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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
5 the killing of Serbs in Gospic before the Higher Court in Deakin in
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
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.
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
24 So I will now immediately give the floor to Mr. Ferrara for his
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
11 On the 21st of November, we continuously processed the bodies of
12 those we found who were killed in the territory of Vukovar
13 this was until the 17th or 18th of December there.
14 After that, I came back to Belgrade
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
4 about war victims in Paris
5 attended that lecture in 1995.
6 Then I attended in the Netherlands
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
12 in Utrecht
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.
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
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
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.
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
5 When were you asked to go to Zvornik for the first time?
6 A. The Military Court in Belgrade
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
18 and did you take DNA
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
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
1 bodies at a later stage, which was when we were planning to take our
2 samples for DNA
3 there was the possibility to analyse the DNA samples. This was done in
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
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, we knew about it. But as I
15 said, taking the DNA
16 I must tell you that to this day, the samples that were taken 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?
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
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
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
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
1 were not asked, and this is stated in each of these reports at the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
10 process of breaking away, and then it was the turn of Bosnia and
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
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
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
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
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
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
11 killed there. I was in charge of processing those bodies. I went to
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
11 remark that these are persons killed in the war and that the
12 Military Court
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 packed in bags, and then they were brought to the VMA, where we carried
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
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
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
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 --
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
10 Prosecution. So this kind of question can really not be admitted in
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
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
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
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.
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?
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 A. Well, it's possible, it can be done, but it has not been
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
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?
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
16 A. If you allow me, I'd like to clarify this.
17 In forensic medicine, in Serbia, in the former Yugoslavia
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
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
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
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?
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 A. I'm not aware of that detail.
25 Q. Did the Federal Government discuss this report of this group of
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
1 around Vranje and then in Montenegro
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
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.
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
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.
1 There were all sorts of things that are in this documentation that is in
2 possession of the Military Medical Academy
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;
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
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
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
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
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.
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
1 found at Kula Grad were bodies of those killed in combat; is that
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
25 A. Yes, in Fakovici, Kravica.
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
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.
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
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]
11 Pages 13594-13603 redacted. Private session.
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.