, they were -- they were murdered?

11        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, if you look at the indictment for the period when

12     these people were killed, that was significantly later than the time when

13     I performed autopsies.  I performed the autopsies on the 30th of

14     April and the 5th of May, 1992.  All these events, as follows from the

15     indictment, occurred at a later time.  Therefore, I couldn't have

16     performed autopsies on people who had already -- who had still been

17     alive.  The 27th of May is mentioned here, so all the victims perished

18     after the date.  I did not examine their bodies, and I cannot comment on

19     that.  I performed autopsies on some other people about a month earlier.

20        Q.   Okay.  I'll perhaps come back to that point later,

21     Professor Stankovic.

22             I'd now like to turn to a discussion you had with Mr. Ivetic over

23     the meaning of a Latin term.

24             MR. MacDONALD:  Can we have D00283 on the screen, please.

25        Q.   Now, you may remember seeing this document on Monday.

Page 43488

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Just to refresh Your Honours' recollection, we

 3     probably shouldn't view this to the public because of the name of the

 4     person.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  It's under seal.

 6             MR. MacDONALD:  I'm obliged to my friend.

 7             And, Your Honours, before we get into a discussion about the

 8     Latin term, I wonder if I might make a suggestion which is that the

 9     booths instead of interpreting the Latin words when I say them rarely

10     simple say the Latin term itself, just to avoid any confusion or

11     potential confusion in interpretation.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I think if the booth have understood this and it's

13     not really interpretation but I hope your Latin is still good enough.

14     Mine might not be.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17        Q.   Professor Stankovic at transcript page 42936, you were asked what

18     could cause that kind of injury that this Latin diagnosis describes.  And

19     you stated fragmentation of mines or explosive such as mortar shells or

20     cannon shell and hand-grenades.

21             Now, just to let you know the Prosecution agrees that wounds

22     inflicted by these kind of devices can be described with a diagnosis,

23     vulna explosiva.  But what I'd like to suggest to you that wounds

24     inflicted by a gun can also sometimes be described as vulna explosiva.

25     Would you agree with that, Professor Stankovic?

Page 43489

 1        A.   I don't know what are the gun-shot injuries that could fit within

 2     the diagnosis of vulnar explosivum.

 3        Q.   Okay.  I'm going to show you a couple of examples.

 4             MR. MacDONALD:  And just before I do, Your Honours, for

 5     orientation in terms of the case, the reason that I'm discussing this

 6     term is because of the significance of the survivor of the Jadar river

 7     massacre, which you may recall came up in 98 bis.  Just to let you know

 8     that I'm not going into a discussion about Latin language.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You should slow down.

10             MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you, Your Honour.  That I'm not going into

11     this discussion for no reason.  If we can have 65 ter number 33694, and

12     I'm looking for page 2 in the English and page 3 in the B/C/S.

13        Q.   Professor Stankovic, what you are about to see is a medical

14     report of an injury a person has sustained.  Now, I realise it's harder

15     to read in the B/C/S than in the English but the first line of the

16     English and first line of the B/C/S, it states:  "The patient was

17     admitted on 31 August 1993 at about 1930 hours because of injury

18     inflicted by sniper shot to the head."

19             And if we look further down the page at the diagnosis, and I

20     think this is easier to read in the B/C/S it's about midway down, you

21     see:  "V explosivum reg occipitalis."

22        A.   Yes.  Yes, I can see that.

23        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

24        A.   But then --

25        Q.   I was just waiting for the transcript.

Page 43490

 1             Now, I understand that means an explosive injury to the part of

 2     the head just behind the ear.  Is that what that diagnosis means?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   So now this is an example of a doctor who being told that the

 5     injury was inflicted by a gun still described the wound as vulnera

 6     explosivum.  Now, you said you wondered what kind of weapons or guns

 7     could fit into that diagnosis.  An injury from a sniper rifle, could that

 8     fit in?  Would you agree with that?

 9        A.   No.  An injury inflicted by a sniper bullet may only be diagnosed

10     as vulnus sclopetarium.  Obviously this is either ignorance of the doctor

11     who gave the diagnosis because obviously he does not distinguish between

12     gun-shot injuries and blast injuries.

13        Q.   If he can move to another example, 65 ter 33695, and it's the

14     first page in both languages that I'm looking for.  And in about the

15     middle of the page in a box we see the words:  "Diagnosis on admission,

16     v. explosivum haemithoracic l. dex."

17             Now, the haemithoracic cavity, that's one part of the chest.

18     That's right, isn't it?

19        A.   It's either the right side or the left side of the chest.  Either

20     the left or the right side.  Haemithoracic means either the right side or

21     the left side.  It means half of the chest area.

22        Q.   Thank you for that.  If we look down at the description of what

23     happens three sentences down in both languages, you see the words:

24     "Injuries sustained from a sniper bullet to her chest."

25             Now, Professor Stankovic, I take it you would then say that the

Page 43491

 1     diagnosis v. explosivum is again being used in error given that this is

 2     it a gun-shot wound?

 3        A.   The medical document in Serbian or the Bosnian-Herzegovinian is

 4     not good.  The diagnosis in English states:  "Vulnus explosivum,

 5     haemithoracic lat dex."  That's one diagnosis and that means a blast

 6     wound in the right side of the chest area.  Underneath that, the second

 7     diagnosis is:  "Vulnus transclopetarium reg brachii l. dex," which means

 8     a gun-shot wound in the area of the right upper arm.  There are two

 9     founds, one is a blast wound in the right side of the chest and then

10     there is gun-shot wounds inflicted by a projectile from a hand fire-arm

11     in the right upper arm area.

12        Q.   Thank you for that.  I certainly appreciate that the right -- I

13     think it may be the bicep has the diagnosis v. transclopetaria, but the

14     diagnosis of the chest wound v. explosivum being linked to the sniper

15     bullet to the chest I take it you would say that diagnosis is wrong,

16     given that it is a sniper bullet that has inflicted this wound?

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You should perhaps direct the witness to that

18     part in the big box.

19             MR. MacDONALD:  Ah.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Where it said that.  Perhaps the witness didn't

21     see it.

22             MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Shouldn't be around this third line.

24             MR. MacDONALD:  Yes.

25        Q.   Professor Stankovic, in the large box at the bottom there's a

Page 43492

 1     description of what happened.  About three lines down, you'll see a word

 2     and excuse my pronunciation, "Snajperskim," I think, which I believe I

 3     means sniper.  That part is talking about the sniper bullet hitting her

 4     chest.  Do you see that part?

 5        A.   The part of the text that you're talking about, I can see it.

 6     I'm just reading this bad Bosnian-Herzegovinian copy just to see what the

 7     surgeon, which part of the metal did the surgeon extract from the right

 8     side of the chest.  Because if it's an explosive wound, a blast wound,

 9     it's realistic to expect that the surgeon would extract from the right

10     side area of the chest a shrapnel, or if it's a projectile to extract a

11     part of the projectile or the damaged projectile.

12        Q.   I appreciate that and perhaps I can try to cut that matter short.

13             In the B/C/S you'll see about perhaps 10 to 12 lines down, the

14     words "five cm," for 5 centimetres, and that line reads:  "Neurosurgeon

15     noted a gun-shot wound on the right paravertebral of the mid thoracic

16     spine 5 centimetres from the spine."

17             Now, Professor Stankovic, all I'm asking you here is whether, if

18     a doctor -- or, rather, that the doctor has in your opinion used a wrong

19     Latin diagnosis for what they consider a gun-shot wound?  Is it your

20     opinion that the diagnosis is incorrect, if this is a gun-shot wound.

21     That's all I'm asking.

22        A.   Yes.  He should have written that it was a gun-shot wound, vulnus

23     sclopetarium.

24        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to step back from the examples from these two

25     different doctors using this term to look at a piece of literature.

Page 43493

 1             Now, before I do, just a general question:  The anthropologist

 2     David del Pino testified here and one of the things that he said is that

 3     Professor Dr. Vincent Di Maio is really the top researcher and

 4     professional in his field, and that's at transcript page 42178.  Now, I'm

 5     right in saying that Professor Di Maio is a forensic pathologist who

 6     specialises in gun-shot wounds.  That's right, isn't it?

 7        A.   Yes, that is absolutely correct in view of the fact that many of

 8     us used his textbooks to -- in our studies.

 9        Q.   I saw that Professor Di Maio's book, "Gunshot Wounds" was among

10     the first things that appeared in your reference materials.  Did you use

11     that book yourself in your studies, professor, you personally?

12        A.   In my professional activities, I had Professor Di Maio's textbook

13     in my hands several times, and I used it to acquire information.

14             MR. MacDONALD:  Can we please have 65 ter number 33740A.

15        Q.   Professor Stankovic, what you're going to see is a page from

16     Professor Di Maio's book, "Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of

17     Fire-arms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques," dated 1999.  And on this

18     page, he talks about new ammunition being used through the ages.  I'm

19     just going to read the first two lines of this page.

20             It states:  "Bone injuries from conical bullets were extremely

21     severe.  The term used to described them was explosive."

22             And at that point there is an asterisk.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You should not leave out the term there "at the

24     time."

25             MR. MacDONALD:  Oh, my apologies, Your Honour, let me read that.

Page 43494

 1     "Bone injuries from conical bullets were extremely severe.  The term used

 2     to describe them at the time was explosive."

 3             And if we follow the asterisk down to the bottom,

 4     Professor Di Maio notes:  "In reviewing the literature concerning

 5     fire-arms wounds through the age, one is struck by the recurrent use of

 6     the term explosive to describe wounds produced by newly introduced

 7     weapons or forms of ammunition.  This term has been used to describe

 8     wounds produced by conical lead bullets, jacketed bullets, hunting

 9     bullets, and the M-16."

10             So, Professor Stankovic, it appears that Professor Di Maio in

11     reviewing the literature has found other doctors also using the term

12     explosive to describe injuries inflicted by fire-arms.  Is that fair?

13        A.   In the specific case, the first part of the text that you quoted

14     refers to bone, not to soft tissue structures.  When you have soft tissue

15     structures, the differences, and I've already spoken about that, the

16     difference between entry wounds with shrapnel or particles of the

17     explosive devices and the projectile are different.  They are

18     different --

19        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

20        A.   -- other than in cases when --

21        Q.   I'm sorry to interrupt but just to let you know I'm -- in this

22     particular example, it is a fleshed body that was struck.  So I am

23     talking about flesh injuries inflicted by these guns.  Just to make sure

24     we're talking about the same thing.

25             On that basis, it's right to say that it appears that

Page 43495

 1     Professor Di Maio has found other doctors who have used the term

 2     "explosive" for injuries inflicted by a fire-arm.

 3        A.   Let's go back to the Srebrenica and Tomasica reports.  No expert

 4     of The Hague Tribunal did not use the term explosive wounds for a

 5     gun-shot wound.  Not a single one.  They talked about gun-shot wounds and

 6     explosive wounds.  They did --

 7        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

 8        A.   -- make a difference.

 9        Q.   Firstly, this is not in relation to somebody who died at

10     Srebrenica or Tomasica.  This is in relation, in fact, to somebody who

11     survived.  And I'm -- maybe I can rephrase my question to move this

12     along.

13             I'm not suggesting that your theory on the Latin term is

14     necessarily incorrect.  That's not what I'm driving at.  All I want to

15     establish for the next part of the discussion is that it appears doctors

16     may have used this Latin term to describe gun-shot wounds even if that

17     was in error, according to you.  It's clear that doctors do use this

18     Latin term sometimes to describe gun-shot wounds, regardless of whether

19     that's right or wrong.  I take it you would agree with that.

20        A.   On the basis of what Professor Di Maio says, yes, but in the area

21     of the former Yugoslavia, since it was a single school, nobody ever

22     referred to gun-shot wounds as explosive ones.  That was not a diagnosis.

23     This something that I assert and it's something that can be verified

24     because we're talking about a document that was written by a professor

25     from the area of the former Yugoslavia.

Page 43496

 1        Q.   Okay, Professor Stankovic.  Now, the document you saw that I

 2     showed you first and you saw on Monday, that was actually written in

 3     1995.  Now, it's fair to say given what we've seen that the only way to

 4     guarantee you understand what the doctor means by that Latin phrase, if

 5     the Latin phrase is all you have to go on, the only way to guarantee

 6     understanding would actually be to speak to the person who wrote it down

 7     and ask them what they meant.  That would be the only way to guarantee

 8     understanding.

 9        A.   The person who signed and wrote the medical document would need

10     to show the literature from which they studied and the questions to which

11     they responded, I guess, if they graduated medicine in Sarajevo or Tuzla,

12     they would need to answer questions about the parameters and the

13     knowledge they used to describe an explosive wound, as such, and I know

14     this very well.  In the literature, it says gun-shot wounds diagnosis

15     vulnus sclopetarium, explosive wounds are vulnus explosivum.

16        Q.   Yes, professor.  You're absolutely an expert in this area, and

17     just to reiterate, I'm not driving towards the fact that your description

18     of how it should be used is wrong.  The only thing I was trying to

19     establish was that to guarantee understanding, you would have to speak to

20     the doctors.

21             Now, the Prosecution did interview the two doctors who treated

22     the person whose discharge form you saw and you were asked about on

23     Monday and I'd like to show them to you.

24             MR. MacDONALD:  If we can have a 65 ter 33630.

25        Q.   What you're going to see on the screen, Professor Stankovic, is

Page 43497

 1     the statement of the doctor who treated the patient when he arrived at

 2     the hospital.

 3             MR. MacDONALD:  This should not be broadcast, Your Honours.  And

 4     if we can move to the second page in both languages and look at

 5     paragraph 5.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you perhaps repeat the number.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  It has not been released.

 8             MR. MacDONALD:  The number is 33630.  The second page in both

 9     languages when it is on our screens.

10        Q.   Now, this doctor is describing the entire medical file of this

11     patient.  I'd just like to read you a part of it.  It's starting in the

12     second line in paragraph 5.

13             And he states:  "In this particular case, the description of the

14     injury written in the findings in Latin language, vulnera lacerocontusa,

15     is different from the one written in the file although they were written

16     the same day.  The only explanation I can give is that the description in

17     file was written mechanically as explosive wound, vulnera explosiva,

18     which was common term used during the war-time-period for the wartime

19     injuries.  In the part where the diagnosis was written besides the

20     comment that the wound was explosive, it was also written that there were

21     remains of the foreign metal object inside the wound.  Without actual

22     X-ray picture, I cannot confirm what kind of metal object it was, a

23     shrapnel or a piece of bullet."

24             Now, professor, it seems that this doctor is using this term

25     mechanically rather than having based it on the literature that you've

Page 43498

 1     described.  And just before you answer --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  I think to be fair we should read number 6 as well

 4     which relates precisely to that doctor's observations of that, that we're

 5     asking about.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. MacDonald, are you following the suggestion by

 7     Mr. Ivetic.

 8             MR. MacDONALD:  It was coming later on in the next question, but

 9     I'm happy to do it now, Your Honour, certainly.

10        Q.   Just looking at number 6 there, the doctor states:  "At this

11     point I am not able to answer with any certainty what type of injury this

12     was for several reasons.  First of all, I am not a forensic expert but a

13     clinical doctor ... second, there is no detailed description of the

14     wound, such as the size, width or the death but only the wounds location,

15     and the most important there is no primary findings of the wound, that

16     is, an examination of the wound shortly after it was inflicted."

17             So, Professor Stankovic, does that first reason, the fact that is

18     he a doctor rather than a forensic expert, that might explain why

19     certainly according to you, he is -- or this term vulnera explosivum has

20     been misused or he doesn't know how to use it possibly?

21        A.   In all surgery textbooks that were used for doctors specialising

22     or orthopaedic surgeons, there is a clear description of the differences

23     between blast and explosive wounds.  Those who studied in Tuzla did their

24     specialisations at the military medical academy as a rule.  So regardless

25     of whether they specialised at the clinic in Sarajevo or the VMA, there

Page 43499

 1     is a detailed chapter in surgery textbooks which describe what a gun-shot

 2     wound or a blast wound is.

 3             Blast wounds are not treated in the same way as gun-shot wounds.

 4     Blast wounds cause much more damage on organs and soft tissue in

 5     comparison to gun-shot wounds, and they require a very different approach

 6     during surgery.

 7        Q.   So we see from the last sentence of paragraph 5 when the doctor

 8     says he can't confirm if the piece of metal was shrapnel or a bullet, he

 9     clearly doesn't know what's caused this wound and that corresponds to him

10     in his own description simply writing vulnera explosivum mechanically.

11     Would you agree with that?

12             MR. IVETIC:  I would object to the question as phrased because

13     it's not what the doctor says.  The doctor says, first of all, he has no

14     recollection of this particular patient in number 3 and he says, without

15     actual X-ray picture, I cannot confirm, which is missing from the

16     question posed by my learned friend.

17             MR. MacDONALD:  I'm happy to include that part in what I read to

18     the doctor.  Thank you, Your Honour.

19        Q.   So, Professor Stankovic, it's clear from that last sentence what

20     the doctor says, "Without actual X-ray picture, I cannot confirm what

21     kind of metal object it was, a shrapnel or a piece of bullet," that he

22     doesn't know what device caused this injury which corresponds to what he

23     wrote earlier in the paragraph that he can only say that the term vulnera

24     explosivum was written mechanically.  That's right, isn't it?

25        A.   Yes, according to his statement he used it in a mechanical way,

Page 43500

 1     but this way he inflicts a lot of damage to the victim and also causes

 2     problems for us because we're discussing something that is actually well

 3     known.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Could -- I think, Mr. MacDonald, what you intended

 5     to do was to draw our attention to the inconsistency sometimes in the

 6     language used and sometimes that factual observations are insufficient

 7     perhaps to always follow in detail what textbooks may tell you how to

 8     diagnosis something.  If that was your intention to draw our attention

 9     that there's a risk of errors there, then I think you have drawn our

10     attention to that.  So if that was your purpose, then I think we could

11     move on.

12             MR. MacDONALD:  Your Honour, I -- certainly that is -- that is a

13     very fair way of summarising the intention but I would like to show

14     Professor Stankovic one more statement from the man who wrote the

15     document he commented upon and after that -- well, I'll do that before

16     the break, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Do that.  So you have one -- two minutes left for

18     that.

19             MR. MacDONALD:  Can we please see 65 ter number 33631.  Again,

20     not to be broadcast.

21        Q.   Now, Professor Stankovic, what you're going to see here is the

22     statement by the person who wrote the discharge form that was shown to

23     you on Monday.  It's Dr. Zoran Popovic.

24             MR. MacDONALD:  If we can move to page 2 in both languages.

25        Q.   Now, in paragraph 5 of the statement we see the name of the

Page 43501

 1     patient.  I just ask you not to read that out.

 2             In paragraph 4, the doctor talks about being shown a document and

 3     there's a number there, and I can tell you from that number that's the

 4     same document that you were shown.

 5             Moving to paragraph 8, this doctor says:  "Based on the photo and

 6     documents shown to me, I am not able to determine how the wounds were

 7     inflicted.  The term used in diagnosis in this case, vulnera explosiva,

 8     is based on the appearance of the wound, meaning that the tissue of the

 9     wound exploded and not that the wound was caused by an explosion."

10             So again, Professor Stankovic, while this doctor has given his

11     reasons why he wrote the term that way, I take it you would disagree that

12     he has used that term correctly.

13             MR. IVETIC:  I think to be fair, if we're going to do paragraph 8

14     we need 4, 5, 6 and 7 which lead up to 8, and which talk about how this

15     doctor has no recollection of the particular patient.  And then the rest

16     of the stuff that's there, that also affects his -- because 8 is based

17     upon the photos and the documents shown to me [sic], so we need to know

18     what he has been shown and what he is basing this part of his statement

19     on which is precisely what is in 5, 6, and 7.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I think if you want to further explore that, you can

21     do that in re-examination.  It's clear that it's on a limited basis that

22     the statement in paragraph 8 is given.

23             You've done with the document.

24             MR. MacDONALD:  I'd like just for Professor Stankovic to answer

25     that question.

Page 43502

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2        A.   Each person that signs a document stands by it, and the

 3     description here is unacceptable.  He is signing a document that is later

 4     used for the further treatment of the person that was wounded.  Now, he

 5     does not recollect, he never saw the person, so how could he have written

 6     this diagnosis in the first place?  This is something that --

 7             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Stankovic,

 8     that's not an answer to the question.

 9             The question was were the reasons given as read to you in

10     paragraph 8, whether you would disagree that what -- that he used that

11     term correctly, that in -- in the -- in -- in reading why he did it, that

12     he used a wrong term, in your view.  Is that ...

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't doubt that the doctor who

14     provided the statement acted in this way, but I don't understand this

15     behaviour.  That's all.  I don't have an objection to what he said, that

16     he did as he did.  But that's now how one should behave.  Now, I can give

17     you some of my assumptions.  I don't want to embark on any explanations

18     about things that, to tell you the truth, I don't really understand

19     completely and I don't accept either.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

21             MR. MacDONALD:  Your Honours, I'll look at the rest of my

22     cross-examination on this point over the break and try to reassess it.

23     But it's time for the break.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  It's time for a break.

25             Professor Stankovic, it's time for a break.  We'd like to see you

Page 43503

 1     back in 20 minutes.  So if you would follow the usher.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at five minutes to 11.00.

 4                           --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7                           [The witness takes the stand]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. MacDonald.

 9             MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10        Q.   Professor Stankovic, one more question about this Latin term.

11             Based on the examples I have shown to you and the literature from

12     Professor Vincent Di Maio, the Prosecution position is that this term,

13     this Latin term, vulnera explosivum can be used in three different

14     situations:  That is, wounds inflicted by an explosive device, as you

15     said on Monday; wounds inflicted by a gun; and also used when the doctors

16     are not sure in simply describing the wound.

17             Now, all I'm asking is whether you agree or disagree with the

18     Prosecution position.

19        A.   I do not agree with this position of the Prosecution.  Only

20     wounds caused by mines and explosives can be diagnosed in Latin as

21     vulnera explosivum.

22        Q.   Okay.  Moving to a separate topic.  Now, at transcript page

23     43367.

24             MR. MacDONALD:  And I should say for Your Honours, we're still

25     with the same patient just no longer talking about the Latin.  On

Page 43504

 1     Tuesday, you testified that 7.62 ammunition was the ammunition of

 2     automatic and semi-automatic rifles.  Do you remember that?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And that ammunition can come copper-jacketed, can't it?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Now, you testified at transcript page 43296 to 43297 if it is

 7     point blank, a gun-shot injury is probably an entry/exit wound except

 8     when it hits a bone, such as the hip bones, which are very thick, and in

 9     which a projectile might get stuck.

10             And later on at transcript page 43297, you mention with regard to

11     this particular patient that is the doctor -- sorry, the document you saw

12     on Monday, that pieces of shrapnel tend to get lodged in a much smaller

13     depth.

14             Now, Professor Stankovic, in your experience, have you come

15     across a piece of ammunition, 7.62, where the copper jacket has come away

16     from the core of the bullet when it has hit a human body?

17        A.   Yes, in numerous cases when these bullets hit bones, especially

18     bones that are thick, such as the pelvic bones, the thigh bones, the

19     upper arm bones, and the like.

20        Q.   Have you come across examples where the copper jacket has come

21     off and been left in the body when the bullet has only hit a fleshy part

22     of the body, that is, not a bone?

23        A.   I don't think I have come across such cases.

24             MR. MacDONALD:  Your Honour, I'd like to show Professor Stankovic

25     an example of that, and I would like to move through the life of a

Page 43505

 1     bullet, so I have here in court a 7.62 bullet that has not been fired,

 2     and I'd just like Professor Stankovic to have that, to have access to

 3     that so we're discussing the same thing.

 4             If Your Honours would like to look at it first, and, of course,

 5     my friend, I'm more than happy with that.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I think every party, and the Bench as well, would

 7     like to have a look before it is presented to the witness.  You can show

 8     it first to the Defence.

 9             MR. MacDONALD:  For the record, I understand that this bullet is

10     registered under 65 ter number 33750.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

13             MR. MacDONALD:

14        Q.   And, Professor Stankovic, I'm going to ask you to confirm it's a

15     7.62 round with a copper jacket what we see at the top.

16        A.   Yes, that's the bullet.

17        Q.   And if -- yes, thank you.

18             Now, I'd like to call up 65 ter 33745 and turn to page 2.

19     Professor Stankovic, this is an autopsy report that you're about to see.

20     It's only in English, so I'm going to read out the parts to you, and on

21     page 2, just for your general information, this is the autopsy report --

22     this is the autopsy report of a 16-year-old boy, called Jasmin Boric,

23     whose partially skeletonized lower half of body was found in Cancari Road

24     12, the secondary grave linked to Branjevo farm.  Now, I'd like to move

25     to page 4 and at the top this reads:  "Recovered objects, projectiles."

Page 43506

 1     And the first one is a medium-sized jacket bullet plus distorted jacket

 2     adherent to lower end left femur.  No boney injury.

 3             Now, Professor Stankovic, I have again in court these items taken

 4     out of this boy, and I'd like to show them to you, again, for you to

 5     comment upon.

 6             MR. MacDONALD:  And once, Your Honours, if you would care to see

 7     them and my friend Mr. Ivetic, of course.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             MR. MacDONALD:

10        Q.   And, Professor Stankovic, can you confirm that that appears --

11     and, please, if you hold onto that just for a moment.  It appears to be a

12     distorted core of a bullet and the -- sorry.  Appears to be the core of a

13     bullet and a distorted copper jacket.

14        A.   That's right.

15             MR. MacDONALD:  Now, in -- on the screen, can we move to page 29

16     and I wonder if we can place page 35 next to it, if that's possible.

17        Q.   And, Professor Stankovic, the photograph on the left is the items

18     that you're holding but taken out and placed next to a ruler.  The item

19     on the right is the fluoroscopy, and would you agree with me that it

20     appears we can see the core of the bullet, just underneath the bone

21     there, and to the right and slightly above in front of the bone or

22     adherent to it, as the autopsy report stated, we see the distorted

23     jacket?

24        A.   Yes, yes, that's visible.

25        Q.   Thank you.  If I could ask that that be taken back.

Page 43507

 1             And finally, Professor Stankovic, to go back to our patient who

 2     really this discussion is in regard to, the very first document you were

 3     shown today, the one you were shown on Monday, I would like to show you

 4     an injury -- a photograph of his wound.

 5             MR. MacDONALD:  So if we can have P01440 on the screen, please.

 6        Q.   And I have the original here for you to see.

 7             MR. MacDONALD:  I think the quality is better, Your Honours, so I

 8     ask that Your Honours and my friend see it and then Mr. Stankovic have it

 9     for his comment.

10        Q.   I wonder if Professor Stankovic could hold onto that for a

11     moment.

12             MR. MacDONALD:  If we can have 65 ter 33697 on the screen and

13     page 4 in both languages.  Sorry, not to be broadcast, I should have

14     said.  Thank you.

15        Q.   Now, this is the patient explaining to the doctor what happened

16     to him.  The first line reads:  "Wounded by a bullet in the left hip in

17     Konjevic Polje in 1995 while fleeing an attempted execution."

18             Now, Professor Stankovic, given your testimony that if it is

19     point blank, a gun-shot injury is probably an entry/exit wound except

20     when it hits a bone such as the hip bones which are very thick and in

21     which a projectile might get stuck, as opposed to blast wounds where

22     there are numerous channels that destroy much more soft tissue because

23     the shrapnel has an irregular pattern of penetrating a human body, in the

24     photograph in front of you, would you not agree, in your professional

25     opinion, that that wound is consistent with being shot by a bullet with

Page 43508

 1     the smaller entry wound being at the back, the larger exit wound being at

 2     the front and that the foreign metal object in the body could be the

 3     distorted jacket of the bullet that shot him?

 4        A.   Could you please show again the fluoroscope image showing where

 5     the segment or fragment of the bullet was found in the body?  If you

 6     could please show that on the screen once again.

 7        Q.   Sorry, Professor Stankovic, I wasn't clear, clearly, on that.

 8     That was simply an example of a bullet passing through the body.  We have

 9     no fluoroscopy or X-ray for this patient.  So knowing that, I wonder if

10     you could give your opinion on the question I asked a moment ago.

11        A.   Excuse me, I thought that the previous question was linked with

12     this.  If you thought I should then provide an answer to the previous

13     question, whether it's possible for a bullet to be deformed if it only

14     passed through soft tissue, was that the first question?  When you showed

15     the bullet that everyone saw, that was distorted.  Was that your first

16     question?

17        Q.   Sorry.  This becomes slightly confused.  Undoubtedly my fault.

18             So the bullet that was distorted is to do with another case, not

19     the case of the person whose photograph you're holding just now.  That is

20     the photograph of the wound we have for that person [Overlapping

21     speakers] ...

22        A.   All right.  But what was the question for the first image?  If

23     you can please repeat your question.

24        Q.   There's no question for the first image.  The question is just

25     based on that photograph.

Page 43509

 1             Let me ask you:  In terms of what you've said, if it -- that --

 2     the wound shown in that photograph, bearing in mind your testimony, which

 3     I've read, if that is consistent with a gun-shot wound with the entry at

 4     the back and the larger exit wound at the front of the hip?

 5        A.   In this specific case, this is a scar on the skin with irregular

 6     round shape on the border between the left gluteal area and the -- the

 7     left waist area, around 20 centimetres to the left and to the front one

 8     can notice a bigger scar, perhaps 5 by 2 and a half centimetres in

 9     radius, with a darkened skin caved in slightly.  Such an injury may be

10     caused by a bullet fired from a hand-held fire-arm which hit the damaged

11     person from the back left side with the channel directed forwards and to

12     the right, and ends at the height of the left outward area of the

13     abdomen.

14        Q.   Thank you, Professor Stankovic.  I wonder if we could take that

15     photograph back.

16             MR. MacDONALD:  Your Honour, I would move to tender three of the

17     65 ter numbers I've used before moving on from this discussion.

18             The first two are the two examples.  That is -- of the people

19     injured by the sniper.  65 ters 33694 and 33695.  And the third one is

20     the note of the doctor about what the patient told him and that is 33697

21     although I only showed page 4 for that third one, so I'm happy for that

22     to be MFI'd or reserved a number and an excerpt can be made and uploaded.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Other pages being irrelevant for us for your --

24             MR. MacDONALD:  It's all part of his case file, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 43510

 1             Mr. Ivetic.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, we have multiple documents, now, where

 3     only small snippets shown to the witness, and for some, he's been asked

 4     to comment; for some, he's not been asked to comment.  So we don't have

 5     foundation for the remainder of the documents coming in.  I don't know

 6     how long they are.  I have only seen what's been on the screen since I

 7     don't have the full documents before me.  But we have the witness's

 8     testimony as to what he has been shown.  That is relevant but the fact

 9     of -- what else is in those documents ... it's not --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, so you'd prefer to have the excerpt used?

11             MR. MacDONALD:  I'm happy for one page from each document going

12     in, Your Honours, subject to anything that my friend wishes to add or ...

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just ...

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber, fully aware that the witness testified

16     only on certain portions of it, for context if it's not too much if it's

17     only a matter of one or two pages, for context, we'd like to know what it

18     is.

19             So, therefore -- but if they are longer, if it's -- if it's --

20     five, ten, or fifteen pages, then, of course, we might need an excerpt

21     only and perhaps then the parties should sit together and see whether we

22     need the cover page or whatever, for us to know what we're looking at.

23             MR. MacDONALD:  Your Honours, I believe that the first two are

24     two pages, the third one being six pages.  I'm happy to sit with

25     Mr. Ivetic for the last one, if Your Honours wish.  The one thing I

Page 43511

 1     should have added is they should all be admitted under seal.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I think for the first two, the two-page

 3     documents, there seem to be no problems.

 4             Mr. Registrar, the numbers would be?

 5             And perhaps you repeat what the two-page -- one second, please.

 6                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar has some concerns that the two-page

 8     documents were shown but perhaps it is the page not shown that causes you

 9     to ask them to be admitted under seal.

10             MR. MacDONALD:  Actually, Your Honours, I was just discussing the

11     same thing with my colleague.  In fact the first two do not need to be

12     admitted under seal.  It was my mistake.  It was only the third one,

13     which I think was not broadcast.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, then, for the first two ones, the two-page

15     documents and perhaps you repeat the 65 ter number, and then

16     Mr. Registrar then assigns a exhibit number.

17             MR. MacDONALD:  The first two ter numbers are 33694 --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay we take it one by one.  33694 receives number.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  P7816, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  P7816 is admitted.

21             MR. MacDONALD:  33695.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  That's P7817.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted.

24             MR. MacDONALD:  33697 under seal, please.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P7818 under seal.

Page 43512

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But that's marked for identification under

 2     seal so that you can sit together with Mr. Ivetic and see whether we can

 3     do with less pages.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MR. MacDONALD:

 6        Q.   Professor Stankovic, I'm going to move to an entirely new topic

 7     now.

 8             I'd like to talk briefly about the principle that you cannot

 9     guarantee a cause of death on a body which is skeletonized.  And I'd like

10     to look at some autopsies that -- or one autopsy that Dr. Dunjic did in

11     Glodjane in the Decani municipality in September 1998.

12             MR. MacDONALD:  Can we have 65 ter 33692.

13        Q.   Before we look that specifically, just to make sure we're

14     speaking about the same thing, I understand your position to that if a

15     body is sufficiently skeletonized, you cannot give the cause of death

16     because you cannot say that the injuries were inflicted in life; is that

17     correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And that I think Professor Dunjic is perhaps the most strident

20     about this, that one cannot make an assumption that the injuries were

21     inflicted in life to give the cause of death, that is, I think, one of

22     Professor Dunjic's main criticisms of Dr. Clark; is that right?

23        A.   Yes, one of the main criticisms.

24        Q.   Now, the witness statement in front of you is from

25     Professor Dunjic, and I'd like to turn to page 48 in the English and page

Page 43513

 1     39 in the B/C/S, and you'll see there a body labelled Re-3, and this

 2     relates to the Kosovo cases and the KLA.

 3             Now, on this page, we see a summary of where the body was found

 4     and when the autopsy was performed.

 5             MR. MacDONALD:  If we can turn the page, please, in both

 6     languages, and we see there the third paragraph:  "The body was in an

 7     advanced state of decomposition and the cause of death could not be

 8     determined by autopsy alone."

 9             Now that's the principle that you and I have just agreed, that

10     Professor Dunjic uses to criticise Mr. Clark -- Dr. Clark.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Now, in the next three paragraphs, Professor Dunjic discusses

13     injuries that were found and in the fourth paragraph on this page in

14     English, and two-thirds of the way down the page in the B/C/S, he states:

15     "If these gun-shot wounds to the head and body were inflicted

16     ante-mortem, they were the direct cause of death."

17             Now, what Professor Dunjic has done here is he has provided a

18     cause of death based on an assumption, that assumption being that the

19     gun-shot wounds to the head and body were inflicted in life.  That's what

20     he's done, isn't it?

21        A.   No.  He's actually asking a question here.  Opening up a dilemma.

22     "If these gun-shot wounds to the head and body were inflicted

23     ante-mortem, they were the direct cause of death."  What does that mean?

24     He cannot say with any certainty whether the injuries were caused in life

25     or after death, and that's why he allows this possibility, not disputing

Page 43514

 1     that the gun-shot wounds to head were a cause of death.

 2             If we had such comments in Dr. Clark's report, we could not have

 3     had any objections because he just allows the possibility here that the

 4     person in charge of the investigation, if he has witness statements or

 5     establishes in some other way that the injuries were inflicted in life,

 6     that they were then the certain cause of death.

 7             MR. MacDONALD:  Can we have P02259 on the screen now, please.

 8        Q.   Professor Stankovic, this is Dr. Clark's report on the ICTY

 9     operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1999 that you're just about to see.

10             MR. MacDONALD:  I'd like to look for page 3 in both languages.

11        Q.   Now it's the second paragraph under number 1.  I should say in

12     paragraph 1, Dr. Clark's commenting on the fact that a number -- the

13     majority of the bodies are skeletonized, given how long they had been in

14     the ground.

15             And in this second paragraph, he states:  "This brought with it

16     the difficulty of being able to say whether a particular injury had been

17     caused before death, or after it."

18             And skipping a couple of lines, he states:  "In decomposed

19     bodies, this becomes extremely difficult, and in skeletonised one,

20     impossible.  Strictly speaking therefore, it would never be possible to

21     say, for instance, that a bullet-hole in the skull definitely occurred

22     before death as opposed to after it ..."

23             So, again, this is the principle that you and I agreed and we saw

24     Professor Dunjic included in his statement?

25        A.   Yes, and I am in complete agreement with Dr. Clark's statement.

Page 43515

 1        Q.   Now, in the last paragraph before number 2 on the same page, it

 2     states:  "In all of the cases therefore, with only occasional exceptions,

 3     any injuries suggestive of gun-shot damage were taken to have occurred in

 4     life and usually to have been necessarily or potentially fatal."

 5             So he's doing the same thing that Professor Dunjic did, in that

 6     he's saying, We are assuming that these injuries were caused in life.

 7     You agree with that?

 8        A.   No.  There is a difference between Professor Dunjic's and

 9     Dr. Clark's position.  Professor Dunjic stated, if I'm not mistaken, if,

10     which means he is not saying that on the basis of that wound he is

11     drawing a conclusion, but if it's proved that the injury occurred during

12     life, then it can be considered that the gunshot wound was -- to the

13     head was the immediate cause of death.  Here it says that any injury

14     indicating damage caused by a bullet would be caused while the person was

15     alive, and then it had to have been or was potentially lethal.  But the

16     assertion that it happened during life had to be proved.  It is the

17     people who are in charge of the investigation, as you know, who prove

18     this by means of other evidence, such as witness statements and other

19     means, and I already mentioned that.  So there is a slight difference in

20     phrasing between the statements of Professor Dunjic and Professor Clark.

21        Q.   I would certainly agree that there's a slight difference in

22     phrasing.  And, Professor Stankovic, you were translated there as saying

23     the word that was translated was:  "... assertion that it," referring to

24     the gun-shots, "happened during life."  You agree with me that Dr. Clark

25     is very clear that this is an assumption that he is making?

Page 43516

 1        A.   Yes, it's very clear that he is making an assumption.

 2        Q.   Now, yesterday at temporary transcript page 31, a portion of

 3     Dr. Clark's report pertaining to Kozluk, Nova Kasaba, Konjevic Polje and

 4     Glogova was read to you, stating:  "This report is nonetheless compiled

 5     on assumption that the vast majority of the gun-shot and other relevant

 6     injuries which were found occurred in life and were or contributed to,

 7     the cause of death.  To assume otherwise would be to make any further

 8     analysis of the findings virtually meaningless."

 9             And your answer, as it was in the transcript last night was:  "I

10     never drew my communications from assumptions and I think that this way

11     of drawing conclusions is unacceptable."

12             So just before we get to the substance, do you recall saying, I

13     would suggest, "I never drew my conclusions from assumptions."

14             Is that what you said?

15        A.   Yes.  I never, in my life drew any conclusions on the basis of

16     assumptions, either professionally or personally.

17      MR. MacDONALD:  Can we have 65 ter number 33693, not to be broadcast.

18        Q.   Professor Stankovic, this is a statement you gave to the

19     Tribunal.  It was used in the Oric case regarding a victim whose name I

20     won't mention, but you can see it there on the screen in front of you.

21             Now, this was to do with, as you see, Kravica village in early

22     1993.  Am I right in saying that this person was an ethnic Serb?

23        A.   Yes, this is a man from the village of Kravica whose mortal

24     remains were found in Srebrenica, and the autopsy was carried out on the

25     7th of October, 1995.

Page 43517

 1        Q.   Now, if we turn to page 3 in both languages, we see the word

 2     "Opinion," and the first point there says:  "The body of a male exhumed

 3     from the soil, in a skeletized state.  The autopsy alone cannot establish

 4     with certainty the actual cause of death."

 5             So this is you, just as Professor Dunjic did, and as Dr. Clark

 6     did in his report, repeating this principle?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Now, if we move to the second point, I'm just going to read it

 9     out to you.  "On the basis of the appearance and localisation of the bone

10     fractures in the left temporal area of the head, one can make the

11     assumption that death was violent and caused by the destruction and

12     damaging of vital brain centres."

13             So what, in fact, you've done here, Professor Stankovic, is to

14     provide a cause of death based on an assumption, isn't it?

15        A.   No, I just assumed in item 2 of the opinion that it -- the death

16     was violent and that it was caused by the destruction and damaging of vie

17     tall brain centre, but I did not assert it.  So I said one could make the

18     assumption based on grounds but not assert so.  And as to the actual

19     cause of death, that would be something that would be established once

20     the investigating procedure was completed.

21             So I did not assert anything.  I just made that assumption, in

22     item 1, the body of a male exhumed from the soil in a skeletized state,

23     the autopsy alone cannot establish with certainty the actual cause of

24     death that is the general position.  Then I assumed that the death was

25     violent but I am not asserting that.  That is the difference.  I am not

Page 43518

 1     asserting.  I'm just saying that it can be assumed.  I am not asserting

 2     that the death was violent and all of the rest in view of the position

 3     that I stated in item 1 of the relevant opinion.

 4        Q.   Professor Stankovic, if the forensic pathologists who did the

 5     thousands of autopsies on bodies and bones from Srebrenica, if each of

 6     them had said in their cause of death section, if these wounds were

 7     inflicted in life, then they were the direct cause of death, would that

 8     then solve the issue that Professor Dunjic raised in his report?

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Object to the question as being overbroad without

10     specifying which of the particular objections from Professor Dunjic's

11     report are at issue.  We've spent several days going over multiple

12     objections, both in relation do Tomasica and to Dr. Dunjic's report, and

13     to give a overly broad one, lumping them all together under one category

14     is neither reflective of the evidence --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. MacDonald, apparently Mr. Ivetic has difficulty

16     in understanding what your question was about.  You're invited to

17     pin-point at what point of criticism it is.  It could be the one we are

18     discussing already for five minutes but please be clear so that everyone

19     in this courtroom can understand the question without any ambiguity.

20             MR. MacDONALD:

21        Q.   Professor Stankovic, with regard to the criticism of

22     Professor Dunjic of Dr. Clark that he makes an assumption regarding the

23     injuries found on the bodies, that assumption being that the wounds were

24     inflicted in life.  If the forensic pathologists who did the thousands of

25     autopsies on bodies and bones from Srebrenica, if each of them had said

Page 43519

 1     in their cause of death section, If these wounds were inflicted in life,

 2     then they were the direct cause of death, would that resolve the -- that

 3     particular criticism of Professor Dunjic?

 4        A.   I think that it would, yes.

 5             MR. MacDONALD:  I'm going to move on from this topic unless

 6     Your Honours have any questions about it.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please move on.

 8             MR. MacDONALD:

 9        Q.   Professor Stankovic, on Monday, at transcript page 43305 to

10     43306, talking about Dr. Clark, you said:  "It is also beyond my

11     understanding that he, as a person who is producing a general report for

12     the ICTY, makes his only photographs.  On site, there must have been a

13     scene-of-crimes team from the official authorities of Bosnia and

14     Herzegovina, and he could have just pointed and asked them, Please make

15     me photos of this or that body part.  I can hardly imagine a forensic

16     pathologist lowering himself to the role of a simple photographer."

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. MacDonald, just to make sure that you're

18     correctly transcribed, that question at line 1, 2, 3 -- at line 17, you

19     said "makes his only photographs of."  Did you say "only" or "own," makes

20     his own photographs?

21             MR. MacDONALD:  Your Honours, when I read the transcript

22     yesterday it still had the word "only," I believe.  I'm sure that the

23     witness meant "own."

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Own.  Okay.

25             MR. MacDONALD:

Page 43520

 1        Q.   So just to finish the quotation, after the words simple

 2     photographer, you say:  "He is a renowned specialist with great

 3     experience."

 4             Now, Professor Stankovic, you have performed autopsies where you

 5     took your own photographs, haven't you?

 6        A.   Yes.  When I performed autopsies in areas during combat, I was

 7     forced to photograph corpses and everything that was important myself

 8     because we did not have a person who could do that, and that is why I

 9     made my own photographs.

10             MR. MacDONALD:  Can we have 65 ter 33702 on the screen, please.

11        Q.   This is, again, an ICTY witness statement that you've given,

12     Professor Stankovic.  It deals with autopsies you performed in various

13     places in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I think you discussed that with my friend

14     Mr. Ivetic on Monday.  I'd like to turn to page 23 in the English,

15     page 35 in the B/C/S, and this concerns autopsies you conducted in the

16     Zvornik fire hall on bodies found in Glodjansko Brdo.

17             Now in the second-last paragraph in the English and the first

18     paragraph at the top of the B/C/S, the third sentence states:  "I took

19     pictures of all the bodies that I examined."

20             Now, I appreciate that this was in a time of combat, but can you

21     just confirm for me that that's accurate, that in these autopsies, you

22     were taking photographs of the bodies.

23        A.   Yes, I did take my own photographs when I was doing the

24     autopsies.

25             MR. MacDONALD:  Can we turn to the next page in the English and

Page 43521

 1     stay on this page in the B/C/S.

 2        Q.   I'm looking for the first paragraph.  Now, in this paragraph, you

 3     say you were assisted by medical technicians, and you name two of them.

 4             MR. MacDONALD:  And now if -- if we can turn to the next page in

 5     the B/C/S, the top paragraph in the B/C/S.

 6        Q.   And it's the now-next paragraph in the English, reads:  "The

 7     crime scene technician, Dragomir Damjanovic, was also present.  As far as

 8     the two technicians, they were helping me with every body that I examined

 9     in the fire hall in Zvornik.  Damjanovic was mostly always there and he

10     would sometimes help me with the photographing of the bodies and he would

11     take his own photographs of the bodies."

12             Now, Professor Stankovic, I believe a moment ago you said you

13     took photographs in areas of combat because, in essence, there was no one

14     else there to help you.  This is a situation where you are a crime-scene

15     technician taking photographs, and you're still taking your own

16     photographs.

17        A.   Well, you can see from my statement that mostly he was there all

18     the time and from time to time he would help me to photograph the bodies,

19     and he photographed them himself too.  So when he was there, he helped

20     me.  When he wasn't there, I photographed the autopsy details.  That

21     means that Damjanovic did not have a camera, he did not have any other

22     equipment.  He was there as a person who was providing some sort of

23     security for us during our work.  He was a crime-scene technician, that's

24     true.  He was not from Zvornik.  I think he came from Zenica or some

25     other town, and he was assigned to us.  But it's true what is said here,

Page 43522

 1     that, from time to time, he helped me to photograph, but he did not have

 2     his own equipment, and he did not photograph the bodies.  There was only

 3     one camera that we had that he could use to make photographs.

 4        Q.   Well, Professor Stankovic, in the line I read to you from the

 5     previous page, it said you took pictures of all the bodies that you

 6     examined, and here we have Mr. Damjanovic taking his own photographs of

 7     the bodies.

 8             So are you certain that what you're telling the Chamber just now

 9     is accurate?

10        A.   What I am saying now is correct.  I also want to tell you that at

11     other locations where there were no crime-scene technicians those who

12     knew how to take photographs helped us from time to time.  And here he

13     also was helping us, as I was performing the autopsy.  I would tell him,

14     Take a picture of such and such a part of the body.

15        Q.   Professor Stankovic, it's not the case that you and

16     Professor Dunjic are -- or have set out to try to criticise Dr. Clark and

17     the others and, in fact, you're criticizing them for things that you

18     yourself have done in the past.

19        A.   No.  Because Dr. Clark performed autopsies or was present during

20     exhumations of graves where there were all possible experts present to be

21     able to help, so you had anthropologists, crime-scene technicians,

22     investigators, and so on and so forth.

23             When we were working in Zvornik, there was shooting around

24     Zvornik and above Zvornik.  There was shooting between the warring sides.

25     I went by myself.  I had no crime-scene technician help.  This person who

Page 43523

 1     was there, who happened to be there, was there to provide security for us

 2     so it was a person who was working as a crime-scene technician he was

 3     helping us, but he was not assigned to the tasks and duties of a

 4     crime-scene technician.  This is that difference that I'm talking about.

 5     We were working in war-torn areas and we had no help from other experts,

 6     such as Tomasica.  In that case, you had the full range of assistance

 7     available, and all the necessary investigative actions were carried out.

 8        Q.   Professor Stankovic, this is -- or you don't mention in this

 9     statement at all that this person, Dragomir Damjanovic, who, in the

10     statement, is described as a crime-scene technician.  It's only now that

11     you're telling the Court that, in fact, he wasn't a crime-scene

12     technician, in fact, he was assigned as security?  Is that what you're

13     now saying?

14        A.   Yes, he was one of the persons who was providing security for the

15     area where we were working, and that was the firemen's hall in Zvornik,

16     who was helping us as a person when we were identifying the mortal

17     remains, he was the one who was bringing in people, family members, close

18     relatives who were looking at the personal items, the clothing.  So that

19     was where he was helping us with.

20             MR. MacDONALD:  Time for the break, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I would have -- have you done with this?  Yes.

22             Perhaps this would take two or three minutes.  I would like to

23     take you back to the post-mortem which you explained and where you

24     emphasised that you assumed that -- let me see ... "that you can make an

25     assumption that death was violent and caused by the destruction and

Page 43524

 1     damaging of vital brain centres."  And that is 65 ter 33693.

 2             Perhaps we could have it on the screen, page 3.

 3             And you have clearly explained to us the difference in phrasing

 4     you used, that is, you say you can make an assumption, but you do not

 5     determine the cause of death.  Whereas, Dr. Clark said that I assumed

 6     that the injuries were inflicted during life and then comes to

 7     establishing causes of death.  That's clear what is the difference in

 8     your approach of the matter.

 9             Now, could I take you here to number V in your opinion, where it

10     says:  "It can be assumed with a high degree probability that death was

11     violent."

12             What explains the "high degree probability" that death was

13     violent?  Because if I understand you well, it means that you consider it

14     highly probable that the injuries were inflicted during life.

15             Where is that probability, what -- on what is that based?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not highly probable.  It says

17     there is a good basis for this.  So it could happen, it's possible but it

18     does not necessarily have to be so.

19             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes.  Now, in

20     English, it reads, and if you say that's not a correct translation, it

21     reads:  "It can be assumed with high degree probability," that's for me a

22     high probability.  It's not, there is a possibility but, in English, it

23     says, There is a high degree probability.

24             Is that an accurate translation of what you used as language in

25     your original report?

Page 43525

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, that is not correct.

 2             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It can be assumed based on -- it --

 4     good foundations.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Well --

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are grounds to assume this:

 7     Osnovano pretpostaviti.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll then, perhaps that specific language,

 9     we'll have that verified over the break so that we know that -- whether

10     we are dealing with a translation issue or whether I have a relevant

11     question for you.

12             We take that break first.  We'd like to see you back in 20

13     minutes.  You may now follow the usher.

14                           [The witness stands down]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.

16                           --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 12.22 p.m.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The verification of point V in the opinion is not

19     there yet, so if you move on, Mr. MacDonald.

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21             MR. MacDONALD:  To save time, Your Honours, perhaps I could ask

22     for the next exhibit to be brought on to the screen.  It's P07443.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  May I also emphasise that it often helps the Chamber

24     already very much to know what the dispute is and that sometimes the

25     final answer to it might not be expected necessarily from a witness but

Page 43526

 1     it includes often an evaluation of other elements of the evidence as

 2     well, and that if the issue is clear to us that that is already of great

 3     assistance.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MR. MacDONALD:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   Professor Stankovic, going back to one of the criticisms you made

 7     of Dr. Clark in the -- in his Tomasica report, we have his Tomasica

 8     report in front of us, I think, P07443.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  That's apparently not what we have before us at this

10     moment.

11             And now perhaps in the English.  Yep.

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. MacDONALD:  We're looking for page 6 in the English and page

14     8 in the B/C/S.

15        Q.   Professor Stankovic, I'm just looking to take your attention to

16     the table of age ranges.  At transcript page 43340 on Tuesday, you

17     stated:  "We're talking about the conclusion within the table on page 8

18     of Dr. Clark's report in the Serbian, on the left side of the chart, we

19     have 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,

21     it says that anthropological analysis verified that they were persons of

22     15 or under and 60-plus.  If that's the age range why does the table say

23     that the able range is between 15 or 20 or persons of 60 or above?  So

24     this kind of conclusion is not acceptable."

25             Now, Professor Stankovic, you've looked at Dr. Clark's summary of

Page 43527

 1     his autopsy reports, the big, long list.  You have that in court with

 2     you, I think.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... P07444 on the screen, it's

 5     page 45 in the English and page 49 in the B/C/S.  I think it may be

 6     different in the hard copy, Professor Stankovic, so if could you look at

 7     the screen for me, that would be ...

 8             It's case 238T.  And in the third column which is headed: Sex,

 9     age, related to 238T, we have "M (young)" -- sorry, we have "M, young,

10     (15 to 17)."  It may be page 59 in the hard copy, I think,

11     Professor Stankovic.

12        A.   Yes, yes, 59.

13        Q.   So this is an example of where Dr. Clark said people under 20,

14     potentially as young as 15, this is an example of exactly that?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Okay.  I'm going to move onto a new topic, Professor Stankovic,

17     concerning the idea or the issue over bullets in the body, and this comes

18     up with regard to both your Tomasica report and Dr. Dunjic's Srebrenica

19     report.  And you ask in your Tomasica report, it's at number 35 but I

20     don't think we need to see it, whether intact bulleted recovered from the

21     remains might indicate the distance from which the bullets were fired.

22             Now, I'd like to show you some -- or, rather, I'd like to present

23     a different theory.  I'm going to give some information now and I'm going

24     to give numbers at times, and the numbers are for Their Honours and

25     Mr. Ivetic so you don't need to worry about them.

Page 43528

 1             Now 28 people exhumed from the Tomasica mass grave were linked to

 2     the massacre in room 3 at Keraterm camp on or about 25 July 1992.  And

 3     that's in P07449, at page 43 and then Annex 4.

 4             Now, at that camp in room 3, a host of prisoners were brought in

 5     on the 21st of July, 1992, with the people squeezed into that room, a

 6     that can be found at P0388, at page 22.

 7             Now, a few days later, prisoners in room 2 of that camp were made

 8     to go into their room early and their room was locked unusually early.

 9     And that is also P03388, page 22, and a line -- a light was shone on room

10     3.  And prisoners in rooms 1, 2, and 4 were ordered to lie down and stay

11     quiet by a guard, P03388, page 23.  Then about 11.00 or 12.00 at night

12     gas and toxic fumes were pumped into room 3 and the prisoners ran towards

13     the door trying to get fresh air.  P03224, paragraph 40 and P07314,

14     paragraph 13.

15             Now, at that point the prisoners managed to break the door and

16     were shot by a machine-gun and other infantry weapons; P03224,

17     paragraph 40; P07134, paragraph 13.  Detainees by the door were killed

18     immediately.  And the next day, a person who saw the aftermath of the

19     massacre recalled seeing the largest piles of bodies beside the door just

20     inside the room; P03224, paragraphs 40, 47.

21             So my question for you, Professor Stankovic, if we imagine one of

22     these detainees in the midst of the shooting managed to run past the pile

23     of bodies and then he is shot, and the bullet -- if a bullet passed

24     through him and hit the pile of corpses behind him, the bullet might

25     remain in one of those corpses.

Page 43529

 1        A.   Yes.  If the bullet hit one or more bodies and passed through

 2     soft tissues of those bodies, it may have lodged in the body of the

 3     second, third, or fourth person.  I'm talking about undamaged bullets.

 4     It penetrates soft tissues.  It can penetrate them in two bodies and then

 5     stop in a third or fourth body.  Yes, that is possible.

 6        Q.   So now, I'd like to talk about -- you recall the skull that was

 7     found with six bullets in Tomasica.  At transcript page 43370, you said:

 8     "When I read this section of the report of Dr. Clark's, I found it very

 9     suspicious how it is possible that fragments of at least six bullets were

10     found in a skull.  It's practically impossible.  However, I think that

11     there was a confusion here, that Dr. Clark, if the translation is good,

12     made an error, because when analysing the autopsy report 317T, after I

13     provided this opinion, I noticed that the pathologist mentions one

14     projectile fragmented into six fragments.  So it was just one projectile

15     with six fragments which is possible considering the bone that it hit.

16     So, therefore, this section of Clark's report should perhaps be

17     corrected, that is, not at least six bullets, but at least six fragments

18     of one projectile.  Therefore, I would change my question.  It follows

19     from this that the autopsy report was wrongly or erroneously interpreted

20     in the report."

21             I wonder if we can have on the screen, 65 ter 33753.  I think

22     this is only in English.  I'd like to start on page 3.

23             So here, Professor Stankovic, if I can take you to the screen,

24     here are the -- the picture on top is the bullet found in the -- where it

25     was lodged in the head and the picture below where it was taken, after it

Page 43530

 1     was taken out.  So here we have the first one back of head, the second

 2     one, left frontal region, and you see the parts that were taken out.

 3             And if we turn the page, here we have the right temporal region

 4     and left side mandible.  And I'd just ask you to bear in mind to be sure

 5     to look at the photographs underneath for what was actually pulled out.

 6     And if we turn the page, there we have within brain and right temporal

 7     region and one at the back of head.

 8             So these are photographs that Dr. Clark took of this one head

 9     with these bullets in it.  Now, you, I think, suggested that this might

10     be impossible in your testimony in direct examination.  Is it fair to say

11     that given what Dr. Clark has pulled out that when he says he pulled out

12     six bullets, that that's correct on the basis of these photographs?

13        A.   Yes.  Now that I have seen those photographs, it's correct.

14        Q.   Okay.  I'd now like to move to another topic,

15     Professor Stankovic.  I'll perhaps -- I'll tender those photographs that

16     I've shown, Your Honours, just the three pages.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, tendering of the photographs which ...

18             MR. IVETIC:  Of all -- of the --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Six.

20             MR. IVETIC:  Six photographs.  Your Honours these fall within the

21     category of once discussed at the start of the case.  I don't have any

22     problem with these being tendered, but the Defence would like to ask

23     Your Honours to compel the Prosecution's expert to provide the Defence

24     all the photographs from the Tomasica autopsies so that we can perform

25     the type of review that we are prevented from doing earlier in this case.

Page 43531

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  But you could have asked that when Dr. Clark was

 2     here, isn't it?  I mean, we are now at the very last stages where it was

 3     clear that the photographs were available, and it's -- it's now in this

 4     stage where suspicions were expressed as to the quality of Dr. Clark's

 5     work.  But we'll consider it.  I don't know whether --

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Sorry, Your Honours, are you saying there is a duty

 7     upon the Defence for Prosecution witnesses to disclose things?  I'm

 8     unfamiliar with that --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  But to seek access to relevant evidentiary

10     material.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Is that how Rule 68 works and Rule 66?

12             MR. MacDONALD:  Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Of course not, but this was not in the possession of

14     the Prosecution.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Oh, I see.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  It was not in possession of the Prosecution so there

17     was no disclosure obligation at the time.  The Prosecution may not

18     even -- they were aware there were photographs, that's all, and they

19     thought they would not need them.  And I think now in the examination of

20     this witness suddenly the urgency of responding to suspicions which now

21     do not exist any further in relation to these photographs, I think, were

22     raised and -- but.  Let's leave it to that.  We'll consider your request

23     and we'll first ask the Prosecution whether they want to respond now

24     or -- about the request and after that we'll decide on admission.

25             MR. MacDONALD:  Yes, Your Honour.  The only response at present -

Page 43532

 1     we may make one later - is that at page 1 of Dr. Clark's report, he notes

 2     that he observed and actively participated in the bulk of the

 3     examinations, "and took my own notes and photographs."  And then further

 4     he says he was provided with notes and photographs from the respective

 5     pathologists in other cases.  So it's in his report, Your Honours, just

 6     to take that into account for your consideration.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, the photographs tendered.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 33753 will be Exhibit P7819, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Sorry, Your Honour, I do have one issue with 33753,

11     I'd forgotten.  The first page is not a photograph, it is a statement

12     from Dr. Clark, and I would object to that coming into evidence.  That's

13     contrary to the rules to have a statement from a witness come in without

14     that witness appearing or doing one of the Rule 92 procedures.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you need that page, or should we take that out?

16             MR. MacDONALD:  I'm sorry, Your Honours, I wasn't clear.  I only

17     wanted to tender the three pages I've shown with the photographs.

18             MR. IVETIC:  That's fine then.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then you upload the three pages separately and they

20     will then be -- they will then replace what is now at this moment

21     admitted.

22             Please proceed.

23             MR. MacDONALD:

24        Q.   Professor Stankovic, turning to another issue that, again, comes

25     up in both the Tomasica and Srebrenica reports, it is with regard to

Page 43533

 1     whether an excessive amount of clothing might reflect on the time the

 2     person died.  I'd like to look at Professor Dunjic's report in this

 3     respect.  It's D01448.  And I'm looking for page 36 in the English and

 4     page 35 in the B/C/S.

 5             Now, in the English in the second paragraph and in the first

 6     paragraph in the B/C/S, Professor Dunjic states:  "The recovery of two or

 7     three layers of clothing, apart from the fact that it may affect the

 8     degree the putrefaction, may also indicate that these were

 9     civilian-soldier combatants who dressed like that in these weather

10     conditions," and it indicates that maybe these people died before

11     July 1995.

12             Now, I'd like to deal with this issue through one example.

13             MR. MacDONALD:  I wonder if we can have P01529 on the screen,

14     please.  Now, this is an autopsy report from a person exhumed from the

15     Kozluk grave-site.  And if we turn to page 2 in the English, page 3 in

16     the B/C/S, we see: Clothing.  And the first two items, it's a pair of

17     trousers and then a pair of what are called pajama bottoms, long-legged

18     pajama bottoms, and on top this person was found wearing a shirt and

19     short-sleeved red cardigan as well as a pair of boots.

20        Q.   Now, Professor Stankovic, I should ask: Do you agree with

21     Professor Dunjic that multiple layers of clothing like this could

22     indicate the person was a civilian-soldier combatant?  I'm just asking if

23     you agree, yes or no.

24        A.   I cannot state whether someone was a combatant or not.  It's up

25     to other organs to establish that.  I can only say what caused the

Page 43534

 1     person's death and whether they were combatants or not, it's up to other

 2     investigation organs to determine.

 3        Q.   And would you offer an opinion from your expertise on whether you

 4     consider these clothing are excessive for a hot July?

 5        A.   In this specific case, this is a pair of pants and pajama bottom.

 6     In my view, that would be excessive clothing, as even during winter

 7     months, I don't wear long underwear or pajama bottoms underneath my

 8     pants.

 9        Q.   If we could go back --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we -- is this based on your expertise or is it

11     just common knowledge in comparing with what you were wearing with what

12     we find here?  Is it anything that falls within the scope of your

13     expertise?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on the experience I have in

15     my work, during autopsies, we have come across bodies dressed like this

16     even in summer months but we also came across bodies that wore fewer

17     layers of clothing.  So I cannot state anything specific about this.

18     These persons may have been dressed in one way or another, with fewer

19     clothes or more clothes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I raise the question because you compared it to

21     what you would wear but I now better understand your answer.

22             Please proceed.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May I just follow up.  You just said, sir, that

24     you've come across bodies dressed like this, even in the summer months.

25             Do I understand that therefore that it is not peculiar to see

Page 43535

 1     this kind of dress in summer?  And therefore whether people were -- had

 2     layers of clothing, it's -- and it's suggested that it was in summer, is

 3     neither here nor there.  It could have happened.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are individual cases in which

 5     people do wear multiple layers of clothing even during the summer.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

 7             MR. MacDONALD:

 8        Q.   So on the basis of your answer to Judge Moloto's question then,

 9     would you agree that Professor Dunjic's comment that this might indicate

10     that they died at another time, at a less warm time, based purely on the

11     clothing is not within the expertise of a forensic pathologists then?

12        A.   Well, a forensic pathologist can make some observations on the

13     basis of experience even about layers of clothing, but conclusions like

14     these imply that you have some other information, information about the

15     time when the death occurred, and that's absent in the said case.  So

16     this could be so, but it's not necessarily so.

17        Q.   Thank you.  I'll move on from this topic.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps I could come back to the verification which

19     I just received and first read it for the parties.

20             The CLSS, and I'm happy that you raised the matter,

21     Professor Stankovic, CLSS reports that the more appropriate translation

22     for number V under your opinion would be:  "One can reasonably assume

23     that death was violent or," and that's an alternative, "there are

24     reasonable grounds to assume that death was violent."

25             So, indeed, the probability and the high probability is

Page 43536

 1     apparently a mistake in the translation and therefore I would like to put

 2     then a different question to you, which is: Why is that reasonable, why

 3     are there reasonable grounds to assume that death was violent?

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, perhaps if we could have that document

 5     on the screen since we have a different document now.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could we have that document on the screen,

 7     which was -- let me just check.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It was 65 ter 33693.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  So the question now is:  On what basis do you think

10     that it would be reasonable or that reasonable grounds exist to assume

11     that death was violent?

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We need the B/C/S version on the screen as well.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would ask for item IV to be shown

15     in Serbian, and read out.  It's on the previous page.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  You mean paragraph IV of the report --

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Serbian, please.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.

19             Can you read the first three lines.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There it is.  The fourth paragraph.

21             "The soft tissue of the head completely lacking.  On the present

22     bones of the head in the left temporal area, a triangular fracture, 60 by

23     25 millimetres in radius, with impacting and breaking off of parts of

24     bones ..."

25             Now, I don't have the Serbian version.

Page 43537

 1             "... with impacting and breaking off of parts of bones which

 2     constitute the posterior semi-circumference of the fracture," and please

 3     could you show the following page in Serbian.

 4             "... towards the cranial cavity and raising parts of bones which

 5     constitute the interior semi-circumference of the fracture outwards.

 6     Small particles of broken bone are pressed into the skull cavity at about

 7     10 millimetres from this fracture the right parietal bone and the right

 8     half of the occipital bone are separated along the sutures for about

 9     110 millimetres and are separated by up to 15 millimetres.  No fractures

10     observed on other bones."

11             And then item number VI:  "The bones of the head, next

12     extremities were examined ..."

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I see, and you're now reading all the findings on

14     the body, but my question is differently focused.  I think that the

15     description of the damage to the body, if inflicted during life, would

16     easily explain a violent death.  My question, however, is why you think

17     there are reasonable grounds to assume that death was violent, which, if

18     I understand this well, means that you find it reasonable grounds to

19     assume that all these injuries were inflicted during life.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  It means that there are

21     grounds to assume, considering the area where the fractures occurred, the

22     look of the fractured bones on the head and on the body, because the ribs

23     were also broken, multiple fractures right and left scapulas as well on

24     the basis of that it follows that there are grounds to assume that the

25     injury was inflicted by another person and that it caused death.  But it

Page 43538

 1     cannot be excluded also that the person fell from a certain height on a

 2     sharp object and that such damage of the cranial bones occurred as a

 3     consequence as well as the fractures of the ribs and the scapulas.  So

 4     that is essentially the --

 5             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... but in both

 6     options you mentioned, it is a living person who either is hit by another

 7     person or fell from a high -- from -- from a building or whatever, and

 8     you exclude now, or at least it's not part of your analysis of how

 9     reasonable it is to assume that that person had died already and that

10     then these injuries or these damage to the dead body was inflicted.  You

11     exclude apparently that as part of your explanation.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first opinion after

13     collection of other information, then another supplementary opinion is

14     required which discusses all the issues that you talked about now.  That

15     is all clarified on the basis of collected evidence, or if evidence is

16     absent, then the finding remains as it is.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  So you say if it was inflicted during life, I'm

18     still -- I'm a bit lost.  Perhaps if -- if my colleagues have a better

19     understanding, I would easily leave it to them.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The Presiding Judge wrote -- or read to you what

21     was translated correctly from your opinion number V.  And the question

22     is: How could you conclude that the death was -- or not conclude, why did

23     you assume that the death was violent?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of injuries that were

25     recorded on the body, and in view of the fact that when we exhumed the

Page 43539

 1     body, it was at the Orthodox graveyard in Srebrenica.  There was

 2     information about it, that in the night of the 6th and 7th of January,

 3     1992, or 1993 - whenever this happened in Kravica, I think it was 1993 -

 4     that person disappeared.  His father, Rista was killed and the person was

 5     taken away in an unidentified direction.  This was something that the

 6     investigative judge, Zoran Dimitric [phoen], from the Zvornik basic court

 7     told me.  He was the one who further conducted this investigation into

 8     the case of the death of (redacted).

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now you are asking a lot of information from

10     another source which is not reflected in your opinion in the document

11     before us.

12             Here, in your document, you described the damage to the body, and

13     you came to an opinion.  What caused this opinion that you assumed the

14     death was violent?  You didn't refer to other information coming from the

15     people you just quoted.  Nothing of that kind in this document.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I provide an explanation that is

17     too detailed, and I am aware of that myself, then my attention it drawn

18     to that.  In view of the fact of many of the things I have done so far

19     sometimes I omit certain things.  In this specific case, you can ask for

20     the case file of the basic court in Zvornik which conducted the

21     investigation into this case, and so as part of the court team, I --

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... I think you

23     missed the point.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may just make a follow-up, please.

25             You have also said a few minutes ago that you based this on the

Page 43540

 1     type of injuries that were inflicted on the body.  But on your own theory

 2     that it is wrong to make a conclusion that a person died in life, you

 3     argue that these kind of injuries could also be inflicted post-mortem.

 4     So to say you're making a conclusion based on the kind of injuries is to

 5     contradict your very hypothesis.  Your hypothesis is that there is a

 6     possibility that the injuries could have been inflicted either before or

 7     after.  So for you now to say here that you're making this conclusion

 8     based on these injuries is to suggest that, in fact, you too, are

 9     assuming that this person was killed and with the -- through these

10     injuries and that these injuries didn't occur post-mortem.

11             Is that -- am I correct?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I wrote that in item V --

13             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It can --

15             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... in my analysis

16     of your own thesis on this issue?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, your question is well

18     grounded.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But if I --

21             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... continue.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I were to compare now the

23     conclusions about the Srebrenica graves, they did not have this

24     classification one can reasonably assumed, because they actually asserted

25     that this was a definite thing.  Here I'm saying that one can reasonably

Page 43541

 1     assume, meaning that it can be so, but it does not necessarily have to be

 2     so.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I was not talking about Srebrenica.  I was talking

 4     about your opinion.  Thank you so much.

 5                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, if the professor want to talk about

 7     Srebrenica, I believe Your Honours' question at lines 17 and 18 of page

 8     60 talked about his theory that it is wrong to make a conclusion that a

 9     person died in life [sic], that is in relation to Srebrenica.  So I

10     believe Your Honour is actually technically incorrect by saying you did

11     not ask about Srebrenica.  You did.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm not asking about his conclusions somewhere

13     else.  I'm saying he says it is a pathologist's theory and practice that

14     you cannot conclude, irrespective of whether this was Srebrenica or any

15     other person, that you cannot conclude from the injuries that they were

16     inflicted ante- or post-mortem and if you make that conclusion based only

17     on the injuries, then you are wrong.  And that's all I'm talking about.

18     I'm talking about his thesis.  I'm not talking about his -- about the

19     Srebrenica things.

20             MR. IVETIC:  And then --

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And then I know that that thesis is applied.

22             MR. IVETIC:  In Srebrenica.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  He's applied to the Srebrenica.  I actually -- I

24     don't dispute that.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.  And then in item number I here, he has not

Page 43542

 1     made a conclusion.  That's where I think the confusion lies.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ... We're talking about

 3     number V, not number I.  We're talking about his final position which, as

 4     translated correctly, now reads something different from what is on the

 5     screen.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, this is not a math equation, where

 7     number V is the final conclusion.  These are all conclusions.  Number I

 8     has to be read with number V.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, argument can follow at a later stage.

10     Let me try to finalize then this.

11             Professor Stankovic, the last line now reads:  "There are

12     reasonable grounds to assume that death was violent."

13             Do I understand you well that there are reasonable grounds also

14     to assume that death was not violent and that the damage to the body was

15     inflicted post-mortem?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In principle, yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. MacDONALD:

20        Q.   Professor Stankovic, I'm going to move to a different topic than

21     the ones we're just discussed.

22             Professor Dunjic raised in his report repeatedly the idea that

23     a -- Peter McCloskey had some kind of influence on the conclusions of the

24     pathologists.  Now, Professor Dunjic's claim is based on his

25     interpretations of the words of Dr. Haglund.  And Dr. Haglund stated in

Page 43543

 1     his report on the Cerska exhumation:  That finalization of cause and

 2     manner of death, as well as editing of final autopsy reports was

 3     facilitated by ICTY legal advisor Peter McCloskey.

 4             Now, on Monday when I asked you to read out -- or the Presiding

 5     Judge asked you to read out the notes you'd written in the margin you had

 6     written the word "check" next to one of the times that Professor Dunjic

 7     made that claim.  In terms of your checking, did you come across the

 8     testimony of Dr. Haglund himself in this case on this issue?  Did you

 9     read that?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   You'll know that Dr. Haglund said at transcript page 14920 to

12     14921:  "That's -- that's -- that's what they questioned, and actually

13     Mr. McCloskey took the -- all of the writings on how -- what the -- what

14     the pathologists had done, and he went all over the world, and -- to see

15     if they needed to have their -- their writings changed or if they were --

16     if it was the same way it was, and then they would change it, and then he

17     would go on to another country and find another people.  So he went

18     basically all to the -- I think there were 30, 30-some pathologists, that

19     we had from Turkey, England, United States, and all over.  And that's --

20     he carried things around, but Mr. McCloskey, of course, didn't change

21     anything.  It was none of his business.  He just took it to the

22     pathologists."

23             Now, it's my understanding that when Professor Dunjic wrote his

24     report on Srebrenica that was actually prior to his testimony even in the

25     Karadzic case, and that he had not seen Dr. Haglund's testimony either

Page 43544

 1     from the Karadzic case or obviously from this case.  Would you agree with

 2     me that the interpretation of Dr. Haglund, the man who wrote these words,

 3     who has explained them twice, should be preferred over the interpretation

 4     of Professor Dunjic?

 5        A.   Professor Dunjic presented his position as to how he understood

 6     what was written in the San Antonio report.  I have no reason to doubt

 7     anyone, including Mr. McCloskey.  However, it's a little bit unusual to

 8     have autopsy reports, talking about someone's death, carried around and

 9     to discuss with other pathologists whether the conclusions were good or

10     not.  As I said before, people who conduct the investigation would

11     instruct the opinions to be harmonised or they would request expert

12     opinion from someone else.  That's how I see it, and perhaps I would

13     expect to have an order or a written request by Prosecutor Mr. McCloskey

14     for an opinion to be given in writing.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just intervene here for a moment.

16             Your question comes down to asking the witness whether assessing

17     the evidence the one should be preferred above the other, and I think

18     that's specifically a thing this Chamber will have to do.  And now the

19     witness, who kindly answered the question, even came up with good

20     suggestions as to how further investigate which is, of course, highly

21     appreciated.  But I think it is all a matter of argument whether we

22     should prefer the one above the other in view of timing, in view of

23     knowledge, et cetera.  That is typically, and I hope you will understand

24     that this Chamber would like to have something to do as well.

25             So, therefore, please proceed.

Page 43545

 1             MR. MacDONALD:

 2        Q.   Professor Stankovic, I'm going to move to a new topic, and it

 3     concerns the question of bandanas and blindfolds that you were discussing

 4     yesterday from temporary transcript page 57 to 62.

 5     Now, I'd like to turn to your report in the Krstic case for the Defence.

 6             MR. MacDONALD:  So can we have 65 ter number 33739 on the screen,

 7     please, and if we can turn to page 13 in the English and 13 in the B/C/S

 8     and we should see a number of bullet points.

 9        Q.   Now, it's the last bullet point in the English and I think the

10     first full one in the B/C/S, and it reads:  "The ligatures or bindings

11     tying the wrists or the blindfolds registered on the bodies, and the

12     injuries ascertained to the soft tissues and bones inflicted by bullets

13     or other mechanical means are a sure sign that such persons, after being

14     captured, were shot or killed in some other way."

15             Professor Stankovic, in the Krstic case, you gave a report to the

16     Chamber where you said that if a body has a blindfold and injuries are

17     ascertained to the soft tissues and bones inflicted by a gun or other

18     mechanical means, that's a sure sign such persons after being captured

19     were shot or killed, do you stand by that statement?

20        A.   Yes, I stand by that statement.  In view of the fact that it says

21     in the statement that it refers to injuries of the soft tissue.

22     Yesterday I spoke about possible reasons or causes why the blindfolds or

23     ligatures could have slipped from the top of the head when there is no

24     longer any soft tissue left, and here we are talking about injuries of

25     soft tissue.

Page 43546

 1        Q.   It says:  "Injuries ascertained to the soft tissues and bones,"

 2     Professor Stankovic.

 3        A.   No.  On soft tissues and bones from projectiles or in some other

 4     mechanical way.  So injuries on soft tissues and bones, not soft tissues

 5     or bones.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Let's --

 7             MR. MacDONALD:  Can we have 65 ter number 33703 on the screen,

 8     please.

 9        Q.   This is from your testimony in the Seselj case,

10     Professor Stankovic, in which you discussed Srebrenica.

11             MR. MacDONALD:  If we can turn to page 74.

12        Q.   Now, you're asked if you agree that there were executions.  And

13     at line 13, you say:

14             "A.  I said that in my report.  There were 2.082 remains, and 367

15     were found with blindfold or ligatures on their legs or arms, and it's

16     evident that these people were executed.  In other bodies, we did find

17     gun-shot wounds, and [sic] on some we did not, and this was stated in the

18     report, whether such injuries were found or not."

19             So here, Professor Stankovic, it seems you are even more

20     explicit.  You accept that if a body is found with a blindfold or

21     ligature, these people had been executed.

22        A.   This is my report that I drafted in the trial of General Krstic.

23     I had the opportunity then to analyse all the autopsy reports and then on

24     the basis of that, I provided my opinion, and I stand by it.

25        Q.   Sorry, Professor Stankovic, I've just read you your testimony

Page 43547

 1     from the Seselj case.  So -- and it appears in that, you simply said if a

 2     body is found with a blindfold or a ligature, it's evident that these

 3     people were executed?

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Objection to the question; it misstates the

 5     evidence.  That's not what is said.  They're talking in relation to 2.082

 6     from Srebrenica, and 367 found with blindfolds or ligatures on their legs

 7     or arms.  That's what's being discussed here, not the proposal counsel

 8     made, that when a body is found with a blindfold.  That's not in the

 9     document nor the prior testimony.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  There's merit in what Mr. Ivetic says, but it makes

11     the matter even more complex.

12             If there are 2.082 remains, is it evident that those were

13     executed?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is my analysis that I provided

15     in General Krstic's case.  On the basis of that analysis, I said that of

16     2.082 remains, 367 bodies were described with blindfolds or ligatures on

17     their legs or arms, and there were gun-shot wounds on the bodies, and

18     that is a sure sign that these were executions.  These people could not

19     have shot at -- shot themselves if they had blindfolds and their hands

20     were bound with ligatures.  And so this is because on an analysis of

21     documents that were drafted by ...

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but the injuries could have been inflicted

23     after death, isn't it?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was speaking about injuries on

25     the basis of reports by The Hague investigators.  I drafted my analysis

Page 43548

 1     on that basis and said, in such and such a number of cases we could be

 2     talking about executions.  As for post-mortem firing, well, the

 3     registered wounds were gun-shot wounds which indicates a violent death

 4     and also injuries that were caused by the action of projectiles.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  All on the assumption that the people were alive

 6     when these bullets hit their body, isn't it?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And here you say -- and that's in response to --

 9     to -- not in response to, but -- you were clear that what you said there,

10     that they were executed, that is related to the 367, not to the total

11     number of 2.082?  Is that correctly understood?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  That there are reasonable

13     grounds to assume that.  The others could have been killed in combat, in

14     executions, or in some third way.  On the basis of available information,

15     I could only make my conclusions on this number of cases.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And it's relatively simple reasoning.  If you

17     are blindfolded and/or ligatures on hand or feet, that's for you

18     sufficient to say that -- it's an execution.  You say it's evidence that

19     it's an execution.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is what I concluded on

21     the basis of that data.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

23             If I say thank you, perhaps I should also indicate that it's time

24     for a break.

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

Page 43549

 1                           [The witness stands down]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you give us an indication as where we are in

 3     time, Mr. MacDonald.

 4             MR. MacDONALD:  I have a few more questions on this topic

 5     Your Honours, although I don't think it will take long.  And I have one

 6     more topic which will take about 20 minutes, so I hope to finish half an

 7     hour after we start, after the break.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Which ... yes, that might not be sufficient.  We

 9     still have the issue of the photographs, Mr. Ivetic, which -- on which

10     you would like to consult.  They have been put to the witness, and the

11     witness has given relative short answers to them.  There still is a need

12     to consult with the witness about them.

13             MR. IVETIC:  There are some photographs that still have not been

14     put to the witness that were disclosed last night.  There were two

15     batches of e-mails that were sent from the Prosecution with photographs.

16     There are approximately, I think, [Overlapping speakers] ...

17             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Does then that arise from

18     cross-examination, if they were not used.

19             MR. IVETIC:  I don't know yet.  They haven't finished their

20     cross-examination.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh yes.  Will other pictures be put to the witness?

22             MR. MacDONALD:  No, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there then still a need to consult with the

24     witness?

25             MR. IVETIC:  I don't think so.  I don't think so on that basis

Page 43550

 1     then.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And then as matters stand at this moment, how much

 3     time you think you would need for re-examination, Mr. Ivetic.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  15 minutes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  15 minutes.  And perhaps you would discuss it with

 6     your client as well, Mr. Ivetic, that it seems that with 20 additional

 7     minutes --

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, no, the witness is not a client of Mr. Ivetic.

10     That at least's not how I understood it.

11             That means, with an extension of some 20 to 30 minutes, we might

12     be able to conclude the testimony of this witness today, and could

13     everyone inquire as to whether there are any practical obstacles to try

14     to find such a solution.

15             Then we take a break and resume at quarter to 2.00.

16                           --- Recess taken at 1.25 p.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 1.45 p.m.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we're waiting for the witness to be escorted in

19     the courtroom.

20             Meanwhile, Mr. Ivetic, the whole (redacted) issue is not getting

21     any further?

22                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

23                           [The witness takes the stand]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  The information which we received without a clear

25     historical analysis of -- well ...

Page 43551

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  It's a good explanation where we stand now at this

 3     moment.  But for the future, there's still a lot of uncertainty.

 4             We will try to finish -- to conclude the evidence of this witness

 5     today.  Therefore, the parties may have an extension of half an hour, so

 6     we have one hour left, which means if the parties are urged to see

 7     whether they can --

 8             MR. IVETIC:  We did check during the break, Your Honours, and

 9     unfortunately General Mladic has an obligation after court which he moved

10     to after court to be present for this witness's testimony.  You might

11     recall we earlier filed a waiver and then he withdrew that waiver.  And

12     so we, unfortunately, have from our side a problem with any extension.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  We have our commitments as well, which were at 2.30,

14     but is there any way that it could be postponed for half an hour.  If

15     not, if it's, for example, a family visit, I can imagine that

16     General Mladic would not be inclined to.

17             MR. IVETIC:  I think -- that is what it is, so ...

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then I think -- let me just ...

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, just for us to know for certain most of

21     the evidence has been heard of this witness.  If your client says I'm not

22     going to waive my right, we'll accept that, but if he would be willing to

23     waive his presence for half an hour, but I see already from the body

24     language of Mr. Mladic that he's not inclined to waive, not even for a

25     minute, his presence.

Page 43552

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Unfortunately, Your Honours, as I was preparing

 2     questions --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  First of all, you should not speak aloud.  But to

 4     the extend I've learned to understand B/C/S, it would not be for one

 5     second, and in that sense, perhaps correcting me and saying that you

 6     would not waive it for one minute, it's not for one second, I think we

 7     should leave it to that and accept that the accused is entitled to be

 8     present at trial.  Unfortunately, we would have shortened your stay by --

 9     unless you would be able to do it in 25 minutes.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I leave to you.  The situation is clear.

12             MR. IVETIC:  We'll see, yeah.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             Mr. MacDonald.

15             MR. MacDONALD:  I wonder if we have D01488 on the screen, please,

16     this is Professor Dunjic's report from Srebrenica.  I'm just going to

17     finish on this question of blindfolds.  At pages 70 to 71 in the English

18     and 66 and 67 in the B/C/S.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you repeat the D number.

20             MR. MacDONALD:  It's D01448.

21        Q.   Professor Stankovic, Professor Dunjic expands on his theory

22     regarding blindfolds here --

23             MR. MacDONALD:  I wonder if we might have the next page in the

24     English, please.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Yeah.

Page 43553

 1             MR. MacDONALD:  Yes.  And I think it may be 66 in B/C/S.

 2        Q.   Now, at the top of the page in the B/C/S and about the middle of

 3     the page in English, we'll see that Dr. Dunjic does expand upon this

 4     theory, and at the third point, he states:  "The fact that one strip was

 5     found in the pocket of individual's clothes, Lz 01 659-2, bright pink

 6     fabric similar to the other blindfolds, leads to the conclusion that this

 7     person wanted somehow to hide his identity in terms of affiliations with

 8     the unit ..."

 9             Did you investigate this particular example provided by

10     Professor Dunjic?

11        A.   No.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Just perhaps to just cut matters short it seems that

13     why someone put something in his pocket is not something to be concluded

14     on the basis of forensic pathology.  If the parties would disagree with

15     that, but ...

16             MR. MacDONALD:  I'm happy to agree with that but it is part of

17     Professor Dunjic's reports, and if, perhaps outside of his --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, well, if Professor Dunjic in his report

19     oversteps what are the limits of his expertise then, of course, the

20     Chamber will consider that as well.  I mean, reasons why -- he is

21     suggesting a possible explanation for something which is beyond the scope

22     of his expertise, it seems.  But if Mr. Ivetic has any further questions

23     in that respect.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. MacDONALD:

Page 43554

 1        Q.   The last topic then, Professor Stankovic, I understand,

 2     Professor Stankovic, that you have a close personal relationship with

 3     Ratko Mladic; is that correct?

 4        A.   I met General Mladic -- just one minute.  I met him in 1992, in

 5     Sarajevo.  After that, I only had one meeting.  We just happened to meet

 6     in Vogosca when I was exhuming and doing autopsies on bodies found in a

 7     grave.  I did not --

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the name of the

 9     grave.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last time I saw him in Belgrade

11     when his daughter died.  I did the autopsy of his daughter and he asked

12     me to cut off a lock of her hair and give it to him.  After that I saw

13     General Mladic perhaps ten times at the most.  The first time that I was

14     at his house was when we took the dead body of his daughter --

15             MR. MacDONALD:

16        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... I'm going to ask you about

17     one particular meeting that you had with Ratko Mladic.

18             Before I do that, if we can have your CV on the screen, please.

19             MR. MacDONALD:  It's D01446.  I'm looking for page 2 in the B/C/S

20     and page 1 in the English.

21        Q.   Now, in the English, it's the last line:  "Since 1993 he has,"

22     and if we can turn over the page.  In B/C/S, it's the second full

23     paragraph in the English [sic].  And it reads:  "Since 1993 he has been a

24     member and since 2002 to 2003 president, of the FRY government's

25     committee for gathering information on crimes against humanity and

Page 43555

 1     international law."

 2             Now, I'm right in saying that, as a part of that committee, you

 3     met with the then-ICTY Prosecutor, Richard Goldstone; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Now, I'd like to focus on the second half of 1995.  The

 6     first indictment and arrest warrant for Ratko Mladic were issued on the

 7     24th of July, 1995.  And you went to see Ratko Mladic on the 9th of

 8     October, 1995.  Do you recall that meeting?

 9        A.   I don't know where the meeting took place.

10        Q.   Do you recall meeting him though on the 9th of October, 1995?

11        A.   I said that I met him about ten times at the most, but I don't

12     know what you're thinking of.

13             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So in that period I did meet him

15     but I don't know which meeting you're thinking of.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you please focus on answering the question and

17     not commenting on what you do not know what Mr. MacDonald is thinking of.

18             So you do remember that you met him.  You don't know exactly a

19     date and time, but in that period you met him.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The exact time, date, and place.

21     But in that period, I did meet him.  I think that we did meet.

22             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... please proceed.

23             MR. MacDONALD:  Can we have P00364.  And this is a notebook from

24     Ratko Mladic during the appropriate time-period.  I'm looking for page 81

25     in the English.  And, unfortunately, Your Honours, I don't seem to have

Page 43556

 1     recorded the B/C/S page for which I apologise.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It should be the same.

 3             MR. MacDONALD:  Oh.  Then page 81 in the B/C/S then.  Yeah.

 4     Great.

 5        Q.   And it says here:  "Banja Luka, 9 October 1995, meeting with

 6     Dr. Stankovic (pathologist) at his request.  Stankovic on his scientific

 7     lectures in London and Paris."

 8             Now, you noted in your CV that you did give lectures in London or

 9     in the United Kingdom.  So does that entry help jog your memory that when

10     you went to speak to Ratko Mladic and the fact that it was in Banja Luka?

11        A.   Yes.  I was in Banja Luka.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  No speaking aloud for Mr. Mladic.

13             MR. MacDONALD:

14        Q.   And it's stated that this was at your request.  Was that correct?

15     Did you ask to meet Ratko Mladic?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic should sit down.  Mr. Mladic should sit

17     down and should refrain from speaking aloud.  It's understood as

18     interfering with the testimony of this witness, and you're not allowed to

19     do that.

20             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I believe what's at issue is that we

21     have the typed version rather than the original handwritten version.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Everything can nicely be introduced through a

23     witness, and if you're doing that at this moment, Mr. Ivetic, please

24     proceed.

25             MR. IVETIC:  That's my understanding of what was going on behind

Page 43557

 1     me.  So I wanted to correct the inference it was interfering with the

 2     testimony of the witness.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it is anyhow, even if it is these kind of

 4     things.

 5             We can have two versions on the screen.  If there's any concern

 6     about whether the handwritten version is any different from the type

 7     written version then, of course, we'll deal with that later.  But for the

 8     time being we will work on the basis of what Mr. MacDonald has put on the

 9     screens.

10             MR. MacDONALD:

11        Q.   Professor Stankovic, do you recall that the meeting was at your

12     request?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Now, Professor Stankovic, the indictment against Ratko Mladic for

15     genocide and war crimes had been issued a couple of months earlier.  Your

16     meeting with Richard Goldstone, the man who has signed that indictment,

17     issued that arrest warrant, at this meeting with Ratko Mladic, did you

18     say anything to him like you might try to get the indictment against him

19     withdrawn, or anything along these lines?

20        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, I'm so small compared to an international

21     tribunal and have so little influence or could have had such influence,

22     that I couldn't have stated something like that.

23        Q.   You didn't -- well, genocide and war crimes are the most serious

24     crimes.  You didn't say anything to him about the severity of a potential

25     sentence, that a life sentence must be prevented?

Page 43558

 1        A.   Well, you know yourself, that essentially I cannot give any

 2     explanations because I don't see myself as competent, nor could I have

 3     discussed his future charges or the length of sentence because frankly

 4     speaking, my influence on this or anyone's, when it comes to that,

 5     without the decision of a Trial Chamber, is insignificant or none.  So I

 6     couldn't have discussed that in the manner that you are now presenting

 7     it.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  What you could have done, tell us what you did.  The

 9     question was: Did you say anything to him about -- about the potential

10     sentence?  Did you say anything in relation to that, whether you could

11     have done it or not is -- did you or did you not?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

14             MR. MacDONALD:

15        Q.   And I know that you had been in the United Kingdom.  The British

16     authorities were aware of your relationship with Ratko Mladic.  Did none

17     of them try to speak to you and try to ask you about where he was?

18        A.   I visited London at invitation of Nora Beloff.  She was a well

19     known journalist who invited me to give lectures at --

20             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... witness, please

21     answer the question.  Did a British authorities try to speak to you and

22     try to ask about the whereabouts of Mr. Mladic?  That's the question.

23     Not who invited you.  Did they make such attempts, yes or no.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That's an answer to the question.

Page 43559

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. MacDONALD:

 3        Q.   Professor Stankovic, I would like to play an audiotape now.  I'm

 4     going to play some excerpts from it and after each excerpt, I'm going to

 5     ask you some questions.

 6             MR. MacDONALD:  For the benefits of Your Honours, we have a

 7     finalised translation of this.  It's in -- the original audio was in

 8     B/C/S.  It has been provided to the booths, and I think they have the

 9     excerpt timings, so hopefully we only have to play it once.  It's 65 ter

10     01610A.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it verified that the original is corresponding to

12     the transcripts in B/C/S?

13             MR. MacDONALD:  I believe so, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if it is verified, we can play it once.

15                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

16             MR. MacDONALD:  I wonder if ... we could have the transcript up

17     on the -- on e-court.

18             I'm informed we can't have the transcript and the audio at the

19     same time but the clips are quite short.  So if we could perhaps play the

20     first clip, starting at the start, 00:00 and going to 01:32.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note that the transcript do not

22     contain any timings.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I see at least some timing on the left top.  That's

24     15:07:28.  That's what we find on the transcript.  Okay.  Let's listen

25     carefully.

Page 43560

 1                           [Audiotape played]

 2             "THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] 9 October 1995.  A conversation

 3     with Mr. Stankovic, a pathologist, from the VMA.  Hey, hello.  How are

 4     you doing?

 5             "You wait a bit in Grujo's office.  Doctor, apologies.  Hey, kid,

 6     let them bring me a cup of coffee.  I'll see you in a moment.  Get ready

 7     in Grujo'"s office, across the hallway, and then I'll see you.

 8             "I apologize, it's a bit ...

 9             "Hello, please bring the coffee.

10             "I didn't mean to disturb you.  I know you have too much on your

11     plate.

12             "No need for anything else.  Don't bring anyone in here.  No

13     need.  A-huh.  Don't let anyone in until I'm done with the doctor.  I was

14     at the front line yesterday so if you could speak up a bit since ...

15             "Well, we talked to, as I said, Dr. Janjic about the issue of war

16     crimes.  The moment he announced, when Goldstone announced, that,

17     together with Karadzic and Stanisic, you were put on the list ..."

18             MR. MacDONALD:  That's the end of the first excerpt.

19        Q.   Professor Stankovic, this is you and Ratko Mladic speaking, that

20     we're hearing here, isn't it?

21        A.   Yes.

22             MR. MacDONALD:  The second excerpt will start at 04:19.  For the

23     booth, in the English, it is on page 2, and the words -- it's just after

24     the largest box beginning with the words:  "Very well."

25                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

Page 43561

 1             MR. MacDONALD:  The B/C/S is also on page 2.

 2                           [Audiotape played]

 3             "THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "And, I mean in London, any

 4     intelligence people?

 5             "The head, the head of the intelligence part of the English ...

 6             "You don't know his name?

 7             "I don't know his name.  They did tell me, but I didn't make a

 8     note.

 9             "All right.

10             "Now, look, when we were there last time, when I was there last

11     time, they asked a lot about you.

12             "Mm-hm.

13             "And I said that only they know ... that we know each other.  I

14     told them I knew you, but that I have no competence or authority to say

15     anything on your behalf.  I neither discussed it, nor can I discuss it

16     with you, up to a certain limit, to see what it is they want.  Now since

17     they'll probably go ahead, Goldstone with those indictments and all that.

18     You hired a Greek to defend you; is that right? "

19             MR. MacDONALD:

20        Q.   Now, Professor Stankovic, we've stopped at 05:16.

21             Now, Professor Stankovic, this is you telling Ratko Mladic about

22     how you had met with the intelligence services in England.  You just told

23     him that, haven't you?

24        A.   When I say, and I'm saying this correctly, I can explain what

25     this is about.  When I came to Nora Beloff, she told me as part of her CV

Page 43562

 1     what she was, including that she was a UK intelligence agent in

 2     Russia, and that during the war, the Second World War, she was an

 3     intelligence officer for the MI6 in Paris.  I told her that I am not an

 4     intelligence man but it was on the basis of this that I decided that she

 5     was primarily an intelligence officer and I could see that she talked to

 6     me as someone who had been a member of that service previously.

 7        Q.   Sorry, Professor Stankovic, I may not have been clear what I was

 8     asking was, you just told Ratko Mladic that you met the head of the

 9     intelligence group, I think, in England, and -- sorry.  What you say is

10     the head of the intelligence part of the English, and then it is

11     unintelligible and you say they told you his name but you didn't make a

12     note.

13             Now transcript page 78 going into 79, the Presiding Judge asked

14     you:  "Did British authorities try to speak to you and try to ask about

15     the whereabouts of Mr. Mladic?  That's the question.  Not who invited.

16     Did they make such attempts, yes or no."

17             And your answer was:  "No, no."

18        A.   No.  No.

19        Q.   You just told Ratko Mladic that you did meet with a man who was

20     the head of the -- of a part of the English and then it becomes

21     inaudible.  So ...

22        A.   No, I think this is wrong.  That was Jonathan Eyal, who was an

23     advisor for Admiral Cobolt [phoen] where I gave my lecture but he is not

24     from intelligence structures.

25        Q.   Okay.  Let's move onto the next excerpt.  It's going to start at

Page 43563

 1     05:52.  For the benefit of the booths, it is page 3 in the English, about

 2     halfway down, and it's page 3 in the B/C/S, about two-thirds -- sorry,

 3     one-third of the way down.  And we're going to start with Ratko Mladic

 4     saying, "What do they need."  I'm going to play that excerpt to 07:47.

 5                           [Audiotape played]

 6             "What do they need?  I mean what kind of trial.  I'm not nuts to

 7     agree to some trial.

 8             No, no.  But they will look because of them, the indictment and

 9     all.  Have you received your indictment?

10             No.

11             You haven't.

12             It is for us to see that they take the indictment to take --

13             Nor would I have.  There is no need, because I can neither

14     recognise that court nor would I.  I can be sentenced by my people not by

15     political courts.

16             That's fine.  You see.  We don't recognise it.  The state does

17     not recognise it.  It's because it is what it is.  Could I, along those

18     lines, you see, say they want to, for example, also to write -- like Nora

19     Beloff would like to write an affirmative piece about you.  I don't know.

20     I said, you see, I have to see with him if he would -- if he would see

21     any of you.

22             Or not you know.  All in all, let me put it all briefly.  Can I

23     on your behalf, like, say this: That you may agree, that they, sort of,

24     back you up?  In any way?

25             Here, to help me?

Page 43564

 1             To help.

 2             Well, whoever wants to help me can but in a positive way to the

 3     people and as for me whatever they like.

 4             Because you see your -- this consent of yours would mean a lot to

 5     me.  Because I think they are very powerful, and they could greatly in

 6     that regard could do away with all those indictments that are being

 7     issued, that will be issued.

 8             Let them do away with it if they can.  It's their thing if they

 9     can.  Whoever wants to indict me can do so.  I have had such accusations

10     a dime a dozen for five years."

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No speaking aloud.

12             MR. MacDONALD:

13        Q.   Professor Stankovic, just at the end of that excerpt there, you

14     thought that the people who were very powerful, that you were speaking

15     with could do away with all those indictments that are being issued, that

16     will be issued.  By that, you meant have those indictments withdrawn or

17     not issued in the first place, didn't you?

18        A.   Yes, that's something that I did discuss with Nora Beloff and she

19     said that once the indictment was submitted to her, she would have the

20     indictments assessed and that, depending on the contents, perhaps they

21     could do away with them, normally during the trial ...

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. MacDonald, are there other portions you'd like

23     to play because it is quarter past.

24             MR. MacDONALD:  Yes, Your Honour, there are two more portions to

25     play.  They're relatively short.

Page 43565

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We have to continue anyhow on Monday because we will

 3     not be able to finish today, so, therefore ...

 4             MR. MacDONALD:  Very well, Your Honours, if you wish to break

 5     here, then I'm happy to resume on Monday.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think it's what we said before, that we

 7     would not intervene with the commitments or what was arranged with

 8     Mr. Mladic and therefore we will then stop.

 9             This means, Professor Stankovic, that we will not be able to

10     conclude your testimony today.  There's no -- it will be on Monday only

11     that we'll be able to continue.  I hope it's not a problem for you that

12     you have to stay over the weekend or ...

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you say, I had prepared for two

14     days, but if this is your decision, then I will certainly honour it.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I'm inquiring whether it causes you major

16     problems, but you apparently are willing and able to adapt your programme

17     to what we indeed wish to do, that is, to continue on Monday.

18             This means that you are still not -- you're still not allowed to

19     speak or communicate with whomever about your testimony, whether that is

20     testimony already given or testimony still to be given, even if not much

21     on Monday.  And we'd like to see you back Monday morning, at 9.30, and

22     that's Monday, the 25th, I think.  Is it?  25th, yes.  Next Monday, to

23     avoid any -- we'd like to see you back then.

24             You may follow the usher.

25                           [The witness stands down]

Page 43566

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume Monday, the

 2     25th of April, 9.30 in this same courtroom, I.

 3                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.22 p.m.,

 4                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 25th day of April,

 5                           2016, at 9.30 a.m.