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
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
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
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 --
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
25 MR. MacDONALD: Oh, my apologies, Your Honour, let me read that.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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."
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
24 A. Yes, yes, that's visible.
25 Q. Thank you. If I could ask that that be taken back.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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:
1 Q. So just to finish the quotation, after the words simple
2 photographer, you say: "He is a renowned specialist with great
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
25 MR. MacDONALD: Can we turn to the next page in the English and
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
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,
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 -
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
1 assume, meaning that it can be so, but it does not necessarily have to be
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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,
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
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
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
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.
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
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
25 MR. IVETIC: I don't think so. I don't think so on that basis
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 ...
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.
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.
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:
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
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
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
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.
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
25 MR. IVETIC: That's my understanding of what was going on behind
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
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
10 MR. MacDONALD:
11 Q. Professor Stankovic, do you recall that the meeting was at your
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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]
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
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?
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.
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]
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.