Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 13481

 1                           Thursday, 15 January 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           --- Upon commencing at 8.33 a.m.

 4                           [The accused entered court]

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  This is in open

 6     session.

 7             I would like our Registrar to call the case, please.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 9             Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to everyone in and

10     around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor

11     versus Vojislav Seselj.

12             Thank you, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.

14             This is Thursday, January 15th, 2009, and I would like to welcome

15     the representatives of the OTP, Mr. Seselj, and all the people in this

16     courtroom.

17             Mr. Seselj, I think I understood that you had a few housekeeping

18     matters to deal with.  If it's brief, you will have the floor.  If you

19     believe it's a bit longer, maybe it would be best to deal with this after

20     the witness.  It's up to you.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It will be very brief.  It's just

22     one housekeeping matter.

23             Last night, I received a public document with confidential

24     Annex B, the Prosecutor's request for the statement of Witness 1008 be

25     admitted on the basis of Rule 92 quater.  A few days ago, I received a

Page 13482

 1     similar submission from the Prosecution for another witness, so I don't

 2     want to make a written submission and waste your time, and I don't have

 3     that much time myself.  I just wanted to express my disagreement and

 4     refer to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, where it says

 5     changes --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  The accused is reading too fast.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] " ... an amendment shall enter into

 8     force seven days after the date of issue of an official Tribunal document

 9     containing the amendment, but shall not operate to prejudice the rights

10     of the accused or other convicted or acquitted person, any pending case."

11             Each case has three phases, pre-trial, trial, and appeal phases,

12     and this is all pursuant to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

13             On the 26th of February, when I first appeared in the courtroom,

14     from 2003, nothing can be applied that is prejudicial to me, so the

15     provisions of 92 quater cannot be applied if it's to my prejudice.

16     Evidently, this is to my prejudice.  And we're not talking about just

17     these witnesses, but also witnesses who interfered in the affairs of God

18     and picked their own time of death.  In their own -- in any case, this

19     Rule cannot be applied, and on the basis of Rule 6, I oppose that.  And I

20     cited an even more precise Rule a year ago of the ICC Rome Statute that

21     has to do with this matter.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We'll have a quick

23     oral reply.

24             MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

25             Good morning, Your Honours, Mr. Seselj, and everyone in and

Page 13483

 1     around the courtroom.

 2             Of course, there is no prejudice to the rights of the accused by

 3     way of either 92 quater or 92 ter, those Rules, At least with respect to

 4     92 ter, permit for cross-examination, but with respect to 92 quater,

 5     we've set forth in our application evidence that corroborates the

 6     evidence of the 92 quater witness, so we would submit there is no

 7     prejudice to the rights of the accused under those circumstances.  And,

 8     of course, the Trial Chamber can give whatever weight they would deem

 9     necessary or worth those statements in light of all the evidence the

10     Trial Chamber has heard.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the Trial Chamber

12     will rule on this later on.  We'll rule on these pending motions.  There

13     are four, if I can remember, right?  Maybe five.  I've read them.  I've

14     noted that all these people had passed away, and that because of this,

15     Rule 92 quater could very well apply.

16             Now, regarding the legal merits of this and the debate, I mean,

17     you've already mentioned this, and you've already raised this.  The

18     Appeals Chamber said that the amendments to the Rule could be applied

19     retroactively.  Now, the problem is to know where the prejudice might be,

20     if there is a prejudice.  There might be a prejudice if you are totally

21     unable to challenge the content of such statements, but of course you can

22     make a written submission to challenge the said declarations, explaining

23     that the deceased witness said something, but since you're challenging

24     this on -- according to such and such documents, you must back what

25     you're saying.  And then also when you call your own witnesses, if you do

Page 13484

 1     have witnesses, or if you do testify, you can come back to this, saying,

 2     Mr. X, who passed away, said this or that, and I believe that it was a

 3     lie, or this or that, and you can just challenge it.

 4             Just imagine the following assumption:  Let's say that such a

 5     document could be essential to prove the innocence of an accused.  That

 6     would mean that justice would not take it into account.  Or assume that

 7     it would be absolutely essential to prove the guilt of someone, and then

 8     justice would turn a blind eye to it?  No, that's a real problem.

 9             This debate has already been -- has already occurred.  You've

10     already raised the issue a number of times.  It's the entire problem of

11     retroactive application of amendments to the Rules.  Here we have decided

12     on a certain method and principle, and that's the way it is.

13             You've just made an oral submission.  If your associates and

14     yourself can challenge, in writing, the statement, saying that the

15     witness said such and such on such and such paragraph, but this is not

16     backed by anything, or you can counter it, do it, because, remember, this

17     is a mixed [indiscernible], there is both written submissions and oral

18     submissions.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, you said that these

20     statements can also prove the innocence of an accused.  Of course, if we

21     are proving the innocence of an accused, then it can be accepted, because

22     it's not prejudicial to the accused.  No civilised legal order would

23     permit the retroactive application of criminal or criminal procedural law

24     if it's detrimental to the accused.  I did hear of such an interpretation

25     by the Appeals Chamber, but it's quite primitive and unprofessional, and

Page 13485

 1     is not suitable for any civilised national legal system.  And it's up to

 2     me to express my opposition, but you will do what you wish.

 3             I've seen that you're already working in that sense.  You

 4     accepted the statement of Ljubisa Petkovic, even though it cannot be

 5     pursuant to Rule 92 quater, because it refers to written statements and

 6     transcripts provided by a person that has, in the meantime, deceased.

 7     Ljubisa Petkovic is not deceased.  Thank God for that.  He's healthy and

 8     well and a deputy in the Serbian Assembly.  Or a person who cannot, in

 9     due diligence -- but as far as Ljubisa Petkovic here -- is

10     concerned here, he was brought before you and he was sentenced, but he

11     didn't even want to appear, or a person who is not physically or mentally

12     fit, but his status such that he is physically and mentally fit, but he

13     doesn't wish to testify, you were not able to apply this particular

14     Rule to him.

15             Yesterday, you were surprised when I said that I have a lot of

16     objections to the work of the Trial Chamber.  This is one of the major

17     objections, and in my closing statement, I'm going to list all the other

18     major objections that I have.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine, Mr. Seselj.  Your

20     objection is now on the transcript.

21             As far as the Article 92 quater, you're right, it has to do with

22     deceased persons, but not just deceased persons; also, people who cannot

23     be found and other persons who are ill, who are in such poor physical

24     condition that they cannot come and testify.  That's the merits of

25     Article 92 quater, deceased people and some others.

Page 13486

 1             But now we know what your position is, and we take into account

 2     what you say, even if sometimes you feel that we don't.

 3             Let's now bring the witness into the courtroom.  Let me remind

 4     the Prosecution that it has one hour for examination-in-chief,

 5     Mr. Seselj, one hour.  But it's true the Judges sometimes ask questions,

 6     so when we say an hour each, that usually means an entire hearing day.

 7                           [The witness entered court]

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning, sir.  Could you

 9     please give us your name, surname, and date of birth.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm Zoran Stankovic.  I was born on

11     the 9th of November, 1954.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you tell us what is your

13     profession at the moment?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Currently, I'm a professor of

15     forensic medicine at the Faculty of Dentistry in Pancevo.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're a civilian, or are you

17     in the military?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was a Major-General of the Army

19     of Yugoslavia.  At the moment, I am a professional military person who is

20     retired.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General, sir, have you ever

22     testified in court?  And if so, in which court and in which case,

23     regarding, of course, the events that occurred in the former Yugoslavia?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I testified before this Tribunal on

25     two occasions.  Once, I was present during the proceedings of

Page 13487

 1     General Krstic, and then in May I was an expert witness for the Defence

 2     in the trial of Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic,and Lazarevic,

 3     and Lukic.  As for other courts, I was summoned to testify before the

 4     Special Court in Belgrade in the Zvornik case, and then I testified about

 5     the killing of Serbs in Gospic before the Higher Court in Deakin in

 6     Croatia.  And now, on several occasions, I worked with the main

 7     prosecutor -- the Chief Prosecutor of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the matter of

 8     killings of Serbs in locations where I performed autopsies, such as

 9     Kravica, Zvornik, Batkovic, Rogatica, Bratunac, Milici and some other

10     places, Srebrenica, also some other places in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understood you well

12     regarding this Tribunal, you have testified twice as a Defence witness in

13     Krstic and Milutinovic et al, and it is the first time you are testifying

14     for the Prosecution; is that it?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Could you please

17     read the solemn declaration.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

19     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

20                           WITNESS:  ZORAN STANKOVIC

21                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.  You may sit

23     down.

24             You have already testified in this Tribunal, so you know exactly

25     how the procedure runs.  I'll be very brief in my explanations, thus.

Page 13488

 1             Of course, today you are a Prosecution witness and not a Defence

 2     witness, but in my book it's pretty much the same thing, whether you are

 3     on one side or the other, when it comes to the procedure.

 4             You will be answering questions put to you by the OTP

 5     representative, Mr. Ferrara.  I'm sure you've met him, and he will put

 6     questions to you and will probably show you a number of documents.  The

 7     Trial Chamber has allotted one hour for this examination-in-chief.  Of

 8     course, the Judges can step in at any moment, and I probably will, in

 9     order to put additional questions or follow-up questions on some aspects

10     of the work you were doing at the time.

11             Then after that phase, Mr. Seselj, the accused in these

12     proceedings, who's on your left, will also put questions to you during

13     his cross-examination.  As you know, this is an adversarial procedure.

14     First the Prosecution puts questions and then the Defence puts questions

15     to the witness.

16             In a nutshell, this is how the proceedings will occur.

17             Please try to be very specific in your answers, but I'm not too

18     worried about this.  You're quite a seasoned witness, if I may say so.

19     And if you don't understand a question, just ask the person putting the

20     question to reformulate it.

21             If at any moment you feel uneasy - even a physician can feel ill

22     at ease or bad at one point in time - just raise your hand and ask for a

23     break.

24             So I will now immediately give the floor to Mr. Ferrara for his

25     examination-in-chief.

Page 13489

 1             MR. FERRARA:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'd just like to say something.

 3             It doesn't matter to me if I am a Defence or a Prosecution

 4     witness.  I don't mind whose witness I am.  I will do my best to state

 5     the truth in everything that I say, as I know it.  So I don't see any

 6     difference in being a Defence witness or a Prosecution witness.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.  That's what I

 8     understood.

 9             MR. FERRARA:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10                           Examination by Mr. Ferrara:

11        Q.   Professor Stankovic, good morning.  Could you please tell us

12     briefly about your background and occupation?

13        A.   I completed the Faculty of Medicine in Nis.  After that, I served

14     my regular military term of duty.  I completed the reserve officers

15     school's medical section, and after that for a year I interned at the

16     hospital in Nis, and then I was the chief of the medical service in the

17     Pec Barracks.  After a year and a half, I was proclaimed the best young

18     doctor in the JNA, and I was sent for specialisation in forensic

19     medicine, which I did at the VMA, where I passed this exam in 1980.

20     After that, I stayed there to work as a forensic doctor.

21             At the beginning of the war, I began to conduct autopsies of

22     people who died in the conflict.  I went to several locations.  First, I

23     was processing soldiers.  After that, I went to Vukovar, where I was head

24     of the medical team in the investigations conducted by the Military Court

25     in Belgrade.  Then I worked at mass graves of Serbs who were killed in

Page 13490

 1     Gospic, in the area of Siroka Kula, which was followed by two occasions

 2     of autopsies of Muslims killed in Zvornik.  Then I worked on members of

 3     the VRS who were killed in Zvornik.  Then I worked in Fakovici, Rogatica,

 4     Milici, Vlasenica.  I went to Sarajevo also.  I also worked in Banja

 5     Luka, at a mass grave in Mirkonjic Grad as well, I went to Brcko also,

 6     Ugljevik, Bijeljina, and then I was also in Herzegovina, close to Mostar

 7     in Bjelasnica, Nevesinje.  Perhaps I skipped some locations, but I did

 8     all of these things with a team from the Military Medical Academy.

 9        Q.   You say --

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Witness.  You

11     have mentioned the autopsies that you have performed, but looking at your

12     written statement, it mainly deals with Zvornik.  Vukovar was not

13     mentioned in that statement, but you've just talked about Vukovar, and

14     I'm requested in this.  I'm not going to ask you any questions on the

15     autopsies performed regarding Vukovar, but you said something that could

16     be of interest to Judges.

17             You said, on line 9, page 9:

18             "I went to Vukovar, where I was head of the medical team in the

19     investigations conducted by the Military Court in Belgrade."

20             This sentence that we have now on the transcript, and which

21     reflects what you said, is quite interesting.  Could you please tell us

22     exactly when the Military Court in Belgrade commissioned you to perform

23     these -- this investigation and the autopsies, if need be?  So when were

24     you commissioned, please, in Vukovar?

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please speak up.

Page 13491

 1             THE WITNESS:  [No interpretation]

 2             [Interpretation] On the 19th of November, 1991, I was informed by

 3     the chief of the institute that I should go to Vukovar, where we would be

 4     exhuming the bodies of some soldiers and officers who were killed in a

 5     tank.  I think that on the 20th of November, we were there for the first

 6     time in Vukovar.  It was either the 20th or the 21st of November.  After

 7     that, on our return from Vukovar, I received an order from the chief of

 8     the institute.  He told me that the military judge had decided that we

 9     need to go to Vukovar.  I think we were on the 21st of November in

10     Vukovar.

11             On the 21st of November, we continuously processed the bodies of

12     those we found who were killed in the territory of Vukovar.  I think that

13     this was until the 17th or 18th of December there.

14             After that, I came back to Belgrade with the team, and then on

15     three or four more occasions, we went there to inspect the dead who were

16     found in the demolished buildings or in the area of the Municipality of

17     Vukovar.  I think that this was after the new year in 1992.  I recall

18     going there twice.  I cannot really give you the exact date without the

19     papers.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  You are saying, and

21     it's quite important, that as early as November 1991, you were told to go

22     to Vukovar to examine the bodies of some soldiers and officers who were

23     killed in a tank.  Was it a mission of -- was it of a general purpose, or

24     was it really a mission -- just a one-shot mission?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first time that I was there,

Page 13492

 1     this was a tank crew, as I said, which was killed in a house.  Among

 2     them, there was a soldier from Novi Sad, Zoran.  Also, Sergeant Jovic was

 3     wounded.  He was transferred to the Vukovar Hospital and then to

 4     Belgrade.  This was pursuant to the orders of the Military Court which I

 5     carried out in that particular case.  After that, we received an order

 6     and went as a whole team to Vukovar.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For the first time, the three,

 8     were they Serbs or Croats, the injured or killed?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were soldiers who were

10     members of the JNA.  I am not able to tell you if they were all Serbs.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the first time you went

12     there, you were commissioned to investigate what had happened to JNA

13     soldiers.  That was for the first time.  Now, on the second time, could

14     you tell us exactly what was your mandate?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was our assignment to inspect

16     all the bodies found in Vukovar and to make reports to document the

17     autopsies conducted, and in particular to try to identify the bodies

18     found.  In that particular case, we had forms that we used in our work,

19     and we used the same forms for all of our work in the war-afflicted area.

20     There were four or five different types of forms.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, I won't go into details,

22     but on the second time -- I mean, I want to give the floor to Mr. Ferrara

23     as quickly as possible.  I want to finish with this topic first.

24             The second time you were commissioned to examine the body of all

25     people found in Vukovar, I have a technical question as far as this is

Page 13493

 1     concerned.  Was your mandate to look at all bodies, Serbs and Croats

 2     alike, or only Serb bodies?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It pertained to all the bodies,

 4     because we could not know whether they were Serbs or whoever.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  That is an

 6     important piece of information.  All the bodies.

 7             And the second time you were given an order, was this an oral

 8     order or were you sent a written document?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a written order on the

10     investigations in Vukovar, and it was issued by the Court in Belgrade.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In other words, on the basis of

12     a written order provided by the Military Court in Belgrade, you were

13     asked to go to Vukovar to examine all the bodies of the people that had

14     been killed.

15             And now this is my last question and the most important one.  On

16     what date exactly did you receive this order?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That order was received, I think,

18     on the 20th of November, 1991.  But, by your leave, perhaps I have been

19     speaking at great length, but may I say that this was a team consisting

20     of investigating judges, headed by Judge Milomir Salic, and the

21     investigation involved civilian judges from the territory of Vojvodina,

22     Novi Sad, Apatin and the other courts that were close to Vukovar.  Then

23     there was the forensic team for on site investigations that was led by

24     Mrakovic, who is deceased in the meantime, and they were involved in all

25     the on-scene activities that were supposed to be carried out.

Page 13494

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note, we can no longer hear the

 2     speaker.  Other microphones are on.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] ... and criminal technicians in

 4     Vukovar.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note, all microphones have to be

 6     switched off when the witness is speaking.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe this is important.

 8     As of the 20th November, 1991, the authorities, whether they be the

 9     military, the JNA, or the civilian authorities, by the presence of a

10     number of judges, received an order whereby they were asked to examine

11     all the bodies found in Vukovar.  Does this mean that at that time, all

12     the authorities wanted to shed light on the circumstances in which these

13     people had died?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At any rate, yes.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon.  We also had

17     monitors, checks from the International Community.  Antonio Piler

18     [phoen], a forensic expert from Spain, checked what I was doing, and he

19     came on specific instructions from the UN, if I'm not mistaken, and he

20     had insight into what we were doing.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, that the monitors

22     from the International Community, well, so be it.  I wanted to know how

23     the civilian and the military reacted in Serbia.  This is something which

24     we had no understanding of so far.  Thanks to your presence here today,

25     we have further information about this, and it is now on the transcript,

Page 13495

 1     as regards Vukovar, at any rate.

 2             We shall now proceed.

 3             MR. FERRARA:  Your Honour, maybe there's a mistake in the

 4     transcript on line -- page 14, line 5, because I don't think you said "27

 5     of September, 1991."

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you're quite right.  20th

 7     of November and not 27th.  There is a mistake on the transcript.

 8             MR. FERRARA:

 9        Q.   Dr. Stankovic, have you ever visited mass graves in Vukovar?

10        A.   It's not that I only visited them.  I processed them with my

11     team, the mass grave at the Jewish cemetery, the two mass graves that

12     were at the Sloga stadium, and I don't know where else.  As for

13     everything that we found or that we learned were sites where victims were

14     buried, we exhumed all of that, and then they were buried at the

15     Bulgarian cemetery, if I'm not mistaken.  There is voluminous

16     documentation about this.  And later on, the chairman of the Commission

17     for Human Rights, Pavle Todorovic, ceded that to the Croatian

18     authorities.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.  I have a question.

20             We thought you were going to testify about Zvornik, but what

21     you're saying about Vukovar is interesting.  Just one point of

22     clarification.

23             When you were in Vukovar, were you made aware of the fact that

24     things had happened in the Vukovar Hospital?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Vukovar, as I've already said,

Page 13496

 1     we processed all the bodies.  As for the hospital, we visited the

 2     hospital, and in the immediate vicinity of the hospital, in a passage, we

 3     found buried corpses.  I think there were about 50 of them, perhaps even

 4     more.  And on the surface close to that area, there were another roughly

 5     50 corpses that were right next to one another near the hospital.  In the

 6     hospital, there were people -- there were wounded persons, and that is

 7     what we saw.

 8             As for what had happened in the hospital, we did not know about

 9     any details because at the moment when we started working, we were

10     obsessed with our own work.  Winter had started, it was extremely cold.

11     The temperatures went down to even minus 20 centigrade, and we were in a

12     hurry to get as many bodies as possible away from the surface of the

13     ground because animals started attacking the bodies.  Also, there were

14     many dead animals around.  All of this also involved a great deal of

15     danger from land-mines, because practically all of Vukovar was covered

16     with land-mines, so we sustained losses among our own people who were

17     dealing with the corpses together with us.  Actually, those who were our

18     advanced team were victims.  There were cases when the corpses themselves

19     were mined, and we had to try to make due in different ways.  First of

20     all, we tried to move the corpses with some kind of ropes so that they

21     wouldn't explode during the autopsies.

22             It was terrible, all of this that we were doing there, and the

23     conditions were very hard-

24             THE COURT:  Did you discover that more than 200 people from the

25     Vukovar Hospital had disappeared or had been killed?  Did you learn about

Page 13497

 1     that at that time?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  At that moment, we didn't

 3     know.  It was only later, when people started writing about this and

 4     talking about this.  That's when I learned about it.  Had we known that

 5     there were these bodies of these people who had been killed, we would

 6     have carried out the exhumation of their mortal remains, and we would

 7     have processed those bodies, too.  At any rate, they would not have

 8     remained where they were and where they were found later.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At the time, you had no

10     information that would lead you to believe that the people who were in

11     the Vukovar Hospital had been killed?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

14             MR. FERRARA:

15        Q.   Did you ever inspect the mass grave at Ovcara or Grabovo?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   Let's continue with your personal background.

18             You say that you are a Professor lecturing in forensic medicine.

19     Where did you used to teach, where do you present your lectures?

20        A.   I used to work as a professor of forensic medicine, not military

21     forensic medicine, but forensic medicine from 1996 at the Police Academy

22     in Belgrade and from two or three years ago at this privately owned

23     Faculty of Dentistry in Pancevo.

24        Q.   Did you give lectures abroad?

25        A.   Twice, I was invited to lecture at Kings College in Cambridge.

Page 13498

 1     After that, I delivered a lecture at the British Parliament before the

 2     Foreign Relations Committee of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, then

 3     before the Parliament of the Ukraine.  After that, I delivered a lecture

 4     about war victims in Paris.  That is when I met Florence Hartmann.  She

 5     attended that lecture in 1995.

 6             Then I attended in the Netherlands, the first team that we

 7     brought to The Hague Tribunal.  The chief Prosecutor was Mr. Gullstone

 8     [phoen], and then this was a group of Serbian inmates from the Sarajevo

 9     and Dretelj camps and others, including a woman who had been raped in

10     these camps, an old woman.

11             After that, I delivered lectures in The Hague, Amsterdam, we were

12     in Utrecht, and that would be about it.  Perhaps I may have omitted

13     something.

14        Q.   Have you written books or papers on the topic of the

15     identification and exhumation?

16        A.   Well, yes.  We did write, for instance, for this foundation

17     called "Truth About the Serbs ."  I wrote two books for them.  One is

18     "The Crime Awaits Punishment" and another one "A Crime is a Crime."  Then

19     a book "Genocide Against the Serbs" between 1991 and 1993, and after that

20     there were some others.  I don't need to refer to all of that.  We made a

21     few films about the suffering of Serbs and members of the army in the

22     armed conflicts, and then "Murderers Come Wearing Masks."  It speaks of

23     people who were killed in Gospic.  They were Serbs who were killed in

24     Gospic in 1991.  There were a few exhibitions that were organised as

25     well, and so on and so forth, but there was quite a bit of that.

Page 13499

 1        Q.   So you have mentioned all the experience that you have had

 2     dealing with mass or multiple graves during war situation.  Can you

 3     explain us the peculiarities of examining the bodies in war areas?

 4        A.   Well, this is a very special kind of work, in view of the way in

 5     which we, from the Military Medical Academy, did this.  We were the only

 6     team in the area, that is to say, in the area of the former Yugoslavia,

 7     that conducted its activities during combat operations close to the very

 8     front-lines while the conflicts were still going on between the warring

 9     parties.  Under such circumstances, we had certain limitations, which

10     meant that we could not expect any kind of large-scale technical

11     assistance, because as a rule, there was no electricity in the areas.

12     These were remote places.  Then I, as the head of the team, had to take

13     care of the people that I worked with, so that people would not get

14     killed or injured, because I was responsible for their safety and

15     security too.

16             Also, we were expelled, for instance, to work on external

17     examinations of bodies, not autopsies.  Sometimes, whenever possible, we

18     tried to carry out partial autopsies when we could not define the source

19     of the injury, whether it was a projectile or shrapnel.  But in

20     principle, all of these activities took place in wintertime, when our

21     possibilities were extremely limited, since the dead bodies were frozen.

22     So we could not carry out autopsies, and it was very difficult for us to

23     take off the victims' clothes.  However, what we did do, which is

24     doctrine in such situations, is the following:  First and foremost, we

25     wanted to register the parts of bodies that we found; also, to take all

Page 13500

 1     the main identification information that would later assist in the

 2     identification of these persons.  Then, depending on the scope of our

 3     possibilities, to state what the implements were that caused these

 4     injuries, to take off the clothing from the bodies, and then to dry the

 5     clothing, as we did in Vukovar, for instance.  We did that at some kind

 6     of a brick factory or something, so that later on the relatives and

 7     families could try to identify the persons involved on the basis of their

 8     clothes.  Then we also took personal belongings from the clothing and

 9     from the bodies themselves; for example, valuables that we packed in

10     special plastic bags.  And we left them on the sites where we had worked

11     so that people could try to recognise their nearest and dearest on the

12     basis of that.

13             We had many problems, because some things had not been defined at

14     all.  For example, where do we leave these personal belongings,

15     especially valuables?  And then -- well, at any rate, it was a very

16     special approach that was applied in these activities, and we did as much

17     as we could do.

18             After that, we compiled the so-called autopsy reports on the

19     external examinations of the bodies, or partial autopsies, or anything we

20     did and anything that we found while doing our work.

21        Q.   You were not asked to draft a report for this case; am I right?

22        A.   No, no.  I made a statement here, in the proceedings that were

23     made at the request of the Prosecutor, as instructed by the Federal

24     Government, and also in the proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic, but

25     not in the proceedings against the accused Seselj present here today.

Page 13501

 1        Q.   Concerning this statement you made to the Prosecution -- to the

 2     Prosecutor, in particular I'd like to direct your attention to the

 3     statement -- to your second statement given to the ICTY investigator on

 4     the 8th July 2003, and in particular to what happened in Zvornik.

 5             When were you asked to go to Zvornik for the first time?

 6        A.   The Military Court in Belgrade ordered us to report in Zvornik in

 7     order to examine dead bodies.  I think that it was on the 29th of April

 8     for the first time, 29th of April, 1992.  And then a team was set up.

 9     Actually, the head of the team was investigating judge Captain

10     Mirko Stojanovic, and we took this mini bus to Zvornik together with him.

11     That was the first time when we --

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Since you are discussing an

13     important point, I'd like to put a question to you.

14             The military prosecutor in Belgrade, what was his name, who was

15     it?  If I'm putting this question to you, it is because I feel it is

16     important.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already mentioned, it wasn't

18     the prosecutor, it was the military investigating judge, Captain

19     Mirko Stojanovic.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  But the military

21     prosecutor at the time, what was he called?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether it was Papic.

23     Perhaps it was Colonel Papic, but I cannot remember exactly who it was.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm putting this question to

25     you for the following reason:  In the military code applied to the former

Page 13502

 1     Yugoslavia at the time, the investigating judge can come to a crime site

 2     and can carry out the investigation, but after that he submits his report

 3     to the prosecutor.  The prosecutor can decide not to do anything about

 4     it, or can seize the military tribunal, or can ask another judge to

 5     continue with the investigation, so I would like to understand how the

 6     chain of responsibility worked as far as Zvornik is concerned, because we

 7     know, and this is something we will discuss again later, that there was a

 8     judge named Mirko Stojanovic, but this judge could not take decisions on

 9     his own about everything.  So this is why I wanted to know who the acting

10     military prosecutor was.  According to you, this person was allegedly

11     called "Papic."

12             Mr. Ferrara, please continue.

13             MR. FERRARA:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14        Q.   So can -- can you tell us who were part of this team and what was

15     the duty of each one, this team who went to Zvornik .

16        A.   As I've already mentioned, Mirko Stojanovic was head of the team.

17     He was the head of the team, and he gave orders to carry out all the

18     activities that were required to carry out the investigation.  There was

19     the crime technician team from the MUP of Belgrade, and they carried out

20     their part of the job, and we were in charge of autopsies and external

21     examinations of bodies that had been found and that were at the Alhos

22     factory, at a machine department there, in plastic bags.

23             Also, there were representatives of the public enterprise that

24     was supposed to organise the funeral later on.  They assisted us when we

25     placed the bodies that we had processed into plastic bags.  They were

Page 13503

 1     from Zvornik.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ferrara, this is a question

 3     for you.

 4             The OTP has had hundreds and thousands of witnesses.  I don't

 5     have an exact figure, but I would like to know whether the OTP

 6     interviewed Mr. Mirko Stojanovic.

 7             MR. FERRARA:  I will check, Your Honour, and answer you later.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You will let me know.  Thank

 9     you.

10             MR. FERRARA:

11        Q.   So, Dr. Stankovic, were you told the ethnicity of the bodies you

12     were going to examine on the Alhos factory?

13        A.   When we came to the site, we were that told they were Muslims who

14     had been found in a forest below Kula Grad in Zvornik.  This is a

15     locality, Kula Grad, I mean, that is above Zvornik, above the lake, and

16     that is where there were armed clashes between the Serb forces and the

17     Muslim forces.

18        Q.   What was the Alhos factory?

19        A.   It was some kind of a factory.  I don't know what it was that

20     they actually manufactured.  When you'd cross the bridge from

21     Mali Zvornik, when you enter Zvornik, you'd pass by Karakaj, and then on

22     the right-hand side there was this factory, where the bodies had been

23     brought.

24             When we crossed the bridge, we were told to report at Alhos.  On

25     the first floor in Alhos, there was one room or two rooms where there

Page 13504

 1     were members of the police from Zvornik.  That is where we reported.  The

 2     investigating judge went to them, and then they said to us that behind

 3     the factory there was a room where there was machinery for heating, and

 4     right next to these heating machines there were plastic bags with the

 5     corpses of the Muslims that we processed.  That is what these people had

 6     said, and that's what the investigating judge conveyed to me.

 7        Q.   Do you know who collected these bodies?

 8        A.   I think that these bodies were collected by the people who worked

 9     for the public company in Zvornik; that is to say, the governmental

10     organs of Zvornik.  The authorities then were Serbian, I think.  I

11     remember there was this municipality President called Grujic then.  And

12     as far as I know, they brought them there to that locality.

13        Q.   How did you mark these bodies?

14        A.   We marked these bodies by the letter Z, meaning "Zvornik."  Roman

15     numeral I, meaning the first examination, and then the number of the

16     actual body.  As we would examine a body, we would give it a number.

17     When we started marking them, our first number was Z-I-24, I think it

18     was.  Since they had told us that before that, 23 bodies that had been

19     found had been buried, we were to start with number 24.  So that is how

20     we marked the bodies that we processed.

21        Q.   Can you describe how the examination of the bodies took place?

22     Was it a technique of autopsy, or was it only an external examination of

23     the corpse?

24        A.   We based our work on the request made by the investigating judge.

25     And after the investigating judge spoke to the representatives of the

Page 13505

 1     authorities in Zvornik, agreement was reached to carry out external

 2     examinations of the bodies, to describe the bodies, and to take all the

 3     clothes off the bodies, and to register all possible injuries that had

 4     been sustained, and also to note whether there were any blood-stains or

 5     any other kind of stains on the clothing, then also to have anything that

 6     may have been in or on the clothes taken out, and then to give these

 7     reports to the police that would try to identify the bodies on the basis

 8     of that; also, to remove possible valuables and other objects from the

 9     bodies that may have been there.  Then also, wherever possible, to take

10     finger-prints from the bodies, whenever possible, in order to establish

11     their identity later, perhaps; then also to take other parameters for

12     identification, like dental status, which was done, indeed; after that,

13     to register possible tattoos, scars, or characteristic details on the

14     bodies.  That was also done.  Also, to carry out external examinations

15     and to establish injuries on the bodies in this way.  Afterwards, to take

16     photographs of the bodies, that is to say, before the autopsy in

17     clothing, and then after the clothing would be taken over

18     [as interpreted], photographs would be taken of the bodies, including

19     injuries and other characteristics; and afterwards, to compose reports on

20     external examinations and providing a certain opinion that could be

21     defended and that would be derived from the findings that were the result

22     of our external examinations of the bodies involved.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have two technical questions.

24     I am asking these questions because I have quite some knowledge when it

25     comes to this area of expertise.

Page 13506

 1             Did you collect the bullets that were in the bodies?  Was it done

 2     or not?  If so, did you place the bullets in the plastic bag under seal

 3     with an identification number, or did you just do a very basic external

 4     examination?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that we did not perform

 6     autopsies, but performed external examinations of the corpses, and for

 7     that reason we were not able and we did not look for projectiles in the

 8     body, and we did not act in the manner that we applied in other -- on

 9     other occasions.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Second question,

11     another technical question:  If, on a body, there was an entry wound and

12     an exit wound, and if, on the body, there were several entry wounds and

13     exit wounds, did you use rods in order to reconstruct the trajectory of

14     the bullet, because -- if, of course, if there's an -- if there was an

15     entry and exit wound, or numerous entry and exit wounds?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  You can see that from the

17     autopsy reports or the report on the external examination, that we

18     provided that for all the fire-arms wounds we worked out the channel of

19     the wound.  Whether we did it from the exit to the entry wound or the

20     entry to the exit wound, but in any case, this was done.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  It seems that you

22     were also accompanied by policemen from -- forensic police.  Did they

23     collect powder, traces of powder, in order to see whether the shots had

24     been fired at close range or at immediate range?  Did you also check that

25     maybe by collecting traces of powder?

Page 13507

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did not take gunpowder samples,

 2     because we suspected only one body of having a point-blank wound, and we

 3     assumed that it was a killing, so in that case we didn't do it.  But I

 4     have to say that in my country, we didn't have the proper equipment to be

 5     able to determine if there were any gun-shot traces.  We didn't have

 6     electronic scanning or an electronic microscope in order to be able to

 7     find fragments of gunpowder.  We did it in a non-specific method, and

 8     it's a method, as you know yourself, which means finding the traces of

 9     nitrates and other chemicals that would be present.  But this method is

10     not very precise, and we were unable, in that brief period of time, to

11     carry out all of those activities.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  One last question.

13     We could spend hours on this, but I'll try to be brief and to the crux of

14     the matter.

15             Regarding these examinations, as far as non-identified bodies are

16     concerned, where there were no documents or nothing, did you check -- did

17     you do DNA checks, or did you at least think about possible DNA checks,

18     and did you take DNA samples in order to investigate this later on;

19     collect hair samples, for example, or nails, or something else?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were familiar with the DNA

21     method of identification, but in the area of the former Yugoslavia no one

22     had a lab where we could perform these analyses.  Only at the -- in

23     late -- the late 1990s, international donors provided a lab in Tuzla with

24     such equipment.  At that point in time, it was our assignment only to do

25     what we were able to do, and possibly to try to exhume the unidentified

Page 13508

 1     bodies at a later stage, which was when we were planning to take our

 2     samples for DNA analysis.  We did this later, when it became certain that

 3     there was the possibility to analyse the DNA samples.  This was done in

 4     Sarajevo.  So we did that then, but this was already 1999 or 2000.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Spaniard who was

 6     supervising and monitoring this was in Vukovar, right, not in Zvornik?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was in Vukovar, yes.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Spaniard.  I assume that

 9     this was a well-known technique in Spain at the time, so didn't he tell

10     you that he didn't have the equipment yet, but that it would be good to

11     collect samples in order to proceed later on to DNA checks, but he'd not

12     thought about this?  Hadn't he thought about this, this Spaniard

13     specialist?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, we knew about it.  But as I

15     said, taking the DNA sample was planned for later.

16             I must tell you that to this day, the samples that were taken for

17     DNA analysis have not been all analysed because there are no funds for

18     that.  So, for example, a large number of persons are still waiting to be

19     identified, in view of the limited resources that were at our disposal.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  But it's not

21     because you can't do anything at a specific moment, that you can't think

22     that later on, after a few months or a few years, you can't proceed to do

23     something, but let's continue.

24             MR. FERRARA:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25        Q.   Do you remember how many bodies you examined in this first visit?

Page 13509

 1        A.   During the first visit, we began from Z-I-24 to Z-I-52.  So it's

 2     approximately 28 bodies.

 3        Q.   Did you identify the ethnicity of these bodies, and how?

 4        A.   We did not deal with that particular matter.  This is under the

 5     jurisdiction of the investigative judge.  But among these people, we did

 6     register the fact that a certain number of them did have documents,

 7     personal ID cards, passports, or some other documents with their first

 8     and last name, and we did say that in our report, which persons these

 9     were.  After that, all of these people were circumcised, indicating that

10     they were Muslims.  Based on the clothing, it was also possible to

11     conclude that because of the presence of some green articles of clothing,

12     the number of clothing items, it could be concluded that they were

13     Muslims.  What we were able to state, we did so, but the other questions

14     that had to do with identification were in the jurisdiction of the Court

15     that had requested the autopsies.

16        Q.   What were the main causes of death of these people?

17        A.   Of the 28 bodies that we examined at that time, in one case we

18     could not determine the cause of death because the external examination

19     of the body did not show any injuries.  In two cases -- actually, in one

20     case there was a stab wound in the region of the left side of the chest.

21     In one case, there was a cut on the right side of the neck and the right

22     side of the face.  In the other 25 cases, they were all fire-arm wounds.

23        Q.   When did you draft the autopsy reports?

24        A.   The autopsy reports were made sometime before or after the

25     conversation with The Hague Tribunal investigators, based on the notes

Page 13510

 1     and all the material that I compiled during the autopsies and the

 2     external examination.

 3             MR. FERRARA:  Mr. Registrar, can we have one of these autopsy

 4     reports, the ones with the 65 ter number 1238, on the screen, please.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.  Before taking a

 6     look at these autopsy reports, notably number 24, who is quite

 7     interesting.  That was the first one that you examined, obviously.

 8     Before you actually processed the body and examined the bodies, did you

 9     or the investigating judge, or those who were with you, and you were

10     quite a number of people there, did anyone wonder where the body had been

11     found, who had found the body, and whether, when the body had been found,

12     there was a weapon next to this body?  Were these questions asked?  I

13     mean, I have conducted a number of investigations, and normally when you

14     do your job properly, this is exactly what you're supposed to do.  So

15     were these three questions put and answered?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that this question was

17     posed by the investigative judge, who conducted investigations in that

18     sense, but this was not part of my area of work or expertise.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, I have talked to a good

20     number of forensic pathologists like you, so please think twice about

21     what you're saying.

22             In the framework of your own job, if you suddenly learn that a

23     body was found with no weapons and lying next to this body, there could

24     be suspicion as to the reason of death, the cause of death.  On the other

25     hand, if you are told that he had a rifle in his hand, that could lead

Page 13511

 1     you to thinking that it was a fighter, and so you could go into different

 2     directions regarding your examinations.  If you were told that ten bodies

 3     were found in a specific place without any weapons lying next to them,

 4     you -- what could spring to mind is that they were executed.  So this

 5     kind of information is absolutely essential for the person who's going to

 6     do either the brief examination of the body or the autopsy, because that

 7     could lead him into different directions, as far as his conclusions are

 8     concerned.  What do you have to say?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can say that it's my duty to say,

10     on the basis of -- on the basis of the examination, what type of injuries

11     or wounds are involved, what were the weapons that they were inflicted

12     with, that I have to say the cause of death, is it a killing, a suicide,

13     or an accidental death, and at then that point I need to make my report.

14     From then on, where the body was found, was it executed or not.  This is

15     the next phase of forensic study, which can be done only once the

16     investigative judge or the person conducting the investigation - it can

17     also be a prosecutor, you are correct - gathers all the other information

18     and then gives that information to the expert, who will then be able to

19     complete the report of whether this was an execution or not.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, you're under oath.  You're

21     here to tell the truth.  You're not here to pass the buck, you know, so

22     I'm asking you very technical questions, and I want a technical answer.

23     The technical answer is the following:  If you're going to conduct -- if

24     you're going to perform an examination on a body or an autopsy, I

25     absolutely want to know whether your professional reflex was to

Page 13512

 1     immediately ask those who might have collected the body or might have

 2     brought the body or ask the policeman next to you whether they had this

 3     kind of information in order for you to do your job as best as possible.

 4             As I told you earlier, if you're told that ten people were found

 5     in a room, ten bodies were found in a room at a specific time, with no

 6     weapons at all in the room, you could draw some inferences from this, you

 7     could suspect some things.

 8             So I'm not trying to blame you for anything, but I just want to

 9     know how you proceeded.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that we found these bodies

11     at the Alhos factory, where they were brought.  When we asked where were

12     these bodies found, we were told, and I already said this, that they were

13     found just below Kula Grad, in a wood, where there had been fighting.  So

14     that was the whole information that I had about that event.  So I did all

15     that was within my jurisdiction, and then the investigative judge carried

16     on the investigation from there on.  I did not interfere in his area of

17     expertise, but I did make a report on all my own findings.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  So you were told

19     that the bodies were found in Kula Grad, where there had been fighting.

20     But the military police were there as well as the investigating judge who

21     was a captain.  None of these tried to find additional information to

22     find out whether they had been discovered in a bunker on the front-line

23     with weapons in their hands, yes or no?  All these questions were not put

24     and were not even investigated?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say that these questions

Page 13513

 1     were not asked, and this is stated in each of these reports at the

 2     beginning.

 3             At the time when we were conducting the examinations of the

 4     bodies, fighting was still going on around us, so in such circumstances

 5     none of the investigative organs could go to the sites and to make the

 6     investigations that you are asking about here.  So whether at some later

 7     stage the investigative judge did actually do these things, I don't know.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

 9             Mr. Ferrara, you have ten minutes before the break.

10             MR. FERRARA:  Yes, Your Honour.

11        Q.   Can you describe the main entries of this autopsy report?  Can

12     you describe the main entries of this autopsy report?  How did you

13     structure this autopsy report?

14        A.   On the first page of the report, it says:  "Mirsad Kuljancic," so

15     this is the person that we found documents on, and we put that in

16     quotation marks because that was not a sufficient proof of identity.  We

17     simply indicated that perhaps it is that person, because we couldn't have

18     confirmation that that was his definite identity, because the bodies were

19     in the initial stages of decomposition and on a large number of cases the

20     surface of the bodies was covered with maggots.

21             On page 2, it says who the autopsy team was by first and last

22     name, and the function of each of these persons.  Then the location of

23     the examination is given; also the remark that the fighting between the

24     opposing forces in the immediate vicinity made the work of the teams very

25     difficult and forced us to adapt to the existing situation.  Then we

Page 13514

 1     explained the procedure of the clothing that was removed and where it was

 2     placed later, and what happened with the personal items that were taken

 3     from the bodies and given to the investigative judge.

 4             In the external examination, we indicated the length of the body,

 5     also an estimate of the weight of the body, the external characteristics

 6     of the body.  Then we described the hair, the eyeballs or the eye

 7     hollows, also the state of the teeth, what sort of dental work had been

 8     done, if there were any missing teeth.  Then we described the wounds that

 9     we saw, the gun-shot wounds, in which case we would try to determine the

10     entry and exit wounds and the wound channel.  In some cases, if there

11     were a number of projectiles, we were not able to determine -- as I said,

12     we described the entry and exit wounds, the channel of the wound.  Then

13     we would state the state of the composition of the body, what was the

14     content of the bodily cavities.  After that, we would describe the

15     clothing, whether we found anything in the clothing or whether we found

16     anything on the body.  We also described if the clothing was torn or

17     ripped by a projectile, if it was soiled, and with what.

18             After that, we provided our findings, our views of the cause of

19     death, whether it was bleeding or the injury to important life functions.

20     Then we would say if the death was caused by killing or some other cause.

21     In cases where we could not establish that, the cause of death was

22     "killing," or when we were not sure, we would say that we were suspecting

23     that it was a death by killing.

24             After that, we marked the photographs.  We would place them

25     together with the report of the protocol, and this would be the content

Page 13515

 1     of the abduction -- of the autopsy report.  And this is the procedure we

 2     followed in all of the cases.

 3        Q.   So we can say that all of the reports concerning the 29 bodies

 4     that you examined at Alhos factory in this first visit were drafted

 5     following the same template; am I right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I listened to what you

 8     were saying, and I was also looking at the report of the 24, and

 9     obviously all the indications you mentioned are on the report.  It is

10     well done.  But something seems to be missing.  Why don't you determine

11     at least approximately the day or time of -- well, the time of death,

12     that would be too complicated, but at least the day of death, with maybe

13     the flies and the maggots found?  Wasn't that possible?  Because you did

14     say that maggots were found on the bodies, and everyone knows that

15     depending on the kind of maggot, you can find -- or you can try to

16     determine the date of death, at least approximately.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You know yourself that determining

18     the cause of death on the basis of bodily changes like the appearance of

19     maggots and other bodily indications, and that on the basis of those it's

20     very difficult to determine the time of death.

21             At the time when I handed in the reports, I did not actually deal

22     with that.  Only at a later phase, based on all the parameters that I had

23     mentioned and all the visible changes on the body that you could see on

24     the photographs, I was able to perhaps form some kind of opinion.  But

25     this is something that I could consider a failure, because at the time I

Page 13516

 1     did not have time to deal with each particular case in such detail.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Continue.

 3             MR. FERRARA:

 4        Q.   But what was the condition of the bodies?  Were they in a state

 5     of putrefaction or not, or were they fresh?

 6        A.   The bodies were in the initial phase of decomposition, and this

 7     is stated in almost all of the reports.  And in the photographs, it was

 8     evident that they were in this initial phase of decomposition and that

 9     some changes to the skin had already occurred, in terms of change of

10     colour and prominent subcutaneous blood vessels, appearance of maggots

11     and some other parameters.  For example, I explained that the eyeballs

12     were also in the initial stages of decomposition, so it was difficult to

13     determine the state of the eye and the eye cavities.  So all the bodies

14     were more or less in the initial stages of decomposition.

15        Q.   So in relation to what the Presiding Judge asked you, from this

16     kind of data, can you tell us approximately the time of killing of these

17     people?  So it was six months earlier or fifteen days earlier?  Of

18     course, I know it is a rough indication that you can give us.

19        A.   I can just give a rough indication, but I couldn't really give

20     you a complete rough indication due to the fact that I don't have

21     information about exactly where the bodies were found.  If they were

22     found in a wood or in some environment which was colder, with lower

23     temperatures, if it was a humid environment, then the process of

24     decomposition is slower, and all of this influences the determination of

25     the time of death.  So on the basis of this information, it would be

Page 13517

 1     difficult to give you a detailed opinion as part of my testimony now.

 2        Q.   Do you remember if the majority of these persons were killed by

 3     one shot or by multiple shot -- shoots?

 4        A.   The bodies of the victims with such injuries did have a number of

 5     wounds from fire-arm projectiles, some of them fired from hand weapons.

 6        Q.   Were you asked by the Military Court to determine the period of

 7     time when these people were killed or not?

 8        A.   No.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ferrara, it's 10.00 a.m.,

10     and it's time for the break, our 20-minute break.

11             According to my computations, you have about 20 minutes left.

12             Let's have the break.

13                           --- Recess taken at 10.00 a.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 10.24 a.m.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.

16             Mr. Ferrara, one point of clarification for the Bench.  The

17     witness you quoted, you quoted that person as a fact witness, not as an

18     expert witness.  Can you clarify this for us, please?

19             MR. FERRARA:  He's an expert.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If this person is an expert

21     witness, where is the expert's report?

22             MR. FERRARA:  Your Honour, according to Rule 94 bis, an expert

23     can testify on a report or on a statement.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The issue, Mr. Ferrara, is in which capacity did

25     you call this expert, because as far as we know, he was not called under

Page 13518

 1     Rule 94 bis.

 2             MR. FERRARA:  Now, let me check.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.  For years, this witness

 4     has figured as an expert in these proceedings.  I always refer to him as

 5     an expert, and on the basis of Rule 67, I made a submission to the OTP in

 6     relation to this witness as an expert.  So invariably, this witness

 7     always figured as an expert here.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The question has been settled,

 9     since the Trial Chamber ruled on this on the 24th of November.  The Trial

10     Chamber ruled on so many matters, anyway.  We stated this witness would

11     testify as an expert witness, and this is pursuant to Rule 94 bis.

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. FERRARA:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14             Concerning your request on Mirko Stojanovic, I tell you that the

15     OTP has never interviewed this man.  We don't have any statement from

16     this Mirko Stojanovic.

17             In relation to the autopsy reports drafted by Dr. Stankovic, I

18     would like to tender into evidence all the 99 -- 29 autopsy reports

19     drafted on this first visit in Zvornik.  I can read the related 65 ter

20     number or I can --

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's better for you to have all

22     the reports tendered.  You're not going to tender them one by one.  You

23     would like the 29 reports to be tendered into evidence; is that it?

24             MR. FERRARA:  Twenty-nine, yes.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the 29 reports.  Let's

Page 13519

 1     give an exhibit number to those 29 reports, Registrar, please.

 2                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, the whole batch of these autopsy

 4     reports will be given Exhibit P704.  Thank you, Your Honours.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.  As far as I know, the

 6     fate of exhibits depends on whether an expert report or expert statement

 7     will be admitted beforehand.  This is the first time that we have an

 8     expert who appears with a statement given to the OTP that was written by

 9     the OTP in his name and that was read out to him loud.  So far, we've had

10     only expert reports.  I think that first of all you should decide whether

11     you are going to admit this statement that the OTP wrote up for him as

12     his report, and then only the expert -- the exhibits along with this

13     expert statement.  Perhaps you may refuse to admit the expert's

14     statement, and then you are left with these other exhibits.  I hope that

15     you are going to refuse to admit it.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, for the benefit of

17     the public, Rule 94 bis, testimony of expert witnesses, it says the

18     witness statement or the witness's report, called to testify by one of

19     the parties, is disclosed to the other party within 34 days, which means

20     that the Trial Chamber can, after the cross-examination, admit the

21     statement or dismiss it.  This will depend on the cross-examination.  For

22     the time being, we have admitted the technical exhibits, i.e., the 29

23     examinations of corpses.  This can be admitted.  The statement can be

24     dismissed and so on and so forth, but this exhibit we have.  There is no

25     reason why we should challenge the examination of these bodies.  This is

Page 13520

 1     in the case file, and we shall see whether we admit it or not.

 2             MR. FERRARA:  Yes, Your Honours.  And, of course, I anticipate

 3     that I will ask to tender the statement made by the witness.

 4        Q.   Professor Stankovic, let's move to your second visit in Zvornik.

 5     When did it take place?

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Another objection.  Well, since

 7     Rule 94 bis speaks about the statement, and here we have two statements,

 8     the question raised now is:  Which one of these two statements is a

 9     candidate for being admitted into evidence?  To the best of my

10     understanding so far, it is only the witness statement from the 1st of

11     October, 2003.  Now, is it both statements or only one statement, and can

12     both statements be admitted into evidence?  If the Prosecutor is asking

13     for both to be admitted into evidence, then the logical question is:  Why

14     did he not bring them together in good time?

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We may well ask whether the

16     Prosecution is going to ask to have both tendered into evidence.  If that

17     is the case, the Trial Chamber will see whether both can be admitted,

18     whether one or the other can be admitted.  We have noted what you have

19     said.

20             MR. FERRARA:  Your Honour, I'm going to ask to tender into

21     evidence only the second statement, because it's the one related to our

22     indictment.  The first statement, the one made on 2001, I think, is

23     related to location that are not involved in our indictment, like

24     Srebrenica and others, so I don't think it is necessary to tender this

25     statement.

Page 13521

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  So it will be the

 2     second statement.  Fine.

 3             MR. FERRARA:

 4        Q.   Professor Stankovic, when did it take place, your second visit in

 5     Zvornik?

 6        A.   The second time, I was instructed by the Military Court to --

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.  Mr. Ferrara, you

 8     are discussing the second visit.  If you will allow me, I would like to

 9     get back to the 29 autopsy reports.  I thought you were going to put the

10     question, but you may have forgotten about it because of the break.  I

11     would like to get back to number 24.

12             As the Prosecutor has not put the question to you, I must put it

13     to you.  In your conclusion on the causes of death, in this field we

14     always try to know what the causes of death are.  On number 24, on the

15     last line, you say that the death was probably due to a murder.  This is

16     the conclusion, which means that the examination you conducted led you to

17     believe that there was a murder or killing?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Therefore, the investigating

20     judge was informed of the fact that there had been a murder.  What does

21     he do then, as far as you know?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what the investigating

23     judge did after that.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You were part of the JNA.  You

25     ended up as a general in the army.  Therefore, you are high-ranking

Page 13522

 1     military, even though you are a physician.  According to the rules of the

 2     JNA in such a situation, the military investigation judge is informed of

 3     the fact that there has been a murder, what must he do in such a case?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, he carries out

 5     investigative activities, which mean that there should be an on-site

 6     investigation of the place where the body was found.  In peacetime, it

 7     was compulsory for us forensic medical experts to go, and we were the

 8     professional associates of the judge, and we collected all objects that

 9     could clarify the cause of death, and all the circumstances involved.

10     After that, there is a proper process of compiling forensic

11     documentation, including registering and photographing all details found

12     on the scene.  Then statements are taken from witnesses who are present

13     or who had some knowledge in relation to the matter concerned.  And after

14     that, he asks the forensic medicine expert present there to describe the

15     position where the corpse was found in, and perhaps biological traces

16     that were found on the surface, or surrounding objects that were found.

17     Also, he asks the medical forensic expert to convey to him other possible

18     observations that have to do with his line of work.  Once that is over,

19     then he instructs or orders that the body be transferred to a site where

20     the autopsy is carried out.  After that, he sends samples to certain

21     laboratories, where analysis is carried out, depending on the kind of

22     analysis that should be carried out.  Then once all of that is gathered,

23     he also asks for an autopsy report from the forensic expert, forensic

24     medical expert.  And when he collects all these facts in relation to the

25     incident concerned, he hands it all over to the military prosecutor, and

Page 13523

 1     then the military prosecutor decides whether he is going to bring charges

 2     against a person or persons unknown, or he may ask for additional

 3     investigations, including forensic expertise, which means that on the

 4     basis of all the information contained in the case file, the expert

 5     states his views regarding matters that are of interest for the case

 6     concerned.  After this expertise is carried out, the expert sends this

 7     back to the investigating judge.  And after all these activities, an

 8     indictment is issued.

 9             In our country, these are proceedings before a trial chamber.

10     Depending on the crime concerned, the composition of the trial chamber is

11     decided upon.  This same kind of trial takes place, so the

12     representatives of the prosecution are there and also the representatives

13     of the injured party, and also experts that give questions to defence

14     attorneys and to the accused, but this is the procedure that is applied

15     in our jurisdiction and jurisprudence.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Very well.  You have given us

17     a very comprehensive answer.  We don't need to add any comments to this.

18             If I have understood you correctly, once you have prepared your

19     autopsy reports, which you handed over to the investigating judge, given

20     that the conclusions stated that there had been a murder, he should have

21     seized the prosecutor.  As far as you know, did he do this or didn't he?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that he did do that.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You believe so.  And why did

24     the prosecutor not pursue the matter, so as to identify the perpetrators

25     of the murder?  You may not have an answer to this.

Page 13524

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, my activities are only

 2     within my own line of work.  Any kind of interference with the organs of

 3     the judiciary or prosecutors' organs could be misinterpreted.  Therefore,

 4     I only act within the scope of my own authority and responsibility, in

 5     accordance with my own line of work.  I believed that those who are in

 6     charge should carry all of this out, and if this did not take place, then

 7     that person should explain why.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note, could all other microphones

 9     please be switched off when the witness is speaking.  Thank you.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We could spend a

11     lot of time on this, but I'm checking the clock.  I believe the

12     Prosecutor has 20 minutes left, and Mr. Seselj has an hour.

13             When you were heard, and this is part of your second statement,

14     by the three representatives of the OTP - I shall not quote any names,

15     but there were three of them - no one or none of the investigators asked

16     you this question:  You prepared this autopsy report; what happened to

17     it?  They were not interested in asking you this kind of question?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have said that the investigators

19     asked me, "Where is Mirko Stojanovic," whether I know how they can

20     establish contact with him.  This is contained in my statement.

21     Mirko Stojanovic was a military judge in Ljubinje.  After the state fell

22     apart, he was transferred to the Military Court Belgrade.  Soon after the

23     war broke out and after these investigations were carried out by him, he

24     retired.  And since then, I never had any contact with him, and I don't

25     know where he went and what he does.

Page 13525

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note, could all other microphones

 2     please be switched off.  Thank you.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.  You said,

 4     Mr. President, that this expert made a statement to three persons.  That

 5     pertains to the first statement.  The second statement was given only to

 6     one person, a woman, I think, Rita Pradhan.

 7             I would like to direct your attention to yet another thing; that

 8     the 8th of July is the date of the interview, and it was only on the 1st

 9     of October, 2003, that the witness had the statement read back to him.

10     This is the short statement that was taken for these particular

11     proceedings.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me turn to the second

13     statement.  We have a statement of the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and

14     19th of August.  There are three people that have interviewed you.  In

15     the 8th of July, 2003 statement, there is one woman that interviewed you,

16     Rita Pradhan.  Whether it be the three people or this woman - this is an

17     additional question - seemingly you were asked where this judge was.  I'm

18     sure it was easy to find him, but nobody put a question to you concerning

19     the prosecutor to see what the prosecutor might have done, as far as you

20     remember, of course?  I know this happened a long time ago.  I

21     understand.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter could not hear the answer.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Ferrara.

24             MR. FERRARA:  What was the answer?

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] "I believe not," is what he

Page 13526

 1     said.  It's not on the transcript.  You said, "I believe not"?

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 3             MR. FERRARA:

 4        Q.   So, Professor Stankovic, again, when does it take place, your

 5     second report?

 6        A.   The second time was on the 5th of May, 1992, at the instructions

 7     of the Military Court.

 8        Q.   Who was present on that occasion?

 9        A.   On that occasion, the following persons were present.  Well,

10     actually, the investigating judge did not go with us.  He just issued an

11     order and stayed in Belgrade.  Dr. Milo Savljevic went, who was a

12     trainee, and two assistants, Drajkovic [phoen] and Sojicic [phoen], and

13     I.  That was the forensic medical team from the VMA that took a separate

14     car.  Then after that, the representatives of the MUP of Belgrade came.

15     They carried out their own work, and inter alia it was their duty to take

16     photographs of the bodies that we were processing.  They found us -- or,

17     rather, we found the representatives of the public company from Zvornik,

18     the ones who helped us in carrying the dead bodies that we were

19     examining.

20        Q.   Where did you go to examine these bodies; again in the Alhos

21     factory or in another location?

22        A.   The same location, the same location where we had worked the

23     first time.

24        Q.   Where did these bodies come from?

25        A.   They told us that the bodies were also from Kula Grad, from the

Page 13527

 1     forest.  And the bodies had already been brought to Alhos, and they were

 2     in this machine room, where the machines for heating the factory were.

 3        Q.   But these bodies were not there when you went the first time on

 4     the 30th April 1992; am I right?

 5        A.   On the 30th of April, 1992, the bodies were not there.  These

 6     were bodies that were brought in subsequently after we had dealt with the

 7     first bodies.

 8        Q.   Were they Muslim or Serbs?

 9        A.   Again, we were told that these were Muslims.  The persons who

10     brought these bodies said that these were Muslims who were killed in the

11     armed conflict between the warring parties in the area below Kula Grad in

12     Zvornik; that is to say, that they had found them in that forest when

13     they searched the area at a later point in time, these representatives of

14     the public company.  They put them in the plastic bags, and they brought

15     them there to the place where we examined them on the 5th.

16        Q.   How many bodies did you --

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

18             MR. FERRARA:

19        Q.   How many bodies did you examine on this second occasion?

20        A.   On the second occasion, from Z-I-53 to Z-I-114.

21        Q.   Did you draft autopsy reports following the same template showed

22     for the first -- for the first group of bodies?

23        A.   No, no, I did not compile autopsy reports because the photographs

24     that were taken on that occasion were not submitted to me by the persons

25     who had done that, the representatives of the MUP.  When I asked for the

Page 13528

 1     photographs, they told me that they had been submitted to the Court in

 2     Zvornik, which I found unclear.  I asked why the Court in Zvornik, when

 3     it was the Court in Belgrade that had ordered the investigation, and then

 4     they said, "You can address the people in Zvornik."  And they told me

 5     there that they did not have those photographs there and that the judge

 6     was not there, and to this day these photographs had not been submitted

 7     to me.  And I didn't want to compile a report without photographs and

 8     without any kind of evidence, video material, photo material, concerning

 9     registering the situation or concerning the bodies that I examined and

10     the findings that I made during the autopsy.  I have all the paperwork,

11     that is to say, all the sets of documents from these examinations,

12     everything that was written up.  However, I did not compile a report.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, there's a mysterious

14     point I would like to clarify.

15             When you came the second time, there were representatives of the

16     MUP.  Everybody knows.  People who don't will discover this is part of

17     the Ministry of the Interior.  This has got nothing to do with the army,

18     as at the time you were there, because you were part of the military.  If

19     there were MUP representatives, what did this mean in terms of the

20     proceedings?  Does this mean that the civilian authorities or the

21     civilian prosecutor might have an interest in this?  Why was the MUP

22     there?  Can you answer this or not?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Military Court did not have the

24     technical means or the personnel to meet all the requests at the

25     beginning of the war in the area of the former Yugoslavia.  So in the

Page 13529

 1     case of Vukovar, when they engaged civilian judges for specific

 2     activities in Vukovar, on this occasion two, they engaged personnel from

 3     the Belgrade MUP who did have the appropriate equipment and were able to

 4     perform those tests, and they were more experienced than the military

 5     experts for dactyloscopies, since this was something that they did on a

 6     daily basis, and it was a routine procedure in their work, compared to

 7     the army, who had a different situation in terms of the military

 8     personnel and the military formations.  So these people were asked to

 9     come in and assist.  The investigative judge asked them to come.  He put

10     this request to the official from the police, who then met our request

11     and helped us in this case.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

13     continues]... contributed in technical terms, but this was still placed

14     under the authorities of the military?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was under the jurisdiction of

16     the Military Court.

17             MR. FERRARA:

18        Q.   So you have never seen these photos, the photos related to this

19     second group of corpse?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   Do you remember what happened during the end of this second

22     visit?

23        A.   I don't know what you're thinking of, specifically.  There were

24     many things like that.

25        Q.   Do you remember if you were shot by somebody, and how it

Page 13530

 1     happened?

 2        A.   At the end of the autopsies, we would place the body in a plastic

 3     bag - excuse me - and we would return the clothing to the plastic bag

 4     next to the body, because we expected that the relatives would come to

 5     identify the bodies also by recognising perhaps the clothing.  Since

 6     these were bodies that were in an advanced stage of decomposition, the

 7     whole bag was so full of worms, I had never seen -- even though I had

 8     done so many autopsies, had to perform autopsies on bodies that had so

 9     many worms.  We extracted from the clothing certain personal items and

10     objects, and we placed them in an area outside of the Alhos factory so

11     that the documents would dry, so that we could later hand them over to

12     the people who were supposed to continue the identification process,

13     people from Zvornik.

14             After one such case when we packed the bodies like that, a group

15     of people appeared with beards and cockades and other insignia, and we

16     had a quarrel.  I wouldn't allow them to come to the place where we were

17     performing the autopsies, because pursuant to the rules, there is no

18     place there for people who are not officially supposed to be there and

19     part of the official investigation.  So there was this quarrel or fight.

20     They had their own reasons, probably, why they wanted to come there.  I

21     complained to a policeman who was there on the first floor, and I told

22     him that he should make sure these people leave and that the documents

23     that I was supposed to pack into the plastic bags should be gathered

24     together.  I was supposed to hand these documents over to the police.  At

25     that point in time, one of those men from that group pointed his rifle at

Page 13531

 1     me.  I don't know if he was under the influence of alcohol, or I don't

 2     know what was the matter with him.  I didn't expect him to actually

 3     shoot.  But somebody who was standing next to him pushed his arm, and at

 4     that point a burst of fire, some two or three bullets - I don't know how

 5     many - just passed next to my head.  At that point, I felt very

 6     difficult.  I had to be quiet, and the reason I had to be quiet was that

 7     we had difficulties finding people who wanted to do autopsies under these

 8     conditions.  It was difficult.  Only somebody who was not on the

 9     front-line or in conditions like that can ask for a legal procedure for

10     the inspection of these bodies.

11             This was a quite surreal situation.  There was a lot of agitation

12     and excitement.  There were all these groups of people.  They left.  I

13     packed those clothes, and I didn't tell this story.  I kept it to myself.

14     I didn't want my associates to know about it or the media.  I just wanted

15     to continue, without disruption, with this autopsy work.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The person who shot at you, he

17     was probably a member of the unit.  Since you were an officer, you had a

18     degree of authority, and you could have mentioned this to your superiors.

19     Why had you rather remained silent about this, because this was a

20     rank-and-file shooting of an officer?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]

22     ... soldier.  It was a member of the so-called paramilitary military

23     formations.  Secondly, in an area where there was combat going on, and

24     I'm hearing this quite often in this trial and in other trials, where

25     people say you could tell who was a member of this unit or that unit, but

Page 13532

 1     the only way to differentiate between these people was to tell apart the

 2     members of the army.  They had their own characteristic insignia, and you

 3     were able to differentiate, but I didn't see these people among members

 4     of the so-called Arkan's units who had their own type of clothing, the

 5     way they dressed.  Otherwise, you could not tell who belonged to which

 6     formation.  They would introduce themselves as coming from here or there,

 7     but you couldn't really check any of that; at least not when I was

 8     working in that area.  There was nobody I could complain to, when I

 9     didn't know to which particular unit that person belonged, why he

10     belonged to that unit.  It was just total confusion among the people who

11     were in the army, who practically experienced this breakup in the same

12     way that I did.  I couldn't believe that the state would fall apart, the

13     former SFRY, and it fell apart like a house of cards.  All those declared

14     values that for years were the guiding light disappeared over night.

15     Everything collapsed like a house of cards, and the bulk of the soldiers

16     went to the newly-created institutions or organisations in the former

17     territory of Yugoslavia.  There was no one I could have complained to.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I can agree with you.  But in

19     1992, when you go to Zvornik for the second time, I assume that the JNA

20     was there.  There must have been a military in charge there who was

21     responsible for the entire area, notwithstanding the fact that there were

22     paramilitary formations present, or was it total chaos?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was total chaos.  I will tell

24     you one thing.  I will go back to Vukovar.

25             When we came to Vukovar with a team of civilian investigative

Page 13533

 1     judges, note-takers, all the technicians, when we went to certain

 2     locations where there were bodies found, we were not secured by the army.

 3     We were guarded by some members of the so-called Territorial Defence of

 4     Vukovar.  Who these people were, I don't actually know, but they did

 5     their best to protect us from the firing that was underway in Vukovar, to

 6     protect us from the land-mines that were all over Vukovar and things like

 7     that.  But this was total chaos, because the army at that time was

 8     composed of members of different ethnicities, and already there was a lot

 9     of confusion.  Slovenia had already broken off.  Croatia was in the

10     process of breaking away, and then it was the turn of Bosnia and

11     Herzegovina to do that.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Ferrara.

13             MR. FERRARA:

14        Q.   Could you -- so you don't know which unit these men actually

15     belonged to?

16        A.   No, and I cannot --

17        Q.   You cannot?

18        A.   I didn't hear your question.

19        Q.   Did they tell you why they wanted to go inside and see these

20     bodies?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   Did you go to Zvornik again after this second visit?

23        A.   After the second visit, I went to Zvornik on several occasions

24     because we were conducting autopsies of Serbs and members of the Army of

25     Republika Srpska who were found at Glodjanska Brda and in Zvornik and its

Page 13534

 1     environs, and I think this was a total of six or seven times that I went

 2     there; I think so.  Perhaps it wasn't that many times.  I don't know.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a marginal

 4     question for the Trial Chamber.  It's very important for the Trial

 5     Chamber.

 6             Earlier, we mentioned chaos.  So according to you, could you tell

 7     us whether the official army in place, the JNA, was it able to order the

 8     paramilitary units or, to your knowledge, was it unable to do so?  Take

 9     your time before answering, please.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can say that in that area, and

11     not only in that area, total chaos reigned in terms of relationships and

12     subordination.  Already at the time, as you know, Bosnia had declared its

13     independence.  I think it was around that time, and there was already

14     talk about how members of the JNA had no business in the territory of

15     Bosnia and Herzegovina.  So the army was preparing to pull out.  In that

16     situation, no one could have a dominant role and command these units,

17     especially not in a situation when the army pullout was being prepared.

18     No one had the authority to order paramilitary units how to behave.

19             Once some kind of cooperation was established, we did have

20     cooperation.  I'm talking about the Military Medical Academy and myself,

21     in charge of the autopsy, we had good cooperation with the Serbian

22     Radical Party and the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party.  They had

23     a person, a very responsible, serious man, Vojvoda Zoran Drazilovic, who

24     was in charge of the corpses of volunteers who were killed, and he made

25     sure that all the volunteers who were killed in that area were brought to

Page 13535

 1     the VMA.  All the bodies were autopsied according to all the rules and

 2     the procedures applied in these circumstances.  After that, he was in

 3     charge of taking the bodies, bringing the relatives in, identification,

 4     and so on and so forth, but this was at a later stage when these

 5     relationships were consolidated.

 6             Until the point of time when the army left that area, I think the

 7     19th of May was the dead-line for the army to pull out of the

 8     Bosnia-Herzegovina territory, the rule applied that all the army members

 9     should pull out from Bosnia and Herzegovina.  I remember I went to

10     Sarajevo, to Dobrovoljacka Street.  There was some soldiers and officers

11     killed there.  I was in charge of processing those bodies.  I went to

12     Sarajevo.  After that, we were not allowed to go to the territory of

13     Bosnia and Herzegovina anymore.  This was forbidden - I'm talking about

14     members of the army - to perform the activities that we had been

15     performing before.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

17             Mr. Ferrara.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Ferrara, can I just ask the witness to add

19     one sentence to your last statement.  Are we to assume that after the

20     19th of May, the members of the JNA were ordered not to enter into

21     Bosnian territory anymore?  Did this prohibition apply also to the

22     volunteer units?  Could they, even after the 19th of May, still operate

23     within the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We received this order in the army,

25     and I know that in my case, after the 19th, after the army pulled out

Page 13536

 1     from Bosnia and Herzegovina, could not go to that area, because a command

 2     was formed there under the command of, I think -- yes, it was

 3     General Mladic who succeeded General Kukanjac.  So after that, we had

 4     this ban.  As for the volunteers, I really couldn't say, because I don't

 5     know that much about them.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, sir.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ferrara, please.

 8             MR. FERRARA:

 9        Q.   When did you have this good cooperation with the SRS volunteers?

10        A.   The cooperation began in 1992-1993 and continued until the end of

11     the war.  This was a person, Zoran Drazilovic, who was in charge of the

12     volunteers, and all the volunteers regardless of the area of the former

13     Yugoslavia where they perished were taken to the VMA, and autopsies were

14     performed, preparations for burial were made, and then they were

15     transported to the locations where they were buried.

16        Q.   When did you go for the third time in Zvornik?  So you said to

17     perform duties on Serb victims.  When did it happen?

18        A.   This happened on the 16th of February, 1993.  I received a

19     summons from the Court president in Zvornik, Vasa Eric, to come and to

20     assist in the processing and identification of corpses that they had

21     found or that should have been exhumed or were to be exhumed for the

22     Glodjanska Brda area.  At the time, I submitted a request, because I had

23     asked to go to that area and to help those peoples, since Serbs were

24     killed in Sijekovac and Milici, and no one wanted to go because this was

25     an area where there were combat actions.  And then people from that area

Page 13537

 1     asked me to come in and to complete this job.

 2             The medical administration, pursuant to my request, replied that

 3     I could go, but only as a volunteer, and that as a volunteer in that

 4     area, they bore no responsibility about what happened to me, and they had

 5     no obligations towards my family if anything happened to me.  I agreed to

 6     that, I said, yes, I would still go.

 7             After that, I went to Zvornik on that basis, and I was -- I

 8     reported to General Pandurevic, and he told us we would be going to

 9     Glodjanska Brda, where mass graves of Serb soldiers and civilians were

10     found who had been killed in that area, that we would be taken there by a

11     bus and by cars, and that a large group of journalists would go with us.

12     And I think on the 19th, we came to Zvornik, and then on the 19th we went

13     to exhume the bodies, and this was at the Glodjanska Brda location.

14        Q.   Just the last question.  Was there any difference between the

15     procedure you followed when you examined mass -- the Muslim bodies and

16     the procedure you followed when you examined this mass grave with Serbian

17     bodies?

18        A.   There were deviations in the sense that now we were able to

19     conduct partial autopsies.  There were conditions in Zvornik then, which

20     was outside of the combat zone area.  Fighting was some 20 or more

21     kilometres further away, and this was when we were able to and we had

22     time, for example, to prepare the wound channels to see if the wound was

23     a projectile wound or as a result of some other instrument, or weapon, or

24     object, and that was the only difference that was there in doing these

25     autopsies.

Page 13538

 1             MR. FERRARA:  Your Honours, I don't have further questions, and I

 2     ask to tender into evidence the statement on the 8th of July, 2003.  The

 3     65 ter number of this statement is 7429.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  The Chamber will

 5     rule after the cross-examination.

 6             MR. FERRARA:  Your Honour, sorry, before I ask to amend the

 7     Prosecution 65 ter exhibit list, because the statement is not included in

 8     our exhibit list.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, the second one.

10             But I have a question first, a very important question for this

11     witness.  Generally speaking, when I ask questions, you know, there is

12     always a point to them, but here there really is a specific point, and

13     something you mentioned on your own volition.

14             You actually said, when you were talking about Zoran Drazilovic

15     and the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, if I understood

16     correctly in the translation, you said the following:

17             "When a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party was killed in

18     combat, his body was brought back to the Military Academy where it was

19     autopsied."

20             Hearing this, the question immediately springs to my mind.  I

21     would like to know whether the volunteers were treated in the privileged

22     fashion.  Why wasn't there an autopsy automatically for all other

23     fighters who had fallen?  Why were they specifically treated differently?

24     Can you answer, please .

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I will reply.

Page 13539

 1             First of all, we did the autopsies on all members of the army,

 2     regardless of whether they were members of the JNA or the VJ who were

 3     killed in the war-afflicted area.  Where volunteers of the Serbian

 4     Radical Party were found, they were brought in together with these

 5     members of the JNA or were in some other way brought to the Forensic

 6     Medicine Institute.  Then we were supposed to hand the remains to the

 7     families.  We didn't have orders from the military judges or the

 8     investigative judges to conduct these autopsies, because when the war

 9     began, I submitted the first reports on autopsies of JNA members to the

10     Military Court, and these autopsy reports were returned to me with the

11     remark that these are persons killed in the war and that the

12     Military Court is not interested in such victims.  This is what happened,

13     that's how it was.

14             After that, on my own initiative, I began, with a group of

15     workers and doctors from the VMA, to process these bodies, and then we

16     had to ask permission from the General Staff, which we did receive, since

17     some people from the institute did not agree with that particular method

18     of work or with that kind of work at all.  So when we received the body,

19     depending on the wound, the condition of the body, we had to, for

20     example, remove all the clothing and to document in some way these

21     victims of war, because we believed -- I believed I am taking

22     responsibility upon myself that in some future date some people will ask

23     for reports of the deaths of their own members or of their own relatives.

24     So this is how we did this particular kind of work.  They didn't have any

25     privileged position.  They were just well organised and took care of

Page 13540

 1     their people, and they brought them in for processing and burial in a

 2     decent manner.

 3             I must say that we also had about ten volunteers of Arkan's.

 4     They were also brought in to the VMA from the area where they were, and

 5     we processed the bodies.  And after that, we handed the remains over to

 6     the families or to the people in charge of such matters from different

 7     parties.

 8             As the war continued and more and more victims of war were found,

 9     we kind of became a centre where commissions for humanitarian issues,

10     after exchanges of these mortal remains, would bring in these bodies for

11     processing, and these people were not privileged in any way.  It was just

12     a regular activity that we performed, with the agreement of those people

13     who decided on that and who were authorised for such matters.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.  So they

15     did not have a privileged treatment because they were a member of the

16     Serbian Radical Party.  But out of your answer, another question crops

17     up.  It might be even more important.

18             If the volunteers of the SRS are autopsied at the Military

19     Academy, just like other soldiers of the JNA are autopsied, does this

20     mean that you, yourself, considered them as enjoying the status of

21     military personnel, and that because of that, they were under the control

22     and the authority of the JNA?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  All I believed, and still

24     believe, is that we need to perform autopsies of people from the lowest

25     ranks - I'm thinking of the financial status - and from the highest rank

Page 13541

 1     in exactly the same way, so regardless of who I was processing.  There

 2     was no difference in the autopsies from person to person, regardless of

 3     their status or origin.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I don't think you understood

 5     the gist of my question.  I will reformulate it.  It's an important

 6     question, so I'm being extremely careful when it comes to your answer.  I

 7     absolutely want to be sure that you fully understand the question.  This

 8     is my question:  You are in the JNA, you're in the structure.  The

 9     Military Academy, where you performed your talents as a forensic

10     pathologist, is competent when it comes to soldiers who were killed in

11     combat.  You told us that the JNA soldiers who had been killed were

12     brought to you, as well as volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party, and

13     you even added that at one point in time some members of Arkan's units

14     were brought to you.  So you are -- you represent the military authority

15     there, but does this mean that the military authority considered that

16     those who had been killed, that the SRS volunteers were actually

17     soldiers, had the status of soldiers?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at the time, I held

19     the rank of lieutenant-colonel.  Perhaps this is a high rank in the army,

20     but I was far from the administrative structures and the policies which

21     at the time were in force in my country.  Since I was at a too-low level

22     in order to be able to ask about these things, and there was no need for

23     me to consult anybody about why we were doing something and how we were

24     doing it, it is a fact that these people, not only the members of the

25     SRS, and it was not only two but some ten members of Arkan's units, and

Page 13542

 1     some other civilians, also, from various parts of combat areas, but it's

 2     true that the army processed those corpses, that they paid for the costs

 3     of burial of these bodies, and that they covered the costs of transport

 4     from the VMA to the destination.  We had two people from the

 5     General Staff who worked on this.  They worked really well on it.  They

 6     maintained all the contacts, and we never had any problems with that.

 7     The only thing is that the army covered all of the burial costs for these

 8     people, including the coffin, the clothes, and so on and so forth.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I'll supplement my

10     question with an assumption.

11             Let's imagine I'm a Serb civilian with my wife and children, and

12     I'm driving in my car next to combat areas.  And let's say that my car

13     explodes on a land-mine and my entire family is killed, but I'm a

14     civilian.  So I would like to know whether my body and the body of my

15     family members will be brought to the VMA for an autopsy.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If there was a request from the

17     family or any organ, we carried out these autopsies.  For example,

18     journalist Zoran Amidzic from Sabac and his team got killed in Bosnia as

19     they were on a news mission.  During the night, a request arrived to

20     carry out an autopsy of those bodies.  That was supposed to be done

21     during the night, and I went to Sabac, and I carried out the autopsies so

22     that the bodies could be buried the next morning.  Then, for example,

23     there were quite a few people whose mortal remains had been exhumed or

24     found in areas outside Serbia.  These bodily remains would be exhumed,

25     packed in bags, and then they were brought to the VMA, where we carried

Page 13543

 1     out autopsies.  Also, for example, there was cooperation between these

 2     humanitarian commissions to agree on the exchanges of bodies of persons

 3     who had lost their lives in a particular territory.  Once the bodies were

 4     brought in, we carried out autopsies.  That is to say that we did all

 5     sorts of work at anybody's request, basically.  Perhaps that may seem

 6     strange, but we did not ask for any kind of financial compensation, we

 7     never raised the issue.  We simply wanted to help people in these most

 8     difficult situations so they would find out whether these were the bodies

 9     of their nearest and dearest or not.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  So the conclusion

11     is quite straightforward.  The Military Academy, where autopsies were

12     performed, autopsied everyone, either from the military or civilians.

13     They were just autopsying at requests.

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Upon request, interpreter's correction.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, the same goes for medical

16     treatment.  That is to say that the Military Medical Academy admitted and

17     treated all persons from war-ravaged areas.  They were all admitted,

18     regardless of their status, and that was the general position.  That's

19     how we operated.

20             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So to this last question and

21     thanks to your answer, we can infer that the army had a competence to

22     perform these autopsies because of the context, because it was an armed

23     conflict.  You're talking about a war-afflicted area.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm looking at the clock, and

Page 13544

 1     I'm quite worried.

 2             Mr. Ferrara.

 3             MR. FERRARA:  I will be very quick.

 4             Just a technical question.  Concerning the 29 autopsy reports

 5     that were admitted with just one exhibit number, that is Exhibit P704,

 6     they are already up-loaded in e-court with 29 different 65 ter numbers,

 7     so I need to tell the 65 ter number so that we will have just one number

 8     or we need to change again our 65 ter exhibit list, so I have quickly

 9     read the 29 number.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I suggest that Mr. Ferrara does

12     this on Tuesday.  Today, I would not like to give up part of my time for

13     cross-examination for --

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll solve this immediately.

15             The Judges did wonder about this earlier, and we thought it would

16     be best to have a single number, but we can also have 29 numbers.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             MR. FERRARA:  Your Honours, this can be done outside the court,

19     to have these 29 exhibits.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Ferrara, you

21     will ask Mr. Mundis how to -- what to do.  He knows exactly how I usually

22     work in another case.  So just put your 29 documents with the 65 ter

23     number, and then next to it you will put the numbers.  I think we were at

24     P704, that was the last one.  And then you will give the list to the

25     Registrar, and the Registrar next week will tell us --

Page 13545

 1             MR. FERRARA:  We already [indiscernible] the list.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, perfect.  Then next

 3     week, the Registrar will give us the numbers.

 4             But now I would like to proceed with the cross-examination.

 5     Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.

 6                           Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Stankovic, when my associates, sometime in

 8     September 2005, disclosed to the public that on the 29th of August of

 9     that same year, I had submitted, on the basis of Rule 67 of the Rules of

10     Procedure and Evidence, my intention to present a special defence, and I

11     submitted that to the OTP, and I challenged your expertise and

12     credibility.  On several occasions you made statements to different media

13     that you were not a Prosecution witness in the case against me; right?

14        A.   Yes, that is correct, because at the request of the OTP, which I

15     have here, dated the 20th of December, 2002, the Minister of Justice,

16     Mr. Savo Parkovic, received a request calling me to deal with case

17     IT-02-54-T, the Prosecutor versus Slobodan Milosevic.  The decision of

18     the Government of Serbia, dated the 6th of February, 2003, and the

19     Federal Government of the 31st of January, 2003, speaks of that.  Nowhere

20     in my statement did I mention you, or did I say a single word about you.

21     That can be seen from my statements.  I don't know you, either.  I saw

22     you only once, when a book was being promoted at the army centre.

23     I think that you were Deputy Prime Minister at the time.  I never made

24     any statements with regard to you.

25             I didn't quite understand this.  Everybody was talking about

Page 13546

 1     this.  Everybody was reading some kind of material that you had written

 2     up, and that is why I made these statements.  So that is the case.  I

 3     have the original documents here, and you will see that you were never

 4     mentioned, and no decision was ever made for me to take part in your

 5     trial.

 6        Q.   Do you realise that you were never announced as an expert in the

 7     Slobodan Milosevic trial, at least to the best of my knowledge?

 8        A.   No, no, I was told that I was supposed to testify in the trial of

 9     Slobodan Milosevic.  This is what I was told by a lawyer, Momir Ivetic

10     was the --

11        Q.   As a Defence witness?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   So that has nothing to do with The Hague OTP.  You were preparing

14     to testify as an expert witness of the Defence there?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   So let's just clarify that.  You found it very embarrassing that

17     your name was officially on the list of Prosecution witnesses in this

18     case, and you didn't find that pleasant; right?

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   That is primarily because in the Serbian public, it is a shame

21     when someone appears as a Prosecution witness in proceedings in

22     The Hague; objectively, that's the way it is?

23        A.   Well, objectively, that's the way it is.

24        Q.   All right.  I'm going to put very brief questions to you, and

25     please give answers as brief as possible so that we use this time

Page 13547

 1     efficiently.

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note, could the accused please be

 3     asked to speak slower.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the question could not

 5     have been put, but it was put, and you answered clearly.  If I understand

 6     correctly, when a witness comes to testify before this Tribunal, it is

 7     shameful to come and testify here, is it?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I did not say that it was a

 9     shameful thing.  I said something different.  I particularly noted that

10     at the very beginning, as a witness or as an expert, I am duty-bound to

11     tell the truth and nothing but the truth.  That's what I said in the

12     oath, too.  However, there is this particular notoriety thing that is

13     going about, especially in my setting, that I come here to accuse

14     someone, that I'm a man who has accused someone or is accusing some

15     persons, whereas I came here as a person who conducted autopsies of

16     Muslims in Zvornik, who compiled reports, and I came here to defend those

17     findings and reports.

18             It is not shameful for me to come before this Tribunal.  I said

19     that it was actually something that was unpleasant for me because of the

20     way in which witnesses or experts of the Prosecution are being depicted

21     in the setting where I live and work.  That is the case.  However, had I

22     been ashamed in any way to appear before this Court, I would have found a

23     thousand ways and means of evading that.  However, I feel this

24     responsibility that I should act in accordance with the requests made by

25     the persons who are in charge of these proceedings, and that is why I

Page 13548

 1     came.  That is the core of the matter.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  In your country, sir,

 3     there are trials also, and the witnesses come to testify at the request

 4     of the Belgrade prosecutor or from other towns.  But when the witnesses

 5     come and testify before your tribunals, do they have a problem, or do

 6     they say to themselves, "I have been called by the prosecutor, and I

 7     shall go and testify"?  What difference is there between this Tribunal

 8     and the tribunal in Belgrade, from a witness's standpoint?

 9             If this is a delicate question, you may say, "I had rather not

10     answer."  You don't have to answer.  You can only answer if you wish to

11     answer.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  Judge, in our country, we are

13     very dissatisfied with some of the judgements made by Trial Chambers in

14     The Hague, some Trial Chambers.  This primarily has to do with the

15     acquittal of Nasir Oric, and I'm a living witness to that.  If you look

16     at my statement that is given and the descriptions of the wounds, and the

17     ways in which these people were killed in Srebrenica and the surrounding

18     villages by Nasir Oric's units, this is a shameful judgement, and I can

19     say that, and I can prove that.  When evidence was needed, I provided

20     these reports, but not all of them, because it was stated then we are

21     asking for those reports, but we don't want those other reports.  That is

22     the first matter.

23             The second matter:  As far as Ramush Haradinaj's judgement is

24     concerned, I carried out the autopsy of a driver, an Albanian from the

25     municipality in Pec who had been killed by those units, and that was

Page 13549

 1     registered and that was handed in.  The representatives of the

 2     International Community were there, and nothing.  I was there, and the

 3     President Of the Committee for Violations of Humanitarian Law.  I talked

 4     to Sharif Basuni [phoen], Carsten Hoffman, Goldstone, Carla Del Ponte,

 5     Louise Arbour, lots of people, and we provided lots and lots of

 6     documents, and there were no proceedings before this Court.

 7             As far as Gospic is concerned, we provided the expert findings

 8     for 14 bodies, and I went to the Court in Rijeka and explained my

 9     findings, and the Court admitted that.  However, it is illogical for

10     The Hague Tribunal not to analyse the killing of 24 civilians from

11     Gospic, most of them women and elderly men, and over 100 of them were

12     thrown into pits in Velebit.  And General Norac is now getting married

13     and travelling around Croatia.  At this mass grave, there were 181 bodies

14     of civilians and soldiers that were killed in that area.  That is where

15     General Matijasevic got killed, too, commander of the 6th Guards Brigade

16     from Croatia.  That is to say, this is direct participation of one

17     country on the territory of another country.  I found 36 old men there

18     who were over 60 years old with the gravest possible injuries.

19             So that is the matter.  That is the bitterness that the citizens

20     of my country feel as far as this Tribunal is concerned.

21             This man who is present here, who insulted me like no one ever

22     insulted me in my life and who presented so many untruths about me, but

23     he is being tried here only because of what he said.  He is only being

24     tried for verbal offences.  That is the feeling of the general public in

25     my country, and that is my feeling.  So that's the bitterness that is

Page 13550

 1     felt in that environment, and that is how this is viewed.  We are not

 2     opposed to having all criminals punished, and this is precisely evidence.

 3     Had the Military Court carried out the investigation in Vukovar, also in

 4     relation to the Muslims in Zvornik, there was an investigation, this is

 5     proof.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have provided us with a

 7     very comprehensive answer.  I thank you for having provided us with a

 8     lengthy answer.

 9             Now, two comments I'd like to make.  Crimes were committed, and

10     at the time the Prosecutor needed to prosecute the offenders of these

11     crimes with due diligence.  After meeting at the United Nations

12     headquarter, we need to prosecute these offences now.

13             As far as acquittals are concerned, I have nothing to say about

14     that, because the Judges have handed down their judgement.  You know as

15     well as I do that when it comes to criminal offences, before somebody is

16     found guilty, the evidence has to be adduced.  That is what is called

17     presumption of innocence.  All the evidence needs to be gathered for an

18     offence to be proven.  That is what the problem is all about.  This may

19     be difficult to understand when one does not have a legal background, but

20     anyone with a legal background will understand what I have just said.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI:  You have said what you had to say.  That is

22     fine.

23             Mr. Seselj, please proceed, because I'm looking at the clock.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm going to need

25     all of one hour that you have given me, so perhaps we can give up on the

Page 13551

 1     break, or we can work for longer hours, whatever.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You will have your time.

 3     Before the break, we have 20 minutes.  Then we will have the break, and

 4     then we still have an hour left.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] All right.

 7        Q.   Mr. Stankovic, please, let us just have brief questions and brief

 8     answers.

 9             Is it correct that the Serbian public, in a vast majority,

10     believes that The Hague Tribunal is an illegal court?

11        A.   The professional public believes that it is an illegal court.

12     There are differences in views, but the way in which it was established

13     gives these people the right to speak of it as an illegal court.

14     However --

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you have already

16     put this question.  You have already taken a stand.  This is not a trial

17     of the Tribunal.  We need to check, during the cross-examination, what

18     the witness has said during his -- in his statement.  Do not exploit the

19     presence of the witness to address other issues.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, what you wish to

21     hear, you did hear during the examination-in-chief, and in response to

22     questions put by the Judges.  Now I am examining the expert witness about

23     his credibility, and my questions are conceived on that basis, and I'm

24     entitled to that.  I know full well what I think about The Hague

25     Tribunal, and you know that full well.  However, I'm asking this witness

Page 13552

 1     about his knowledge as to what the Serbian public believes, especially

 2     the lawyers and professionals in the Serbian public, and of course I'm

 3     going to ask him what he thinks about it.  I have the right to do that.

 4     If you will forbid me to do that, then there is no point in any

 5     cross-examination.  I am challenging his credibility.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The only problem, Mr. Seselj,

 7     is that this is outside the scope of his expertise.  He has come here at

 8     the request of the OTP to discuss the examination of bodies and

 9     post-mortem examinations.  He has not come to talk about political

10     issues.  If you feel that, in terms of credibility, he has not told us

11     the truth, so be it, but you cannot ask him what he thinks and what the

12     public opinion thinks about this Tribunal, that you're going to shed some

13     light on the credibility of this witness.

14             MR. FERRARA:  Your Honour, we object to put questions in the

15     cross-examination this way because, as you said, it's completely

16     irrelevant to asses the credibility of the witness on his political

17     opinion or that kind of opinion.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, when I was

19     questioning Anthony Oberschall, the first witness, who is allegedly a

20     doctor of sociology, and before that he got a degree in physics, I put

21     questions to him from the area of physics and mathematics, and you saw

22     that he did not know what imaginary numbers were and what Abogada's

23     [phoen] number is.  I have the right to do that.  Also, I have the right

24     to put questions to this expert witness, who's a general and who was

25     Minister of Defence.  I have the right to ask him about these matters of

Page 13553

 1     principle and these essential matters, and then on the basis of his

 2     answers, I and you, and the Prosecutor, and the professional public, can

 3     draw conclusions on his credibility.

 4             I know that you find these questions unpleasant, and maybe you

 5     will find the answers even more unpleasant, but at the moment when you

 6     agreed to be Judges of this Court, you knew that you may come across such

 7     unpleasant things.  And now you are using my time for no reason

 8     whatsoever, in my view.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Mr. Seselj, let me remind you

10     that I was the person who let the witness talk and let him express his

11     views, and asked him how public opinion reacted.  Let me remind you that

12     I did not cut him short and that I let him put his views forward.

13             Now, during cross-examination, let me remind you that this is not

14     an unlimited right and that you can't address just anything under the

15     sun, and you are now addressing the issue of the legality of this

16     Tribunal.  This is not a legal expert, neither in constitutional law or

17     on any other law, for that matter.

18             What I'm interested in is:  Do you have anything in your

19     cross-examination that could prove useful to that, on the basis of the

20     events that took place in Vukovar and Zvornik?  That is what we are

21     interested in.  Everything else are things which you have already

22     mentioned.  We know about that.

23             So you have the floor again.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...

25     well, any time I yield, Mr. President, I always get a major headache, and

Page 13554

 1     I always regret yielding to you.  Well, let me tell you this sincerely.

 2     But I'm going to yield once again.  I am not going to ask him any legal

 3     questions.  Because he was a Minister of Defence and he's a general, he's

 4     a retired general now, once a general, always a general, I then have a

 5     question which is not of a legal nature.

 6        Q.   Is it correct --

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But you've just said something,

 8     Mr. Seselj, that I knew nothing about.  You said that this gentleman was

 9     Defence minister.  Were you Defence minister?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was a defence minister from

11     the 24th of December, 2005, until the 15th of May, 2007.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, since he was defence

13     minister, he is able to answer a number of questions, but I had to be

14     informed about this.  I knew nothing about this, but whether these are

15     military issues or that tie into his job when he was Minister of Defence

16     at the time.

17             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] All right.

18        Q.   Mr. Stankovic, as a former defence minister, are you aware that

19     almost the entire Serbian public believes this to be an extremely

20     anti-Serb court, in view of the number of Serbs that are being tried here

21     and the few Croats, Muslims and Albanians, also having in view the vast

22     differences in the sentences, and also in view of how many notorious

23     criminals were freed and they are not of Serb ethnicity?

24             Well, the witness did answer questions from you about that.  He

25     did say how the Prosecutor behaved towards the evidence he offered, so

Page 13555

 1     I'm not going to allow the Prosecutor to spend any of -- or use up any of

 2     my time, and I'm going to use up every minute that I have been allotted.

 3             MR. FERRARA:  Mr. Seselj, I'm not --

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Ferrara.

 5             MR. FERRARA:  [Previous translation continues]... any am

 6     following the view.  I said I object to this kind of question that are

 7     completely not relevant.  The witness is here like an expert witness in

 8     forensic medicine, not to tell us his opinion and the opinion of the

 9     public in Serbia about the ICTY, or this Trial Chamber, or the

10     Prosecution.  So this kind of question can really not be admitted in

11     court.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Should I give up this question as

13     well?  All right, I will let it pass.  Let me continue.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed.

15             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].

16        Q.   Mr. Stankovic, according to my information you were, in some

17     form - I'm not able to define that - an expert consultant of The Hague

18     Prosecutor's office for autopsies and identification of bodies of Muslim

19     soldiers who -- or which were exhumed in connection with the liberation

20     of Srebrenica in 1995, both those who were killed in fighting or those

21     who were executed; were you in that capacity?

22        A.   No, I didn't.  I was not in any capacity connected with those

23     investigations, especially not on behalf of the Prosecution.

24        Q.   You were not contacted by the Prosecution in that matter?

25        A.   The Defence did so in the case against General Krstic, but not

Page 13556

 1     the Prosecution.

 2        Q.   And you provided your expert views only for the Defence?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   But in that way, you acquired information about certain

 5     scandalous occurrences in the process of the work of the forensic

 6     medicine specialists from the West who took part in that; is that

 7     correct?

 8        A.   In my findings that I provided to The Hague Tribunal Trial

 9     Chamber made quite significant objections to some experts who conducted

10     the processing and exhumation of bodies in Srebrenica and its environs.

11        Q.   All right.  Did you notice that the general tendency of those

12     international forensic medicine specialists is to treat all the bodies

13     found of Muslim soldiers in and around Srebrenica as victims of

14     execution?

15        A.   One of the crucial objections that I made in writing is the fact

16     that from 2.082 remains that were exhumed at that time from and around

17     Srebrenica, 2.870 deaths happened, and I disputed that.  How can you have

18     a larger number of deaths than the number of remains?

19        Q.   Are you aware that in the judgement by this Tribunal in the case

20     of General Radislav Krstic, it was said that the Serbian forces executed

21     between 7.000 and 8.000 Muslim prisoners?

22        A.   Yes, I know that.

23        Q.   Do you agree that it is possible to speak about such numbers?

24        A.   In my testimony, I drew attention or I wrote that this is one --

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ferrara.

Page 13557

 1             MR. FERRARA:  I don't think we have any indictment about the

 2     Srebrenica location.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I shall --

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am probing the expert

 5     credibility -- the expert's professional and ethical credibility.

 6     Depending on my questions, I'm going to draw conclusions as to the

 7     witness's credibility.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  What I wanted to

 9     say is this:  One moment.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you please repeat your

11     question, can you please repeat the question?

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Following the objection made by

13     the Prosecution, we have documents that have been admitted.  These

14     documents have been prepared by international pathologists regarding a

15     number of victims.  We have these documents, and the Defence is now

16     challenging the work of these international forensic pathologists, and

17     quotes the example of Srebrenica, which I'm discovering as we going

18     along.  So that's how it is.

19             We are not trying the Srebrenica case here, but in this manner

20     some of the findings of the international forensic pathologists are being

21     challenged.  We have admitted their documents.

22             Please proceed, Mr. Seselj.

23             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Do you know the most recent numbers, when we're talking about

25     Srebrenica-related exhumations?

Page 13558

 1        A.   No, I don't know, but as you said, I did make the objection, and

 2     this is the basic problem:  If somebody claims that 7.000 to 8.000 people

 3     were killed, then they have to have that number of mortal remains.  In

 4     case there are none, the rules indicate that one should state the number

 5     of remains found, that the rest should be recorded as missing, and there

 6     should be a chance that domestic or international institutions search for

 7     the rest of the victims.  We have cases, in fact, that a name that is at

 8     the memorial centre next to Srebrenica is the name of a person who

 9     actually did report as being alive a year or two years before that, and

10     these are the information that I kept pointing to, and relating to the

11     information about Muslim victims.  It's well known what has been found,

12     what has not been found, which remains were found, which names are being

13     recorded as still missing.  This is the information about that.

14             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, are there still mass

15     graves which have not been exhumed yet?  Do you know about this, since

16     you are an expert involved in these matters?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the report that I looked at,

18     I think it's a report of Professor Wright, it says that a number of

19     graves that were located and marked and that do contain mortal remains of

20     people, have still not been exhumed.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I continue?

22        Q.   Are you aware, Mr. Stankovic, that at the memorial centre in

23     Bratunac, which is actually a cemetery of Muslim soldiers, many Muslims

24     were buried who were killed in various ways from 1992 to 1995, before the

25     liberation of Srebrenica?

Page 13559

 1        A.   I did read about this and also came across remarks that all

 2     Muslims were being buried there who -- that all Muslims are buried there

 3     who actually are -- fell in some other locations.

 4        Q.   All right.  So evidently the goal is to increase the number of

 5     the dead as much as possible; is that correct?

 6        A.   I cannot reply to that question, but the number does grow with

 7     the number of burials of the victims.

 8        Q.   So the number is growing instead of stating how these victims

 9     died in Srebrenica or in the breakthrough out of Srebrenica or in

10     executions?  I'm not disputing that there were executions.  There were

11     executions.  I agree with that, and people were found with hands that

12     were tied; is that correct?

13        A.   I said that in my report.  There were 2.082 remains, and 367 were

14     found with blindfold or ligatures on their legs or arms, and it's evident

15     that these people were executed.  In other bodies, we did find gun-shot

16     wounds, on some we did not, and this was stated in the report, whether

17     such injuries were found or not.  I mean, it's a question of expertise,

18     and this can be checked back.

19        Q.   There is one problem that appears there.  Some bodies -- on some

20     bodies, bullets were found.

21        A.   Yes, in the clothing of those bodies.

22        Q.   Is that possible evidence that these people were killed by a

23     bullet from a distance, because if you are killed by a rifle bullet, it

24     would go clean through the body; is that correct?

25        A.   I said in my report that gun-shot wounds can occur during

Page 13560

 1     execution or during combat or due to self-inflicted injuries or in some

 2     other ways.  I don't want to go into all of them.  Therefore, I did say

 3     that in these 360 people, I think this is the number, they were executed

 4     for sure.  The rest is something that has to be established based on

 5     examinations and investigations.

 6        Q.   Since you dealt with this question, are you aware that the bulk

 7     of Muslim soldiers, when withdrawing from Srebrenica, were killed in

 8     mutual conflict?

 9        A.   There was talk about that, but I'm not aware of that.

10        Q.   Are you aware that a team of Finnish pathologists, led by

11     Helena Ranta, who is explaining now how the US governor of the OSCE, a

12     worker, ordered her in the way in which she should investigate in Racak,

13     that she compiled the bodies of Muslims killed in mutual conflicts in the

14     forest near the village of Kravica, and only in one location did they

15     find them dispersed all over the ground, and this was 594 bodies.  Do you

16     know about that?  Do you know that Helena Rant a was involved in that

17     investigation?

18        A.   No, I don't know.

19             MR. FERRARA:  So you don't know about this information.

20             MR. FERRARA:  What's the relevance of these questions?  I really

21     don't understand.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm testing the expert witness's of

23     the Prosecution credibility.  The Prosecution brings their expert here,

24     and then they wonder why I'm testing their credibility.  This is not a

25     witness of the Defence, so that my questions are irrelevant.  This is a

Page 13561

 1     Prosecution witness.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me answer.  I had, myself,

 3     asked a few questions to the witness regarding point-blank shots and

 4     close shots, because this had not been mentioned in any of these 29

 5     reports, because whether you're firing, you know, from one metre, a

 6     couple centimetres, or 5 metres, or, 100 metres, it's very different.

 7     The person who's killed 100 metres away, probably killed in combat,

 8     rather than having been executed, so it's very important to know exactly

 9     what was the range.  I don't know if this also came into the mind of

10     Mr. Seselj, but it's true that through his questions, he seems to be

11     saying that out of the 594 bodies - that's what he says on

12     page 79 - there is obviously some doubts and suspicion as to the range

13     that these people were shot at.  I believe this is relevant.

14             Sometimes it seems that there are autopsies that are made without

15     determination of the range.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, all my notes were

17     made during the examination-in-chief and the questioning of the Judges.

18     All my associations came on the basis of your questions.  I am carefully

19     monitoring and noting down your questions, and I would like this witness

20     to respond to these questions to see if he's a competent expert witness

21     or not.  So far, I must say that I'm quite satisfied with his replies,

22     even though you are disrupting me all the time.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Mr. Ferrara.

24             MR. FERRARA:  Your Honours, I don't think that the Judge or the

25     Prosecution during the examination-in-chief have ever asked the witness

Page 13562

 1     anything about 15 -- 94 bodies in Srebrenica or something of this, so I

 2     don't see any association with the question put by the witness or by the

 3     Prosecution, by the Judge, and you asked a lot of questions, but

 4     concerning the bodies in Zvornik.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the question was not put,

 6     that's true, but there is a series of questions of technical matter that

 7     can be put to the witness for Zvornik.  And this is your own witness, you

 8     know.  He's a Prosecution witness, and he has performed a number of

 9     autopsies for Srebrenica and other places, so it seems that he does have

10     a lot of expertise, and maybe there is some technical issues that he can

11     answer on.  I mean, it's your witness.  Remember, this is a Prosecution

12     witness.

13             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Mr. Stankovic, is it correct that among the exhumed bodies of the

15     Muslim soldiers, there was a substantial number of soldiers who were

16     killed by Howitzer or cannon shrapnel?  I don't know the exact number,

17     but were there such cases?

18        A.   Yes, yes.  These were soldiers who were killed --

19        Q.   In the breakthrough?

20        A.   [Previous translation continues] ... in the breakthrough near

21     Kasaba, and I think that four graves were found at that locality.  And

22     among the corpses, there were corpses of soldiers in whose body fragments

23     of explosives and mines were found.

24        Q.   And it's impossible that somebody would execute prisoners from

25     guns?

Page 13563

 1        A.   Well, it's possible, it can be done, but it has not been

 2     recorded.

 3        Q.   All right, it's possible.  Since I've read all the transcripts

 4     from proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic, I know the case of one

 5     Albanian who testified viva voce in public in the courtroom who asserted

 6     that the Serb police assassinated or executed him from a heavy

 7     machine-gun from a distance of 10 metres, and that four bullets ripped

 8     through his shirt, and that he was uninjured, and that in reply to a

 9     question how it was that he was uninjured and his shirt was ripped in

10     four places, he replied that God saved him.  Do you know about that case?

11        A.   I don't know about that case, but I know a case in Istok, in

12     prison, when there were about 90-some casualties and 100-plus wounded,

13     and those bodies examined by Spanish experts, they said that in

14     23 bodies, no injuries were found.  This was the external examination of

15     the bodies.  Then I wrote that these were blast wounds because of the

16     impact, which creates injuries in internal organs, from projectiles that

17     were fired during the NATO aggression.  They tried to dispute that, and

18     they said that these members of the Serbian police were actually tying up

19     those Albanians and then threw bombs.  I said that then this would be

20     evident and these would not be blast injuries then, because when you have

21     a hand-grenade --

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, it's time for the

23     break.  We will resume in 20 minutes.  I hope there will be no objection

24     raised, and I hope that you can finish the hour we have left for your

25     cross-examination.

Page 13564

 1             The Prosecutor told us that he needed 15 minutes to talk about

 2     something else, so we might run a little bit overboard.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Behind schedule.

 4                           --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 12.27 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you have 45 minutes

 7     left.  We will continue 'til 1.15, and that's just 45 minutes.

 8             You have the floor.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

10             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Mr. Stankovic, did you also come across the fact that some of

12     these international experts in forensic medicine quite arbitrarily made

13     assessments on the number of corpses in mass graves that still hadn't

14     been uncovered?

15        A.   Professor Wright, an anthropologist from Australia, assessed the

16     corpses in mass graves on the basis of a methodology which determines the

17     quantity of minerals in the soil or perhaps ores in the soil.  I

18     challenged that because I thought that was no way of determining this.

19     Everybody has its continuity and its volume.  Due to putrefaction in time

20     and because the soft tissue disappears, then it becomes smaller.  There

21     are only parts of corpses in some mass graves, so this is an arbitrary

22     assessment which makes it impossible to establish the exact number of

23     persons in mass graves.

24        Q.   Is it correct that the question of the cause of death was

25     completely neglected in these exhumations?

Page 13565

 1        A.   Well, I've already said that there was this inconsistency.  For

 2     example, when we did this expertise, when I was involved in this

 3     expertise, out of the 2.082 mortal remains - I may be getting the number

 4     wrong - but I think that about -- there were about 2.700 causes of death.

 5        Q.   You mean more causes of death than corpses?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Which shows that this was done arbitrarily; right?  Am I right?

 8        A.   Well, I'm not saying arbitrarily, but I'm saying in an

 9     unacceptable way.

10        Q.   Is it correct that what was totally neglected was searching for

11     the gunpowder remains on the clothing of the Muslim soldiers who got

12     killed, and these gunpowder remains, if any, would indicate that they

13     were fired at a close range, at short range, and if there is no

14     gunpowder, that would mean that the bullet had been fired from afar; am I

15     right?

16        A.   If you allow me, I'd like to clarify this.

17             In forensic medicine, in Serbia, in the former Yugoslavia, quite

18     simply, the firing of projectiles was that they were fired from an

19     absolute close range, which means that the barrel of the weapon is only 5

20     to 10 millimetres away from clothing or from the body.  Relative distance

21     is 10 millimetres to 60 centimetres for short-barrelled weapons and up to

22     one and a half metres, long-barrelled weapons.  Beyond that distance, the

23     wounds are inflicted from a faraway distance.  On the basis of this,

24     gunpowder can be found.  There may be metal particles, too, that are

25     contained once there is an explosion.  However, it is irrelevant in this

Page 13566

 1     concrete situation.  The way in which they worked and the time involved

 2     meant that that circumstance had to be investigated too.  We did not have

 3     any information about that particular matter.

 4             When we worked, I spoke about the specific situation in which we

 5     carried out the autopsies of Muslims in Zvornik and other corpses in the

 6     war-afflicted areas at the time of combat operations.  These are -- this

 7     is the kind of expertise in exhumation that is conducted in peacetime,

 8     which means that gunpowder traces are looked at or searched for on the

 9     body of the person involved or the clothing.  In this case, this wasn't

10     done.

11        Q.   You know the AK-47, the so-called Kalashnikov, which used to be a

12     standard Yugoslav rifle?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   If one fires at a victim, at what distance can one find gunpowder

15     on the clothing of the victim?

16        A.   Well, that rifle has a flamethrower, but up to one metre away one

17     can find this.

18        Q.   However, not every rifle has this fire?

19        A.   No, not every one does.

20        Q.   Is it true that one of these renowned international experts by

21     the name of Don Clark claimed that he had established that some persons

22     were buried alive in some of these mass graves?  Did you come across such

23     assertions that he made?

24        A.   I think so, yes.

25        Q.   Is it possible at all to establish, after all that time, that

Page 13567

 1     some person was buried alive in a mass grave?

 2        A.   In the case of bodies that are highly putrid or without

 3     skeletisation, this kind of a claim is practically impossible to prove.

 4     As for fresh corpses that were buried a few days before the exhumation,

 5     it is possible to prove that, and of course it depends on the state of

 6     the corpse.

 7        Q.   After a year or two or three, it is no longer possible; right?

 8        A.   Well, these were mortal remains that were exhumed, I think, a few

 9     years later, so in that situation no such findings could have been made

10     without having witness statements, that is to say, of persons who may

11     have been possible.

12        Q.   Since you read all of these reports, is it not true that this

13     John Clark regularly speaks of models of killing, without going into

14     possible investigations as to whether some wounds could have been

15     inflicted in fighting, in combat, or is he speaking as if it were

16     reliable that these victims had been executed?

17        A.   In the reports that I looked at, there was no expertise

18     pertaining to such findings as to whether the persons lost their lives in

19     combat or in some other way, I mean, or whether there were executions.

20     There was an explicit analysis for every case.

21        Q.   Do you know that after the liberation of Srebrenica, that a large

22     group of Muslim soldiers tried to reach Tuzla on foot?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Do you know that this large group, consisting of several thousand

25     persons, directly clashed with the Zvornik Brigade?

Page 13568

 1        A.   I do not have this information.  I know that most of these people

 2     crossed the territory under Serb control and reached Kladanj.  Maybe

 3     parts of these units clashed with the armed forces of the Army of

 4     Republika Srpska, but I'm not aware of that.

 5        Q.   Ah-hah.  To the best of my knowledge, there was fierce fighting

 6     there, and at one moment even the Zvornik Brigade was in danger, and then

 7     these Muslims did manage to break through, but many of them lost their

 8     lives in these clashes.  Also, quite a few Serb soldiers were killed.

 9     You haven't heard of that?

10        A.   Well, I carried out autopsies of the bodies of some of the

11     soldiers who got killed in the conflicts.

12        Q.   In the clashes with the Muslims who were trying to get through to

13     Tuzla; right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Thank you.  That will do for my purposes.

16             Is it correct that on some exhumed bodies, there were traces of

17     fire on the clothing or on the bones which could indicate that these

18     bodies were taken out of buildings that were on fire?

19        A.   I think that that may have been the case, but I wrote this a long

20     time ago, and this happened a long time ago.  I'm not sure.  I think so.

21     It seems that way.  It seems that that is written in some of the

22     findings, but I'm not sure.

23        Q.   Is it true that these international experts gave arbitrary

24     assessments of the age of the exhumed persons?

25        A.   Well, yes, I did object to the findings of the Peruvian Barobar,

Page 13569

 1     and I had most of my objections in relation to what he said.  He

 2     concluded that a person would be between the age of 17 and 60.  That is

 3     an objection that was written, and I was present.  This was during the

 4     trial of General Krstic.  I was there in the courtroom, and we were

 5     putting questions like that to him.  But, yes, there were such estimates.

 6        Q.   Have you heard of some Kitchener, also an international

 7     specialist in forensic medicine, who allegedly took part in this?

 8        A.   No, no, I don't know.  Well, perhaps, but I cannot remember now.

 9        Q.   To the best of my knowledge, according to my information, he

10     personally instructed other experts as to how to describe causes of

11     death.  Right?

12        A.   Well, that's what's written in those papers that were compiled,

13     because there was an objection vis a vis this Kitchener.

14        Q.   Experts complained; right?

15        A.   They complained about this Kitchener who gave some arbitrary

16     information.  Also, they complained about him; namely, that part of the

17     clothing that was exhumed was thrown away by him.  He just decided to

18     throw it away.  And I think that the Tribunal has these complaints lodged

19     by experts, one, two, or three pages.

20        Q.   Have you heard of William Haglund?

21        A.   Yes.  He's an anthropologist.

22        Q.   You have also heard of Dorothy Gallagher?

23        A.   Haglund, yes, and I was with him in the courtroom, because I

24     challenged his assertion that only on the basis of bones could one

25     establish when the bone injuries were inflicted.  Without soft tissue, I

Page 13570

 1     don't know, I can't remember.

 2        Q.   According to my information, Dorothy Gallagher, who is also an

 3     international expert, made a statement in which she stated that William

 4     Haglund was replacing parts of bodies of the persons who were found, or

 5     rather the bodily remains that were found.

 6        A.   I cannot recall that statement.  I cannot say anything.

 7        Q.   There is a statement made by her.  And according to my reliable

 8     information, The Hague OTP has that statement.

 9             All right.  Now, have you heard of David del Pino?

10        A.   I don't know.  I cannot remember.

11        Q.   And did you hear that from the 14th until the 19th of November,

12     1997, in San Antonio, there was a council of anthropologists and

13     pathologists involved in forensic medicine?

14        A.   According to my information, there was something like that.

15        Q.   According to what I have learned, David del Pino made a statement

16     there in writing that this Haglund, William Haglund, asked to have the

17     clothes of the exhumed corpses thrown away.  Have you heard something

18     about that?

19        A.   I've already said that this has to do with Haglund that -- well,

20     I have heard of that.  I mentioned that in my previous answer two minutes

21     ago.

22        Q.   That he was throwing clothes away?

23        A.   Yes, that clothes were thrown away at his discretion.  That's

24     probably it.

25        Q.   What about the replacing of bodily parts?  You didn't hear that

Page 13571

 1     on purpose?

 2        A.   I didn't hear that.

 3        Q.   That's contained in Dorothy Gallagher's statement.  Do you know

 4     that the executive of this council of anthropologists issued a public

 5     statement, a public document, in relation to their findings concerning

 6     these exhumations of the alleged victims of liquidations after the

 7     liberation of Srebrenica?

 8             I always have to add that I am not questioning the fact that a

 9     number of prisoners were executed, about 1.000, 1.200.  I'm not

10     justifying that crime at all, but I'm fighting with all my might against

11     those who would like to exaggerate it many-fold.

12             Do you understand what I'm saying?  Have you heard of this public

13     document of theirs?

14        A.   When I carried out my expertise when as a Defence expert when I

15     worked on this, I established that there was this one document of this

16     nature in the material, and it's accessible in the documentation of

17     The Hague Tribunal.

18        Q.   All right.  Is it correct that in item 9 of this document, it

19     says that these reports of international forensic medicine experts

20     contain too much subjectivity and too little objectivity and post-mortem

21     examinations of corpses?

22        A.   I cannot be specific that that is what is written.

23        Q.   I was reading that report, and I read paragraph 9.

24        A.   I've read the report, too, but I cannot recall all the details.

25        Q.   All right.  Is it true that this report also says that

Page 13572

 1     anthropological and pathological investigations were not synchronised?

 2        A.   I think so.

 3        Q.   Is it also correct that in this report, it says that excessive

 4     interference of the media is allowed in the exhumations that were carried

 5     out, and that then the experts succumbed to media pressure?

 6        A.   I cannot remember any such thing.

 7        Q.   All right.  Someone should have told you to read this report

 8     before coming here.  You did not expect questions like this; you expected

 9     questions that were completely different?

10        A.   I expected what had been announced.

11        Q.   Is it correct that this report says that all parties concerned

12     were not allowed to attend at the exhumation of mass graves and that had

13     to be done in accordance with Article 90 of the Additional Protocols to

14     the Geneva Convention?

15        A.   I cannot say.

16        Q.   For example, the representatives of the Republika Srpska were not

17     allowed to attend during some exhumations of mass graves?

18        A.   I think that that was in the beginning that they were not

19     allowed.

20        Q.   Later on, sometimes it was allowed?

21        A.   Later on, it was allowed.

22        Q.   All right.  Now, you were minister in the last government of the

23     state community of Serbian Montenegro; right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   At the time when you were minister, the proceedings were still

Page 13573

 1     underway according to the alleged complaint of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It

 2     wasn't really all of Bosnia-Herzegovina, it was only the authorities in

 3     Sarajevo, but this took place before the International Court of Justice

 4     because of allegations of genocide; right?

 5        A.   Yes, that's right.

 6        Q.   Throughout that time, you were a federal minister?

 7        A.   I was minister for a year and a half.

 8        Q.   All right.  Do you know that at the proposal of Vuk Draskovic,

 9     Minister of Foreign Affairs, the main representative of Serbia and

10     Montenegro before the International Court of Justice was retired

11     Professor Radoslav Stojanovic?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Before him, it was Tibor Validi [phoen], a reputed professional;

14     do you agree on that?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And do you agree that Radoslav Stojanovic is no expert

17     whatsoever?

18        A.   I cannot say, because I know the man only superficially.

19        Q.   All right.  I know him well, and I can say that with certainty.

20             Do you know that under his leadership, the representatives of the

21     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, before the International Court of

22     Justice, did not challenge at all that a genocide had occurred in

23     Srebrenica?

24        A.   I'm not aware of that detail.

25        Q.   Did the Federal Government discuss this report of this group of

Page 13574

 1     lawyers that represented our state?

 2        A.   Not in my time.

 3        Q.   So they could all act -- they could act entirely as they wished?

 4        A.   I cannot say, but this was not discussed by the ministerial

 5     council at its sessions.  That was not a subject of discussions.

 6        Q.   Never while you were there?

 7        A.   Never while I was there.

 8        Q.   Do you believe that this is scandalous, that this was never on

 9     the agenda of the ministerial council?

10        A.   A lot of scandalous things happened, but I don't want to go into

11     that now.

12        Q.   Do you know that Radoslav Stojanovic, as the official

13     representative of our state, did not challenge the figure of 7 to 8.000

14     allegedly executed Muslim prisoners of war in Srebrenica?

15        A.   No, I'm not aware of that.

16        Q.   He only challenged that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was

17     involved in that, and then the International Court of Justice adjudicated

18     the matter, stating the genocide had happened, but that Serbia was not

19     involved, but was only guilty of not having prevented genocide.  Do you

20     know that roughly that was the final judgement?

21        A.   Possibly, but I don't know.

22        Q.   Obviously, it is an entirely false judgement.  Do you see that in

23     accordance with the International Convention on Genocide - you should

24     know that as a pathologist and also as a forensic medical expert

25     according to the International Convention on Genocide, what is

Page 13575

 1     established is a precise definition of genocide.

 2        A.   I know that.

 3        Q.   Of course, I cannot quote it verbatim, but its core is an attempt

 4     to destroy or entirely destroy an entire national group or a considerable

 5     part of that national group; did I put it right?

 6        A.   Well, you know that better than I do.

 7        Q.   Right.  So a protected group, according to the Convention on

 8     Genocide, could be all the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?

 9             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the first thing, let

10     me tell you that the translation is lagging behind, and we are receiving

11     the translation a bit after what you say.  But I would like to know

12     exactly what is the relevance of your line of questioning?  What's the

13     relevance regarding the credibility of the witness?  As far as substance

14     is concerned, this has nothing to do with his expert report.  You're

15     saying, okay, that you're going through this line of questions to assess

16     the credibility of the witness, but I really don't see your point.  Could

17     you please tell us what your point is?

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Madame Lattanzi, you --

19             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

20     continues]... questions on the decision of the International Court of

21     Justice, questions on the fact that the International Court of Justice

22     made a number of rulings.  I really don't see -- I don't even think that

23     the physician really can understand the ins and outs of these decisions.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm going to try to answer you in

25     detail, Madame Lattanzi.

Page 13576

 1             You saw yesterday how thoroughly I destroyed the testimony of the

 2     protected witness.  I'm not going to mention his name.  I asked him about

 3     his father, mother, his first, second, third wife, his children, and in

 4     the end, I thoroughly dismantled the evidence.  I'm not asking this

 5     witness anything from his private life.

 6             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] It's up to the Trial Chamber to

 7     assess that.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You are making assessments, but at

 9     the end of my cross-examination this witness happened to be the Minister

10     of Defence during a key period.  I'm probing his credibility, also on the

11     basis if he ever asked the question at a government meeting of what is

12     being done before the International Court of Justice or what is being

13     done before this Tribunal in The Hague.  This is just a

14     quickly-put-together indictment of General Krstic, where it was

15     established that there was no genocide, and then the ICJ takes that as a

16     fact and nobody disputes that it ever happened.

17             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I believe that this has nothing

18     to do with the credibility of the witness.  You can continue whichever

19     way you like, but the Judges will take a position on this.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The presiding judge, I have no

21     problem with taking a position on this.

22             You are, through this witness, criticising the decisions -- the

23     rulings of the ICJ and the fact that this witness was a member of his

24     government at the time.  He's only come here to discuss exhumations.  I

25     have tried to understand how this can be connected in any way to the ICJ.

Page 13577

 1     There's a very tenuous connection.  In the ruling of the ICJ, mention is

 2     made of destruction of mosques in Mostar, which is something this

 3     Tribunal has been seized of also, so there is a connection.  But between

 4     that and putting questions of such a nature to this witness, who is no

 5     legal expert, and he has said that his government does not discuss that,

 6     so it would be better if you left it at that.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's relevant.  Why was the

 8     testimony of that witness relevant who was examined in chief yesterday.

 9     You saw that it was not relevant in any way.  You saw from the beginning

10     to the end that it was false.  I'm not going to mention his name, so I'm

11     not violating anything here.

12             Remarks about relevance are only being addressed to me and never

13     to the Prosecutor.  The concept of my Defence is to prove that a large

14     international conspiracy was formed against the Serbian people and that

15     the United States, NATO, European Union, The Hague Tribunal, the

16     International Court of Justice, are all participants in that conspiracy.

17     That will be the topic of my closing statement.

18             Now, I'm gathering information through the cross-examination with

19     which I'm going to support my assertions in my closing statement.

20             I'm sorry that my questions are not in accordance with what you

21     would wish them to be, but I am taking the risk of a bad

22     cross-examination.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, when you say

24     The Hague Tribunal, anyway, we are not part of a conspiracy, it's good

25     for you to know that.

Page 13578

 1             Also, you have 20 minutes left.  Try and use your time in your

 2     best interest.  All the rest you've mentioned already.  If you like, I

 3     could talk about everything you have said, but use this witness, while

 4     he's here, in your best interests.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I know best,

 6     I think, what is useful to me.  There is no Judge or Prosecutor who could

 7     estimate that or assess that better than I could.  But at least have the

 8     patience sometimes to listen to my cross-examination to the end and then

 9     say whether it was of use to me or not.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.

11             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]  So now I have forgotten something.

12     Sometimes I have the impression that all these constant interventions of

13     yours serve to make me lose my concentration.  All right, I have

14     remembered the evidence.  All right.

15        Q.   Mr. Stankovic, are you -- is it clear to you here that this way

16     the genocide -- the judgement on genocide was constructed is based on

17     falsities?

18        A.   I didn't read the judgement all the way through, but my report

19     which I submitted was submitted wholly, as I was told by this session of

20     the Trial Chamber.  I really couldn't speak about the particulars of the

21     judgement.

22        Q.   All right.  What I began to talk about when I was interrupted, by

23     definition of the International Convention on Genocide, a protected group

24     in this case, that could be all of the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

25     as such.  There were about 2.8 -- 2.180.000, so this is not a significant

Page 13579

 1     number, is it?  I mean, even if there was 7.000 that we're talking about,

 2     it's not even a significant percentage of that total number.  So here in

 3     this Tribunal, a substitution is being made.  Instead of a protected

 4     group, pursuant to the Genocide Convention, they are dealing with the

 5     protected zone of the United Nations, that is, Srebrenica, and in this

 6     substitution they are trying to make it seem as if genocide really did

 7     take place.

 8             Now, since you did study the documents on these exhumations, I

 9     assume that you are familiar with the process of identification of the

10     exhumed persons.

11        A.   Yes.  When I was conducting the autopsies, only 40 bodies were

12     identified.

13        Q.   Is it true that among those exhumed and identified - I don't know

14     if there are 2.300 of them or 3.300 of them - I don't know the exact

15     number - put, anyway, that among them there are people who lived in

16     Zvornik, Bratunac, Vlasenica, even Rogatica, not only in Srebrenica?

17        A.   I don't know about that particular piece of information.

18        Q.   All right.  I know about it.  Well, perhaps I went into this

19     matter in much more detail.  So all the victims are put together, victims

20     of combat -- of course, they are victims, but primarily victims are those

21     who are liquidated.  So from different parts of the former Bosnia and

22     Herzegovina, that combat at one point concentrated in Srebrenica are then

23     used to declare that genocide was committed against Muslims in

24     Srebrenica.  Isn't it true that many of these people were actually from

25     different municipalities, even distant municipalities; is that possible?

Page 13580

 1        A.   Well, it's possible, but at the time when I worked and analysed

 2     that material, only 45 bodies out of 2.082 mortal remains were

 3     identified, and all of those who were identified were Muslims.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this question does

 5     have some relevance.  We have been seized of Zvornik, and there were a

 6     lot of victims.  This could be a second Srebrenica.  I believe that some

 7     of the victims in Zvornik have never been found again.  Is it technically

 8     possible that these victims in Zvornik be discovered in the Srebrenica

 9     pits?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Technically, yes, it is possible to

11     find mass graves in and around Srebrenica.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which would mean that when it

13     comes to assessing Srebrenica, a number of regions would have to be

14     included in the calculations.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Theoretically, yes.

16             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Let's move on.

17        Q.   You know that during the aggression against the Federal Republic

18     of Yugoslavia, the NATO air force used warheads with depleted uranium in

19     the area of Kosovo and Metohija; do you know that?

20        A.   What I dealt with in a bit of detail was depleted uranium in the

21     territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but I know that it was used in the

22     territory of Kosovo and Metohija too.

23        Q.   What about other parts of Serbia; was such ammunition used?

24        A.   Such ammunition was used near Vranje, and we cleared the terrain

25     there.  Then Orahovac is in Kosovo, but I know for sure that in the area

Page 13581

 1     around Vranje and then in Montenegro, on that island, et cetera.

 2        Q.   You know that in Republika Srpska -- you know that in Republika

 3     Srpska, the most characteristic case of using ammunition was depleted

 4     uranium was in Hadzici, while Hadzici was still in Serb hands; right?

 5        A.   Yes, because the technical centre for armed vehicles was in

 6     Hadzici, and in that area a lot of projectiles with such ammunition were

 7     fired.  After that part of the territory was handed over to the Muslims,

 8     3.500 from those areas moved to Bratunac from that area.

 9        Q.   Serbs?

10        A.   Yes, Serbs from there moved to Bratunac.  And the last figure

11     that I am aware of is one and a half thousand persons who died of

12     malignant and other diseases.  That is why we tried to organise a study

13     on causing consequence between this ammunition and these diseases and

14     causes of death among these persons who died.  Since a large number of

15     these people were dying, it was a very large percentage in relation to

16     the persons that had lived in Bratunac before that.  There was this

17     characteristic case that we saw where we were not aware of some things,

18     so, for example, Sladjana Sarenac, a girl who was eight or nine years

19     old, she was playing in that crater that had been made by a NATO bomb,

20     and in time her nails fell off, her fingernails and toenails.  She got

21     chronic bronchitis, epilepsy, and other diseases, and we linked that to

22     that ammunition.  However, later on it turned out that in the gunpowder,

23     there was flourine instead of hydrogen, and therefore it creates an acid,

24     and parts of the human body that get in touch with that acid are affected

25     by irreversible changes.  Parts of the body simply fall off.  That was

Page 13582

 1     the effect of that bombing on that particular person.

 2             There is an entire cemetery with the bodily remains of these

 3     people in Bratunac.  Jancic directed the film, and I know of entire

 4     families that died of malignant diseases as an effect of the use of that

 5     ammunition.  At least that's my opinion.  And it didn't happen

 6     immediately after the shelling, but a few years afterwards.  That's when

 7     these illnesses started manifesting themselves in a special way.  At that

 8     moment, we did not have the right kind of methodology or, rather, we

 9     didn't have the apparatus to prove a direct link between that ammunition

10     and the diseases involved.  A year later, there were -- the changes on

11     the chromosomes could not be noted, so that was a problem.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you know that I am

13     rather liberal when it comes to letting you put your questions, but I

14     don't understand what the relevance is here in the Zvornik and Vukovar

15     cases.  What is the relevance of this, so many years later, other than

16     you want to claim that NATO bombs caused a lot of damage?  But that's

17     been said already.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am trying to show

19     what kind of criminals the Serb people had to deal with.  And now I'm not

20     referring to criminals from the ranks of the Muslims, the Croats, or the

21     Albanians; I'm referring to the criminal NATO alliance and all of those

22     who took part in the attack against our country.  That's what I'm

23     referring to.  When I show you what kind of criminals we had to deal

24     with, at least for me that is a slight mitigating circumstance, finally.

25     Right?

Page 13583

 1             No, no, it's not a mitigating circumstance for me?  All right,

 2     there you go.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, assuming that what

 4     you're saying is founded, this bombing occurred after what you are

 5     charged with.  These periods do not match.  You are using this as a forum

 6     to address a well-known topic.

 7             We have ten minutes left.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not complaining about those ten

 9     minutes.  That's exactly the amount of time that I'm going to use, the

10     time that I have left, although according to my estimate I have at least

11     11 or 12 minutes left.  So we are going back to the time that is relevant

12     in my indictment, but I am not sure that somebody explained to this

13     expert what is the time relevant for my indictment.

14             Never mind.

15        Q.   In 1991, do you know, on the basis of the exhumations that you

16     carried out of Serb soldiers, that is, regardless of whether they were

17     JNA soldiers doing their regular military service, or reservists, or

18     volunteers, or Territorials, do you know that many of them were killed by

19     the Croat hand from weapons that use small-calibre ammunition; for

20     example, sniper rifles or automatic rifles made in Singapore, et cetera?

21        A.   In 1991, the only mass grave that was dealt with was, well,

22     Vukovar and Siroka Kula near Gospic.  However, we did have some injuries

23     caused by projectiles.  The entry wound could not be seen, but the exit

24     wound was very big, enormous.  Very soon, ballistic experts indicated to

25     us that this was a projectile of the 5.56 calibre - I think that's what

Page 13584

 1     it was - that had a terribly destructive effect.  Practically, a person

 2     that would be hit in the chest or in the abdominal region could not

 3     survive because of massive destruction of internal organs, because of the

 4     velocity of the projectile movement, so there was -- there were very

 5     serious injuries resulting in death.

 6        Q.   I assume that as a specialist in forensic medicine, you know that

 7     this is a banned ammunition from military use.

 8        A.   Well, that's what they said, and also depleted uranium.  Some

 9     were trying to persuade us that this was allowed.  However, we had been

10     told that it was not.

11        Q.   On the basis of my own experience, I will tell you what my

12     knowledge is; not from my personal experience, but what I saw with my

13     very own eyes.  So you tell me whether that is correct or not.  For

14     example, when a bullet from a small-calibre sniper hits a man in the

15     head, half of his skull can be blown off.  And when he's hit in the

16     chest, not only because of the velocity, but also because of the size of

17     the bullet, the bullet does not take a straight line, but it wanders

18     through the body, destroying many organs; am I right?

19        A.   Projectiles from a small-calibre rifle, depending on the angle in

20     which they enter the head or the part of the head that is hit, depending

21     on where the entry wound is and where the exit wound is, it created, yes,

22     wounds, as you had quoted, that would blow off half of the skull, and

23     also in the body, in cavities, destroying soft tissue of different organs

24     and of blood vessels, soft tissues, and they destroy bones.  And then

25     these secondary parts of bones would also inflict serious injuries.

Page 13585

 1     There were all sorts of things that are in this documentation that is in

 2     possession of the Military Medical Academy.  There are many such

 3     documents.

 4        Q.   All right.  You said that at one moment that only JNA members and

 5     Arkan's men could be distinguished from other people on the Serb side;

 6     right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   I'm not bringing that into question as far as Arkan's men were

 9     concerned.  They all had special insignia and often they wore black caps

10     with only small slits for the eyes.  However, do you know that as far

11     back as in 1991, many JNA soldiers removed the red star from their caps

12     and put the Serb national insignia on?

13        A.   Yes, that was the case, even among some of the highest officers.

14        Q.   And do you know that volunteers of the Serb Radical Party got all

15     their equipment only from JNA warehouses?

16        A.   What was written and said was that they got it from the military

17     facilities in Bubanj Potok.  That is what I know, on the basis of what

18     was written.  I personally was not present.

19        Q.   You said here that all volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party

20     were buried at the expense of the JNA or, rather, of the VMA, or any

21     other organ, I don't know exactly, and you said that first of all the

22     autopsy would be carried out at the VMA and then they would be

23     transported to the burial site.  Do you also know that there were guards

24     of honour that fired salutes of honour during the funeral?

25        A.   Well, I don't know whether it was the JNA, the General Staff, or

Page 13586

 1     the Ministry of Defence that covered the expenses.  As for the units for

 2     honour, that fired salutes of honour, were regular units.

 3        Q.   Do you know that practically all the volunteers of the Serbian

 4     Radical Party were in JNA units until the 19th of May, 1992, while the

 5     JNA was still involved in the conflicts?

 6        A.   I cannot say.  I can only say that in terms of what I did and the

 7     cooperation I had with Vojvoda Drazilovic and whoever else, I can only

 8     speak about that.  I cannot speak of other things that happened out on

 9     the ground.

10        Q.   You mentioned here your stay in Vukovar immediately after the

11     liberation?

12        A.   Yes.  That was on the 19th and 20th.

13        Q.   Do you remember who was the commander of the city when you came

14     to Vukovar?

15        A.   When I came to Vukovar the first time, it was the representatives

16     of the military police who escorted us, and the investigating judge was

17     there, too.  But the second time I came, I reported to General Mrksic's

18     staff.  At that time, he was a colonel.  And we were met there by the

19     Chief of Staff, Colonel Panic at the time.

20        Q.   When was that?

21        A.   That was when we arrived in Vukovar to process the dead bodies.

22     It was on the 19th or the 20th of November, 1991.

23        Q.   I'm asking about after the liberation of Vukovar, when the Guards

24     Brigade had already withdrawn.  They left on the 23rd of November?

25        A.   They left on the 23rd, but we arrived on the 19th, 20th, and then

Page 13587

 1     we stayed in Vukovar.

 2        Q.   Until mid-December, as far as I understood it.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Until you completed your work?

 5        A.   Yes, until we completed our work.  Later on, the commander of

 6     town was Vojnovic, I think it was Lieutenant-Colonel Vojnovic, if I'm not

 7     mistaken.

 8        Q.   The commander of the 80th Motorised Brigade; right?

 9        A.   I don't know who was commander, but I know he was the commander

10     of the town, and I think that it was close to the railway station or some

11     railway facility.

12        Q.   Since I don't have any time left, just two or three questions, so

13     let me try to cut things short.

14             You said, and I was surprised by that, that you were not provided

15     security by the military, but by the Territorial Defence.  Isn't it clear

16     to you that it was Lieutenant-Colonel Vojnovic who had, under his

17     command, the Territorial Defence too?

18        A.   I don't know.  When we started looking for the corpses --

19        Q.   The Guards Brigade was there after the 23rd of November.

20        A.   But after that, after these first few days while we were looking

21     for a place where we would process these corpses, it was these people.

22     After that, we did not have any security.  All the teams went around

23     without any security whatsoever.

24        Q.   No security was needed?

25        A.   No.

Page 13588

 1        Q.   Nobody impeded your work?

 2        A.   Nobody impeded my work.

 3        Q.   You didn't even know about Ovcara?

 4        A.   We didn't.  We would have exhumed had we known.

 5        Q.   And there were those who didn't want to tell you about it?

 6        A.   Well, I cannot say.

 7        Q.   Just briefly on the question of Zvornik, since I will be

 8     interrupted shortly:  In view of the fact that you went to Zvornik twice

 9     on the 30th of April and the 5th of May, 1992, it is my impression that

10     the JNA tried to properly do the whole procedure relating to the victims

11     of the conflict, both from the opposing side and to establish the cause

12     of death of everybody according to the law; is that correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And this could have taken until the 19th of May, at the latest,

15     when the army withdrew from Bosnia and Herzegovina; is that correct?  You

16     know that -- I assume that the bulk of the victims of various

17     liquidations, killings, tortures, and so on occurred in June 1992, when

18     the JNA was no longer there.  Are you aware of that?

19        A.   Yes, from the media, not otherwise.

20        Q.   Judging by everything when you were performing the autopsies, the

21     majority of the Muslim fighters that were killed were killed in combat.

22     I'm not ruling out the possibility, and we did have witnesses here who

23     talked about some 20 victims -- or civilians killed in Zvornik, and it is

24     known who killed them, but this is not really all that important for this

25     particular discussion of ours here now.  But evidently all the bodies

Page 13589

 1     found at Kula Grad were bodies of those killed in combat; is that

 2     correct?

 3        A.   Most of them were killed in combat, but I said that there were

 4     two bodies, one of them had a stab wound as the only injury in the left

 5     side of the chest, in the heart area, and there was one case with two

 6     cuts on the right side of the neck and the right side of the face.  These

 7     people most probably were killed by another person.  I don't know if this

 8     was in combat or not.

 9        Q.   This statement that you gave in 2003, I looked at it, and I can

10     see something here that is quite strange.  The conversation with you was

11     conducted on the 8th of July, 2003, and it was read back to you on the

12     1st of October, 2003.  Why this passage of time between the conversation

13     and the actual statement?

14        A.   I spoke many times with people from The Hague Tribunal in my

15     capacity as a committee member or in other capacities, so when I provided

16     my first statement, where I said a number of things, there were some

17     objections or remarks to my findings and opinions, and additional

18     explanations were required about the cause of death and other causes.  So

19     they came to the VMA on a number of occasions.  This is definitely

20     correct, but I really cannot give you an explanation why it was so.

21        Q.   Your first statement amounted to some 70 pages?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And the autopsies of Serbian victims are discussed in various

24     locations?

25        A.   Yes, in Fakovici, Kravica.

Page 13590

 1        Q.   These are civilian victims?

 2        A.   Yes, mostly civilian victims with some members of the AVRS, but

 3     let's say Miladin Aseric, whose head was cut off, and Trisa who was

 4     strangled with some piece of material.

 5        Q.   Well, this is a fact, that The Hague Tribunal never showed any

 6     inclination to use that first statement of yours in any proceedings?

 7        A.   Well, no, there was talk about me coming to testify in the

 8     Nasir Oric case, but his Defence accepted my report in its entirety, so I

 9     was finally never summoned to come to the trial to testify.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you've used up your

11     full hour, so we will put a stop to this now.

12             Mr. Witness, thank you for coming here.  I wish you a safe return

13     home.  I'll ask the usher to please escort you out of the courtroom.

14                           [The witness withdrew]

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll now give the floor to

16     Mr. Mundis.  I believe he has something to tell us.

17             MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I am aware of the time,

18     and I will move as quickly as I possibly can, but of course allowing the

19     interpreters to keep up with me.

20             Your Honours, following the hearing of the first witness that we

21     heard this week, the Prosecution makes this urgent oral application for

22     the immediate adjournment of these proceedings, in light of clear

23     evidence that the proceedings --

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Should this be in closed

25     session?

Page 13591

 1             MR. MUNDIS:  I believe that I can make some introductory remarks

 2     in open session.

 3             We believe, Your Honours, that there is clear evidence that the

 4     proceedings are being interfered with and the integrity of the

 5     proceedings is being compromised.  Of course, it's fully within the

 6     Trial Chamber's duties and obligations to protect the integrity of the

 7     proceedings and to ensure that the trial is fair both to the accused, but

 8     also to the Prosecution.  We submit that the Trial Chamber has an

 9     obligation to suspend the proceedings when faced with clear and

10     convincing evidence that going forward will compromise the integrity and

11     fairness of the proceedings.  Moreover, as the Statute makes clear, the

12     Chamber has an obligation to ensure the safety and security of victims

13     and witnesses, and that the victims and witnesses are treated with

14     dignity and respect.

15             And, Your Honours, at this point I would ask to go into private

16     session, please.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before moving to closed

18     session, I have something to add.

19             Mr. Seselj, just a minute.  I would like to say something.  I

20     wanted to say something to Mr. Mundis.

21             You only have about 18 hours left to present your case, and now

22     you're asking about a suspension of these proceedings because, allegedly,

23     witnesses would be jeopardising the integrity of this Tribunal because of

24     pressure exerted on them.  If witnesses are pressure and if pressure is

25     exerted on the witnesses, this will be established at one point in time.

Page 13592

 1     However, these witnesses are coming here to the hearings.  In the

 2     hearings, they're in your hands.

 3             You're the Prosecutor, you're asking the questions, and in doing

 4     so you can ask all the questions you want to the witnesses, and then the

 5     accused will do the cross-examination.  But the Judges do their job.  The

 6     Judges have elements to assess the situation, and I can tell you that

 7     they check everything that the witnesses say.  Let's not confuse things.

 8             The integrity of the Tribunal is make sure that the trial is

 9     speedy and that there is a judgement, and that we don't play

10     cat-and-mouse all the time.  But when a witness actually comes, be it a

11     Court witness, a Defence witness or a Prosecution witness, he can come,

12     he can say the truth, he can lie - I don't know anything about it - but

13     he is screened through the Prosecution's question, through the Defence's

14     question, and through the questions put to him or her by the Judges, and

15     the Judges can find out and can recognise whether the witness is telling

16     the truth or whether he's lying.  But independently of the witnesses,

17     there are also documents, and documents don't usually lie.

18             We are only 18 hours from the closing of your case, and you're

19     coming back to this problem with the suspension, based on what happened

20     yesterday, what might have happened yesterday.  I'm saying what allegedly

21     happened yesterday, because we need to look into what actually happened

22     yesterday.  But yesterday, we had a witness here who answered according

23     to the statement that he had made in 2003 or 2000 -- I can't remember.

24     And all witnesses who made their statements when nothing was happening in

25     2003 and 2004 did come, and if they don't show up, the Trial

Page 13593

 1     Chamber - and I told you clearly - the Trial Chamber will, anyway, admit

 2     these statements.  But I believe that the trial must absolutely continue.

 3             I believe you now want to move to closed session, so Mr. Seselj.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no, please.  I have a right to

 5     reply to the public part of Mr. Mundis's statement, and then you can move

 6     to private session.

 7             Gentlemen Judges, you were able to see with your own eyes

 8     yesterday and hear with your own ears with what ease I demolished the

 9     entire testimony of the Prosecution witness.  I am asking you then:  What

10     would be my interest to intimidate such a witness in any way?  What

11     interest of mine would that be?  I am lucky to have a witness like that

12     come as a witness of the Prosecution.  What would I have done with him

13     had he happened by chance to be a witness for the Defence?

14             MR. MUNDIS:  Your Honours, we would ask that this be moved into

15     private session.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session, please.

17                           [Private session]

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 13594











11 Pages 13594-13603 redacted. Private session.















Page 13604

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,

24                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 20th day of

25                           January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.