1. 1 Tuesday, 28 July 1998

    2 --- Upon commencing at 10.10 a.m.

    3 (In open session).

    4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Good morning, ladies and

    5 gentlemen. May we please have the appearances.

    6 MS. McHENRY: Good morning, Your Honours,

    7 Teresa McHenry for the Prosecution, along with Mr.

    8 Turone, Mr. Cowles and Mr. Huber.

    9 Your Honour, after the appearances, Mr.

    10 Cowles has a brief matter he wishes to bring up

    11 concerning the potential rebuttal case. It should just

    12 take a minute. Thank you.

    13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: May we have the

    14 appearances for the Defence, please.

    15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, my name is Edina

    16 Residovic and I am appearing on behalf of Zejnil

    17 Delalic and the co-counsel is Eugene O'Sullivan from

    18 Canada. Thank you.

    19 MR. OLUJIC: Good morning. I am Zeljko

    20 Olujic, I appear on behalf of Zdravko Mucic and

    21 Tomislav Kuzmanovic from the United States of America

    22 is the other co-counsel.

    23 MR. KARABDIC: Good morning. I am Salih

    24 Karabdic from Sarajevo and I appear on behalf of Hazim

    25 Delic and the other co-counsel is Tom Moran, attorney

  2. 1 from Houston, Texas.

    2 MS. McMURREY: Good morning, Your Honours, I

    3 am Cynthia McMurrey, along with Nancy Boler and Calvin

    4 Saunders. We represent Esad Landzo.

    5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.

    6 May we now hear Mr. Cowles before we begin today's

    7 proceedings.

    8 MR. COWLES: Thank you, Your Honours. The

    9 Office of the Prosecutor anticipates on filing an

    10 interlocutory appeal concerning the Chamber's rulings

    11 regarding the rebuttal issues from last Friday. I

    12 would just like to inquire if the Chamber will be

    13 issuing a written order concerning the rebuttal issues

    14 from last Friday.

    15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Surely.

    16 MR. COWLES: Thank you.

    17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You need not inform the

    18 Chamber if you're appealing.

    19 MR. COWLES: I think that was mainly just for

    20 the timing issue about our window of opportunity to be

    21 able to file such an appeal, if, in fact, actually

    22 there is a request for the appeal.

    23 Just to clarify, if I could, since the

    24 Chamber has ruled that what was considered or discussed

    25 as fresh evidence is not to be introduced in rebuttal,

  3. 1 we, therefore, I think, will be intending or

    2 anticipating filing a motion, therefore, to reopen the

    3 case and I would like to inquire if Your Honours

    4 believe we should do that formerly in writing. I

    5 believe that would probably be the better.

    6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Only if you want to make

    7 such an application, should be formal, giving reasons

    8 why you would reopen the case at this time of the

    9 completion of the case.

    10 MR. COWLES: Thank you very much, Your

    11 Honours. That's all I have. Thank you.

    12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, please continue

    13 with the case.

    14 THE REGISTRAR: I remind you, sir, that you

    15 are still under oath.

    16 MS. McMURREY: May it please the Court?

    17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, you may proceed.


    19 Examined by Ms. McMurrey:

    20 Q. I believe when we ended yesterday at 5.30 we

    21 were discussing allegations in the indictment and I

    22 believe the next charge against you in the indictment

    23 would be Count 11 and 12, which is the killing of

    24 Slavko Susic. Mr. Landzo, could you please tell the

    25 Court what you know or remember about a Mr. Slavko

  4. 1 Susic, if anything?

    2 A. Well, I know that that person lived in

    3 Konjic. They had a house and a weekend cottage near

    4 Celebici, close to the prison camp. He came under the

    5 accusation of the police that he had a radio station

    6 and that he also was there to lead and to give signals

    7 where to target Celebici. I know that he was beaten.

    8 I was told where to lock him up. I took him there and

    9 at the Gate No. 9, there were five guards who began

    10 hitting him. Once you enter Tunnel No. 9, you have to

    11 descend four or five steps. He descended. I was

    12 standing on the road and I hit him, maybe I struck him

    13 twice. These weren't really hard. I wasn't hitting

    14 him hard, I just was more pushing him to enter the

    15 tunnel. Others were hitting him with a bat, with

    16 sticks. He was locked up there. After a few days, I

    17 heard that he died or that he was killed. I don't know

    18 exactly. I heard that Mrkajic, that he killed him. He

    19 was also locked up in Tunnel No. 9.

    20 Q. Now when you say you heard a Mrkajic, was

    21 that a Zara Mrkajic that was a detainee at Celebici?

    22 A. Zarko Mrkajic, called Zara from Bradina, yes.

    23 Q. Is that the same Zara Mrkajic that we have

    24 seen on the videotape many times, where the interviewer

    25 from Sarajevo television was interviewing the people in

  5. 1 front of Hangar No. 6?

    2 A. Yes, yes, I saw him on the video when he was

    3 testifying. There was a journalist who made an

    4 interview with these detainees and I recognised Zara

    5 later on.

    6 Q. Okay. Thank you. I want to go on to -- now

    7 Counts 13 and 14, you are not charged with. I want to

    8 go on to the counts that you are charged with right

    9 now. If you want to come back and talk about anything

    10 else, then we'll discuss it in a little bit. But

    11 Counts 14 and 15 -- well, let's go to the killing of

    12 Zeljko Klimenta. I know you're not charged with that,

    13 but you do have some personal knowledge about that,

    14 don't you?

    15 A. Yes, yes I saw the corpse fifteen minutes

    16 after he was killed. First, then I heard that he was

    17 killed by Chalimir (phoen) when he tried to escape. I

    18 know that he was killed. I heard that he was killed by

    19 firearms in an attempt to escape, but I really don't

    20 know the reasons why.

    21 Q. I believe the name you said was Chalimir.

    22 That's not the person that you have associated with the

    23 accidental killing of Zeljko Klimenta, is it?

    24 MS. McHENRY: Objection, Your Honour.

    25 MS. McMURREY: I think it was an

  6. 1 interpretation problem. That's the only reason I am

    2 saying, we had problems yesterday with names.

    3 MS. McHENRY: Then I would ask the witness to

    4 repeat the name again without leading the witness or

    5 suggesting to him the answer.

    6 Ms. McMURREY: Okay.

    7 Q. Mr. Landzo --

    8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: No, ask him what he said

    9 instead of repeating what you want him to say.

    10 MS. McMURREY:

    11 Q. What is the name that you have associated

    12 with Mr. Klimenta?

    13 A. Padalovic Almir.

    14 Q. I believe the interpretation was wrong again

    15 just then. Would you repeat that name again?

    16 A. Padalovic Almir. Padalovic.

    17 Q. And the first name was?

    18 A. Almir.

    19 Q. What do you know about Mr. Almir Padalovic,

    20 if anything?

    21 A. For a short time he was a guard in the camp,

    22 but after this murder, he left the camp. I don't know

    23 whether he -- they moved him, but I know that he

    24 abandoned, he left the camp. I saw him later on in the

    25 town.

  7. 1 Q. Well, was this an intentional killing of Mr.

    2 Klimenta?

    3 MS. McHENRY: Objection, the witness has

    4 already stated he wasn't there when it happened.

    5 MS. McMURREY: All right. I'll pass to the

    6 next count.

    7 Q. Count 15, 16 and 17, which is the torture of

    8 someone named Momir Kuljanin. What do you know about

    9 that?

    10 A. Momir Kuljanin, I believe that person -- I

    11 will tell you, I don't know whether that's the person

    12 because there were many people with the sir name of

    13 Kuljanin. So, for me, it's difficult to remember what

    14 the people --

    15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Will you kindly tell him

    16 what happened to that person. That might remind him of

    17 his association with it.

    18 MS. McMURREY:

    19 Q. Mr. Landzo, Mr. Momir Kuljanin is supposedly

    20 have been tortured and the palm of his hand burned and,

    21 Your Honours, I don't have the indictment in front of

    22 me, I am going from any notes.

    23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You should have had your

    24 indictment in front of you if you are leading your

    25 witness in evidence.

  8. 1 MS. McMURREY: Well, I have it in my court

    2 book over here, so I can pull it out most certainly.

    3 I'll get my copy of the indictment. But I believe it

    4 has something to do with burning his palm of his hand.

    5 If I am incorrect, then I will clear it up as soon as I

    6 get my copy of the indictment. Okay.

    7 Q. Momir Kuljanin, he is suppose -- the

    8 allegation is that he was beaten, kicked unconscious, a

    9 cross burned on his hand, being hit with shovels, being

    10 suffocated and having an unknown corrosive powder

    11 applied to his body. Does that refresh your memory

    12 about this person at all?

    13 A. Yes, yes. It's true, I burned him. I

    14 think with a knife or some metal implement on his

    15 hand. But as far as this powder or beating with a

    16 shovel, I know nothing about it. I didn't do that to

    17 him, maybe somebody else did.

    18 Q. And what were the circumstances surrounding

    19 this burning of Mr. Kuljanin?

    20 A. At the time in Celebici, a unit was located

    21 in the other Celebici and a person from the village,

    22 from Homolje, a Muslim from Village Homolje, Delic at

    23 the time came. He was inspecting the camp and that

    24 person talked to him and asked him that this person be

    25 beaten up because they still had some unsettled

  9. 1 accounts from prior to the war. I was at my guard post

    2 at the time. Delic called me and he ordered me to

    3 teach the Chetnik a lesson and to burn a bit his hands

    4 so that he wouldn't be touching in connection with some

    5 women. That he wouldn't touch things he shouldn't be

    6 touching any more. So, I was just executing the order

    7 of my superior and I did it while the Muslim who asked

    8 that this be done was standing behind the hangar and

    9 was observing all this which was going on.

    10 Q. Was Mr. Delic standing there observing this

    11 also?

    12 A. Yes, he was sitting in a Fiat 600. That

    13 automobile was parked next to the first guard post. He

    14 opened the door of his car and he was sitting inside.

    15 This was happening between Hangar No. 6 and the hangar

    16 workshop.

    17 Q. Okay. I would like to go on to Count 24 and

    18 26, which is Spasoje Miljevic. Do you remember Spasoje

    19 Miljevic?

    20 A. Yes.

    21 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what you

    22 remember about Spasoje Miljevic?

    23 A. I remember many a things. He was beaten a

    24 number of times by a number of different people. I

    25 witnessed when three members of the HOS beat him, or at

  10. 1 least one of these three had the band of HOS, an

    2 armband of HOS. They came from Mostar and they were

    3 re-serviced, extra service from the JNA. They beat him

    4 up. He was beaten up a number of times by other

    5 guards. And once I also hit him because he was taking

    6 food, grabbing food from the elder detainees. I think

    7 that I also burned him once on his legs.

    8 Q. When you say you also burned him once on his

    9 legs, what were the circumstances of that?

    10 A. Before going on the shift around four

    11 o'clock, Delic called me in his office and gave me the

    12 name of that person, of Spasoje Miljevic, and to do to

    13 him the same as I did to the other and to do it only on

    14 his feet so he won't be able to walk. And to inform

    15 him, once I did that and that he will check it. I did

    16 it, in fact, I did burn, but out of a lack of

    17 knowledge. I did it through the clothing. I believed

    18 that the injuries would be lesser. However, from what

    19 I heard from his testimony, he had synthetic clothing,

    20 so the injuries were worse. But I thought that if he

    21 had his clothing on, the injury would be lesser.

    22 Q. Is this the incident that Mr. Miljevic

    23 described outside with some shepherd burning a bag, can

    24 you describe that incident?

    25 A. This happened between Hangar No. 6 and the

  11. 1 hangar workshop. In this grassy field. That a person,

    2 a shepherd, who was tending sheep, you know, we needed

    3 a fire, a bonfire for this metal implement. He brought

    4 a bag and threw it in the fire in order to make it

    5 stronger. There were also two guards present in

    6 addition to the shepherd, who were two guards in their

    7 guard posts.

    8 Q. Was Hazim Delic present there also watching?

    9 A. He came practically at the end. He wasn't

    10 present at the beginning, but he came practically at

    11 the end. He was there when the fire was still burning

    12 and everything.

    13 Q. Okay. I want to go on to Count 27 and 29,

    14 which is the torture of Mirko Babic. Do you remember

    15 Mirko Babic?

    16 A. I do not remember him from the Celebici

    17 period. I saw him for the first time here and I heard

    18 his real and true name, but I cannot remember him from

    19 Celebici. There was some 250 detainees and, of course,

    20 it's impossible to remember all the people, their

    21 looks, their physiognomy and their names, respective

    22 names.

    23 Q. So Mr. Babic testified in court that you had

    24 burned his leg, but you don't remember any of that?

    25 A. No, I know that I carried out the orders on

  12. 1 concerning those two cases. I wasn't the only guard

    2 there. Others were also executing orders. Maybe

    3 somebody else did it, I really don't know.

    4 Q. Let's go to Counts 30 and 31 and 32, the

    5 torture of Mirko Dordic. What, if anything, do you

    6 remember about a Mirko Dordic?

    7 A. Could you only read the count so that I could

    8 know what it's all about? .

    9 Q. Yes. It says sometimes around the beginning

    10 of June, 1992, and continuing through the end of August

    11 of 1992, Esad Landzo subjected Mirko Dordic to numerous

    12 incidents of mistreatment which included beating him

    13 with a baseball bat and forcing him to do push-ups

    14 while being beaten and placing hot metal pinchers on

    15 his tongue and in his ear. That's the allegation in

    16 the indictment. Do you remember or do you know

    17 anything about Mirko Dordic?

    18 A. Personally not. As I said before, I cannot

    19 recall this person. And let me repeat, I was not the

    20 only guard, everything is possible. I don't want to

    21 say that it's not possible that something happened, but

    22 I am quite sure that I have nothing to do with this.

    23 Q. Let's go on to Counts 36 and 37, which is the

    24 torture of Nedeljko Draganic. Do you remember Nedeljko

    25 Draganic?

  13. 1 A. I know him from the time when we went to

    2 school together, from before the war.

    3 Q. And can you start off by telling what the

    4 relationship of Mr. Draganic was in school, when you

    5 all were in secondary school?

    6 A. Well, I just knew him from the school because

    7 we went to the same school, so we would see each other,

    8 but we didn't have contacts with each other. But, on

    9 one occasion, I do know that my brother and his

    10 friends, him, beat him and another young fellow. I

    11 know that Draganic and another relative, I think of

    12 his, were beaten up by this group. I heard this from

    13 hearsay. But, at that time, I had no idea who Draganic

    14 was. Only later on, when I saw him at Celebici, this

    15 brought back to memory the event I have just

    16 described.

    17 I saw him, however, prior to the war. He

    18 would come to the sports hall where we had an

    19 entertainment centre. We would shoot pool. We would

    20 drink. He was there in the company of Mici and two or

    21 three other persons from the Village of Cecez,

    22 particularly after the election, he had this Serb

    23 Subara hat with a Chetnik insignia. They would come

    24 and drink and sing the Chetnik songs. These were

    25 predominantly young fellows who would come here to

  14. 1 shoot pool, to play pinball and similar.

    2 Q. When you refer to someone named Mici, are you

    3 speaking of Mici Kuljanin who came to testify for the

    4 Prosecutor's case?

    5 A. Yes, yes. I would hang around with Mici's

    6 younger brother. Actually, he was my brother's friend,

    7 so I would meet him there.

    8 Q. Now, can you describe the circumstances of

    9 what you know happened to Nedeljko Draganic in

    10 Celebici?

    11 A. I know for one occasion, when he was beaten

    12 up, when I took my tour of duty, I heard shouts in the

    13 hangar, which was later turned into a workshop and I

    14 went there to see what was going on. I met Alkadic

    15 Asid, Birdic Osman and another guard

    16 that was killed in a traffic accident in 1998. There I

    17 noticed Draganic, he was lying on the floor and he had

    18 a rope tied around him. They would beat him up and

    19 they said, "Well, you can take him out." I ask him to

    20 get up. He couldn't get up, so I hit him somewhere in

    21 the shoulder area to make him get up. So he would

    22 slowly get up and he would go back to Hangar 6.

    23 Q. At that time, did you notice any burns on Mr.

    24 Draganic, or do you know anything about any burns on

    25 him?

  15. 1 A. No, I know that he could walk. When he would

    2 go to the toilet early in the morning, I noticed that

    3 he walked slowly, but I didn't know why. His pants

    4 were down. I just noticed that he was walking slowly.

    5 And there were other older people who would also walk

    6 slowly.

    7 Q. In Counts 46 and 47, which charge you with

    8 inhumane conditions in the camp, did you have any

    9 authority to change any of the conditions in the

    10 Celebici camp while you were there?

    11 A. No.

    12 Q. As far as being deprived of food, water,

    13 medical care or sleeping in toilet facilities, is that

    14 an accurate depiction of the conditions for the

    15 detainees there? Were they deprived of those

    16 facilities?

    17 A. No. They had an unlimited access to water.

    18 We would drink the same water, both the guards and the

    19 detainees. When they would need water they would go

    20 and address the guard on duty and then would be let out

    21 to get bottles, to collect water and so they really had

    22 an unlimited access to the water.

    23 As far as food is concerned, they got food in

    24 the same quantities in which we got it. And we

    25 couldn't give all food that was available to ten people

  16. 1 while others would be starved, so we just had to divide

    2 these small quantity of food to 250 to 300 detainees.

    3 We thought it would be fair to give each a piece

    4 instead of giving more to just a smaller number of

    5 detainees.





















  17. 1 Q. Could you have taken any steps to prevent or

    2 change the conditions in Celebici?

    3 A. No, but there have been attempts to help

    4 individuals. General conditions couldn't be changed.

    5 We couldn't do it. But we could, for example, do a

    6 favour to somebody, let him out for a few minutes to

    7 breathe fresh air in front of the hangar, to bring them

    8 a slice of bread from our breakfast, something along

    9 those lines, if we had food left over to give them, the

    10 food, without the knowledge of the superiors, of

    11 course, because that was not allowed.

    12 Actually, I had difficulties, because I let

    13 Zeljko Klimenta out on a number of occasions. Delic

    14 wasn't satisfied. I let him out, but I didn't know why

    15 Delic wouldn't let him go out, why he didn't like him.

    16 Q. Was Zeljko Klimenta a good friend of yours?

    17 A. Not mine, but he was a good friend of Ibe. I

    18 knew him before the war, and at the beginning when I

    19 arrived there Ibe would come and visit Klimenta and I

    20 was the guard on duty and I asked him at that time to

    21 watch Klimenta because they had been friends for many

    22 years and I asked him to watch him to help him to get

    23 out of trouble. And Ibe at that time gave some money

    24 to Keljo, later Keljo gave this money to me to buy him

    25 something because he was not allowed to have money on

  18. 1 him.

    2 Q. When you say Ibe, are you talking about

    3 Ibro? Who is it that you're talking about when you

    4 refer to a person named Ibe?

    5 A. Ibrahim Mangic.

    6 Q. And that's the same person that was killed in

    7 Repovci; is that right?

    8 A. (No response).

    9 Q. You spoke about doing favours; besides doing

    10 favours for Zeljko Klimenta did you also do a favour for

    11 Spaso Miljanic?

    12 A. Yes. I did, and so did Osman Dedic. Both of

    13 us. To him, only him, out of all the detainees,

    14 allowed him to see his mother for a couple of minutes

    15 to exchange a few words as to how they were.

    16 Q. And by allowing him to do that, you and Osman

    17 Dedic, could you have gotten in trouble for that?

    18 A. Yes, great trouble indeed, because this was

    19 not allowed. Moreover, the visitors who would come to

    20 visit detainees were never allowed to go along the

    21 outer fence so that they couldn't see the detainees.

    22 So, we had to bring them back.

    23 Q. When you say he was allowed to see his

    24 mother, he was merely allowed to see her on the other

    25 side of the fence; is that right?

  19. 1 A. Yes, she was standing on the other side of

    2 the fence, he was standing at the entrance gate to the

    3 hangar, I would stand next to him while Dedic Osman

    4 would stand next to his mother, and he was watching

    5 whether another guard or other staff would come

    6 around. And he would then let me know that somebody

    7 is coming and I would bring him back. So, they just

    8 exchanged a few words between the two of them.

    9 Q. Now, I want to go back to July 12th, which

    10 was the date of the Repovci incident. On that day did

    11 you have an occasion to deal with a Senad Memic that

    12 day, and can you describe the circumstances?

    13 A. First Senad Memic was when we went to

    14 investigate the area, when the MPs were killed, he was

    15 the head of the team to which I belonged when we were

    16 inspecting the area. He was also the commander of the

    17 military unit which was stationed in another part of

    18 the barracks, but his office was located in the

    19 headquarters building. He would also sleep there.

    20 And on July 12th, at night, a group of

    21 persons would be brought in, whether from Bradina or

    22 from other villages, were brought to this prison. Four

    23 men and a few women with two children were brought in.

    24 On one old man, I saw his ear cut off, his head was

    25 bandaged, it was filled with blood. The women were all

  20. 1 beaten, bruised on their faces, there was a little boy

    2 and little children.

    3 These women and children were detained in a

    4 room in which other women were already accommodated

    5 while the four men were detained in hangar 6 during

    6 this night.

    7 The next day in the morning Mucic would come

    8 and would let the women, together with the children to

    9 go out, and the old man whose ear was cut off. He left

    10 two brothers, Dordic and their father in the prison,

    11 and he told me that I should interrogate them, that I

    12 should get either oral or written testimonies about

    13 their knowledge of the killings in Bradina, that is in

    14 Repovci. They were brought in because they allegedly

    15 saw who did it and that they had been bringing food to

    16 the Chetniks who did it.

    17 On a number of occasions I talked to them,

    18 sometimes I would go take them out of the hangar,

    19 sometimes I would talk to them in the hangar next to

    20 the door, and in the evening, once I got their

    21 testimonies, I took them to the headquarters building

    22 so that an officer would take their written testimonies

    23 and write them down. First I thought I would want to--

    24 Q. And when you took them to the command

    25 headquarters to get their statements taken by the

  21. 1 officer, was the officer there Senad Memic?

    2 A. Yes, that's him. I thought first that Mucic

    3 or Delic would be there, that they would write the

    4 statements down, but they were not there.

    5 Mr. Memic was there in the room, and being an

    6 officer superior, I asked him to take down their

    7 statements. While we were, these two brothers, and

    8 another guard, me and Memic in the room, somebody

    9 informed about this, Delic, that we were there.

    10 Delic was there in a room with a woman but I,

    11 at that time, didn't know that Delic was there in the

    12 first place. So he would come to this room, he was

    13 raising hell, he would swear and because I had brought

    14 them in. He asked me, "Who had asked you to bring them

    15 in?", and he said, "Take them back to the hangar," and

    16 he would follow me to the hangar to check whether I did

    17 it.

    18 Q. And when you say he was raising hell, was he

    19 scaring you? What was he doing, exactly, when he came

    20 out? Did he tell Mr. Memic something?

    21 A. Yes, and he would use swear words addressing

    22 me and him, asking him who gave him the authority to do

    23 it, and he had on him, two pistols, machine gun, a

    24 knife, and it was not easy for us to see him angry. It

    25 wasn't easy for us as guards, let alone others who were

  22. 1 not on duty there.

    2 Q. And then what happened after he -- did he

    3 tell Mr. Mimic that he couldn't take the statements?

    4 A. Yes, Memic didn't take the statements. He

    5 started writing them down, but when Delic came into the

    6 room everything stopped.

    7 Q. And then what happened after Delic came into

    8 the room, with regard to the Dordic brothers?

    9 A. That was in the headquarters building. As I

    10 said before, he would raise hell, he would use swear

    11 words, and he ordered me to bring them immediately back

    12 to hangar 6, that I should stay there and that he would

    13 come and check whether I have done it.

    14 Q. And did he come back to hangar 6 behind you?

    15 A. Yes.

    16 Q. And then what happened?

    17 A. I couldn't close the gate by the time he

    18 arrived by car, and he said now you will see how you

    19 take statements from Chetniks. He would get out of the

    20 car, he would stand in front of the hangar gate, he

    21 told me to go in to call up the two brothers and that

    22 they should stand in, at an opening near the gate to

    23 the hangar. Then he ordered me to tell them to strip

    24 because he was standing at the entrance gate leaning at

    25 a door and he would tell me what they should do.

  23. 1 He told me they should strip off. I told

    2 them to strip off, to strip off their lower body, and

    3 they should put each other, their penises into each

    4 other's mouths. I told them to do that and so they did

    5 it.

    6 Q. And was Mr. Delic standing right there

    7 telling you to do these things?

    8 A. Yes. He was standing at the gate and he was

    9 telling me what they should do. He gave me the

    10 instructions and then I told them what they should do.

    11 Then when this was over, he went to his car

    12 and took something out. I didn't know what it was, but

    13 later on I was told that it was a fuse cord which was

    14 used before in mines. And he said I should put the

    15 fuse cord around their penises, and that they should

    16 get dressed and that I should light the fuse cord.

    17 Q. Had you ever seen such a fuse cord before in

    18 your life?

    19 A. No.

    20 Q. Did you know how to use such a fuse cord?

    21 A. No, I never saw it, and neither did I know

    22 about it. I learned about the electric fuses at school

    23 because they were used in the army, but I never knew

    24 what this was all about, and I didn't even know how to

    25 light it up.

  24. 1 Q. Were you instructed on how to light it up?

    2 And who instructed you? Who instructed you?

    3 A. Delic gave me a match and I had to put the

    4 top of the cord to the top of the match and light it

    5 up, because he said that that's the only way to light

    6 it up. I had no idea. That was the first time and the

    7 last time I saw this happen.

    8 Q. And what happened to the Dordic brothers

    9 after that?

    10 A. I know that they were there. I know that

    11 each of the guards, because they were sitting next to

    12 the gate, would kick them, because they would sit on

    13 each side of the gate, and they had been blamed for

    14 bringing the food to the Serbs in Bradina who allegedly

    15 had killed the military police. So, everybody was

    16 angry with them.

    17 MRS. McMURREY: Now, with the assistance of

    18 the usher, I would like to have this drawing placed on

    19 the ELMO, if you don't mind. I only have one copy of

    20 it.

    21 Looks like this one has a marking already on

    22 it. I didn't get the number on that. What was it,

    23 please?

    24 THE REGISTRAR: It was Defence Exhibit 19/4.

    25 MS. McMURREY: Thank you.

  25. 1 Q. Now, Mr. Landzo, did you draw this yourself

    2 and create it on your computer?

    3 A. Yes.

    4 Q. Does this reflect the way that the detainees

    5 were ordered to sit in hangar number 6?

    6 A. Yes, this is how they would sit in hangar

    7 number 6 when a guard or another member of the staff

    8 would come in. But when we were not there, they would

    9 probably sit more comfortably, that's what we were

    10 told. But when I came in, this is how they would sit

    11 down.

    12 Q. So, when they are ordered to sit with their

    13 heads down like that, could they have seen if anybody

    14 else was present in the hangar other than you?

    15 A. I don't know what they could see, but from

    16 this position I don't think they could see a lot around

    17 themselves. I can't speak about others, maybe those

    18 who were closer could see more than those who were

    19 sitting further back from the door.

    20 Q. With the assistance of the usher I would like

    21 to show D18/4.

    22 Q. Mr. Landzo, did you create this drawing of

    23 the inside -- did you create this drawing on your

    24 computer?

    25 A. Yes.

  26. 1 Q. And what does this reflect?

    2 A. These are on the right-hand side, on side A,

    3 there is another red line missing where the detainees

    4 would sit and the arrows indicate the direction of

    5 their faces.

    6 Q. And can you point on the drawing, on the

    7 ELMO, where the Dordic brothers were located in hangar

    8 number 6?

    9 A. (Indicating).

    10 Q. Thank you.

    11 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours, I would like to

    12 introduce these two documents into evidence at this

    13 time. They were created by Mr. Landzo, and I believe

    14 they reflect his opinion of how the people were sitting

    15 in the hangar at the time and where the location of the

    16 Dordic brothers were at the time.

    17 JUDGE JAN: You've got photographs taken by

    18 the journalist showing the position of the detainees in

    19 the hangar.

    20 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour.

    21 JUDGE JAN: Does this add anything to it?

    22 MS. McMURREY: That photograph was taken from

    23 one angle. It doesn't show where the door was. I

    24 believe it's relevant to know that the detainees were

    25 facing in the opposite direction from the door that

  27. 1 were sitting closest to it and to show where the Dordic

    2 brothers were located at that time. To show that it

    3 would be possible that somebody else could be present

    4 and nobody else would have seen them. So, I would like

    5 to offer these for that purpose.

    6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: There are quite a number

    7 of sketches. Is this different from any of them?

    8 MS. McMURREY: These I presented before but

    9 they were not admitted into evidence and I'm offering

    10 them now because we have the person who created them

    11 and I think they have been authenticated.

    12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Show it to the

    13 Prosecution.

    14 MS. McHENRY: We're not objecting, Your

    15 Honours.

    16 MS. McMURREY: Thank you very much.

    17 Q. Now, Mr. Landzo, going back a little bit to

    18 this, that Senad Memic who was in the administration

    19 building when the Dordic brothers were brought in; is

    20 he the same Senad Memic witness who was a no-show at

    21 the airport on Monday?

    22 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I would certainly

    23 object to that. First of all this witness would have

    24 no information about it.

    25 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, he knows that we

  28. 1 called this witness and that he was a no-show, so, if

    2 he knows, I believe he should be able to say.

    3 MS. McHENRY: If Ms. McMurrey told him and

    4 Ms. McMurrey wants to take the stand, I won't object;

    5 but otherwise I would object.

    6 MS. McMURREY: Ask him if he knows?

    7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Ask him whether he knows

    8 Memic.

    9 Q. Do you know Senad Memic?

    10 A. Yes.

    11 Q. Was he called to testify in your behalf?

    12 A. Yes. I gave his name to my defences, and to

    13 call him as a witness on my behalf. However, he didn't

    14 turn up.

    15 Q. Thank you. Mr. Landzo, I want to ask you, in

    16 1992, in Celebici, were you a perfect soldier?

    17 JUDGE JAN: Ask his officer.

    18 MS. McMURREY: In his opinion. I need his

    19 opinion of what a perfect soldier was.

    20 JUDGE JAN: He said a perfect soldier was one

    21 who obeyed the orders without question. He already

    22 said that.

    23 MS. McMURREY: I believe he said that's what

    24 he was told. Now I want to know if that's his

    25 opinion. But if the Court believes they have that

  29. 1 answer --

    2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If you want his opinion

    3 of himself go ahead and ask him whether it means

    4 anything.

    5 Q. What was a perfect soldier to you? And were

    6 you the perfect soldier in Celebici in 1992?

    7 A. I tried, attempted to be a perfect soldier,

    8 but I haven't served in the JNA. But I did believe

    9 that I have to execute each and every order, each and

    10 every task without complaint, as was said in the

    11 beginning. And that is how I understood it.

    12 The term of perfect soldier, namely to behave

    13 in accordance with the orders and obligations. The

    14 perfect soldier is the one who executes all the orders.

    15 I tried to keep to that throughout the war, not only in

    16 Celebici, but also in other units where I received

    17 different orders where I wanted to, I really wished to

    18 execute the orders of my superiors.

    19 Q. Were you afraid of Hazim Delic while you were

    20 at Celebici?

    21 A. Yes, but not only myself, many others were

    22 afraid, also.

    23 Q. And why were you afraid of Hazim Delic?

    24 A. Well, physically, let me show you a

    25 comparison of me and him. I had some 60 kilos of body

  30. 1 weight, skinny, while he was approximately, 90 kilos, a

    2 hefty man. And when he starts talking to you and

    3 shouting, well, something dies in you. I personally

    4 had such a fear.

    5 I carried out all the orders out of fear and

    6 also because I believed I had to carry, execute them.

    7 So, these are the two factors. I considered orders as

    8 orders which had to be executed. I was really afraid

    9 if he would come and that I would say I didn't do

    10 something. I couldn't return and come back and say

    11 that I didn't execute an order he has given me.

    12 Q. Can you give us some specific incidents that

    13 caused you to be more afraid than normal of Mr. Delic?

    14 A. Well, there were some events, but it's hard

    15 for me to recall them at this point, but I shall try.

    16 In the Bubalo case when he said, if I don't

    17 carry out that order, which I had to carry out, that I

    18 would be executed together with Bubalo.

    19 Q. Did he try to shoot at other people before?

    20 A. You could see on video, he would shoot in the

    21 air, in order to scare people, women and so on. But I

    22 heard that also a shooting occurred and that when in

    23 the presence of the military inquiry committee, and

    24 that this man was called Hodza, that he was aimed at.

    25 That was when the person tried to enter the camp. And

  31. 1 that the guards were shooting, also in the air, so that

    2 people who were passing by the camp, along the road,

    3 wouldn't be passing there.

    4 Q. When you say Hodza, what is his real name?

    5 A. Mehmet Alija Rizvic, his name was Hodza,

    6 nickname, and he worked for the police in Konjic.

    7 Q. Was he a member of the investigating

    8 committee that was to interview the detainees in

    9 Celebici?

    10 A. Yes.

    11 Q. And do you know why that committee stopped

    12 meeting in Celebici?

    13 A. Well, I don't know exactly, but after that

    14 incident they stopped coming to Celebici. I have never

    15 seen them again, but I really don't know the true

    16 reason. I can only assume.

    17 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I would like to

    18 go into an incident right now that I believe it would

    19 be better discussed in private session.

    20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Confer with the

    21 technicians to go into private session.

    22 JUDGE JAN: It relates to the Celebici camp?

    23 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour, it does. I

    24 can't tell if we're in private session or not.

    25 THE REGISTRAR: We are in private session

  32. 1












    13 Page 15090 redacted - in closed session













  33. 1












    13 Page 15091 redacted - in closed session













  34. 1












    13 Page 15092 redacted - in closed session













  35. 1












    13 Page 15093 redacted - in closed session












    25 (In open session).

  36. 1 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.

    2 MS. McMURREY: Thank you.

    3 Q. Now, Mr. Landzo, what part of the year of

    4 1992 did you leave Celebici?

    5 A. Somewhere at the end of July, 1992. I think

    6 it was one or two weeks after the murders in Bradina.

    7 It was the 12th of -- that was somewhere on the 12th of

    8 July, so it must have been a week or two later.

    9 Q. What was the reason that you left Celebici?

    10 A. At the time, my brother was in the military

    11 police and everybody from my street has joined the

    12 military police. And whenever I came home on my free

    13 days, I'd go home, and they proposed that I joined the

    14 military police. My mother, in fact, insisted on it.

    15 She said that Celebici was not a good place for me. I

    16 told her, what do you know about that? So, when my

    17 brother told me that he signed me up for the military

    18 police, that I am registered as a policeman, at the end

    19 of July, then I moved from Celebici to the military

    20 police.

    21 Q. Now, some time you were with the military

    22 police, until what time in 1992?

    23 A. Until the mid-December, 1992. From the

    24 beginning of August until mid-December, 1992.

    25 Q. And in mid-December, 1992, what happened that

  37. 1 you left the military police?

    2 A. I was arrested by members of the second

    3 brigade. And we were arrested together with Hazim

    4 Delic and some other people.

    5 Q. And were you placed in Pasovici prison then?

    6 A. That was a village, a school, where Mr.

    7 Dedic, Osman and Mr. Ivica were. We were in that

    8 septic tank and we were sleeping on the cement, cement

    9 floor.

    10 Q. And how long were you at Pasovici?

    11 A. Some ten days. After that, we were moved to

    12 Celebici, to the camp. At the time there were no more

    13 Serb detainees. We were held in Building C, the

    14 infirmary, some seven, eight of us.

    15 Q. And so for how many days were you imprisoned

    16 in Celebici then?

    17 A. Together with Pasovici, I spent in Celebici,

    18 52 days in total.

    19 Q. When you were released from custody in

    20 Celebici, did you try to go back into the military

    21 police?

    22 A. Yes.

    23 Q. And were you accepted back into the military

    24 police?

    25 A. No. Because a corps military police was set

  38. 1 up. People were accepted only if they had military

    2 experiences on the basis of service in the JNA and the

    3 JNA military police. And it wasn't as earlier where

    4 they would take us in.

    5 Q. Then did you join the Territorial Defence

    6 after that?

    7 A. I have been turned down, a few days, I spent

    8 a few days at home resting. After all that has

    9 happened to me at Pasovici. After that I met Ismet

    10 Habibovic, who spent also a short time in Celebici.

    11 And I told him I wasn't (inaudible). Anyway, he told

    12 me to join his unit, which was guarding the prison. I

    13 knew that I had to join somebody. I wanted to join a

    14 unit where I knew some people. So I joined this unit

    15 in Prkanj (phoen).

    16 Q. What was the name of the commander at the

    17 Musala prison?

    18 A. Habibovic, Ismet, called Broceta (phoen).

    19 Q. And then did you become a guard at Musala?

    20 A. Yes, yes.

    21 Q. Was that in January of 1993?

    22 A. In the second half of January, 1993, I became

    23 a guard in the Musala prison.

    24 Q. Can you describe the differences in being a

    25 guard at Celebici and being a guard at Musala and how

  39. 1 were they different?

    2 A. There wasn't a big difference. Just like in

    3 Celebici, I was executing orders, also in Musala.

    4 However, the prison commander was a different person

    5 and the orders were different. So after I came to

    6 Musala, I had a talk with the commander of the prison.

    7 He told me, informed me about the rules. That there is

    8 no mistreatment, to be no mistreatment of detainees or

    9 beatings. And if there are any problems between me and

    10 the detainee, I have to bring the detainee to his

    11 office and discuss it in there. And that I shouldn't

    12 do anything on my own. So, I have never come into a

    13 situation where I'd go against these rules.

    14 I think that the guards and the detainees, we

    15 had friendly relations. The detainees spent their

    16 whole days repairing automobiles or working in town.

    17 We were always in company with them. We had contact,

    18 24 hour contact with detainees.

    19 Q. And did that include a detainee named Mici

    20 Kuljanin?

    21 A. Yes, Mici Kuljanin.

    22 Q. What kind of special privileges did Mici

    23 Kuljanin have --

    24 JUDGE JAN: Is it relevant for us?

    25 MS. McMURREY: It goes to the impeachment of

  40. 1 that witness. He testified here that he didn't get any

    2 special privileges and he was mistreated at Musala.

    3 JUDGE JAN: We have evidence that he once

    4 tried to assault one of the prisoners in Musala, I

    5 think from one of your own witnesses. Why do you want

    6 to go into that?

    7 MS. McMURREY: I was just questioning him

    8 about Mici Kuljanin because he testified in court and

    9 said that he was mistreated at Musala. In order to

    10 attack his credibility, I believe that this testimony

    11 will be necessary. But, it's just one question.

    12 Q. Did Mici Kuljanin get special treatment or

    13 was he mistreated in Musala at all?

    14 A. Yes, he had better treatment than some others

    15 and he was not mistreated. He even could visit his

    16 girlfriend a number of times. We, the guards, went to

    17 some of his relatives outside Konjic and we'd bring in

    18 clothing for him. Once we even saved his life in the

    19 prison. One member of Havil (phoen), by name of Garo

    20 came in intoxicated and he cocked the rifle. They had

    21 already some unsolved problems earlier. We disarmed

    22 this man and that was an incident which happened in the

    23 prison hall.

    24 Q. Now, Judge Jan had just made reference to an

    25 instance where you were reprimanded for mistreating a

  41. 1 prisoner at Musala, can you tell us about that?

    2 JUDGE JAN: Is it relevant for our purpose?

    3 We're only concerned with what happened at Celebici.

    4 MS. McMURREY: I am concerned with the fact

    5 that there is a big contrast between Celebici and

    6 Musala and I think it's important --

    7 JUDGE JAN: He has explained that.

    8 MS. McMURREY: Okay.

    9 Q. Did you have a girlfriend in 1993?

    10 JUDGE JAN: Ninety-three?

    11 MS. McMURREY: Yes. Okay. Your Honours, if

    12 I might just break early, I have a few questions that

    13 may be eliminated in this direct examination, if we

    14 could just have a break early and come back early

    15 because the rest of it is post-Celebici questioning and

    16 I would just like to have one opportunity to review

    17 these before I go into these that the Court might not

    18 be interested in.

    19 JUDGE JAN: How long will you be?

    20 MS. McMURREY: I think we're probably 30

    21 minutes away from being finished with the direct

    22 examination. I can't speak for the rest of it.

    23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What sort of questions

    24 do you have now to ask?

    25 MS. McMURREY: Well, I have two pages worth

  42. 1 here. But it could probably be narrowed down if I am

    2 allowed to review these at this break.

    3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: No, we have only five or

    4 ten minutes. You can continue.

    5 MS. McMURREY: Okay.

    6 Q. Did you have a girlfriend in 1993?

    7 Judge Jan, the relevance of this is his

    8 relationship with her and his mental relationship to

    9 anybody with an authoritative figure. And that's the

    10 reason I am asking these questions. I know '93 is not

    11 '92, but it's a continuing personality disorder which

    12 goes from birth to today. So, I think these questions

    13 are relevant. If I might continue?

    14 Did you have a girlfriend in 1993?

    15 A. Yes.

    16 Q. And what was her name and her ethnic

    17 background?

    18 A. Vedrana Juric and she was a Croat.

    19 Q. Did you do everything that you possibly could

    20 to help her?

    21 A. Yes, to help her and her family, yes.

    22 Q. Did you assist her family in going into

    23 Croatia into safety?

    24 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I am going to

    25 object to the relevancy of this.

  43. 1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Why? Why do you want to

    2 object to the relevancy?

    3 MS. McHENRY: Well, Your Honour, I believe

    4 she stated she was going to get into his relationship

    5 with authoritative figures. But, as I have heard the

    6 testimony, it doesn't have to do with relationship of

    7 authoritative figures, she's trying to get into good

    8 acts. If we start getting into good acts or bad acts,

    9 the Prosecution has a number of other matters they may

    10 ask this witness about.

    11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If counsel's intention

    12 is to emphasise or to state the condition of this

    13 witness, why don't you allow her to ask questions to

    14 the fact that he's not unstable? You can have normal

    15 good, human relationships with women. Go on, ask your

    16 questions.

    17 MS. McMURREY: Thank you.

    18 Q. Mr. Landzo, were you arrested because of this

    19 relationship and your assistance to your girlfriend?

    20 A. Yes, I was arrested a number of times. I was

    21 accused of treason because I was helping them. I was

    22 arrested a number of times and then released a number

    23 of times.

    24 Q. In December of '93, were you charged with

    25 another crime arising out of your service in Musala?

  44. 1 A. That refers to while I was working in

    2 Musala.

    3 Q. And an incident that involved a Senad Bubalo,

    4 can you explain that, please?

    5 JUDGE JAN: We're not interested in that

    6 incident.

    7 MS. McMURREY: I'll move on, Your Honour.

    8 Your Honour, the motive for my direct examination now

    9 is to head off cross-examination questions, but I can

    10 do that in re-direct, if you like?

    11 JUDGE JAN: Do that in re-direct.

    12 MS. McMURREY: Okay.

    13 Q. While you were in Musala prison in 1994, did

    14 you try to commit suicide?

    15 A. Yes.

    16 Q. Were you encouraged to do so by someone

    17 else?

    18 A. I asked Mr. Delic to give me pills. I don't

    19 know whether he gave me the pills personally or whether

    20 I took them from his coat, but he had told me that he

    21 had these pills in his coat pocket. Whether he gave

    22 them to me or I took them, I don't know. So I also had

    23 some asthma pills and painkillers and I took them

    24 together with the other pills.

    25 Q. Now can you describe any incidents of

  45. 1 violence that you had after you left Celebici? That

    2 you were involved in, I'm sorry.

    3 A. After leaving Celebici, I was a member of the

    4 military police and I went through two incidents. They

    5 just happened. It was at the spur of the moment, not

    6 something that I planned. But, fortunately, nobody was

    7 seriously injured as a result. Later, a few minutes

    8 afterwards, I recognised what could have happened, but,

    9 at the moment, when I feared, when I was afraid for my

    10 life, I reacted in the way I did. But subsequently, I

    11 recognised that perhaps I didn't react well. At that

    12 moment, however, I felt the need to protect myself.

    13 Q. What were those two incidents of violence

    14 that you're referring to? Can you be more specific?

    15 A. One incident was with my brother and the

    16 other in a flat with a few people around.

    17 Q. In the flat with a few people around, what

    18 were the circumstances there?

    19 A. That was at the time when I was a member of

    20 the military police. I was looking for a flat for

    21 myself to no longer have to live with my parents. And

    22 a girl who was working in the military police told me

    23 that she knew about an empty flat in her building. I

    24 went there, it was a very messy flat. I changed the

    25 lock and then I went back to the police quarters and

  46. 1 then I was somewhere on duty on a patrol. And when I

    2 returned, the policeman on duty, who was in front of

    3 this building told me that I was -- that a man who

    4 allegedly was the owner of this flat was looking for me

    5 and that if he should come across me, he should kill

    6 me.

    7 Then I reported this to my commander who was

    8 tipsy. I complained to him and he said, "Well, did he

    9 really mean it seriously?" And I said, "Yes." And

    10 then he said, "Well, take the gun and kill the

    11 bastard."

    12 So I first just went back to the building to

    13 see what was going on. When I arrived at the entrance

    14 to the flat, I saw this group of people who were

    15 inside, they were armed. To warn them, I fired once or

    16 twice into the air, into the ceiling, and the plaster

    17 fell off. And these people were just slightly

    18 bruised. I talked to them and then I gave him the

    19 (inaudible) back. I left. I was just afraid. They

    20 were all armed. I was afraid that they would first

    21 withdraw the weapons. And after this warning shot, I

    22 couldn't shoot through the window or at the floor

    23 because there was the risk of ricochet so I just fired

    24 into the ceiling.

    25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You can break now and

  47. 1 reassemble at noon.

    2 --- Recess taken at 11.30 a.m.

    3 --- On resuming at 12.06 p.m.

    4 THE REGISTRAR: I remind you, sir, that you

    5 are still under oath.

    6 THE WITNESS: Yes.

    7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed.

    8 MS. McMURREY: Thank you, Your Honours.

    9 Q. If I might have this document, with the

    10 assistance of the usher, shown to the witness. And

    11 also, I have a copy for the Prosecutor. I believe

    12 you've had this in your possession all along, and

    13 copies for the Court.

    14 THE REGISTRAR: Defence document D77/4.

    15 Q. Mr. Landzo, can you look at this document and

    16 do you recognise it?

    17 MS. McHENRY: Let me just ask, I don't

    18 believe the Prosecution has ever seen this document

    19 before. I'd ask defence counsel why she thinks we had

    20 it or when she gave it to us.

    21 MS. McMURREY: Well, while were you absent

    22 Mrs. McHenry, Mrs. Boler tried to introduce it through

    23 Asif Jusufovic, who was present at the swearing in of

    24 the military police, and the Court didn't allow it in

    25 because he had never personally seen the document. So

  48. 1 I'm reoffering it through the appropriate witness.

    2 THE REGISTRAR: It has been already marked as

    3 D68/4.

    4 MS. McMURREY: Thank you.

    5 Q. Mr. Landzo, do you recognise this document?

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. And how do you recognise this document, and

    8 what is it?

    9 A. This is a document of the oath that I had

    10 taken as a member of the military police in the Third

    11 of March School. This is the oath that was distributed

    12 to each member of the military police. But we signed

    13 another sheet of paper, we were there, actually it was

    14 a book where we had to sign. And Esad Ramic, the then

    15 commander of the Territorial Defence, actually issued

    16 these to us.

    17 Q. Was this ceremony that you're referring to,

    18 was it the videotape that has been shown to the Court

    19 before, about the military police swearing in?

    20 A. Yes.

    21 Q. And did you receive this document on the day

    22 that you were sworn in as a member of the military

    23 police?

    24 A. Yes.

    25 Q. And were you present that day that all the

  49. 1 military police were sworn in at the end of August,

    2 1992?

    3 A. Yes.

    4 Q. And you received this document that day?

    5 A. Yes.

    6 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours, I would like to

    7 offer this as Defence Exhibit 68/4 into evidence.

    8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It's admitted.

    9 MS. McMURREY: Thank you very much.

    10 Q. I would like to go back to, in 1996, were you

    11 arrested to come to The Hague as an accused in these

    12 proceedings?

    13 A. I was not arrested, I was called to come to

    14 Sarajevo. And I was told to attend a meeting there

    15 with defence counsels that were appointed to me, and I

    16 arrived in Sarajevo.

    17 When we arrived in Sarajevo we were taken to

    18 the Supreme Court building. And the Judge there told

    19 us that we will be detained until we are extradited to

    20 The Hague. And we spent about 45 days in this prison

    21 in Sarajevo. Nobody at that time told us that we had

    22 been arrested.

    23 Q. And who drove you to Sarajevo?

    24 A. A man who came from Sarajevo to fetch us from

    25 Konjic. I know how he looks like, but I do not know

  50. 1 his name.

    2 Q. And did you go to Sarajevo willingly at that

    3 time?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. When you were in Sarajevo, what exactly did

    6 the Judge tell you?

    7 A. When we arrived in Sarajevo we first sat with

    8 a Judge who introduced himself as a Judge of the

    9 Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the course of

    10 an interview with me and Mr. Delic, he told us when you

    11 get there use your senses, because those who will

    12 confess will be granted an alleviated penalty. And

    13 just a few minutes afterwards the military police were

    14 summoned in and they took us to the prison.

    15 Q. Now, is that exactly what he said, those who

    16 confess will give an alleviated sentence? Or is that

    17 what he told you?

    18 A. Those who confessed, half is forgiven, those

    19 who do not confess will be forgiven everything. Which

    20 means, how I understood him, that we should not confess

    21 anything when we were brought here.

    22 Q. When you were brought here, you had the same

    23 counsel that represented you in Sarajevo?

    24 A. Yes, but I did not ask him. I don't know who

    25 appointed him. He simply came in, he said I'm Mustafa

  51. 1 Brackovic and I'm your defence counsel. I never asked

    2 him to be appointed my defence counsel.

    3 He just came in, he gave me the power of

    4 attorney to sign, I signed. I was confused at that

    5 time. I didn't know what was going on. I didn't know

    6 where I was going and I didn't know what was going to

    7 happen. At that time I just needed a defence counsel

    8 and at that moment there was somebody there, but I

    9 didn't know who he was.

    10 Q. That was going to be my next question. Can

    11 you describe your mental state when you arrived here in

    12 The Hague in 1996?

    13 A. My mental state was not good. I had sleeping

    14 problems. I never went out to walk, even though I was

    15 allowed to, but I simply didn't feel like it. I

    16 couldn't sleep during the nights, I couldn't eat, and

    17 when I tried to go to sleep at night it was like

    18 somebody was next to me. I would hear sounds, voices,

    19 steps, and this is why I kept my light on during the

    20 night.

    21 And when I would turn towards the wall, I

    22 would hear like somebody was walking around my room,

    23 and I would turn around to see whether I was still

    24 alone or not. And then I could not associate with

    25 anyone. I was isolated, I was all alone, which is

  52. 1 still going on at this point in time. I'm still

    2 isolated from the others.

    3 Q. Were you allowed to visit with any of the

    4 co-accused during that time?

    5 A. Yes. After a certain period of time I was

    6 allowed to see Mr. Delic, only him.

    7 Q. And was that in 1996?

    8 A. '96 and'97, until restrictions have been

    9 lifted.

    10 Q. And in 1997, were restrictions placed on so

    11 that you were no longer visiting with Mr. Delic?

    12 A. No. I would see Mr. Delic and the others,

    13 after the lifting of the restrictions. Until then,

    14 however, I was only allowed to see Mr. Delic, no one

    15 else.

    16 Q. Can you describe how Mr. Delic influenced you

    17 in your decisions with Mr. Brackovic?

    18 A. Upon the arrival of Mrs. McMurrey, I noticed

    19 that there were problems concerning my defence, between

    20 Mr. Brackovic and the then defence counsel of mine. He

    21 was obviously not well acquainted with the case,

    22 because Mr. Brackovic did not leave his documents

    23 behind.

    24 Then when walking together with Mr. Delic we

    25 talked about the financial problems in both of our

  53. 1 families. He told me that his defence counsel,

    2 Mr. Karabdic, was putting in some money to help his

    3 family, he told me that about $30.000 are made

    4 available per month and that I should ask the same of

    5 Mr. Brackovic.

    6 But he turned me down, claiming that his

    7 ethics would not allow him to do so. I didn't firmly

    8 decide to dismiss him, but in a conversation with

    9 Mr. Delic I found out that actually I should do it,

    10 because he said, well, he is going around spending

    11 money in casinos and cafes and your family doesn't have

    12 enough money.

    13 So there are two reasons: Lack of

    14 cooperation with my new co-defence counsel which

    15 affected my defence; and the second reason was that I

    16 thought he could help, he should help my families. And

    17 as he turned down, I dismissed him.

    18 Q. In 1996, did you attempt to commit suicide

    19 while at the prison here?

    20 A. I arrived at a point to take the pills. I

    21 had been collecting the pills and I thought that I

    22 didn't have enough pills to do it. Subsequently I was

    23 told that four pills would be enough, instead of 20,

    24 which was the number I had collected.

    25 They were discovered and then I was put under

  54. 1 surveillance of psychiatrists and psychologists who

    2 would come talk to me on a regular basis. And

    3 afterwards, I was afforded regular care.

    4 I would like to thank the Registry for

    5 helping me to overcome this crisis period. Very often

    6 I felt like killing myself.

    7 Q. And with the assistance of the usher, I would

    8 like to show you another document, please.

    9 MS. McHENRY: May I just ask, is it defence

    10 counsel's intention that this is all relevant to his

    11 mental state in 1992?

    12 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, it's all relevant

    13 to the responses he gave to the mental health experts

    14 in 1996, which is a basis of the report and the

    15 relation back to his mental state in 1992. And we have

    16 to understand what was happening in 1996 when he was

    17 undergoing all of this evaluation by Dr. Lagazzi and

    18 Dr. Van Leeuwen and Professor Loga and

    19 Dr. Roorda-de-Man. I think it's all very relevant to

    20 this defence.

    21 THE REGISTRAR: Defence document D78/4.

    22 MS. McMURREY:

    23 Q. Mr. Landzo, do you recognise this document?

    24 A. Yes, this is the letter I addressed to the

    25 representatives of the Defence, more specifically, to

  55. 1 Teresa McHenry.

    2 Q. You mean to the Prosecution, is that what you

    3 meant to say?

    4 A. Yes, yes, the Prosecution.

    5 Q. And was this in December of 1996?

    6 A. I know that it was in '96, but I don't know

    7 exactly when. It was the period in which I suffered

    8 from these crises. I had these periods of instability.

    9 Q. Did you write this letter without the

    10 knowledge of your counsel?

    11 A. Yes.

    12 Q. Could you read the letter to the Court,

    13 please? What was it that you were asking Mrs. McHenry

    14 to do for you?

    15 JUDGE JAN: We can read it for ourselves.

    16 Q. Did you wish to be sentenced to death at that

    17 time?

    18 A. Yes.

    19 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours I'm offering this

    20 into evidence to prove his state of mind at the time,

    21 also in 1996. Mrs. McHenry has had it in her

    22 possession for a long time.

    23 JUDGE JAN: It's addressed to her.

    24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: D79/4, it's admitted.

    25 MS. McMURREY: I think it's D78/4.

  56. 1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: 78/4, it's admitted.

    2 MS. McMURREY: Thank you.

    3 MS. McHENRY: I just wonder if, for purposes

    4 of completeness, the Chamber would also want the

    5 response to defence counsel into the Registrar

    6 apprising them of this letter, or if it's not

    7 necessary, given the limited purpose to which it's

    8 being used. I do want the record to reflect there was

    9 notification to defence counsel and appropriate action

    10 taken.

    11 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour, we recognise

    12 the Prosecution responded immediately and notified the

    13 Defence of that, and we're not alleging any wrongdoing

    14 on the part of Mrs. McHenry or the Prosecution.

    15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If you listen to what

    16 Mrs. McHenry has said, for the purposes of

    17 completeness. That is all she is saying. But there

    18 was a reaction to this letter which they, the Defence,

    19 has. So in leading your evidence you have to complete

    20 the whole scenario.

    21 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, their response

    22 was just the notification of the Prosecution to the

    23 Defence that the letter had been sent, and we do

    24 recognise that, and we appreciate the honesty and the

    25 disclosure of the Prosecution.

  57. 1 Q. Now, I'd like to go, now, Mr. Landzo, to your

    2 statement to the office of the Prosecutor. Can you

    3 explain what mental state you were in and the

    4 circumstances involved in giving your statement to the

    5 OTP?

    6 A. That was a period in which I really felt bad

    7 when I made this statement. Although, I informed my

    8 defence counsel about it, and he said, "Well, if you

    9 feel like doing it you can do it. Better do it now

    10 than tomorrow."

    11 So, I did it on the basis of my recollections

    12 and on the basis of advice by my defence counsel. I

    13 told the Prosecution's office at that time that I have

    14 problems with insomnia, that I didn't want to go out.

    15 And with the presence of my then defence counsel, I did

    16 it.

    17 Q. Was your statement to the OTP completely

    18 honest?

    19 A. No.

    20 Q. Why wasn't it honest?

    21 A. Well, now I can tell you that it isn't for

    22 two reasons: The first reason being the fact that I

    23 made certain statements upon my then defence counsel,

    24 Mr. Brackovic, who advised me to deny everything. And

    25 you can see from the transcript that Mr. Delic's name

  58. 1 is never mentioned, why Mr. Mucic's name is mentioned

    2 time and again. So, he was really blamed on behalf of

    3 all the Croats. Secondly, at that time I had mental

    4 problems, and I couldn't recollect everything very

    5 well. I just had a picture in my mind which I thought

    6 was accurate, was true, and at that time a part of the

    7 statement was made on the basis of my belief that it

    8 was truth.

    9 But having followed the hearing, having seen

    10 the evidence, now I know that a lot of these things

    11 were not correct. I didn't, however, do it with the

    12 intention of lying. I did it because at that time I

    13 thought that that was true and I did it upon

    14 Mr. Brackovic's advice. So, it was not intentional

    15 lying. I just made statements of what I thought was

    16 true.

    17 MR. MORAN: Excuse me, Your Honours. I think

    18 we're going, we may take the position at some future

    19 date that this defendant is in the process of waiving

    20 his attorney-client privilege with Mr. Brackovic, and

    21 we may be calling Mr. Brackovic as a witness. I think

    22 at this point the Court might want to, at least inform

    23 the witness, that he is on thin ice as to

    24 attorney-client privilege.

    25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That's correct, I think

  59. 1 Mr. Brackovic is not represented here, and accusations

    2 having been made against him, his family, his counsel.

    3 So, he needs to protect his interests in that regard.

    4 MS. McMURREY: Thank, very much, Your

    5 Honours. And I will ask this kind of question in a

    6 different form.

    7 Q. Mr. Moran, on several occasions, has made

    8 several references to malingering, and after the

    9 testimony of some of the mental health experts, do you

    10 know what malingering is, or the definition of

    11 malingering?

    12 A. When you do something on purpose in order to

    13 give a different picture, something like a lie.

    14 Q. Can you describe when you were being

    15 evaluated by the other mental health experts in 1996,

    16 can you identify yourself now what was malingering on

    17 your part and what was not?

    18 A. I can't remember everything, but I did

    19 something, namely that I used alcohol, that I used

    20 tablets during the war and prior to the war, that

    21 wasn't true.

    22 I must say, and mention my then defence

    23 counsel, Brackovic, who tried to base our defence on

    24 that. That is how I understood him.

    25 Q. Can you describe the malingering that you

  60. 1 talked about in 1996 without referring to any defence

    2 counsel? Just what do you know was true and what was

    3 not true, not any motive for saying it.

    4 A. It's not true that I was -- it's true I did

    5 drink alcohol prior to the war, but in small

    6 quantities. It's not true that I took pills prior to

    7 the war and during the war, pills in combination with

    8 alcohol. That is not true.

    9 Maybe I could look at my statement to the

    10 OTP, maybe there is something else. It's not true, for

    11 example, that Mr. Delic was not a deputy commander of

    12 the camp. But that is what I put in my statement.

    13 Q. Now, I want to leave this area of discussion

    14 right now and talk about the problems. I know you've

    15 already described problems that you've had bringing

    16 witnesses to The Hague, but have you experienced any

    17 other problems associated with some kind of

    18 intimidation tactics being used in the Konjic area? In

    19 particular, did your family receive any SDA money?

    20 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, as with last time,

    21 if she's going to get into what is hearsay evidence, at

    22 the minimum we would ask that the foundation be laid so

    23 that the Chamber has the information so that it can

    24 assess the credibility of the hearsay.

    25 JUDGE JAN: Is this really relevant?

  61. 1 MS. McMURREY: I'm passing that right now. I

    2 will not ask that question.

    3 Q. Mr. Landzo, how have your interests and

    4 perceptions changed since you've been in The Hague?

    5 A. Totally. I personally feel like a different

    6 person. If I were to compare myself here at the

    7 beginning of 1996 when I didn't see a future, I didn't

    8 know what the day would bring; thanks to my defence

    9 counsel, I have learned English. I learned to work

    10 with a computer. I've now started reading some books

    11 in English. I'm trying to educate myself. I hope I

    12 will be able to achieve something for myself. In the

    13 future not to return back to that state, situation, and

    14 that status that I was in, in the past.

    15 After the dialogue with the psychiatrist and

    16 the psychologist, they all say that I have changed. I

    17 see that I have changed. I see many things much more

    18 clearly than in the past, and I can more clearly also

    19 explain certain events.

    20 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, that's my 30

    21 minutes and I pass the witness at this time.

    22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any cross-examinations?

    23 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, the defence of

    24 Mr. Delalic has no questions for the witness.

    25 MR. OLUJIC: The defence of Mr. Mucic does

  62. 1 have a question for the witness, but in view of the

    2 fact that the witness has not been announced as such,

    3 and that he would be testifying on his behalf, and that

    4 we didn't have the 7 days, forcing by the rules that he

    5 would be called as a witness, we ask to receive at

    6 least two days to prepare for the cross-examination,

    7 because we have seen that during the

    8 examination-in-chief it's -- the examination-in-chief

    9 has been very well prepared. And I would ask, on

    10 behalf of my client, at least a day or two to prepare

    11 myself for this. Thank you.

    12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any other

    13 cross-examination?

    14 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, we're in the same

    15 position that counsel for Mr. Mucic is in. That this

    16 witness was sprung on us out of the blue at 2.30

    17 yesterday afternoon and we've heard some things,

    18 especially this morning, that we hadn't heard before.

    19 We would like a little bit of time to prepare for

    20 cross-examination. We have a potential other witness

    21 we need to talk to in the Court. I don't know who that

    22 is, but my last comment, we'd ask for, again, also for

    23 an adjournment.

    24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Has the Prosecution any

    25 cross-examination?

  63. 1 MS. McHENRY: Yes, Your Honour, we are going

    2 to have cross-examination. We would request that our

    3 cross-examination occur after the cross-examination of

    4 Defence counsel. So, we would, if they're requesting

    5 an adjournment, we would request to go after them and

    6 that we just proceed with the next witness of Ms.

    7 McMurrey.

    8 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, one other thing, it

    9 might save some time. It is my belief, and I don't

    10 have anything except what I have been told on this,

    11 that Mr. Landzo met with representatives of the Office

    12 of the Prosecutor fairly recently. If the Prosecution

    13 has anything that might be exculpatory or might go to

    14 his credibility, I would ask that be provided to us,

    15 prior to the time I begin my cross-examination.

    16 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I can represent

    17 to Mr. Moran that Mr. Landzo has not met with anybody

    18 from the Office of the Prosecutor recently. So there

    19 was nothing I believe could be offered or would

    20 interfere with cross-examination at this point.

    21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, actually, ideally,

    22 every counsel normally ought to expect that the accused

    23 persons may give evidence on his own behalf. I agree

    24 some notice is required. But I think since all of you

    25 were involved in these same transactions, I think they

  64. 1 are very little, perhaps, outside what he would have

    2 testified. But I don't think it is necessary to

    3 prolong this trial, mainly because it's the evidence of

    4 the accused persons. Because, as it is now, it means

    5 we would now leave out a few days within which counsel

    6 will prepare because of evidence which I believe is

    7 entirely known to all the accused persons because all

    8 the transactions were done together. Except, perhaps,

    9 you might have forgotten anything which his testimony

    10 might have reminded the co-accused.

    11 I don't really think it is necessary to have

    12 a long adjournment for the purpose because I am quite

    13 reluctant, but I think it's unfair to this system to

    14 seek for such an adjournment merely because of the lack

    15 of notification. Because now, even if you are seeking

    16 witnesses who, perhaps, might be outside the area of

    17 his testimony, how long then do we take? I mean, do we

    18 keep for the next one week or two weeks or three

    19 weeks?

    20 MS. McHENRY: Well, Your Honour, if I just

    21 might suggest. I understand that Ms. McMurrey has

    22 other witnesses and so the Prosecution certainly had

    23 not been suggesting that the trial adjourn, but merely

    24 that the cross-examination be adjourned for a short

    25 time and that Ms. McMurrey continue with her next

  65. 1 witness. I will also state that the Prosecution had

    2 been specifically informed by Defence counsel that Mr.

    3 Landzo was not going to testify as late as yesterday

    4 morning.

    5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I am fully aware that

    6 there is still one outstanding witness, which the

    7 Defence should be able to call now. I expect that

    8 witness to be called before the cross-examination.

    9 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, if I might

    10 assist. The Defence of Esad Landzo would be more than

    11 happy to go ahead and try to accommodate right now

    12 because I do understand the position based on our need

    13 that the Court has allowed us to postpone the

    14 notification of this witness, due to the safety of some

    15 protected witnesses. We could put Dr. Gripon on at

    16 2.30 today and begin with his testimony after the lunch

    17 break, if the Court would allow me to gather him up and

    18 organise that, we would be prepared to go ahead and go

    19 forward with that.

    20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: In the absence of

    21 continuing with the cross-examination, we'll carry on

    22 with your next witness. Then, I suppose, after him,

    23 which I do not even think should be long, you can then

    24 take the cross-examination of Landzo. I don't expect

    25 it should go beyond tomorrow. It should not. Mr.

  66. 1 Moran, I think.

    2 MR. MORAN: Ms. McHenry mentioned that the

    3 Defence of Mr. Landzo told her as late as yesterday

    4 morning that Mr. Landzo would not testify. Over the

    5 weekend I discussed it with one of his attorneys, about

    6 him getting on the stand and I think the phrase I used

    7 was when pigs fly. So I was also surprised yesterday

    8 at 2.30 when they called me.

    9 MS. McMURREY: Just for the yesterday record,

    10 I would also like for the record that the reason we had

    11 to deny that he was going to testify was until the

    12 safety of five persons was guaranteed, we could not

    13 divulge that information. Therefore, it was very

    14 necessary for the safety of five persons that nobody

    15 knew that he was going to testify until victim and

    16 witnesses could guarantee that they were safe. That's

    17 the reason for that, not any motive to deceive.

    18 MS. BOLER: Your Honour, if I may respond.

    19 At breakfast yesterday, Tom asked if he could join me.

    20 I said fine. He made some comment, something like,

    21 "Well, except for not counting -- in addition to

    22 Landzo, what else do you all have on tap for next

    23 week?" or something like that, which I ignored, which

    24 has been my practice, whenever he starts asking me

    25 Defence strategy questions. He knows I just don't talk

  67. 1 about that. So I didn't answer the question. I got

    2 some orange juice. About five minutes later, he said,

    3 "Well, so are you going to put Landzo on the stand?"

    4 I just looked at him, as I have responded to those

    5 types of questions in the past. Tom is the one that

    6 said, "When pigs fly." That's not my expression. I

    7 never said when pigs fly in my life. That's a Tom

    8 Moran expression. I just said, "Sounds good to me," or

    9 something like that. That's where that came from. So

    10 I just wanted to get that straight. About 30 seconds

    11 later, I said I am going to excuse myself and on back

    12 to work. That's what happened yesterday morning.

    13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I suppose I expect

    14 confidences between counsel and I don't think we should

    15 allow you to interfere in this manner. Counsel could

    16 have ordinarily given these clues to other counsel what

    17 it intends to do, but that's left to the counsel's own

    18 discretion. The Trial Chamber doesn't get into it.

    19 Now, I think as Mrs. McMurrey has suggested,

    20 we'll take her next witness at 2.30, so that we'll

    21 continue with that and then settle on a date for

    22 cross-examination. When we're finished with

    23 Dr. Gripon, then we can carry on with the

    24 cross-examination of Landzo. It's a pity counsel

    25 wasn't aware of such testimony. I think that this is

  68. 1 why the objection has come from everyone. These are

    2 things which could have been done without anybody

    3 getting unduly offended. So the Trial Chamber will now

    4 rise.

    5 THE WITNESS: (No translation).

    6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: There is no translation

    7 of that.

    8 THE WITNESS: (No translation).

    9 MS. McMURREY: Mr. Landzo, we're not getting

    10 any interpretation.

    11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It's not coming through

    12 yet.

    13 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear me?

    14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, I can.

    15 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you, Your Honour.

    16 We'll continue with the other mic. Something is wrong

    17 with the first.

    18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, let's hear what you

    19 had to say.

    20 THE WITNESS: Yesterday, when I came back to

    21 the prison, I was told by the staff of the prison that

    22 I would be isolated because of the testimony here

    23 because that's what they said. The registry and the

    24 management were trying to protect me from Mr. Mucic and

    25 from Mr. Delic, which means that at this point in time,

  69. 1 I am in contact with no person at all in prison, which

    2 is very difficult for me because when I come back from

    3 the trial to the prison, I would like to take a rest

    4 and not to be put under pressure. It's difficult to

    5 come back to the prison, to be behind a locked door and

    6 to spend all the time on my own.

    7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much for

    8 the information. Perhaps, you'll find a way of getting

    9 better occupied than staying alone. Thank you. The

    10 Trial Chamber will now rise.

    11 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.45 p.m.















  70. 1 --- On resuming at 2.35.

    2 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, before

    3 Mrs. McMurrey starts with the examination of the

    4 witnesses let me inform you that my colleague

    5 Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan, because of his duties outside

    6 the Trial Chamber, will not be able to attend the

    7 afternoon session. Thank you, Your Honours.

    8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much for

    9 informing the Trial Chamber of that.

    10 Will you swear the witness, please?


    12 I solemnly declare that I will speak the

    13 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed.

    15 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, before I proceed

    16 with Dr. Gripon, I was reminded that I have two

    17 outstanding motions for this Court that I would like to

    18 withdraw at this point. They were the motion for

    19 protection of certain witnesses and also a motion for

    20 leave of court to add witnesses to a witness list; and

    21 I would like to withdraw those motions from the Court

    22 at this time.

    23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Your application is

    24 granted.

    25 MS. McMURREY: Thank you.

  71. 1 Q. Good afternoon Dr. Gripon.

    2 A. Good afternoon.

    3 Q. Would you state your full name for the

    4 record, please?

    5 A. Edward Brown Gripon.

    6 Q. And Dr. Gripon, what is your profession?

    7 A. I'm a psychiatrist.

    8 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours, with the

    9 assistance of the usher I would like to go ahead and

    10 distribute his curriculum vitae.

    11 Q. Dr. Gripon, while they are distributing the

    12 curriculum vitae, can you tell me if you specialise in

    13 any area of psychiatry?

    14 A. I have board certification, both in general

    15 psychiatry, and I also have board certification in

    16 forensic psychiatry. So I specialise in the area of

    17 forensic psychiatry.

    18 Q. What is forensic psychiatry?

    19 A. The interface between psychiatry and the

    20 legal system, it's the part of psychiatry that

    21 interfaces with the law.

    22 Q. And how many evaluations concerning forensic

    23 psychiatry would you say you conduct in a year?

    24 A. I do an average of four to six per week. I

    25 do several hundred per year.

  72. 1 Q. And how did you become involved in this case?

    2 A. In the United States you contacted me roughly

    3 a year-and-a-half ago. At that time you gave me a

    4 little bit of information regarding the case and asked

    5 if I would be willing to examine the particular

    6 individual that you were representing.

    7 Q. And did we know each other before that time,

    8 before I called you?

    9 A. Well, not really. We had met professionally,

    10 I had testified as the United States Attorney's witness

    11 in a federal case in the Eastern District in Texas, and

    12 you were actually the attorney for the defendant on the

    13 other side of that issue.

    14 Q. And would you say that your psychiatric

    15 evidence beat my psychiatric evidence?

    16 A. Well, the US Attorney's office prevailed,

    17 they certainly did.

    18 Q. Thank you very much. I want to go back to

    19 your curriculum vitae. Could you just tell us a little

    20 bit about your educational background?

    21 A. I attended college at Baylor University in

    22 Waco and Lamar University in Beaumont. I graduated

    23 from college in 1964. I attended medical school at the

    24 University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas

    25 from 1964 to 1968. I then did an internship in the

  73. 1 United States Air Force -- .

    2 INTERPRETER: Excuse me, Your Honour, could

    3 you ask the witness to slow down, please, for the sake

    4 of the interpreters?

    5 A. -- in the United States Air Force Hospital in

    6 San Antonio, Texas. Completed that internship in 1969,

    7 spent two years and about four months on active duty in

    8 the Air Force at that time as a flight surgeon. Left

    9 the Air Force and returned to the University of Texas

    10 Medical Branch in Galveston. 1972 until 1975 I did a

    11 residency in psychiatry in the behavioural sciences and

    12 completed that in 1975 and entered the practice of

    13 psychiatry in 1975.

    14 Q. And are you, you already said you were board

    15 certified; what other associations do you belong to?

    16 A. Well, I'm a member of a number of

    17 professional organisations, the American Psychiatric

    18 Association, Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians,

    19 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law and a number

    20 of others. They are all professional organisations,

    21 either related to the general field of medicine or my

    22 specific speciality of psychiatry. There's a long list

    23 of those.

    24 Q. You also do some instruction or teaching,

    25 don't you?

  74. 1 A. Yes, I'm clinical assistant professor at the

    2 medical school in Galveston where I teach forensic

    3 psychiatry and psycho-pharmacology.

    4 Q. What is psycho-pharmacology?

    5 A. The medications that affect the central

    6 nervous system, what we call psychotropic drugs, the

    7 group of four classes of medicines which are used in

    8 the psychiatric field.

    9 Q. Well, how do you know a Mr. Esad Landzo?

    10 A. Through the evaluation process. I met him

    11 April of 1997, 15 months ago. I travelled to The Hague,

    12 began an evaluation of him at that time at U.N.

    13 Detention Centre at The Hague.

    14 Q. And about how much time have you spent with

    15 Mr. Landzo?

    16 A. I have seen him on five different occasions

    17 and each of those occasions involved more than one

    18 visit. I've spent probably 40 or more hours with

    19 Mr. Landzo in direct interviewing process, and that

    20 doesn't include the time that I've spent reviewing

    21 documentation, other collateral matters that I've taken

    22 a look at. But I've spent a lot of time with Esad

    23 Landzo.

    24 Q. On cross-examination, a lot of times, the

    25 cross-examination was targeted at were you're only

  75. 1 relying on Mr. Landzo's representations. Can you

    2 explain to the Court what other sources of information

    3 you have used to come up with your conclusions in

    4 evaluating Mr. Landzo?

    5 A. There's a long list of information that I've

    6 actually reviewed. I've reviewed other opinions of

    7 experts who have seen this man, in either the treatment

    8 aspect of seeing him over the years or the evaluation

    9 process.

    10 I have reviewed information that's been

    11 provided in witness statements or statements that have

    12 been given one time or another.

    13 I actually made a trip to Bosnia-Herzegovina

    14 in last November, interviewed people who had known him

    15 growing up, family members. I talked with his mother,

    16 father, sister, that sort of thing. I've reviewed some

    17 other information of, what's been referred to as a

    18 Bubalo statement.

    19 I've seen a recent statement of a Prosecution

    20 expert by the name of Landy Sparr.

    21 There's a volume of information that

    22 encompasses I guess about 6 volumes, quite a stack of

    23 information.

    24 All of that, all the psychiatric assessment

    25 is generally a face-to-face evaluation. And we base

  76. 1 our evaluation, most of the time, on the information

    2 that someone provides us; collateral information, other

    3 information from other individuals, other written

    4 information, other reports are all helpful. You factor

    5 all that into the equation in trying to come to an

    6 ultimate conclusion or decision as to the presence or

    7 absence of any mental disorder.

    8 Q. And included in your trip to Bosnia, did you

    9 speak to his teachers from elementary school and

    10 secondary school?

    11 A. Yes.

    12 Q. And did you also make a trip to the Celebici

    13 barracks themselves?

    14 A. Yes, that was in November of last year.

    15 Q. And did you also talk to friends that he had

    16 grown up with in the neighbourhood?

    17 A. Yes.

    18 Q. Now, you wrote --

    19 MRS. McMURREY: At this time, Your Honours,

    20 also I forgot to introduce his curriculum vitae into

    21 evidence. I would like that it be accepted as his

    22 expertise in the area.

    23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, you may do so.

    24 MS. McMURREY: Thank you very much.

    25 Q. You wrote --

  77. 1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What exhibit did you

    2 give it?

    3 THE REGISTRAR: This is Defence Exhibit

    4 D79/4.

    5 MS. McMURREY: Thank you.

    6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It is admitted.

    7 MRS. McMURREY: Thank you very much.

    8 Q. You wrote a report including your opinions

    9 after your evaluations of Mr. Landzo; didn't you?

    10 A. Yes, I did.

    11 Q. And you have provided a copy of that report

    12 to me and the Prosecution at one time; didn't you?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. Do you still stand by that report?

    15 A. Yes, I do.

    16 Q. And did you sign that report?

    17 A. Yes, I did.

    18 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours, with the

    19 assistance of the usher, I have a copy of Dr. Gripon's

    20 report, and there are some other materials that he

    21 relied upon in reaching his opinion attached to the

    22 back of that. I'll provide a copy to the Prosecutor

    23 right now before we go any further, but the Prosecution

    24 has had the report.

    25 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D80/4.

  78. 1 Q. Before we go into the report and your

    2 conclusions that you have reached, with the assistance

    3 of the usher, again, please.

    4 MS. McMURREY: Would you give Dr. Gripon a

    5 copy of this and distribute it, please?

    6 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D81/4.

    7 Q. Dr. Gripon, D81/4 that was just recently

    8 placed in front of you, is that a supplement?

    9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Some of these copies are

    10 so badly printed that I cannot make any sense of it.

    11 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I haven't looked

    12 at the copies, we just put those together. So, in fact

    13 I just handed all of my copies to the usher.

    14 MS. BOLER: Your Honours, during the break I

    15 asked that the receptionist at the Bel Air make those

    16 copies, and I apologise if something happened that I --

    17 we were in such a rush, I apologise, I can leave now.

    18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If you want it to be

    19 useful, they should be legible.

    20 MS. BOLER: I can slip away and make better

    21 copies now, Your Honour.

    22 MS. McMURREY: I would like to have a copy of

    23 that for myself so we can see what is not legible so we

    24 can repair this.

    25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed. Carry

  79. 1 on. We'll sort that out later.

    2 MR. COWLES: Excuse me, Your Honours. We

    3 have just been handed the last exhibit, D81/4, which

    4 apparently appears to be some sort of addendum to this

    5 doctor's original report. D81/4 is dated July 9th,

    6 1998. We are just now receiving it at this moment. We

    7 have never seen this before.

    8 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, that is accurate.

    9 I did receive it from Dr. Gripon for my own information

    10 to summarise his findings, and I only thought today

    11 when we were meeting at lunchtime that this would be

    12 instructive for the Court. I was going to let

    13 Dr. Gripon explain that he wrote this as a supplement

    14 to me. If the Court does not want to see it, we can go

    15 through it on the ELMO or talk. Dr. Gripon can testify

    16 to this. It's basically a summary of the personality

    17 disorders that he has outlined, that he has concluded

    18 that Mr. Landzo has.

    19 He can go through this orally, but I thought

    20 it would be assistance to the Court, it certainly was

    21 of assistance to me. We only decided to do this at

    22 lunchtime today.

    23 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, while these

    24 objections are being made, this is the first I've seen

    25 of the addenda to D80/4, and I object that these things

  80. 1 are, one, irrelevant to the case. The Court's already

    2 ruled that we're not going to get into some of these

    3 matters, they involve another criminal prosecution in

    4 another jurisdiction involving other people.

    5 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours, they are only

    6 offered for the limited purpose of the fact that

    7 Dr. Gripon used those in coming to his evaluation of

    8 Mr. Landzo. They are only offered for that limited

    9 purpose as something that he relied upon in his

    10 evaluation of Mr. Landzo, not for the truth of the

    11 matter asserted. There's also poetry and a drawing in

    12 there, I believe.

    13 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I would object to

    14 these on another basis. Mr. Landzo has said in his

    15 statement to the office of the Prosecutor, essentially,

    16 that these documents, these statements he made here,

    17 are not reliable. Until there is some kind of a

    18 showing of reliability under Tadic, the hearsay

    19 decision in Tadic, they have no business being in the

    20 record.

    21 MS. McMURREY: Well, Your Honour, Mr. Landzo

    22 didn't say these were inaccurate. He was talking about

    23 his statement to the office of the Prosecutor. And

    24 that's already in evidence, but that's another document

    25 that Dr. Gripon relied upon, too.

  81. 1 He relied upon every document that has been

    2 presented to him, which was all of the reports from the

    3 other doctors, the OTP statements, and any other

    4 statements available that Mr. Landzo has made. Plus

    5 the art work, plus his interviews with the other

    6 individuals in the Konjic area.

    7 So, this is, as with the expert witnesses

    8 that Madam Residovic has put in, and the expert witness

    9 that the Prosecution has used before, they made

    10 notebooks that contained all of the documents that were

    11 relied upon and this is just a part of the evidence

    12 that Dr. Gripon relied upon in forming his opinion, and

    13 that's the only purpose it's being offered at this

    14 time.

    15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Is the expert making

    16 that claim now, that these are the documents he relied

    17 upon?

    18 MS. McMURREY: I can ask him, Your Honour.

    19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Because you have been

    20 the one making the claim. These are the documents.

    21 MS. McMURREY: I was going to go into all of

    22 these documents once I had them all sorted out, but

    23 Dr. Gripon, did you review these statements by

    24 Mr. Landzo, attached to your report and the other

    25 evidence, I mean the other poetry and drawings attached

  82. 1 to this report in evaluating Mr. Landzo and reaching

    2 your conclusion?

    3 A. Yes.

    4 Q. It's only offered for the limited purpose to

    5 show that he relied upon these materials, Your Honours.

    6 There's one additional report that is not included

    7 there, it is the report of Dr. Landy Sparr, but I

    8 assume that the Court will have that before them very

    9 soon.

    10 MR. COWLES: Your Honours, the prosecutor

    11 will object to D81/4, which is this new opinion by

    12 Dr. Gripon, which we have not previously been provided,

    13 and so, as to the admission of D81/4 we object, Your

    14 Honour, as not being timely.

    15 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I would object on

    16 another ground. It appears to talk about a thing

    17 called PTSD, and it appears, just from a quick reading,

    18 that whatever this PTSD thing is, it occurred as a

    19 result of events occurring over a long period. And I

    20 don't know that there is a showing that it has

    21 anything, any relevance to the events of May, June,

    22 July, August 1992.

    23 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours, I believe

    24 Mr. Moran will allow to cross-examine the witness.

    25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I don't understand

  83. 1 this. The expert is there. If there is any objection,

    2 let him answer those objections. When you become

    3 competent to plead the part of the expert, I suppose

    4 you will do that. He claims that Dr. Gripon is

    5 claiming to be the one who produced these reports and

    6 he's available, that's why he is brought here.

    7 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour.

    8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Please, let's lead the

    9 witness, let him tell us what, actually, he did.

    10 MS. McMURREY:

    11 Q. Dr. Gripon you prepared a report in this case

    12 based upon the documents that are attached to it and

    13 many other collateral sources of information, didn't

    14 you?

    15 A. Yes.

    16 Q. And do you have that report before you?

    17 A. Yes, I do.

    18 Q. Are the collateral sources of information

    19 that you used attached, I mean, listed in the report on

    20 page 2?

    21 A. Yes.

    22 Q. And supplementing this list, do you have

    23 other sources of information that you have just

    24 attached in order to supplement that list?

    25 A. Yes, that information, though, was of course

  84. 1 provided, some of that, after this was written. This

    2 is dated July 8th, the Prosecution experts examination

    3 or report that I have read, that was certainly done

    4 after this. I think even the examination was done

    5 after that, though it's certainly not included in that,

    6 but it's attached or mentioned in the other.

    7 Q. I believe that's correct. Now, in your

    8 original report, what basically was the conclusion or

    9 the opinion that you reached after your lengthy

    10 evaluation of Mr. Landzo as far as his mental condition

    11 in 1992?

    12 A. Well, as stated in that report, we tend to do

    13 at least in the United States, a five axis diagnosis,

    14 and as the report reflects, I made an Axis I diagnosis

    15 of this gentleman, of post-traumatic stress disorder,

    16 an Axis II diagnose on which Axis II we tend to place

    17 either mental retardation, if it's present, or

    18 personality disorder if that is present. An Axis II

    19 diagnosis of mixed personality disorder with features

    20 predominantly or meeting the criteria for schizoid and

    21 antisocial personality disorder, and the other three

    22 diagnostic categories on that really don't reflect

    23 anything of great importance to this particular

    24 finding, but I made a diagnosis of PTSD on Axis I

    25 reflecting back to the time of 1992, and an Axis II

  85. 1 diagnosis of a condition that would certainly be

    2 chronic, would have been present in 1992, but it is

    3 also present now because personality disorder is

    4 pervasive and continues over time. It's not something

    5 that starts and stops, in the sense of an acute

    6 illness, so I made those two diagnoses.

    7 Q. In laymen's terms, could you explain to me

    8 and to the court exactly what the diagnosis was, in

    9 laymen's terms?

    10 A. I'll try to put it in layman's terms, as best

    11 I can. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is one of the

    12 anxiety disorders, and there are a number of those and

    13 a number of ways that it can be mentioned and a lot of

    14 similarity between them so the nomenclature is not

    15 terribly well-fixed in some areas. Professor van

    16 Leeuwen referred to that as an adjustment disorder, and

    17 somebody else might call it an acute stress reaction or

    18 disorder which is the same thing, it just varies with

    19 the time frame somewhat, but it's one of the anxiety

    20 disorders, so it means a response of an individual to a

    21 particularly stressful event in which they develop

    22 characteristics or symptoms that persist for a period

    23 of time following that incident. And PTSD has been

    24 reported to be a response, as it states here, to a

    25 traumatic event.

  86. 1 INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down,

    2 sir, for the sake of the interpreters?

    3 A. A level that must be met, the stressor must

    4 be quite traumatic, quite severe in which a person

    5 fears death, serious injury, physical threat to their

    6 personal integrity, that sort of thing. The response

    7 of the person has to be quite dramatic, it's not just a

    8 minor or trivial experience in a person's life, but

    9 again, it's one of the anxiety disorders. The specific

    10 one, the specific label used for that anxiety disorder

    11 is important, but it may have more academic than

    12 practical importance at this point.

    13 Q. I want to ask, did you prepare a document in

    14 layman's terms to explain to me exactly what Mr. Landzo

    15 was suffering from, and what was your result of his

    16 evaluation?

    17 A. Yes, ma'am. What is dated here, July 9,

    18 1998, is a listing of the various diagnostic

    19 categories, and really it recites DSM-IV criteria on

    20 which those diagnoses are based. So, really that's

    21 taken literally almost word for word if not word for

    22 word, from a particular nomenclature book that we use

    23 for standardisation of what we're talking about and it

    24 has the criteria on which certain illness are

    25 supported, that's all that is.

  87. 1 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours, at this time, I

    2 would like to offer into evidence the report Dr. Gripon

    3 has written and still believes is accurate and stands

    4 by, but also for the assistance of the Court, because

    5 it was certainly helpful to me, I would like to offer

    6 his explanation of the criteria and what he has found

    7 in Mr. Landzo to assist the Court. And that way,

    8 before we go through it, it's admitted into evidence

    9 and he can take us through this a little bit at a time,

    10 because in laymen's terms this is what he has found

    11 that Mr. Landzo had in 1992.

    12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any objection to the

    13 tendering of these documents?

    14 MR. COWLES: We still maintain an objection

    15 to D 81/4 in that we have just not received it, so we

    16 object on the timeliness of it. On a cursory review of

    17 it, there doesn't seem to be a change in the opinions,

    18 so it may not be of great moment. But, nevertheless,

    19 we object to the way we've just been handed a report by

    20 the expert this afternoon.

    21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Of conclusions drawn by

    22 the expert for what he has observed.

    23 MR. COWLES: I have no objection to the

    24 introduction of Dr. Gripon's original report, which we

    25 have received many weeks ago, but we do object to the

  88. 1 introduction of this addendum dated July 9th, 1998.

    2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What was the objection

    3 to that? It was not written by him? .

    4 MR. COWLES: Excuse me, Your Honour? I'm

    5 sorry?

    6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Are you objecting on the

    7 ground that it was not written by him or that they do

    8 not contain his opinion?

    9 MR. COWLES: No, I am not objecting on those

    10 grounds, Your Honour.

    11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What is your basis?

    12 MR. COWLES: The basis is the timeliness of

    13 the Prosecution been given another report by an expert

    14 that we've never seen before.

    15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: This is the same

    16 report.

    17 JUDGE JAN: It's really of assistance to

    18 you.

    19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It sums up everything

    20 that he has been saying.

    21 MS. McMURREY: Well, if the Court will accept

    22 it, then it will save us a lot of time from having to

    23 go back to the DSM-IV criteria and going through all of

    24 those documents again. So I am offering these.

    25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It is admitted.

  89. 1 MS. McMURREY: Thank you very much, Your

    2 Honour.

    3 Q. Now, when you talked about the PTSD in your

    4 report, you just said that there are several other

    5 words for PTSD and if Landy Sparr used the word "acute

    6 distress disorder," is that the same thing as an

    7 anxiety disorder just at a different time frame than

    8 PTSD?

    9 A. It has, essentially, the exact same

    10 characteristics and features. An acute stress disorder

    11 lasts anything from two days to a month. PTSD lasts

    12 longer than a month or whatever time of duration. They

    13 are of the same condition. That differentiation is a

    14 matter of more convenience than it's associated with

    15 science. It's taking an acute situation and giving it

    16 one slight name and then the more chronic condition or

    17 the more lasting condition under the same circumstances

    18 with the same ideological factors, giving it a little

    19 different flavour, but essentially, it's the same

    20 thing.

    21 MS. McMURREY: With the assistance of the

    22 usher, I would like to show this to Dr. Gripon and to

    23 the Prosecutor. This is just another summary. I will

    24 let Dr. Gripon tell you what it is.

    25 Q. While this is being distributed, Dr. Gripon,

  90. 1 every psychiatrist and psychologist that has come

    2 before this Trial Chamber has referred to DSM-IV. Can

    3 you tell us what the difference is and what the

    4 relevance is to DSM-IV to ICD-X, if you could?

    5 A. I can answer that. DSM-IV is the fourth

    6 compendium of the diagnostic and statistical manual.

    7 It really is a creation of American psychiatry. It is

    8 utilised in other countries, but it is really

    9 formulated by the American Psychiatric Association.

    10 It's published by the American psychiatric press. So,

    11 really, it's the nomenclature that's commonly used in

    12 the United States and in some other countries who adopt

    13 that nomenclature.

    14 They're, actually, and looking at mental

    15 illnesses or mental diseases or disorders, there are

    16 two types of nomenclature one can consider. You can

    17 utilise DSM-IV or you can utilise ICD-X, which stands

    18 for the International Classification of Diseases. It's

    19 formulated by the World Health Organisation. And it's

    20 also an attempt, internationally, to try come to some

    21 consensus of opinion as to what types of conditions

    22 affect people both physical as well as mental and what

    23 the standard or what the supporting criteria of those

    24 might be.

    25 So, basically, in 1998, you can use either

  91. 1 nomenclature as a basis for giving a diagnostic

    2 opinion. DSM-IV, as I mentioned, is an American

    3 creation.

    4 Q. Now you have the book that the ICD-X was

    5 taken from, don't you?

    6 A. Well, actually, ICD-X is not from that book.

    7 There is an ICD-X book that is published that is the

    8 basic nomenclature for that. What is on this are

    9 basically taking one part of ICD-X. That's the part

    10 that relates to personality disorder and comparing it

    11 to DSM-III-R which was in place from 1987 until 1994.

    12 And then looking at DSM-IV from 1994 to this date.

    13 Because that tends to evolve or change somewhat over

    14 time. And, in truth, a lot of that is voted upon.

    15 It's not something that is concrete and is always going

    16 to be lasting. It's what the--

    17 THE INTERPRETER: Sir, could you please slow

    18 down once again.

    19 THE WITNESS: -- current nomenclature

    20 reflects. There will be a DSM-V and another ICD at

    21 some point.

    22 MS. McMURREY:

    23 Q. So this table that you have created, is it a

    24 summary of the correlation between the American

    25 standard of DSM-IV as applied to the international

  92. 1 standard by the World Health Organisation, which is

    2 called ICD-X?

    3 A. Yes, it compares ICD-X to the current DSM-IV

    4 and then also shows the difference between the III-R,

    5 the last DSM before IV was published, and IV.

    6 Q. Did you perform certain tests and what

    7 evaluation did you use in coming up with your

    8 evaluation of Mr. Landzo, with regard to personality

    9 disorder?

    10 A. Well, the majority of any psychiatric

    11 assessment is a face-to-face or verbal assessment,

    12 although there are different ways that people obtain

    13 history. There are some ways that are somewhat

    14 standardised. There are certain information that you

    15 always want to obtain.

    16 In the area of personality disorder, there

    17 are some accepted standards on which you can do certain

    18 testing to determine whether or not personality

    19 disorder exists in an individual. That's been done

    20 cross-culturally in a multi-nation study back in

    21 1988, '89 and '90 in which it was utilising the

    22 DSM-III-R at that time. The ICD that was current at

    23 that time. And looking to see the extent to which you

    24 could replicate from various examiners, personality

    25 disorder. If you compared Canada to a European

  93. 1 country, to India, to some other country and to cut to

    2 the chase, there is an examination called the

    3 International Personality Disorders Examination that

    4 one can perform that has been shown to stand the test

    5 of validity, so that it's just not a culture

    6 phenomenon. So there is a test for that, yes.

    7 Q. Well, this test, the International

    8 Personality Disorder Examination, is it utilised to get

    9 rid of cultural bias that may tend to influence a

    10 diagnosis?

    11 A. That is one part of what was looked at.

    12 There was the consideration in forming that type of

    13 test that possibly there would not be a lot of validity

    14 from one society to another in trying to do personality

    15 testing, particularly if the individual doing the exam

    16 did not have an excellent understanding of the culture

    17 in which they were examining the individual, meaning

    18 what their training and experience might have been. It

    19 has been set up in a way by the World Health

    20 Organisation to remove as much as one can, any kind of

    21 cultural or ethnic type of bias from the examination.

    22 So it's an attempt at standardisation.

    23 Q. And that test is part of the ICD-X criteria?

    24 A. No, it's done both ways, in that the

    25 International Personality Disorder Examination, there

  94. 1 is one based on ICD-X and there is another examination

    2 based on DSM-IV and you can use either or both. You're

    3 not going to find a substantial difference in the two,

    4 other than the wording in the nomenclature is slightly

    5 different as you see when you look at ICD-X on this

    6 page and you look at DSM-IV.

    7 Q. So you can see that in international

    8 standards, a lot of you, in fact, you, Dr. Lagazzi and

    9 Dr. Van Leuween and Dr. Loga, all coming from different

    10 countries, are using, basically, the same nomenclature

    11 and coming up with basically the same diagnosis after

    12 your evaluation of Mr. Landzo?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. Now, the red book that you have there that

    15 you have derived the ICD-X information from, that

    16 talked about how many countries were used in order to

    17 develop this non-cultural biased test, and about how

    18 many countries were used?

    19 A. Eleven.

    20 Q. And the three persons involved with

    21 performing this test, can you tell me who they were and

    22 what universities or what organisations they

    23 represent?

    24 A. Basically, it was edited at the request of

    25 the World Health Organisation by an Armand Loranger,

  95. 1 L-o-r-a-n-g-e-r. He is from Cornell University, so he

    2 is from the United States. There was an Alexsander,

    3 spelled, A-l-e-x-s-a-n-d-e-r, Janca, J-a-n-c-a, who

    4 works for the World Health Organisation, in their

    5 mental health unit. And there was a Norman Sartorius,

    6 S-a-r-t-o-r-i-u-s, from the University of Geneva,

    7 Geneva, in Geneva, Switzerland. And there were others

    8 who were involved in that whose names are not listed.

    9 That was a group effort through international

    10 psychiatry to try to establish accepted personality

    11 disorder testing and results.

    12 Q. Now, going back to personality disorder

    13 testing, if a person doesn't fit precisely into all of

    14 the criteria under DSM-IV or ICD-X, does that mean

    15 that a personality disorder still exists?

    16 A. Well, it's somewhat difficult to make that

    17 simple. The answer is, yes, it can. In that what is

    18 listed in personality disorder are some,

    19 approximately,, if you use DSM-IV, 10 or so distinct

    20 personality disorders.

    21 However, if one has substantial abnormal

    22 features that are considered to be significantly

    23 maladaptive traits, but they don't meet exactly the

    24 threshold for a specific personality disorder, then

    25 there is a residual category called personality

  96. 1 disorder, not otherwise specified. It has a different

    2 term under ICD-X. But it's a residual category where

    3 the person has significant numbers of maladaptive

    4 personality features, but they don't precisely fall

    5 into just one or two categories.

    6 So, I said that somewhat complex because

    7 there is a lot of overlap in personality disorder

    8 features and people can clearly have more than one

    9 personality disorder. And that's where we come up with

    10 some of these convenient terms like, mixed or

    11 co-morbid, where we state our find that a person may

    12 have more than one substantially abnormal personality

    13 type or makeup.

    14 Q. Now, based upon your report, you have really

    15 diagnosed Mr. Landzo as having personality disorders

    16 before 1992. Can you tell us exactly what those

    17 personality disorders were that you have evaluated?

    18 A. Well, the first personality disorder as it

    19 evolves is a developmental phenomenon. Among children

    20 and adolescence, we do not feel it's appropriate to

    21 diagnose them with personality disorders. But you can

    22 still see personality features in children and

    23 adolescence as they grow older that are going to

    24 probably indicate that there may be some problem when

    25 they reach adult life.

  97. 1 Personality disorders are diagnosed once one

    2 reaches, roughly, age 18. There are the personality

    3 disorders on the page that we passed out.

    4 In specific, Mr. Landzo represents a

    5 personality disorder that is called schizoid. And he

    6 has a personality disorder that's associated with, what

    7 we call in America or DSM-IV, antisocial personality

    8 disorder and under ICD-X it's called dissocial

    9 personality. It's the same thing.

    10 Q. Well, so you have diagnosed him with a

    11 personality disorder which really covers several of the

    12 ones described in DSM-IV and ICD-X. And so you placed

    13 it in mixed or not otherwise specified category?

    14 A. One can call it mixed or you can just list

    15 the two. It's appropriate to do either one. You can

    16 say schizoid personality disorder, antisocial

    17 personality disorder or you can say a mixed personality

    18 disorder, meeting criteria for antisocial and

    19 schizoid.

    20 Q. Now, when you were in the air force, is part

    21 of the psychiatric goal of police forces and air forces

    22 to screen out people beforehand that may have one of

    23 these pre-existing personality disorders?

    24 A. What's done in many venues, actually, the

    25 military, in the professional type of military, where

  98. 1 there is the time and the means to evaluate people as

    2 to their suitability for military service, certainly do

    3 some screening exams to determine what personality

    4 features certain people might have.

    5 As an example, in the civilian world, in the

    6 United States, at least in some areas, people who are

    7 seeking to become law enforcement officers, who are

    8 given substantial authority to carry firearms,

    9 screening examinations to try to determine whether

    10 they're character disorders, have personality disorder

    11 of some kind. Screening examinations are frequently

    12 done trying to avoid placing them in that type of

    13 position of responsibility.

    14 THE INTERPRETER: Could you make a break,

    15 Mrs. McMurrey, between the answer and the question to

    16 give enough time to the interpreters. Thank you very

    17 much.

    18 MS. McMURREY: Yes, I will try my best.

    19 Q. If I were to put in one little equation what

    20 your summary of Mr. Landzo's condition in 1992 was,

    21 would you have a PD, a personality disorder, plus the

    22 PTSD overlapping that? Would that be an accurate

    23 representation of what you think he had in 1992?

    24 A. I think that's a reasonable was to structure

    25 that. In actual fact, any Axis I diagnosis of any

  99. 1 current, at that time current in '92, mental health

    2 disorder, would clearly be superimposed on any

    3 personality disorder that was present.

    4 Again, the personality disorder by definition

    5 is a chronic, a pervasive, a developmental issue. It's

    6 going to remain constant over time. A person is not

    7 going to remain constantly mentally ill. In most Axis

    8 I ideas or concepts, perpetually, so therefore, that

    9 could change somewhat at different times. The Axis II

    10 is going to be persistent.

    11 Q. And the Axis II diagnosis is the personality

    12 disorder?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. Now, Judge Odio-Benito had asked a question

    15 once before. And she asked, what if a person who has

    16 this kind of diagnosis, who suffers from a personality

    17 disorder, such as this, is empowered with a weapon or

    18 something, what does that result in?

    19 A. Well, given the opportunity of the option,

    20 you clearly would not want to empower a character

    21 disorder or a personality disorder, particularly a

    22 person with antisocial or dissocial features. They're

    23 going to abuse that power. They tend to be very

    24 primitive in the way they utilise coping matters in that

    25 way.

  100. 1 THE INTERPRETER: Could you slow down, sir

    2 please.

    3 THE WITNESS: They tend to by nature be very

    4 aggressive, frequently. So, therefore, if you empower

    5 someone who has an underlying personality disorder,

    6 it's generally going to have a very unpleasant result.

    7 MS. McMURREY:

    8 Q. Now, it's important when you're called to

    9 evaluate a person to research and find other sources

    10 related to the specific psychiatric issues that you're

    11 going to be dealing with in your evaluation. Did you

    12 perform some other independent research in this area?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. And what did you find?

    15 A. Well, not very much, actually. I did review

    16 the literature to see what had been written, if

    17 anything, about post-traumatic stress disorder and its

    18 effect on certain aspects of behaviour, particularly in

    19 any type of combat situation, war-related situation. I

    20 found one publication. It's in the Journal of

    21 Psychiatry and the Law. It was published in the United

    22 States in 1995 and it had to do with post-traumatic

    23 stress disorder in combat.

    24 Q. And is that scientific journal that you

    25 described, I can't remember the name of it, is it a

  101. 1 well-known and relied upon scientific journal in the

    2 psychiatric field in the United States?

    3 A. Yes. We have, basically, two journals that,

    4 in forensic psychiatry, are commonly utilised. One is

    5 the Journal of Psychiatry and the Law. The other is

    6 the Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry

    7 and the Law. And those are our primary two forensic

    8 publications in the field of psychiatry.

    9 Q. With the assistance of the usher, I would

    10 like to distribute the one piece of research that Dr.

    11 Gripon found relevant to this case.

    12 JUDGE JAN: Ms. McMurrey, there is

    13 distinction between combat duties, what you do in a

    14 combat and when you are sitting in an area just as a

    15 guard.

    16 MS. McMURREY: Well, Your Honour, I believe

    17 that this --

    18 JUDGE JAN: Combat puts you in a different

    19 state of mind, which may not be the same when you're

    20 sitting in a place doing just guard duty.

    21 MS. McMURREY: Well, Your Honour, I believe

    22 that maybe Dr. Gripon used the wrong term, combat. I

    23 think he meant in the middle of a war of aggression on

    24 your own homeland. And that's exactly -- I mean, is

    25 that what you meant, Dr. Gripon?

  102. 1 THE WITNESS: That's what I meant. I did not

    2 mean that we had to limit that to some kind of

    3 front-line type of action.

    4 MS. McMURREY:

    5 Q. And do you have that article in front of

    6 you?

    7 A. Yes, I do.

    8 Q. Can you tell us what this article is and who

    9 wrote it and why it's relevant to this case?

    10 A. Well, it's entitled, Post-traumatic Stress

    11 Disorder, Resulting from War Traumas and it's Forensic

    12 Psychiatric Meaning. It's published, as I mentioned,

    13 in the United States at least in the Journal of

    14 Psychiatry and the Law in the winter of '94. It was a

    15 written by a man who is from Croatia, who did this

    16 study in 1991 through '93. His name is Miroslav

    17 Goreta.

    18 Q. And when reviewing this case, I mean this

    19 article, can you summarise the relevance of this

    20 article to the case of Esad Landzo and the PTSD that he

    21 was diagnosed with during that period?

    22 A. Well, there are a number of cases cited in

    23 this review. It actually covered some 25 individuals.

    24 They had been accused of a number of significant acts

    25 of particularly violent, unexplained or difficult to

  103. 1 understand acts. The evaluation was done at a

    2 psychiatric facility in Zagreb. What they basically

    3 found was some correlation between PTSD and increased

    4 acts of aggression. But, particularly, what was found

    5 most consistent in this particular study, was the

    6 presence of significant personality disorder in the

    7 individuals who committed these particular acts. And

    8 this particular study of some 25 people evaluated, 12

    9 of them are met, according to the man who did this

    10 study, criteria for personality disorder.

    11 Q. And back then that would have been DSM-III?

    12 A. R.

    13 Q. Or ICD-X?

    14 A. No, DSM-III-R.

    15 Q. Okay. DSM-III-R. Now, also, does this Dr.

    16 Goreta, does he discuss the defence of diminished

    17 mental responsibility under Yugoslav law at that time?

    18 A. Yes.

    19 Q. Was there such a Defence in Yugoslav law?

    20 A. Apparently, according to this study there

    21 was. He mentioned two aspects of consideration. One

    22 was diminished capacity and the other was a concept of

    23 essential diminished capacity with the second being a

    24 higher standard than the first.

    25 Q. Now, in relating this discussion on

  104. 1 diminished mental responsibility and essential

    2 diminished responsibility, based on one of the

    3 evaluations of Mr. Landzo's, was that discussed in one

    4 of those evaluations?

    5 A. Yes.

    6 Q. And do you remember the name of the doctor

    7 that discussed that? Was it Dr. Semalovic?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. And what exactly was Dr. Semalovic's opinion

    10 of Mr. Landzo at the time in 1992?

    11 A. Well, evidently, he had evaluated two

    12 individuals, Esad Landzo and another man. He found one

    13 of the individuals to have essentially diminished

    14 capacity and he found Esad Landzo to, at that time, to

    15 have diminished capacity.

    16 Q. And do you remember the circumstances of the

    17 evaluation of this Dr. Semalovic, was it a lengthy

    18 evaluation or a short evaluation, do you know that?

    19 A. Well, only what I have been told, I think.

    20 The report itself was relatively short and I think the

    21 evaluation process itself had been relatively brief.

    22 Q. Your Honour, I forgot to offer the chart that

    23 Dr. Gripon had prepared in comparing ICD-X, 1993,

    24 DSM-III-R and DSM-IV. He prepared this himself from

    25 the classifications in the research that he has done.

  105. 1 And I would like to offer this into evidence as

    2 assistance to the Court to show the different

    3 nomenclatures that can be used in order to describe the

    4 condition that Mr. Landzo has been evaluated to have.

    5 That's D 82/4. Your Honour, I am offering that into

    6 evidence, the table. I forgot to offer it a while ago,

    7 is it admitted?

    8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It's before us.

    9 MS. McMURREY: Yes, I am offering it into

    10 evidence. It was prepared by Dr. Gripon to show the

    11 different names given to the different --

    12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I am sure it has been

    13 tendered into evidence, I have seen that.

    14 MS. McMURREY: Well, I think you -- are you

    15 talking about this document? I hadn't offered it into

    16 evidence and I wanted to do that now.

    17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Table 1, Classification

    18 of Personality Disorders?

    19 MS. McMURREY: That's exactly it. I didn't

    20 know if it had been admitted into evidence.

    21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, you did.

    22 MS. McMURREY: Well then, as long as it is

    23 admitted. Thank you.

    24 Q. Now, Dr. Gripon, with this study done by Dr.

    25 Goreta in Croatia, can you explain the difference

  106. 1 between this study and any other studies that may have

    2 been conducted relating to PTSD, say, like, Vietnam?

    3 A. Well, of course, a lot of it would depend on

    4 the style of the way you set the study up. But one

    5 difference in the way this is explained in Goreta's

    6 report is that it happened to have taken place in the

    7 particular homeland. There were some other factors

    8 that are explained quite well in that report that

    9 seemed to impact the individual with any anxiety

    10 disorder, including PTSD. A lot of the studies, of

    11 course, of PTSD have come from the Vietnam era.

    12 However, those people, as we recognise, fought in a war

    13 10.000 miles away. Most of them were studied after

    14 they were brought home. A lot of the studies looked at

    15 issues involving their adaptability or their being

    16 reintegrated back into a free society. There are

    17 probably some similarities, but there would be a lot of

    18 difference in your subject population between these two

    19 groups.

    20 Q. And when you say they were involved in a war

    21 10.000 miles away, you mean their homes and their

    22 families weren't at risk, they were back at home, they

    23 weren't defending their own lives and property and

    24 culture at that time. Would that be a major

    25 difference?

  107. 1 A. Be a significant difference, because if you

    2 were transported to a particular area of combat, you

    3 can certainly develop PTSD as a result of and the

    4 numbers have been reported as high as 30 per cent in

    5 people from that particular conflict. However, still

    6 upon returning or being removed from that zone of

    7 danger, so to speak, you no longer have to face that as

    8 a direct threat at least. So there are differences in

    9 that setting.

    10 Q. And so the time of exposure to a zone of

    11 danger in a situation of Croatia or Bosnia-Herzegovina,

    12 was that quite different from one that would have been

    13 perceived in Vietnam or North Korea or Korea or any of

    14 the other wars that there have been a lot of literature

    15 written about?

    16 A. Yes.

    17 Q. And, in particular, after reading this

    18 article, do you feel that it applies almost completely

    19 to the situation that Mr. Landzo was in, in Bosnia in

    20 1992?

    21 A. Well, there is certainly a lot of described

    22 similarity and certainly is an article that at least

    23 reflects on aspect of that specific condition or

    24 situation. I think there is a lot to be learned from

    25 that article at least.

  108. 1 Q. And Dr. Miroslav Goret, since he was

    2 published in these journals, would he be accepted

    3 probably as one of the foremost psychiatric authorities

    4 in this kind of field, in the field of

    5 post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from war

    6 traumas?

    7 A. Well, in that particular engagement or that

    8 particular setting, I certainly expect he would be,

    9 because he was there and did a study of people. It's

    10 the only one I have seen published that's a result of

    11 that.

    12 Q. Your Honour, I would like to offer this

    13 report by Dr. Goreta into evidence at this time, as

    14 certainly authoritative on the conditions that existed

    15 in the former Yugoslavia at the time and it's the

    16 study, the survey, that he performed. He took 25

    17 soldiers who had been involved in fighting and

    18 determined their personality disorders and PTSD, which

    19 is exactly what we're talking about with Mr. Landzo. I

    20 would like to offer it into evidence at this time.

    21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Who is defending the

    22 authenticity?

    23 MS. McMURREY: Yes.

    24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I'm asking you who is

    25 defending the authority of what has been admitted.

  109. 1 MS. McMURREY: Dr. Gripon just said it was

    2 published in our journal, which is, I think The

    3 Psychiatric Journal. I believe he has the journal with

    4 him, Your Honour.

    5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Is he adopting it as his

    6 own?

    7 MS. McMURREY: Of course he was not there and

    8 he didn't conduct the survey, but he relied upon it,

    9 and he thinks that based upon the survey that was

    10 performed and the conditions that were talked about,

    11 it's absolutely relevant to the same conditions of Esad

    12 Landzo, this was 1991 to 1993, in the Former

    13 Yugoslavia, under the same conditions of aggression by

    14 an outside force. And that's what make it so relevant

    15 to the same allegations of diminished mental

    16 responsibility that we're claiming that Mr. Landzo had

    17 at that time.

    18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If Dr. Gripon is

    19 adopting it as part of the materials he relies on, so

    20 be it.

    21 MS. McMURREY:

    22 Q. Are you adopting it?

    23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You're not putting it

    24 forward independently, that's quite a different matter.

    25 Q. Are you adopting this as one of the articles

  110. 1 that you relied upon?

    2 A. Yes.

    3 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I would object to it

    4 being introduced, first, until I get to see a copy.

    5 And second, it, from the way -- I haven't been given a

    6 copy, but from the way it was described by Dr. Gripon,

    7 it seems to have a physician and a mental health expert

    8 making some kind of legal conclusion based on Yugoslav

    9 law, and I would suggest that, one, physicians aren't

    10 legal experts; and second, Yugoslav law, except as it

    11 applies to punishment is irrelevant in this Court.

    12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Where an expert relies

    13 on certain authorities as part of his opinion, I think

    14 he is entitled to do that. The expert is entitled to

    15 rely on certain opinion which he believes, in his

    16 opinion, should be adopted for the proposition of the

    17 opinion. You might decide differently, but that's a

    18 different matter. But that is his opinion.

    19 MR. MORAN: The second thing is, like I said,

    20 I just, I would like to have a copy of it at some

    21 point.

    22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, I think so.

    23 MR. COWLES: Just for the record, Your

    24 Honour, the Prosecutor would join for the same

    25 objections, Your Honour, and --

  111. 1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That he is not entitled

    2 to rely on it?

    3 MR. COWLES: Your Honour, of course an expert

    4 can rely on many different publications and writings,

    5 but we object to Dr. Goreta's opinion being used as any

    6 part of this defence. If Dr. Gripon has his own

    7 opinion that's fine, but we object to the introduction

    8 of another doctor's opinion as being some sort of

    9 substantive evidence in support of this diminished

    10 responsibility under Yugoslavian law defence.

    11 She should have called Dr. Goreta as a

    12 witness.

    13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Oh, you're definitely

    14 entitled to disagree with Dr. Gripon for doing that,

    15 but that does not mean he cannot adopt someone's

    16 opinion as his own. He is quite perfectly free to do

    17 that.

    18 MS. McMURREY: And Your Honour, at the break

    19 I will provide every Defence counsel with a copy of the

    20 article so they can review it before we come back.

    21 JUDGE JAN: This is one of the documents upon

    22 which Dr. Gripon is relying?

    23 MS. McMURREY: Yes, it is, Your Honour.

    24 JUDGE JAN: For only that purpose you want it

    25 on the record?

  112. 1 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour.

    2 JUDGE JAN: Nothing more than that.

    3 MS. McMURREY: Nothing more that.

    4 JUDGE JAN: Otherwise, Dr. Goreta has

    5 examined only 25 cases. Maybe if he had done more he

    6 would change his opinion.

    7 MS. McMURREY: I'm trying to get in touch

    8 with Dr. Goreta right now and maybe we can find out

    9 what his new conclusion might be or if more studies

    10 have been conducted.

    11 JUDGE JAN: -- engaged in act of fighting.

    12 INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.

    13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think the whole thing

    14 is -- nothing stops him from expressing an opinion.

    15 Nothing stops you opposing that opinion and giving an

    16 alternative opinion. That's perfectly right. The

    17 Prosecution, the Defence, anybody is entitled to decide

    18 whether that's their opinion.

    19 JUDGE JAN: The accused has the opinion Dr.

    20 Gripon is more important.

    21 MS. McMURREY:

    22 Q. Well, Dr. Gripon, did you study this report

    23 and did you rely on it in assimilating some of the

    24 information that you based your opinion on?

    25 A. As far as psychiatric information, based on

  113. 1 something studied, yes.

    2 MS. McMURREY: And I offer it for that

    3 purpose, Your Honour. I don't know, does it have an

    4 exhibit number?

    5 THE REGISTRAR: It's Defence Document D83/4.

    6 MS. McMURREY: Thank you.

    7 JUDGE JAN: It is not substantive evidence.

    8 MS. McMURREY: No, it is not substantive

    9 evidence, and I will provide copies to the Defence

    10 counsel at the break.

    11 Q. Okay, Dr. Gripon, when I asked you to come to

    12 a conclusion about Mr. Landzo's condition in 1992, as a

    13 forensic psychiatrist, you're accustomed to having some

    14 kind of legal standards and definitions to apply; is

    15 that true?

    16 A. Yes.

    17 Q. And since we didn't have anything, we have a

    18 standard, like the burden switches to the Defence to

    19 prove by a preponderance of the probabilities, but we

    20 didn't have a definition to go by; is that what I

    21 represented to you?

    22 A. Yes.

    23 Q. And were you provided a definition based on

    24 some other law? And what was that law?

    25 A. Yes, I was provided, actually, several

  114. 1 possibilities as to what that standard might be. And

    2 the main focus of that was on a British standard.

    3 Q. And that would be the British Common Law

    4 standard for diminished mental responsibility?

    5 A. That's correct.

    6 Q. In using that legal standard, which is by no

    7 means settled law in this Tribunal at this moment, did

    8 you come to any conclusion applying that legal standard

    9 to your psychiatric findings, forensic psychiatric

    10 findings, with regard to Mr. Landzo?

    11 A. Yes.

    12 Q. And what was that conclusion?

    13 A. This man has a substantial and very obvious

    14 personality disorder that certainly does influence

    15 behaviour. It's going to influence how he reacts and

    16 how he responds to certain kinds of external stimuli.

    17 The addition of the Axis I diagnosis of any

    18 anxiety disorder that might have been present, I think

    19 the two combined at that time would have reduced his

    20 ability to respond or would have diminished his

    21 capacity, based on the standard I was provided.

    22 Q. And in 1992, while at Celebici, based upon

    23 your diagnosis of the personality disorder compounded

    24 by the PTSD, or anxiety order, could Mr. Landzo have

    25 exercised his own free will to refuse to obey the

  115. 1 orders of his superiors at that time?

    2 A. Free will is a somewhat difficult and

    3 nebulous issue, it's very hard to quantify free will.

    4 I think certainly, though, at those particular times,

    5 given the particular personality traits that this man

    6 has, and the many very significant maladaptive traits

    7 that are present in him, I don't think he could have.

    8 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I pass the

    9 witness at this time.

    10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any cross-examination of

    11 this witness?

    12 MS. RESIDOVIC: We, the Defence of

    13 Mr. Delalic have no questions for the witness.

    14 MR. OLUJIC: Your Honour, we have no

    15 questions for the witness.

    16 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I only have a few

    17 questions.

    18 MR. MORAN: May it please the Court.

    19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed.

    20 Cross examined by Mr. Moran

    21 Q. Good afternoon, Doctor. I'm going to try and

    22 do this without earphones, because we talked about this

    23 on one occasion when we chanted, I think it's really

    24 strange to be standing here talking to someone ten feet

    25 away in the same language and listening on earphones.

  116. 1 By the way, we have talked before on several

    2 occasions.

    3 A. Yes, we have.

    4 Q. In fact, the first time we met, you and

    5 Mrs. McMurrey and I had dinner at a restaurant down on

    6 the beach?

    7 A. Yes.

    8 Q. An Italian restaurant several months ago?

    9 A. Back in the fall, in September, I think.

    10 Q. And we have had dinner, well, we had dinner,

    11 what, last week, when you walked into a restaurant and

    12 Salih and I were sitting there?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. And we talked about the case and your

    15 opinions.

    16 A. Yes.

    17 Q. And I think we chatted in the hotel a couple

    18 of times.

    19 A. Yes.

    20 Q. Okay. So, I think a lot of this we're going

    21 to be playing on the same sheet of music, but let me

    22 just try. Let me talk about a few things.

    23 First, in your report you talked about

    24 relying on Dr. Verde's, what is it, psycho, whatever

    25 kind of testing it is?

  117. 1 A. He did psychological testing, and he did two

    2 specific tests, a thermotic apperception test and a

    3 Rorschach.

    4 Q. And there's a phrase you psychiatrists and

    5 psychologists use for that.

    6 A. Projective psychological testing.

    7 Q. That's right. And isn't it true that unless

    8 a person is a psychopath that those projective tests

    9 really have no meaning? Do you remember telling me

    10 that?

    11 A. No, that's not what I said.

    12 Q. Maybe I misunderstood you. What did you tell

    13 me?

    14 A. Those tests are best utilised to determine

    15 psychosis, not psychopathy. Psychosis is a disturbance

    16 of reality testing, schizophrenia’s and that sort of

    17 thing are much easier to determine through that test.

    18 Q. By the way, Mr. Landzo is not psychopathic?

    19 A. He is not psychotic.

    20 Q. Psychotic. Okay, he doesn't see animals

    21 coming out of the wall at him.

    22 A. Right.

    23 Q. He doesn't hear voices from Mars.

    24 A. He is not psychotic.

    25 Q. Okay. Let's talk about some of the sources

  118. 1 of information you relied on. You were in court a

    2 couple of weeks ago when you heard me discuss, with a

    3 half-smile on my lips, a volume called the Life and

    4 Times of Esad Landzo by Esad Landzo.

    5 A. Yes, sir.

    6 Q. Have you reviewed that document?

    7 A. Yes.

    8 Q. And you relied on it in reaching your

    9 opinions?

    10 A. I read it.

    11 Q. Did you -- ?

    12 A. It's part of the total information that I

    13 looked at, certainly.

    14 Q. So you relied -- ?

    15 INTERPRETER: Your Honour, could you ask the

    16 two gentlemen to make a break between the question and

    17 answer? Thank you very much.

    18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The way Counsel is

    19 suggesting, is it one of the materials on which you

    20 relied for your opinion?

    21 A. It was part of the total bulk of information

    22 reviewed.

    23 Q. Well, let me give you an example of what I'm

    24 getting at. You have made a diagnosis of antisocial

    25 personality disorder. And one of the criteria for

  119. 1 antisocial personality disorder is that there be a

    2 disorder known as conduct disorder with onset before

    3 the age of 15 years.

    4 A. Yes, sir.

    5 Q. Did you rely on Mr. Landzo's autobiography to

    6 find evidence of what occurred before his 15th

    7 birthday?

    8 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I'm going to

    9 object to Mr. Moran referring to Mr. Landzo's

    10 autobiography. What he is referring to is not the life

    11 and times of Esad Landzo, it was notes written in the

    12 attorney-client privileged setting at the time to

    13 explain to me what happened. And it's not an

    14 autobiography and not anything other than notes to his

    15 lawyer.

    16 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I think if those

    17 notes have been, formed part of the basis of an

    18 expert's opinion, I don't care where they came from, if

    19 this expert is going to sit here, I can't cross-examine

    20 him unless I know what the basis of his opinion is.

    21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The expert has indicated

    22 that is one of the materials on which he relied in

    23 coming to his opinion. He is entitled. Counsel is

    24 entitled to refer to such opinion.

    25 JUDGE JAN: Defence made those notes

  120. 1 available to the doctor.

    2 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I will make those

    3 notes available.

    4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You did to the expert.

    5 MS. McMURREY: Yes, I did.

    6 JUDGE JAN: You waived your privilege.

    7 MS. McMURREY: Yes, I made them available to

    8 the expert.

    9 JUDGE JAN: So you waived your privilege.

    10 MS. McMURREY: Okay. But it's not a book

    11 written for publication, is what I was telling

    12 Mr. Moran. He acts like he is writing his

    13 autobiography to be published in New York tomorrow.

    14 MR. MORAN: If the usher would, with the help

    15 of the usher I have, and Mr. Karabdic has provided a

    16 few copies of some pages from the DSM-IV. There should

    17 be sufficient copies for the Trial Chamber and for the

    18 witness and for of all the counsel. They are down on

    19 the end there. It's the top group of documents. Just

    20 the top group of documents. Just the top group, not

    21 all of those documents, just the top, the top 10 or 15

    22 stapled things.

    23 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Document 108/3.

    24 MR. MORAN:

    25 Q. Do you have a copy, Doctor?

  121. 1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. Let me go to page, what would be 90 of the

    3 DSM-IV, which is part of the one that's in here. And

    4 right up at the top on Diagnostic Criteria A, for

    5 conduct disorder, it lists several groups of things.

    6 And I'm going to ask you which one of those you found

    7 evidence of before the onset of age 15, or the onset of

    8 before the age of 15, okay?

    9 How about aggression to people and animals;

    10 did you find any evidence that he bullied, threatened

    11 or intimidated others?

    12 A. No.

    13 Q. How about fights?

    14 JUDGE JAN: Just a minute, just a minute, you

    15 said 990?

    16 MR. MORAN: No, 90, Your Honour, 90.

    17 JUDGE JAN: I don't have that page. Here it

    18 is. I've got it.

    19 Q. So you don't -- well, what of those criteria

    20 did you find?

    21 A. Basically he gives a history as a young

    22 person of a lot of asocial behaviour; hanging out, as he

    23 testified here, with an older age group of individuals,

    24 with being kind of a gofer for them at times, going to

    25 get various things, including alcohol, consuming

  122. 1 alcohol at a young age.

    2 They actually did tend to confront people and

    3 try to seek money from them, and if this sort of gang

    4 could not obtain that, then there was some physical

    5 threat to the individuals.

    6 Q. Excuse, could you go a little further into

    7 that? You said if the gang was trying to get money for

    8 liquor there would be physical threats to individuals;

    9 tell me about, one, the individuals, and two, the

    10 physical threats.

    11 A. I don't know that much specifically about

    12 that. He described that as being something that was

    13 involved in a group activity when he was younger.

    14 Q. Would that be something which we would call

    15 in our jurisdiction, a robbery?

    16 A. Certainly.

    17 Q. You found that. What else did you find,

    18 Doctor?

    19 A. Well, just some behaviour that was associated

    20 with not always conforming it to an appropriate

    21 standard.

    22 Q. What do you mean by that?

    23 A. By doing acts of, involved in consuming

    24 alcohol, which was, I'm assuming, not appropriate at

    25 his age, some other kinds of behavioural sort of

  123. 1 problems, what is associated in conduct disorders in

    2 teenagers, anyway.

    3 Q. And these violent acts, were they associated

    4 with the use of alcohol?

    5 A. Sometimes.

    6 Q. In fact, a lot of times, it's been your

    7 experience, hasn't it, that when people consume

    8 alcohol, some people become violent?

    9 A. Certainly.

    10 Q. Okay. Now, these victims of these robberies

    11 we were talking about, were they older people, younger

    12 people, people that could fight back, or was it -- ?

    13 A. I don't know.

    14 Q. You don't know?

    15 And do you know whether Mr. Landzo was the

    16 one that actually made these threats before age 15, or

    17 whether he was just hanging around with a bunch of

    18 thugs that made threats to get money before he was 15?

    19 A. He was just a part of that.

    20 Q. Just a party to it?

    21 A. Yes. I don't know the specifics of that but

    22 certainly he described some conduct related issues.

    23 Q. And in fact, you would agree with me that

    24 when people who are younger, say under the age of 17,

    25 engage in that kind of conduct, or maybe the age of 18,

  124. 1 the times when it's a repeated thing, that those people

    2 should be held responsible for their crimes, just like

    3 they were an adult -- for their acts, excuse me, not

    4 their crimes?

    5 A. Generally are.

    6 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I'm going to

    7 object, he hasn't said what legal standard he's

    8 applying for what age they would be held responsible.

    9 Is he applying American legal standard? Is that what

    10 he's asking?

    11 MR. MORAN: I thought my question was being

    12 held responsible for their acts, and I thought I used

    13 the ages of 17 or 18.

    14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It's a proper question

    15 to ask.

    16 MR. MORAN: Thank you.

    17 Q. And in fact, on more than one occasion,

    18 you've testified in courts for prosecutors to hold

    19 people who were criminally liable but under the age of

    20 17 or 18, have them held criminally liable as adults;

    21 haven't you, Doctor?

    22 A. Yes.

    23 Q. And some of those people were not nearly as

    24 bright as Mr. Landzo; were they?

    25 A. Some were not.

  125. 1 Q. In fact -- well, let me go on to, just jump

    2 to another area. I'm just going through my notes in

    3 pretty much the order we came in.

    4 PTSD, you're not going to find PTSD in there,

    5 so, if you like I'll get DSM-IV and we'll go out and

    6 copy it. We're within 7 minutes of a break and I can

    7 make copies of the criteria for PTSD.

    8 But basically as I understand PTSD it's an

    9 avoidance reaction, that I have some kind of horrible,

    10 shocking experience. Maybe I survive a plane crash,

    11 maybe I'm in a war, and I try to avoid being placed in

    12 that kind of situation again. Is that fair, to call it

    13 that?

    14 A. Well, that's one of the 7 criteria, yes, but

    15 only one of 7; so, it's not fair to describe PTSD that

    16 way, no.

    17 Q. So, people that have post-traumatic stress

    18 syndrome may continue to go back to the same stimuli?

    19 A. Sometimes they do. They would tend to avoid

    20 it frequently if they are capable of doing so, but

    21 there are very few absolutes, so certainly you could

    22 find some that would go back to their situation. But

    23 there is avoidance as a part of that in many cases.

    24 Q. In fact, sometimes this kind -- it's a stress

    25 disorder; isn't it?

  126. 1 A. Yes, sir.

    2 Q. In fact it would be fair to call it a

    3 situational stress disorder; wouldn't it, Doctor?

    4 A. It's an anxiety disorder, one of the anxiety

    5 disorders, and it is a response to a specific

    6 stressor. I don't think you would generically call it

    7 situational stress, because that would most closely

    8 approximate an adjustment disorder. But that gets into

    9 a lot of overlapping and somewhat obscure psychiatric

    10 terminology that may or may not be important, because

    11 you're talking about an anxiety disorder.

    12 Q. And in fact sometimes these anxiety disorders

    13 can be so severe that people may be able to not hold

    14 gainful employment simply because of the stress

    15 disorder; would that be fair, Doctor? In fact, you've

    16 testified to that, haven't you?

    17 A. Certainly, it has occurred.

    18 Q. And one would expect someone with a severe

    19 case of PTSD to try to avoid these kinds of stressors?

    20 A. Depending on the circumstances, the answer

    21 would generally be yes.

    22 Q. People that suffer from Post Traumatic Stress

    23 Syndrome, that usually comes up after the stress;

    24 right? You don't get PTSD during the stress.

    25 JUDGE JAN: It's post.

  127. 1 Q. Because it's post.

    2 A. That what the term means, Post Traumatic

    3 Stress Disorder.

    4 Q. And you were talking to Mrs. McMurrey about

    5 Axis I and Axis II disorders, and I don't want to get

    6 into psycho-babble, because that's a phrase you and I

    7 both use.

    8 A. I use it quite frequently.

    9 Q. Essentially when you have something like

    10 PTSD, and something -- in Mr. Landzo's case, antisocial

    11 personality disorder; those are two separate things.

    12 A. Yes, sir. Any Axis II diagnosis is separate

    13 and apart from any major mental disorder. An Axis II

    14 diagnosis is limited, by definition, to mental

    15 retardation or personality disorder. That's the only

    16 two that can go in Axis II. All the others go in Axis

    17 I.

    18 Q. I know this is oversimplified, but

    19 essentially it's like in a physical way someone might

    20 have heart disease and cancer. They are two different

    21 things? Would that be fair?

    22 A. They are different.

    23 Q. And you said that an Axis II diagnosis, that

    24 would be, in Mr. Landzo's case, antisocial personality

    25 disorder, is persistent?

  128. 1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. And it's been around at least since he was

    3 15?

    4 A. Well, you can't make the diagnosis

    5 appropriately until one is 18 years of age. But

    6 certainly the condition and the problems on which that

    7 is going to be supported in the diagnosis is going to

    8 be made, once the person is an adult, those symptoms,

    9 to one extent or another, are certain problems have

    10 been present. It just doesn't start a month before

    11 you're 18th birthday. So you can see the preceding

    12 developmental issues.

    13 Q. And in fact, I keep wanting to say Post

    14 Traumatic Stress Disorder order, I'm sorry. Antisocial

    15 Personality Disorder, we've called that other things in

    16 the past, like sociopathy, being a sociopath?

    17 A. Yes, we call it different things in the

    18 United States, and it's still called by a different

    19 terms on an international criteria, but certainly, it's

    20 had a number of labels over the years.

    21 Q. And what kinds of things characterise

    22 antisocial personality disorder?

    23 A. There's a number of criteria that are listed,

    24 I can read them for you if you want.

    25 Q. Well, I think that the judges can read them,

  129. 1 they have them in front of them. If you could tell us

    2 in English, as opposed to -- ?

    3 A. It's written in pretty simple English,

    4 really. I can tell you, I'll go down those.

    5 Q. Let's talk about which ones are present in

    6 Esad Landzo.

    7 A. Okay.

    8 Q. Okay, how about failure to comply with social

    9 norms, that's on page 649 of these -- by the way, were

    10 you in the courtroom this morning, or yesterday?

    11 A. Yes.

    12 Q. So you heard some of Mr. Landzo's testimony?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. Let's go down through the -- there is nothing

    15 wrong with that, the rules specifically provide experts

    16 can be in the courtroom?

    17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think we've gone a

    18 long time, let's have a break here and come back at

    19 4.30.

    20 MR. MORAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

    21 --- Recess taken at 4.00 p.m.

    22 --- On resuming at 4.33 p.m.

    23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Now, Mr. Moran, you may

    24 continue.

    25 JUDGE JAN: How do the questions help your

  130. 1 Defence?

    2 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, the way it helps my

    3 defence and it will come clear in a moment, it has to

    4 do with the truth and voracity of certain witnesses who

    5 have testified and are in the process of testifying,

    6 not this man, but other people that are in the process

    7 of testifying. And, doctor, I am clearly not impugning

    8 your credibility, okay.

    9 THE WITNESS: Fine.

    10 MR. MORAN: Okay.

    11 Q. Antisocial personality disorder, let's talk

    12 about that for a minute. One of the criteria, or not

    13 criteria, but one of the central features of antisocial

    14 personality disorder is deceit and manipulation, would

    15 you agree with me?

    16 A. Yes.

    17 Q. And, in fact, people that suffer from

    18 antisocial personality disorder, they essentially lack

    19 a conscious; is that fair?

    20 A. That's been one description, certainly, of

    21 the condition, that is the absence of a social

    22 conscience.

    23 Q. They will do whatever it takes so that they

    24 can get what they want?

    25 A. At times, that's certainly true.

  131. 1 Q. So, for instance, the extreme example would

    2 be somebody wants some money and they shoot the

    3 convenience store clerk?

    4 A. That could be associated with antisocial,

    5 certainly.

    6 Q. And they want to get something and so they

    7 lie to get it?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. And they're pretty good liars, aren't they?

    10 A. Some are and certainly as a group, they're

    11 probably better than the average.

    12 Q. And that's because they have no conscience?

    13 A. That's part of it.

    14 Q. And, in fact, and I may be wrong on this, but

    15 haven't I heard of some studies that if somebody is

    16 sufficiently antisocial personality disorder and if you

    17 put him on a polygraph test and he lies, it shows no

    18 deceit because he doesn't have the conscience?

    19 A. Well, that's been alleged and a part of that,

    20 of course, is the fact that a person with antisocial

    21 features, sometimes in telling something that's not the

    22 literal truth, they may even, they may believe it or

    23 they may show no affective response to deceit, so it

    24 makes it harder to detect on a polygraph.

    25 Q. And they manipulate people?

  132. 1 A. They can be quite manipulative, yes.

    2 Q. And they manipulate doctors, lawyers,

    3 accountants, juries...

    4 A. They certainly try.

    5 Q. And sometimes it works?

    6 A. I am sure it has.

    7 Q. Is there any treatment for antisocial

    8 personality disorder by the way?

    9 A. Well, that brings up a kind of a difficult

    10 issue. There are treatments for it. There is no

    11 guaranteed certain outcome. It's what called a cluster

    12 B personality disorder. Those are the ones that have

    13 variable outcome of treatment. There are three

    14 clusters: A, B and C. C is considered treatable. A

    15 is hardly treatable at all. B has variable outcome.

    16 Some people feel you can impact certain aspects of

    17 antisocial personality, some are much more pessimistic

    18 about that. It's hard to treat.

    19 Q. And people with antisocial personality

    20 disorder, they generally show a lack of remorse, don't

    21 they?

    22 A. Certainly. One of the prime features of,

    23 along with others, of the some seven or so that are in

    24 DSM-IV.

    25 Q. And this, and someone who has antisocial

  133. 1 personality disorder, like you diagnosed Mr. Landzo,

    2 that kind of behaviour doesn't come and go in episodes,

    3 it happens all the time, right?

    4 A. Well, no behaviour, no behaviour is probably

    5 totally constant. But, certainly, the condition, the

    6 antisocial personality that would impact behaviour is

    7 constant. You're not always going to have a specific,

    8 predictable outcome. But if a person has antisocial

    9 features, they're going to respond in that fashion the

    10 majority of the time. You know, there are very few

    11 absolutes, so you can't say that every time you could

    12 find their response is a direct reflection of one of

    13 those criteria, but it's going to influence their

    14 behaviour with reasonable psychiatric probability more

    15 often than not.

    16 Q. Okay. So let me give you an example.

    17 Someone with antisocial personality behaviour --

    18 antisocial personality disorder. Okay, someone with

    19 that, wants something, pick what it is, a new car, get

    20 out of jail, you know, whatever. And he lies and

    21 manipulates to get that because he thinks that will get

    22 it for him. And that doesn't get it for him. Wouldn't

    23 you expect to all reasonable psychiatric probability

    24 that that person would then engage in some other kind

    25 of deceitful or manipulative conduct to get what he

  134. 1 wants, that new car or out of jail or whatever?

    2 A. Well, again, certainly, so long as the

    3 person's behaviour is goal-directed to whatever that

    4 goal might be, the behaviour is going to be influenced

    5 by the personality disorder and it's probably going to

    6 be relatively self-serving, so certainly, they may

    7 shift from one deception to another.

    8 Q. And be pretty darn convincing when they did

    9 it?

    10 A. Well again, some are much better than others,

    11 but some are very convincing.

    12 Q. At least based on my experience with my

    13 clients, the brighter ones tend to be more convincing

    14 than the dumber ones?

    15 A. Well, intellect is a gift, I mean, so

    16 obviously, if you put it to the wrong use, intellect

    17 can obviously, help you, I guess, in some of those

    18 directions.

    19 Q. Let's shift to this man sitting behind me,

    20 Mr. Landzo, the guy that you have you examined. Oh,

    21 let me change the subject, just for a second, before we

    22 go to that. During the break, did you talk about your

    23 testimony with anybody?

    24 A. No.

    25 Q. Mr. Landzo, let's focus on him for just a

  135. 1 minute. You say he has got post-traumatic stress

    2 syndrome. And one of the things you rely on is this

    3 study, this Croatian study. Do you know whether that

    4 study found a correlation between people with

    5 post-traumatic stress syndrome and people who commit

    6 violent acts or whether it just found that sometimes

    7 that people that commit violent acts have

    8 post-traumatic stress syndrome. To state it

    9 differently, a cause and effect relationship.

    10 Post-traumatic stress syndrome equals violence?

    11 A. No, it doesn't equal violence. They found

    12 some correlation in that study with post-traumatic

    13 stress disorder and certain personality disorder and an

    14 increased frequency of certain aspects of violence. I

    15 don't think, and you obviously have to read the study.

    16 I don't think they found that the one always indicated

    17 the other.

    18 Q. One is not the cause of the other?

    19 A. It's a factor in causality, but it's

    20 certainly not the sole and only cause, no.

    21 Q. Esad Landzo did not avoid the stimulus that

    22 he alleges caused his post-traumatic stress syndrome;

    23 did he?

    24 A. It depends on what stimulus one is looking

    25 at. If you're talking about the alleged Croatian

  136. 1 experience in this sort of training camp kind of thing,

    2 he stayed there until he was able to leave. Now, if

    3 one is talking about the fact that certain aspects of

    4 the conflict coming to that area could have increased

    5 or on top of that created aspects of an anxiety

    6 disorder, he didn't totally avoid that and I don't know

    7 to what extent he really could have because there were

    8 other factors that impacted that, but certainly he

    9 didn't flee the area, no.

    10 Q. Okay. You say, and you use the phrase

    11 "Anxiety disorder relating to the conflict coming to

    12 Konjic." Let me explore that with you for just a

    13 second. Presumably everybody that's ever been in

    14 combat was scared. Everybody that has ever been shot

    15 at was scared. You've heard the phrase, there is

    16 non-atheist in fox holes?

    17 A. I have heard that phrase.

    18 Q. And you agree with that, I presume?

    19 A. I have never been in a fox hole, I don't

    20 disagree or agree with the term. I can understand it.

    21 Q. Would you agree with me that if somebody is

    22 in combat and is being shot at and isn't scared, there

    23 is something wrong?

    24 A. People are very highly variable. I suppose

    25 most people in combat have a certain amount of fear as

  137. 1 to their personal safety. You'd have to ask them.

    2 Many people seem to enjoy that sort of thing and fear

    3 is certainly not their primary concern. So I don't

    4 know that you can put people into just one category

    5 like that.

    6 Q. You'd agree with me that fear is something

    7 God gave us to protect us?

    8 A. I don't know where it originated from.

    9 Q. Reasonable fears.

    10 A. I don't know where it originated from. There

    11 is a flight called a fight-flight phenomenon in which

    12 fear once generated, a person responds to that and they

    13 do one of several things, they either bow their back

    14 and defend themselves or they leave.

    15 Q. Now, when this fear phenomenon turns into

    16 post-traumatic stress syndrome, that's an unreasonable

    17 fear; right? It goes beyond the norm?

    18 A. I don't know that it turns into it that way.

    19 You know, in post-traumatic stress disorder as its

    20 defined, there is some type of significant and specific

    21 stressful event. Sometimes, given any particular

    22 event, you can develop, or would be likely to develop,

    23 PTSD with a much higher percentage than at other

    24 times. It certainly doesn't occur all the time in any

    25 condition that I am aware of, 100 per cent of the

  138. 1 time. But depending on the magnitude of the stressor,

    2 the results of that can clearly be post-traumatic

    3 stress in many people. And there are a lot of studies

    4 that we could be here all day going over probably that

    5 support certain vulnerabilities that certain people

    6 have that lead them to be more likely to develop PTSD

    7 and that's such things as personality disorder,

    8 childhood abuse and on and on that list goes. That's a

    9 relatively complex area.

    10 Q. Okay. By the way this Croatian camp, one of

    11 the reports that was handed to us a little while ago by

    12 Ms. McMurrey was one by a doctor, I think it's

    13 Semalovic. Did you review that report?

    14 A. Yes.

    15 Q. Did it mention anything about that Croatian

    16 camp?

    17 A. In that report? Not that I remember.

    18 Q. Not that I remember either, I just wanted to

    19 make sure I hasn't missed it. And that report was done

    20 about when, that evaluation and report?

    21 A. I would have to look, but '94. I think it's

    22 '94.

    23 Q. And you're familiar with Dr. Lagazzi's report

    24 from July of this year, July 3rd of this year?

    25 A. Yes, sir.

  139. 1 Q. And you're familiar with that part of the

    2 report where Lagazzi says that he didn't think there

    3 was PTSD at the time Mr. Landzo was in the Celebici

    4 camp because of the way he re-described this Croatian

    5 death camp scenario?

    6 A. I don't remember that specifically, but it

    7 may well be in there. I didn't memorise that report, I

    8 read it.

    9 Q. This is out of page 4 of his report,

    10 concerning the period of the war, he minimises in a

    11 most astonishing way, the importance of the trauma he

    12 underwent in the Croatian paramilitary training camp in

    13 1991, in which he said that he was present in a number

    14 of murders of unarmed victims. And he maintained that

    15 he found this type of situation normal. And then

    16 later, I think Dr. Lagazzi, in his report, downplays

    17 PTSD.

    18 Now, people with PTSD, are they able to

    19 control their actions?

    20 A. Well, from the condition or the simple

    21 condition itself, one would expect that it could impact

    22 some aspects of control, but certainly, they are,

    23 again, not psychotic and they would not be without

    24 control totally from PTSD alone, no.

    25 Q. Well, for instance, I understand, and if you

  140. 1 go the furthest that you could go, that someone with

    2 PTSD or some form of stress disorder standing alone may

    3 be unable to maintain useful employment, but that would

    4 be on the very bitter edge of it, wouldn't it?

    5 A. I don't know what the term "bitter edge" now

    6 means. The more serious the symptomology, the more

    7 florid the psychiatric symptoms, the more impairment

    8 you would tend to see. And it certainly could impair

    9 ability to sustain a job.

    10 Q. Do you know how much impairment Esad Landzo

    11 had in April, May, June, July, August, 1992?

    12 A. Impairment of what?

    13 Q. Caused by PTSD.

    14 A. What type of impairment?

    15 Q. Well, you used the word impairment, what type

    16 of impairment did you find?

    17 A. I wasn't there in 1992. I believe that if he

    18 had the condition stated, which I do, post-traumatic or

    19 any anxiety disorder, and, as I have said, this is

    20 redundant, but superimposed on his personality

    21 disorder, I think there would be an impairment of his

    22 level of responsibility and action, that sort of

    23 thing. That's all I can say. I can't quantify that as

    24 to a percentage, I don't think anyone can do that.

    25 Q. And would that be consistent with what he

  141. 1 told Dr. Lagazzi, about people in the camp could do all

    2 these horrible things to Serbs and play out their

    3 fantasies. Of course he said he never did it when he

    4 talked to Lagazzi about that, but would that be the

    5 kind of thing, tying up PTSD maybe with antisocial

    6 personality disorder?

    7 A. I am not sure I follow that.

    8 Q. Let me try it again. Maybe I didn't ask the

    9 question well. At one of the times he talked to Dr.

    10 Lagazzi, he said --

    11 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I am going to

    12 object to this line of questioning. Dr. Gripon has a

    13 wealth of information, other than Dr. Lagazzi's

    14 report. Dr. Lagazzi is the best one to testify about

    15 what was in his report. And if Mr. Moran would like to

    16 go on with what is in Dr. Gripon's report and what he

    17 has had access to, then I think that would be the best

    18 evidence. He is reading from Dr. Lagazzi's report.

    19 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, he based his

    20 opinion, at least in part, on Lagazzi's report.

    21 Secondly, Lagazzi reached a completely different

    22 diagnosis. And I think it might be helpful to the

    23 Trial Chamber to find out if there was some kind of

    24 difference in diagnosis and why.

    25 MS. McMURREY: Well, that's the question he

  142. 1 should ask him then.

    2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, I don't see why

    3 when there are more than one experts, counsel is not

    4 entitled to find out the views of each of these experts

    5 to show whether they are consistent or contradictory.

    6 MR. MORAN: Actually, I am pretty sure it was

    7 Lagazzi, but, if you give me a while, I'll find it.

    8 But he did talk about people, guards in the camp were

    9 able to take out their fantasies, if you would, against

    10 the Serb prisoners.

    11 Q. Would taking out one's fantasies, in that

    12 kind of way, be consistent with someone who -- here is

    13 the exact quote. "With a perplexed attitude, but also

    14 with an incongruous satisfaction, he recounts that

    15 certain guards were allowed to fulfil their fantasies,

    16 forever devising new ways of beating the prisoners."

    17 Do you remember that part of Lagazzi's report from

    18 November of last year? November of '96?

    19 A. Not specifically, no.

    20 Q. Is fulfilling one's fantasies by torturing

    21 people in new and creative ways, devising new ways of

    22 beating prisoners, is that consistent with someone that

    23 maybe has a combination of post-traumatic stress

    24 disorder and antisocial personality disorder?

    25 A. It would certainly not be inconsistent with

  143. 1 that, no.

    2 Q. And that kind of person wouldn't require an

    3 order to do it, would he?

    4 A. Whether he would or not, not necessarily, not

    5 if that person were actually acting in their own

    6 volition where that is concerned.

    7 Q. In fact, he may very well do it on it his

    8 own?

    9 A. It could occur, certainly, anything is

    10 possible.

    11 Q. How about having an apartment that you're

    12 supposed to move into and when you find somebody, four

    13 girls in that apartment tossing a hand grenade in,

    14 would that be consistent with someone with antisocial

    15 personality disorder, suffering also with PTSD?

    16 A. It certainly would be consistent with some

    17 kind of a personality disorder, antisocial would be a

    18 part of that equation or certainly could be if that was

    19 the response.

    20 Q. Did you see Mr. Landzo's testimony this

    21 morning?

    22 A. Yes.

    23 Q. Okay. I don't recall whether he talked about

    24 it or not, but do you recall an incident that you may

    25 have learned about otherwise where he was in a bar with

  144. 1 some friends and they had a bill come, that the cheque

    2 came?

    3 A. Yes, sir.

    4 Q. Tell the judges about it.

    5 JUDGE JAN: Unnecessary.

    6 MR. MORAN: All right, Your Honour.

    7 Q. Remorse, or lack thereof, did you ever see

    8 any remorse?

    9 A. Have I ever seen remorse?

    10 Q. In this defendant.

    11 A. Over the course of my evaluation, he has

    12 developed some intellectualised ability to comment

    13 about now certain aspects of his involvement.

    14 Initially, in the first 9 to 12 months in evaluating

    15 him, I did not see evidence of that, no.

    16 Q. You said that he has developed some ability

    17 to comment intellectually on his involvement?

    18 A. Yes.

    19 Q. Is remorse intellectual or is remorse

    20 emotional?

    21 A. It's both. You have to intellectualise the

    22 concept to ever demonstrate any emotion associated with

    23 it. But it's both. I mean, it requires a cognitive

    24 process of understanding, so there is an intellectual

    25 component of remorse.

  145. 1 Q. And did you see any remorse? That's the

    2 question I asked, you didn't quite answer the

    3 question.

    4 A. I said I have seen little remorse until here

    5 of late when he has been able to conceptualise some

    6 aspects of that, which is what I said.

    7 Q. And does he sometimes appear indifferent or

    8 rationalise harm that he might have done to others?

    9 A. Yes.

    10 Q. And people he mistreated?

    11 A. Yes.

    12 Q. And, in fact, isn't one that the diagnostic

    13 criteria for antisocial personality disorder?

    14 A. Yes, sir, that's the basis on which I made

    15 this diagnosis, was those kind of findings and

    16 features.

    17 Q. Okay. I have got a couple of other

    18 questions. But one I just noticed in my notes, Mrs.

    19 McMurrey asked you if he was empowered again over other

    20 people. And my notes say that your answer is, it's

    21 generally going to have an unpleasant result. What do

    22 you mean by that?

    23 A. Well, you know, common sense would tell

    24 anyone, you don't have to be psychiatrist to figure out

    25 that with some of the features that you've been

  146. 1 reciting to me, lack of remorse, certain aspects of

    2 aggressive types of behaviour, that if that person were

    3 empowered in some position of responsibility and

    4 misused that, that he would have an unfortunate

    5 outcome, someone would get hurt, they would take

    6 advantage of it, they would do whatever antisocial

    7 people tend to do when they're in control. It's

    8 well-recorded.

    9 Q. And it would be consistent with your

    10 diagnosis for Esad Landzo to tell one thing to an

    11 investigator from the Office of the Prosecutor and to

    12 tell something else a few months later to a

    13 psychiatrist if the first thing didn't get him out of

    14 jail, to tell something different to a psychiatrist a

    15 few months later in hopes of reaching his goal, get out

    16 of jail. And it would be consistent for him to change

    17 that story with the psychiatrist, maybe a little later,

    18 or feign some kind of dissociative disorder, if that

    19 would get him out of jail, that would all be

    20 consistent, wouldn't it?

    21 A. Basically it's consistent with, certainly,

    22 personality disorder. It would be consistent with any

    23 conscious attempt at deception. So you could explain

    24 that on either basis. But certainly it's not

    25 inconsistent with a personality disorder to attempt to

  147. 1 deceive a self-serving reason.

    2 Q. And if we were to, oh, determine that one of

    3 the ways he could get out of jail or get out of jail

    4 quicker would be to sit in that seat that you're

    5 sitting in and lie, would that be consistent --

    6 JUDGE JAN: You've already asked him this

    7 question.

    8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It's the same question.

    9 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour. All right.

    10 Last couple of things and I think we're done.

    11 Q. Doctor, you've met Walter Keono, haven't you?

    12 A. Yes, sir.

    13 Q. Sitting our there?

    14 A. I don't know if he is now, he was this

    15 morning.

    16 Q. Okay. Expert witness that I have retained?

    17 A. Yes, sir.

    18 Q. It is possible, isn't it, for a mental health

    19 professional to review reports and testimony and police

    20 reports, confessions, things like that and arrive at a

    21 diagnosis without ever having talked to the subject of

    22 the diagnosis, isn't that correct?

    23 A. Well, it creates certain limitations,

    24 obviously, but, yes, it's possible.

    25 Q. In fact, you did that in a case called the

  148. 1 State of Texas v. Chavis; didn't you?

    2 A. Is that in Galveston?

    3 Q. Yes?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 MR. MORAN: Okay, pass the witness.

    6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.

    7 Any cross-examination by the Prosecution?

    8 MR. COWLES: May it please the Court? Thank

    9 you, Your Honours.

    10 Cross-examined by Mr. Cowles:

    11 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Gripon.

    12 A. Good afternoon.

    13 Q. My name is Jim Cowles and I represent the

    14 Prosecutor and we met briefly a couple of weeks ago, is

    15 that correct?

    16 A. Yes.

    17 Q. When you were last in The Hague?

    18 A. Yes.

    19 Q. Do you recall when we met, going back to that

    20 question asked that, what would be your opinion if the

    21 defendant, Mr. Landzo, was ever empowered or in a

    22 position of authority over somebody again. And Mr.

    23 Moran asked you about that again and your original

    24 response had been, it would be an unpleasant result and

    25 you elaborated on it just now with Mr. Moran. Do you

  149. 1 recall the words you used to me when I asked you that

    2 very same question a couple of weeks ago?

    3 A. No. I probably said it would be one's

    4 greatest nightmare or something like that. I don't

    5 remember it absolutely, specifically.

    6 Q. That's exactly how I wrote it down, so thank

    7 you.

    8 A. I didn't write it down, so I had to reflect

    9 on memory. That was two weeks ago yesterday.

    10 JUDGE JAN: They tend to be sadistic.

    11 THE WITNESS: Yes, they can be, very much so.

    12 MR. COWLES:

    13 Q. Isn't it true, Dr. Gripon, that Mr. Landzo

    14 knew the difference between right and wrong in 1992?

    15 A. Yes.

    16 Q. Now, in your direct examination, you stated

    17 in response to Ms. McMurrey's question concerning free

    18 will, that he would have had a limitation in his

    19 ability to control his actions, is that your opinion?

    20 A. Yes, sir.

    21 Q. All right. Now, isn't it true you're making

    22 that opinion without knowing the facts of the alleged

    23 criminal acts that Mr. Landzo is accused of

    24 committing?

    25 A. I have heard the accusations. I can't make

  150. 1 that based on what he is alleged to have done, but on

    2 the basis on whatever emotional problems he might have

    3 had or any personality disorder that would have

    4 impacted his behaviour. Under those circumstance, I

    5 can't say yes or no. That's a legal question for

    6 someone to determine what the status of that might have

    7 been and how it impacts a crime.

    8 Q. Well, in your experience as a forensic

    9 psychiatrist back home, isn't it true in your legal

    10 experience that you obtain the facts of the case from

    11 either police reports or being told how someone

    12 committed a crime, to aid you in forming an opinion

    13 about the mental status of the accused?

    14 A. They're frequently provided, yes. Sometimes

    15 they're not, but it's always helpful.

    16 Q. What have you read in this case to give you

    17 any information about how Mr. Landzo committed his

    18 crimes?

    19 A. Basically, I don't know what you call them

    20 here, indictment?

    21 Q. The indictment.

    22 A. I guess I would call that an offence report

    23 or something along those lines. Then I have read the

    24 responses of Mr. Landzo, which I guess he testified to

    25 in his testimony. And then I have spoken with Mr.

  151. 1 Landzo about issues involving this.

























  152. 1 Q. You never read any transcripts or anything

    2 like that from witnesses, about how Mr. Landzo

    3 committed his crimes.

    4 A. Specifically that I can remember, no, sir. I

    5 read a rather detailed --

    6 MR. MORAN: Excuse me, Your Honour, I object

    7 to the phrase "committed his crimes." That's not

    8 something for this Prosecutor --

    9 JUDGE JAN: Allegedly.

    10 MR. COWLES:

    11 Q. Allegedly committed his crimes?

    12 A. I have not read any number of offence

    13 statements by witnesses, I don't think.

    14 Q. Let me give you a hypothetical situation. If

    15 we have a situation, for instance, where the accused is

    16 in the process of beating a prisoner and someone tells

    17 the accused that his commanding officer is approaching

    18 and the accused stops the beating of the prisoner

    19 because he doesn't want to get caught or discovered to

    20 be beating the prisoner by his commander officer; don't

    21 you think that demonstrates an ability to control his

    22 actions and demonstrates free will and consciousness of

    23 what he's doing?

    24 A. In any specified setting a person can look at

    25 behaviour and probably get some kind of gauge or

  153. 1 estimate as to the degree to which a person controls

    2 that. Obviously if a person stops something they are

    3 doing, they demonstrated some ability, at least at that

    4 moment, to change direction or take another path.

    5 Q. And is it your testimony that because

    6 Mr. Landzo may have had a -- or two types of

    7 personality disorders, that that mitigates any conduct

    8 he may have committed over the course of several months

    9 in 1992?

    10 A. I think that's for the trier of fact to

    11 determine whether it mitigates anything. I'm a

    12 forensic psychiatrist, I don't excuse behaviour, I only

    13 try to determine what their behaviour might have been, I

    14 put it in any psychiatric or forensic term that is

    15 appropriate, and the trier of fact determines

    16 mitigation, I don't.

    17 Q. So, your opinion, then, is going to be

    18 theoretical that he would have had diminished

    19 responsibility for any act he committed in 1992,

    20 because you don't know how he committed his acts in

    21 1992; do you?

    22 A. I'm not the trier of fact. Any opinion that

    23 I have would be based on his mental condition and how

    24 it might impact any behaviour. But the person listening

    25 to that testimony, if it's a trial, will make the

  154. 1 ultimate decision as to whether that is a factor, isn't

    2 a factor, they do with it what they want.

    3 Q. Because the trier of fact would be in the

    4 best position, having heard the evidence in the case,

    5 to make a decision as to whether there is diminished

    6 responsibility; correct?

    7 A. Absolutely, that's the ultimate question,

    8 which I don't think necessarily is a psychiatric

    9 question, that's a legal question.

    10 Q. And, in fact, many criminals demonstrate

    11 antisocial personality disorder; correct?

    12 A. Absolutely, it's found in about 3 per cent of

    13 the population and about 50 per cent of the prison

    14 population. So certainly it's commonly associated with

    15 criminal behaviour.

    16 Q. And that doesn't mitigate or excuse their

    17 criminal behaviour; does it?

    18 A. Depends on the jurisdiction. It doesn't in

    19 the United States, so where we're from it does not.

    20 But in some jurisdictions it's my understanding that it

    21 does, but that's not for me to state.

    22 Q. Now, in your opinion concerning Mr. Landzo's

    23 antisocial personality disorder, the DSM-IV states that

    24 there has to be evidence or there is evidence of

    25 conduct disorder with onset before age 15; correct?

  155. 1 A. Yes, sir.

    2 Q. Now, can you tell me how many criteria of

    3 conduct disorder did you find in Mr. Landzo?

    4 A. Well, he described to me, as I stated

    5 earlier, a number of behaviours that as an adolescent

    6 would go along with or be a part of the diagnosis of

    7 conduct disorder.

    8 Conduct disorder is a uniquely American

    9 diagnosis, and it's applied mostly to American

    10 juveniles, and that's how DSM-IV originated. In an

    11 ICD-X for example, it doesn't require conduct disorder

    12 to have dissocial personality, and it's the exact same

    13 condition. So it is true that in the United States, we

    14 look for conduct disorder and have a system that tends

    15 to support that criteria, the presence or absence of

    16 it.

    17 In Mr. Landzo, ten years later, the only

    18 thing that a psychiatrist can get is a history that

    19 supports certain aspects of delinquent types of

    20 behaviour, because that's what we call it in the States,

    21 and he meets those criteria.

    22 Q. Specifically, what delinquent acts did you

    23 find under conduct disorder in the DSM-IV that led you

    24 to that conclusion? What did he do?

    25 A. Involving in the intimidation of others.

  156. 1 Q. Wait a minute, who did he intimidate,

    2 Dr. Gripon?

    3 A. I don't know the specific person. I

    4 described he was in a group or gang where they would go

    5 out and seek money for alcohol, and if the person

    6 wouldn't offer it, then there would be certain

    7 intimidation applied to that. That is what he told me,

    8 I wasn't there.

    9 Q. Was that before he turned 15 or after he was

    10 15?

    11 A. He was a juvenile. I don't know if he was 15

    12 or 16, it doesn't make any difference.

    13 Q. Wait a minute. DSM-IV says it's got to be

    14 before age 15 that he's got to demonstrate that.

    15 JUDGE JAN: Is that a rigid deadline?

    16 MR. COWLES: Excuse me, Your Honour, I can't

    17 hear you.

    18 JUDGE JAN: Is that a rigid deadline?

    19 MR. COWLES: I'm using the DSM-IV.

    20 JUDGE JAN: There are degrees, also.

    21 A. Certainly there are. And if you look in

    22 DSM-IV, it will tell you for forensic purposes you

    23 don't take those criteria and sort of do that with

    24 them. He either demonstrated conduct disordered

    25 behaviours, or he didn't. In my opinion he did.

  157. 1 If one wants to go, is it fourteen-and-a-half

    2 or fifteen-and-a-half, the Americans voted on where to

    3 put that rather artificial time frame. We chose 15

    4 because we use 17 for adult responsibility and we're

    5 lowering the number.

    6 Q. You keep saying American, but this is from

    7 the DSM-IV which is recognised internationally;

    8 correct?

    9 A. It's recognised internationally, but it's

    10 created in the United States and American psychiatrists

    11 are the only ones that vote on the criteria in it.

    12 Q. He may have been engaged in such intimidating

    13 behaviour. You have to find three or more criteria.

    14 Can you tell us what other criteria you found

    15 specifically for Mr. Landzo under conduct disorder that

    16 would lead you to then say that he has antisocial

    17 personality disorder?

    18 A. He was involved in some aspects of stealing.

    19 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I object, this

    20 was all asked and answered by Mr. Moran. He has been

    21 through this several times on the antisocial criteria.

    22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much. He

    23 is the one cross-examining him.

    24 MR. COWLES:

    25 Q. Dr. Gripon, can you tell us two others?

  158. 1 A. Well, it goes on down with, often lies, stays

    2 out at night without parental permission.

    3 Q. Did he tell you that?

    4 A. Yes, he certainly did. He described there

    5 was very little behavioural control at home, either he

    6 or his older brother, either one. And he described a

    7 dysfunctional family background that fits into that

    8 construct.

    9 Q. When you find that he has, he's also a

    10 schizoid personality disorder; correct?

    11 A. Yes, sir.

    12 Q. Now, isn't it true that schizoid personality

    13 disorder is found in a different cluster from the

    14 antisocial personality disorder, under the DSM-IV? By

    15 cluster, can you explain what that is?

    16 A. I explained it a while ago, I think, but

    17 there's an artificial distinction between Cluster A,

    18 Cluster B and Cluster C. There are three in Cluster A,

    19 four in Cluster B, and three in Cluster C. Cluster A

    20 is schizoid, schizotypal and paranoid. So it is in a

    21 different cluster. Antisocial is in Cluster B.

    22 Cluster A is the most resistant of those groups, and

    23 that is where they are artificially separated, the most

    24 difficult to impact with a treatment approach.

    25 Q. Well, are you saying that a person can be

  159. 1 diagnosed having one personality disorder in one

    2 cluster, and simultaneously be diagnosed as having a

    3 personality disorder from another cluster?

    4 A. Yes, I am saying that.

    5 Q. They are not mutually exclusive?

    6 A. Not at all.

    7 Q. Certainly some traits are always going to be,

    8 could be common between different disorders; correct?

    9 A. Certainly. And there are common traits, and

    10 that's why when one discusses personality disorder, you

    11 name the ones that the person meets criteria for, and

    12 then other significant features or personality traits

    13 that also cause problem or associated with difficulty

    14 can also be listed. But you can clearly have more than

    15 one diagnosis of a personality disorder. They don't

    16 exclude each other at all.

    17 Q. Now, your original diagnosis in Axis A is

    18 that he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress

    19 Disorder, in 1992; is that correct?

    20 A. Yes, sir.

    21 Q. Would you agree that if you do not have

    22 avoidance, you don't have PTSD? Would you agree with

    23 that?

    24 A. I don't think so.

    25 Q. Isn't avoidance a primary criteria of PTSD?

  160. 1 A. It is a criteria. I believe -- and if we're

    2 going to kind of nit-pick through these, we have to get

    3 them out and go through them one at a time, I believe

    4 there are some 7 or 8, that's something called

    5 polythetic criteria, meaning that you don't have to

    6 have them all, you have to have just a certain number

    7 of them and the absence of the others doesn't negate

    8 against the diagnosis.

    9 I don't think you have to have avoidance.

    10 It's one of those that you can have, but you can have

    11 others, and as long as you meet the threshold for the

    12 number you still have the condition. That's the way

    13 it's done.

    14 Q. So, you're saying that a person can

    15 voluntarily, who is allegedly suffering from PTSD, put

    16 himself into the same exact type of conditions and

    17 experience and you can still diagnose him as having

    18 PTSD?

    19 A. It could occur, yes.

    20 Q. And what is the stressor that you found that

    21 Mr. Landzo had experienced that caused him to now have

    22 PTSD in 1992?

    23 A. Of course, he has described for me this

    24 Croatian experience, or wherever it occurred, that

    25 occurred in '91, and then he described the conflict

  161. 1 that came to his area as aggravating those symptoms

    2 that he had before.

    3 I think in any event, he had an anxiety

    4 disorder. And the particular label one uses, as I

    5 mentioned earlier, I think is probably more academic

    6 than practical.

    7 But the experience in the camp that he

    8 described, and then the experience of the refugees and

    9 what was being told regarding what was happening in the

    10 war and the actual shelling that came to Konjic.

    11 Q. Just to be clear, are you saying that you did

    12 not find avoidance in making your diagnosis of PTSD?

    13 A. Depends on how you, I guess, define

    14 avoidance. If you're saying that because he had an

    15 experience that was related to military or paramilitary

    16 and he did not avoid being involved in some part of a

    17 military operation, whatever; if you use that as

    18 avoidance, then he did not clearly avoid it in that

    19 manner.

    20 That criteria, though, is much easier when

    21 someone is in an explosion at an oil refinery and they

    22 can avoid going back out there, and then you can see

    23 avoidance a lot more easily than when avoidance is part

    24 of your life-style at that point in time and avoidance

    25 may be somewhat more difficult. So that's not as clear

  162. 1 as it might appear, to me.

    2 Q. Did Mr. Landzo tell you that he had burned

    3 prisoners?

    4 A. I think he had made some mention of being

    5 charged with that, and that he had done -- and I heard

    6 him mention that this morning, yes, burning someone's

    7 hand, I believe.

    8 Q. But during the course of your many hours with

    9 him, he never told you about burning prisoners; did he?

    10 A. I don't remember. He mentioned a number of

    11 things that he stated he did. I don't remember

    12 specifically whether he mentioned that.

    13 Q. Don't remember that?

    14 A. No.

    15 Q. Did he admit to you that he had beaten

    16 several prisoners?

    17 A. Yes.

    18 Q. And he admitted committing at least one

    19 murder to you; is that correct?

    20 A. Yes.

    21 Q. Would you agree that the use of alcohol or

    22 drugs or both, in any kind of combination, would tend

    23 to exacerbate his condition?

    24 A. Yes.

    25 Q. And again, he has changed his story to you

  163. 1 over the course of time as to alcohol and pill

    2 consumption; hasn't he?

    3 A. He's changed that story in general, yes, and

    4 to me, yes.

    5 Q. And you are basing much of what you lead to

    6 your conclusions, of course, on what he has told you.

    7 A. Certainly.

    8 Q. Even though part of your diagnosis is that he

    9 is a manipulator and can be a liar.

    10 A. You know, in the presence of antisocial

    11 personality you can't throw out an attempt to make a

    12 diagnosis, you do the best you can under those

    13 circumstances and you state what the limitations are.

    14 But, yes, I made that diagnosis under those

    15 circumstances.

    16 Q. Now, would you agree that given his, what you

    17 know about Mr. Landzo back in 1992, that when he

    18 obtained a uniform and a gun and a position of

    19 authority, that that gave him some sort of a sense of

    20 empowerment? He was somebody?

    21 A. Yes.

    22 JUDGE JAN: Being a guard itself would be,

    23 give one some sense of authority.

    24 MR. COWLES: Sorry, I can't hear you, Your

    25 Honour.

  164. 1 JUDGE JAN: Being a guard itself would give

    2 some sense of authority, over prisoners.

    3 Q. And would you agree that, I believe you've

    4 indicated or told us previously that Mr. Landzo

    5 demonstrates emotional reactivity; is that correct?

    6 A. In some instances, certainly.

    7 Q. Like what? What instances?

    8 A. He can be very emotional and very reactive.

    9 Particularly, during the time that I've seen him, some

    10 trivial little incident, he may get all upset over it.

    11 And I certainly question the importance of the

    12 particular issue. Now he has a right to prioritise

    13 something any way he wants, but he can be very

    14 emotionally reactive at times, at least during the

    15 times I've seen him.

    16 Q. And did you hear or do you now understand

    17 that Mr. Landzo says that he committed some of his

    18 crimes, alleged crimes, either because he was ordered

    19 to or sometimes he just did it on his own?

    20 A. That's the testimony, yes.

    21 Q. When you were talking to him, did he say he

    22 did his acts because he was ordered to or he wanted to?

    23 A. Predominantly he stated he was ordered to,

    24 and he described the one incident involving the man who

    25 died as having been without any kind of authority.

  165. 1 Q. All right. And is that consistent with what

    2 we may call, as laymen call, a sadistic act?

    3 A. Certainly to beat someone, there are a lot of

    4 factors, I'm sure, associated with that. But there is

    5 a certain aspect of sadism or sadistic component,

    6 certainly. Any cruelty to man or animal is by

    7 definition sadistic, if it is consciously meted out.

    8 Q. And that should not, and his condition should

    9 not excuse his actions; should it?

    10 A. I don't excuse actions, I only explain

    11 behaviour.

    12 MR. COWLES: If I might have just a moment,

    13 Your Honour. Thank you. I pass the witness.

    14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.

    15 Any re-examination?

    16 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour, I have just

    17 a couple of questions.

    18 Re-examined by Mrs. McMurrey.

    19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed.

    20 Q. Dr. Gripon, when Mr. Cowles just asked you

    21 about a sadistic act, the one incident where Mr. Landzo

    22 claims he acted without any orders that dealt with

    23 someone ending in death, was that an action that

    24 occurred in a vacuum, or did it occur because of some

    25 other kind of triggering factor?

  166. 1 A. Well, if it occurred as it was explained to

    2 me, then obviously there was a significant trigger for

    3 that. To be real brief, but I hope to the point, there

    4 is something that occurs in psychiatry called a

    5 transference or transmission or transference of

    6 aggression where someone under very significant

    7 circumstances transfers to someone's responsibility who

    8 either represents some part of that.

    9 Again, it's not an excuse, but they more or

    10 less take out on that person whatever their

    11 internalised anger or forces might be, as opposed to,

    12 as we understand, and we don't understand it well in

    13 psychiatry, as we understand sadistic or sadism, that

    14 person basically is meting out punishment for actually

    15 some type of enjoyment or pleasure. It is not usually

    16 goal directed, other than to their own personal end or

    17 need.

    18 The other seemed to have been a result of a

    19 rather primitive or archaic coping mechanism in which

    20 he became aggressive and transferred that aggression,

    21 and he described it, that others, as they drove up,

    22 just sort of saw these people who represented the

    23 identified individuals blamed for what they had seen,

    24 they jumped out and take it out on them, so to speak.

    25 It's a fairly simple concept, really. That doesn't

  167. 1 excuse it.

    2 Q. And if somebody was a sadist, would they have

    3 immediately rushed this person for medical attention to

    4 try to save his life?

    5 A. That would be most unusual. Sadists normally

    6 are people who are sadistic, commonly have a long

    7 history of infliction of pain, and they usually persist

    8 in that because it's one of the ways they derive

    9 substantial pleasure. So they don't turn it on and off

    10 more or less like a light switch.

    11 You wouldn't expect a person who truly had a

    12 sadistic goal in mind to go and seek any type of

    13 medical attention for the victim. I guess it could

    14 occur, but I wouldn't expect that. It's not medically

    15 probable.

    16 Q. Now, Mr. Cowles also kept saying, well, you

    17 don't know the facts of the case, but the truth is that

    18 it was only this week, recently, that you and

    19 Mr. Landzo discussed what actually happened at

    20 Celebici; is that right?

    21 A. Well, I interviewed Mr. Landzo many times

    22 dating back to April of '97. He told me certain things

    23 throughout all of those interviews. It's been only

    24 recently when I re-evaluated him or talked with him

    25 again in which certain aspects were questioned or I

  168. 1 sought further information. I guess he didn't tell me

    2 a greatly different story, though.

    3 He's been fairly persistent in what he's told

    4 me over 15 months.

    5 Q. Now, Mr. Cowles had also inferred that PTSD

    6 wouldn't exist unless they could avoid the same

    7 triggering trauma. Now, what happens if you're in a

    8 situation where you can't avoid the trauma? Does that

    9 mean PTSD doesn't exist?

    10 A. No. That is taking the criteria of a PTSD

    11 and making them probably a lot more rigid than they

    12 really are. Under the type of criteria that we use, we

    13 use a group of criteria that supports a condition.

    14 They are not always found and they are not always there

    15 to the same exact number, there's a threshold just for

    16 informational purposes.

    17 The more common a condition is in society,

    18 the fewer criteria you have to meet to diagnose that

    19 condition. The more rare the condition the greater the

    20 number of criteria, and in order to avoid over

    21 diagnosing certain relatively rare conditions. I made

    22 that awfully wordy. But those criteria are the best we

    23 can do as to what it takes to support that diagnosis.

    24 They are not cast in some kind of stone, and they are

    25 not some proverbial gospel of some kind. When DSM-V

  169. 1 comes out there will be some modification in a great

    2 many of the criteria that are in DSM-IV. It won't

    3 change the mental disorders that we predominantly see

    4 world-wide. That won't all change because of that.

    5 There will be some new added and a few deleted and

    6 there will be a few where we have stated that we

    7 clearly made too fine a distinction between them. So

    8 there will be some changed.

    9 Q. Now, Mr. Cowles also described right from

    10 wrong and antisocial behaviour means prison, et cetera.

    11 You travelled to Great Britain, which has the defence of

    12 diminished mental responsibility. And when you looked

    13 at British law, Common Law verses that in the United

    14 States, what did you find when you visited some of the

    15 mental hospitals or the prisons in Great Britain?

    16 INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

    17 A. You find that in that particular system they

    18 tend to pay significant attention to certain aspects of

    19 personality disorder, and people we call antisocial or

    20 dissocial, instead of being diverted into or staying in

    21 the criminal justice system, are in that system, to

    22 some extent at least, found in the behavioural or mental

    23 health system. They are handled differently, bottom

    24 line of it.

    25 Q. And so, as far as the defence of diminished

  170. 1 mental responsibility, it has nothing to do with right

    2 or wrong; does it?

    3 A. Right versus wrong in most capacities is the

    4 standard for absence or lack of capacity. If one had a

    5 concept of diminished, you would have things that would

    6 impact capacity but the person would still have some

    7 general concept of the basic standard of right versus

    8 wrong, as I understand it.

    9 Q. Mr. Moran kept referring to Dr. Lagazzi's

    10 report and how inconsistent your conclusion was with

    11 his. Is your conclusion inconsistent with that of

    12 Dr. Lagazzi's?

    13 A. No.

    14 Q. And -- ?

    15 A. Actually, Van Leeuwen, Lagazzi, myself, I

    16 don't know any of them until I met them a week or so

    17 ago. But they made a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder,

    18 they put that on Axis I, if you use the American five

    19 axis system. They made a personality disorder

    20 diagnosis. There is more consistency than there is

    21 difference, but you wouldn't expect that they would be

    22 identical, or that the terms we'd use. And what you

    23 really wouldn't expect is that they would weigh

    24 everything to the same magnitude or degree. We do that

    25 based on experience, our own bias or wherever we're

  171. 1 from kind of things. There are lots of things that get

    2 factored into that. They were really actually quite

    3 consistent in their focus.

    4 Q. Mr. Moran was trying to create, give the

    5 perception that Mr. Landzo was just totally antisocial

    6 under the DSM-IV. That wasn't your diagnosis; was it?

    7 A. No, he has -- .

    8 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I object to any

    9 characterisation I was trying to do. I was asking

    10 questions and getting answers.

    11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He is trying to get his

    12 opinion on a suggested view, whether he has that

    13 opinion. And I think he is entitled to whatever

    14 opinion that might have been created.

    15 MR. MORAN: That's fine, Your Honour.

    16 A. He has both antisocial and schizoid

    17 features. And one should not focus, in my opinion, at

    18 least psychiatrically, one should not focus on one

    19 alone. One doesn't exclude the other, they are both

    20 factors, they both impact behaviour. So, it's not just

    21 an antisocial issue.

    22 MS. McMURREY: Thank you, Dr. Gripon. And I

    23 have no further questions of this witness, Your Honour.

    24 MR. COWLES: Your Honours, I have one

    25 question on re-cross, based on Mrs. McMurrey's first

  172. 1 question on her re-direct, Your Honours. I would ask

    2 the Court's permission to ask that question on

    3 re-cross.

    4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It arose out of the

    5 examination, did it?

    6 MR. COWLES: Yes, Your Honour, it arose out

    7 of her opening question on re-direct, Your Honours. I

    8 have just one question.

    9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: State the question.

    10 Q. Isn't it true, Dr. Gripon, that Mr. Landzo

    11 told you that he would inflict pain and suffering on

    12 prisoners for two reasons: One, that he was ordered to

    13 do so; and, two, he stated he was bored and frustrated

    14 and that he never had any difficulty doing this, and

    15 that he enjoyed it, and that he cannot say why he found

    16 if to be not at all unpleasant?

    17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, you may ask that.

    18 A. Yes.

    19 MR. COWLES: Thank you. Thank you, Your

    20 Honours.

    21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much,

    22 Dr. Gripon, you've been very helpful, and we thank you

    23 for your assistance.

    24 I hope we will be able to start the

    25 cross-examination tomorrow, in the morning at 10 a.m.

  173. 1 The Trial Chamber will now rise.

    2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

    3 5.32 p.m., to be reconvened on

    4 Wednesday, the 29 day of July, 1998 at

    5 10.00 a.m.