101108IT

Page 7374

1 That concludes my summary, and if I may, I'll proceed with my

2 questions.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please go ahead.

4 MS. HASAN:

5 Q. Dr. Lawrence, before I start with my questions, I notice that you

6 have some documents with you. Could you please tell us what those are?

7 A. These are my copies of the reports that I prepared from the --

8 for the separate grave sites and a summary of those reports.

9 Q. Okay. And you're entitled to refer to your notes, but just for

10 the benefit of everyone in the courtroom, if you can tell us if you're

11 referring to them and what it is that you're referring to.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Dr. Lawrence, when did you obtain your certification as a

14 forensic pathologist?

15 A. I qualified as a forensic pathologist in 1989.

16 Q. And could you please tell us what your current occupation is?

17 A. I am the state forensic pathologist for Tasmania.

18 Q. And since when have you held that post?

19 A. Since February 2002.

20 Q. And could you just briefly describe your responsibilities as a

21 state forensic pathologist for Tasmania?

22 A. My responsibilities are to perform medical examinations on

23 sudden, unexpected, unnatural, and violent deaths for the coroner and to

24 describe the circumstances of the death.

25 Q. If we go now back to 1998, what were your principal duties as

Page 7375

1 chief pathologist for the OTP from May through October of 1998?

2 A. My chief responsibilities as chief pathologist were to examine

3 the remains that had been exhumed, to establish the cause of death, and

4 to establish details regarding the circumstances of the death.

5 Q. And can you tell us what the state of the human remains were that

6 you were tasked with examining?

7 A. The remains were quite extensively decomposed. The bodies had

8 been dead for three years. They varied to some degree in how decomposed.

9 In some of the bodies, there were still quite a large amount of soft

10 tissue remaining. In others, the bodies were completely skeletalised.

11 In addition, the bodies -- some of the bodies were fairly complete, that

12 is, they had a head, chest, abdomen, limbs, and some were quite

13 disrupted, where the relationship between the body parts had been

14 disrupted.

15 Q. If you could just clarify what you mean by disrupted?

16 A. When a body decomposes, the tissues, the ligaments and the

17 material that hold the limbs and arms and head together break down and

18 the body parts can become dis-attached. Consequently, in some of the

19 grave sites and particularly sites such as the dam site and Liplje, the

20 bodies were quite badly disarticulated, that is, the joints had been

21 separated.

22 Q. And did you examine all of these various forms of human remains

23 that you received?

24 A. Yes, we examined all of the largely whole bodies and all of the

25 large body parts. In the first half of the year, in the dam site, in

Page 7376

1 Cancari Road 12 and 3, every single body bag was examined by a

2 pathologist. In the case of Hodzici Road 3, 4 and 5, Liplje and

3 Zeleni Jadar, some of the very small body parts were examined by

4 anthropologists and only examined by the pathologists if there was

5 significant damage or if there were significant body parts. The reason

6 for this change was to deal with the large volume of material that we

7 were dealing with.

8 Q. And in regards to the body parts that you received, did you

9 attempt to match any much the parts before conducting your autopsies?

10 A. When considering the body parts, I had information from

11 Professor Wright as to the location of where the body parts were

12 recovered, and we attempted, as best we could, to try and associate the

13 body parts, but the reality was that it was actually quite difficult to

14 associate them. So consequently, we ended up with a lot of body parts

15 which were quite difficult to reassociate. The only real practical way

16 that could have been done was with DNA.

17 Q. And was DNA analysis or technology available to you at that time?

18 A. Some DNA material was taken in cases where there were documents

19 which indicated a provisional identification. But there was fairly

20 limited DNA taken. At that stage there was not a lab in the country

21 which was capable of performing that procedure.

22 Q. As regards those body parts that you were not able to reconcile

23 or match, did you attempt to render an opinion as to the cause of death

24 of the individual from whom that body part came from?

25 A. We examined the body parts to see if they had gun-shot injuries

Page 7377

1 that would be capable of causing the death of the individual from which

2 that body part came. Now, of course, the problem was we had far more

3 body parts than we had bodies, and so therefore, to some degree, trying

4 to give a cause of death on a body part was somewhat illogical. I have

5 attempted in my reports to give causes of death on the largely intact

6 bodies because that's more meaningful. However, we did examine the body

7 parts because we wanted to establish whether or not gun-shot wounds were

8 present.

9 Q. Were there instances where you were able to tell from examining a

10 body part that you were able to determine the cause of death?

11 A. Yes. There were some cases, for example, an isolated head, where

12 there was a gun-shot wound going through the head, would clearly be a

13 cause of death in that particular case.

14 Q. Dr. Lawrence, what killed most of the victims that you examined?

15 A. If we look at the -- sorry, I'm just referring to my notes here,

16 the 254 essentially intact bodies, of them, 203 showed a cause of death

17 of gun-shot wounds. One of them showed gun-shot and shrapnel wounds.

18 And in 50 of those cases, the cause of death was undetermined.

19 Q. How were you able to identify a gun-shot wound or what criteria

20 did you use?

21 A. We used a number of criteria. The first was the finding of a

22 bullet embedded in the tissue or bone on X-ray. The second was

23 examining -- was finding bullet tracks, that is, the path of the bullet

24 passing through soft tissue. This is in the case of bullets -- where the

25 bullet has probably exited the body. And the third group in which we

Page 7378

1 concluded there was a gun-shot wound were cases where there were

2 fragments of metal from the bullet and fracturing of the bones in that

3 area. Those were the criteria we used to identify gun-shot wounds.

4 Q. And in reviewing your reports I noticed that you refer to

5 probable and possible gun-shot wounds. Can you tell us what you

6 classified as a probable or possible gun-shot wound?

7 A. The cases that we listed as gun-shot wounds were ones where we

8 were very confident that the information we had indicated a gun-shot

9 wound. In some cases, we were able to find small fragments of metal,

10 which looked like a gun-shot wound but may not have been. And in those

11 cases we called them possible gun-shot wounds. In other cases, we found

12 a defect, for example, in the skull, which would correspond to the damage

13 one would expect to find from a gun-shot wound but could not find a

14 projectile, and in those cases we would call that a probable gun-shot

15 wound.

16 Q. And why, in your view, did you think it significant to report

17 those findings?

18 A. I think we were trying to give the Court as much information as

19 we could. These are -- these were difficult bodies to examine. They

20 were quite badly decomposed and because they had been buried, dug up and

21 reburied, they were quite significantly separated. I wanted to convey

22 particularly in those cases like the dam site or Liplje, where the bodies

23 were quite badly separated, that even despite the fact that we had very

24 few whole bodies, there were significant numbers of gun-shot wounds in

25 those bodies.

Page 7379

1 Q. I'm just going to move now to a slightly different topic and ask

2 you whether any of the human bones that you received, were any of them

3 damaged or fractured?

4 A. Yes. A large number of the bones were damaged and fractured.

5 Some of them by the gun-shot wounds, and some of them by damage which had

6 occurred after death, either during the first burial, the -- the

7 exhumation, the second burial or the re-exhumation again.

8 Q. And how was it that you were able to identify injuries in those

9 fractured or damaged bones?

10 A. Well, there are a number of injuries that we were looking for.

11 The first kind of injury we were looking for were injuries that occurred

12 at the time of death. And in those cases we were looking for things like

13 gun-shot wounds and we were looking for the presence or absence of

14 haemorrhage. Now again because the bodies were so badly decomposed, it

15 was quite difficult to identify haemorrhage. However, in a small number

16 of cases we were able to demonstrate that there was haemorrhage present

17 and that these injuries had occurred at the time of death. There is a

18 diagram -- there is a picture of one of these that might be a good

19 illustration of this.

20 Q. Okay. Can you tell us where that picture is?

21 A. This would be in the report for Cancari Road 12.

22 MS. HASAN: That would be Exhibit P924.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have that on the screen, please?

24 MS. HASAN:

25 Q. Can you just give us the page number?

Page 7380

1 A. Sorry, the page number is -- sorry, it is after page 16.

2 Q. And if you wouldn't mind, there is a -- I don't think it's in

3 your copy. Do you have a stamp number on there? No.

4 A. No, I don't, I'm afraid.

5 Q. Was that page 18, Dr. Lawrence?

6 A. It was -- it's the photograph following page 16.

7 MS. HASAN: It's page 41 on e-court.

8 Q. And in this photograph, Dr. Lawrence -- sorry, it's not up on the

9 screen yet.

10 Okay. I think we have it on the screen now.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What is it that we see here?

13 A. What you can see is the top of the head, the skull has been

14 opened, you can see under the skull the brain. Surrounding the brain

15 there is a large amount of haemorrhage and the arrow demonstrates a

16 bullet. Now, again, trying to ascertain whether an injury has occurred

17 at the time of death relies on the presence of haemorrhage. Most of

18 these bodies were too decomposed to see haemorrhage, but in some of the

19 better preserved bodies, and this is an example of it, you could actually

20 see haemorrhage. This is clearly an injury that has occurred at the time

21 of death, and is almost -- is undoubtedly the cause of death.

22 Q. Okay. Now, the skull that we see here looks like it's a fairly

23 intact skull, apart from the portion of it that has been removed.

24 A. Removed, yes.

25 Q. And in those cases where you received completely fractured bones,

Page 7381

1 how did you go about identifying injuries in those?

2 A. In the bones that were badly broken, the anthropologists would

3 reconstruct the skull using superglue to demonstrate the defects.

4 Q. Okay.

5 MS. HASAN: And may we have Exhibit P924, e-court page 18,

6 displayed on the screen. And that would be page 18 on the B/C/S version

7 as well. Perhaps we can rotate that 90 degrees to the right, if that's

8 possible.

9 Q. This is a photograph that is in your report relating to

10 Cancari Road site 12?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Can you tell us what's depicted in this photograph?

13 A. This shows the back of the skull. You can see that there are

14 lots of fractures in it, and there is white material which is the glue

15 that we used to reconstruct the skull. What you can see there

16 demonstrated by the pointer and the arrow is a gun-shot wound of entrance

17 and a gun-shot wound of exit on the other side of the skull. This would

18 not have been obvious in the skull as we had received it, but after

19 reconstruction the holes became obvious.

20 Q. And who was responsible for reconstructing?

21 A. The reconstructions were carried out by the anthropologists.

22 Q. Okay. So in a case like this, were you able to determine the

23 cause of death?

24 A. Yes. I would be confident that the cause of death would be a

25 gun-shot wound, a wound like this would be rapidly fatal.

Page 7382

1 Q. Now you mentioned earlier that you were not able to determine the

2 cause of death in some instances. Can you explain to us why that wasn't

3 possible?

4 A. In some of the bodies, we could not identify sufficient injury to

5 account for death. I suspect that the reason that we were unable to do

6 so is because we were missing gun-shot wounds that were present. In

7 wounds that passed, say, for example, through the abdomen and did not

8 strike bone, in a skeletalised remain it's impossible to tell whether or

9 not the person had been shot.

10 We did carry out examinations of the clothing and from looking at

11 the clothing we could identify a lot more bullet holes in the clothing

12 than we could identify in the bodies. However, I would never use the

13 clothing to determine a cause of death because one cannot be certain

14 where it was in relation to the body when the damage was caused. So

15 in -- I guess in summary, I think it is highly likely that most of the

16 cases where we couldn't determine a cause of death, it is most likely

17 that they died from gun-shot wounds that we just couldn't detect.

18 Q. And -- okay. We have been discussing a lot now about cause of

19 death. I'm just going to move to another concept. Are you familiar with

20 the phrase "manner of death"?

21 A. Yes, I am.

22 Q. And could you please define that for us, your understanding of

23 it?

24 A. In forensic pathology work, one normally talks about the cause of

25 death as being the disease, process or injury which actually produced

Page 7383

1 death. And then we talk about a concept of the manner of death. Now,

2 this is a partly legal concept but we are talking about whether the death

3 was natural, accidental, suicidal, homicidal. It's really the

4 circumstances -- it relates to the circumstances surrounding the death.

5 Q. And is there a relationship between cause of death and manner of

6 death, and if there is one, can you tell us -- can you explain that

7 interrelationship?

8 A. The answer -- one -- in almost inevitably considers the manner of

9 death in considering the cause of death. But in the coronial system in

10 which Dr. Clark and myself work. It would normally be the role of the

11 pathologist to establish the cause of death and it would normally be the

12 role of the coroner, who is a magistrate, to establish the manner of

13 death. The pathologist might be expected to advise the coroner on the

14 manner of death, as when you're considering the circumstances of the

15 death, you do have to consider the manner, but it is not, strictly

16 speaking, the role of the pathologist to establish that. Now, I -- in

17 other jurisdictions, and I spent two years working in the United States,

18 the forensic pathologists in the United States, in the medical examiner

19 systems usually have to establish both the cause and the manner of death.

20 So, for example, in a case of a gun-shot wound, one would normally give a

21 cause of death as being gun-shot wounds and the manner as being homicide.

22 Q. And based on your experience, is it possible to determine the

23 manner of death when the cause of death is unknown?

24 A. In some cases, yes, but often no. If I can give an example, one

25 might have a, as I had in the United States, case where a person had been

Page 7384

1 buried in a clandestine grave and was quite badly decomposed. It was not

2 clear exactly what had caused death. But I concluded because of the

3 nature of the way the body had been concealed that the manner of death

4 was homicide. So it is possible to have an undetermined cause of death

5 and a determined manner of death but it's not particularly common.

6 Q. Aside from cause of death, is there anything else that you found

7 in your examinations that would assist in determining the manner of

8 death?

9 A. I think there was a fair amount of circumstantial material in

10 these examinations. This relates to the presence of ligatures or wrist

11 bindings, the presence of blindfolds, material such as, in some

12 particular cases, and I'm thinking in particular in Cancari Road 12 we

13 had three cases where there appeared to be deliberate targeting of the

14 joints of the body in what appeared to be an attempt to cause pain, where

15 there were deliberate shooting of the shoulders, the elbows, the wrists,

16 the knees, in a pattern which did not -- which looked deliberate.

17 Q. And if -- you've just mentioned ligatures and blindfolds --

18 MS. HASAN: I'd just like to turn to Exhibit P928 and page 16 of

19 that exhibit in the English version, and it's also page 16 in the B/C/S

20 version.

21 If it's also possible to just rotate that one to the right,

22 90 degrees to the right. Thank you.

23 Q. Dr. Lawrence, can you just tell us what we see here depicted in

24 this photograph?

25 A. Yes. This is a body. It is the -- the person is lying face

Page 7385

1 down, at the bottom you can see, above the writing, you can see the belt.

2 What you can see there are the arms, which are behind the back. You can

3 see the watch band which shows the left wrist. And just above that,

4 there is a cord ligature which is tying the wrists together. This is an

5 example of one of the bodies where the hands had been tied behind the

6 back.

7 MS. HASAN: And if we could turn to Exhibit P927, and that's

8 another photograph. It's at page 18 in the English version, and page 20

9 of the B/C/S version. Thank you.

10 Q. Dr. Lawrence, can you also tell us in this photograph what we are

11 seeing here?

12 A. Yes. What you can see here is the top of the skull. It has been

13 reconstructed. What you can see there is the blindfold which is running

14 around the head, the eyes are at the front, and in the blindfold you can

15 see a defect. In the underlying skull, there is a gun-shot wound. This

16 is an indication that the blindfold was in this particular site when the

17 gun-shot was inflicted, indicating that it is, in fact, a blindfold.

18 Q. Okay. Now, you told us that these blindfolds and ligatures are

19 some of the items that tell you about the circumstances of the deaths.

20 Aside from what you've taken, what you've surmised from these items, did

21 you obtain any other information about the circumstances surrounding the

22 deaths of the victims from any other sources?

23 A. I'm not specifically sure to what you're referring.

24 Q. Okay. My question comes from having read your reports. You make

25 reference therein to having received some information from OTP

Page 7386

1 investigators.

2 A. Yes. Yes. I was given the alleged circumstances of what had

3 happened.

4 Q. And to what extent did you take that information that you

5 received into account during the course of your work?

6 A. Whenever I'm doing my work, I try and get as much information

7 about the circumstances before I start my examination. And then I carry

8 out my examination. Now, obviously, information that you are provided

9 may be wrong, and it is my normal practice to try and test whether or not

10 the story I have been told is correct or incorrect by looking at the

11 physical evidence. That is, one takes the information that you're

12 provided with, which may or may not be correct, and you test it against

13 what you've seen.

14 The aim being to try and prove or disprove whether the story is

15 correct.

16 Q. Thank you, Dr. Lawrence. Those would be all my questions for

17 you.

18 MS. HASAN: And Mr. President, that concludes my direct

19 examination.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Ms. Hasan.

21 Mr. Tolimir, your cross-examination, please. Before you commence

22 your cross-examination, Judge Nyambe has a question for the witness.

23 JUDGE NYAMBE: Yes. I just wanted some clarification on one

24 point that you've made in your evidence. At page 13, line 4 to 7, you

25 are quoted as saying:

Page 7388

1 to you about certain things in your report that were perhaps not quite

2 clear. So I hope you will bear with me.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at P923 in the e-court

4 now, please? This is an expert report about the remain -- the autopsy of

5 human remains from the Brana locality. I'm interested in page 2,

6 paragraph 4, of this report. The date of the report is June 1998. Thank

7 you. Page 2, paragraph 4. Thank you.

8 We don't see it yet. Can we rotate it? Thank you.

9 Page 2, please, paragraph 4. While we are waiting for the page

10 to be shown -- thank you. Page 2, please.

11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

12 Q. And while we are waiting for this, you will probably be able to

13 answer because you have your copy of the report in front of you as well.

14 Based on anthropological assessment -- this is what it states in

15 paragraph 4, based on the anthropological assessment, it can be concluded

16 that one person was between 13 and 18 years of age; three were between

17 the age of 18 and 25; and 42 were older than 25.

18 My question is: Did you personally --

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We should clarify if we have the right page in

20 B/C/S on the screen. I'm not sure about that.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We have it and it's on

22 the first page. In the English, it's the correct page. In the B/C/S --

23 in the Serbian, it's not correct. That's why I read it in Serbian.

24 Thank you. It's on the first page in English, paragraph 4.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which page is it in B/C/S, Mr. Gajic?

Page 7389

1 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that in the

2 Serbian, on the right-hand side, it seems that we have the wrong report.

3 Since now we are talking about the report on the exhumations and

4 autopsies of human remains from the dam site. And on the right side, in

5 the Serbian, the report we are looking at is the one from the Hodzici

6 locality. I think that's what the mistake is.

7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Thank you, while the technical service processes this -- well,

9 all right, now it's okay. Thank you very much. I apologise to you, sir.

10 You can answer: Were you, yourself, the one who made these estimates or

11 assessments of the age, and what were the techniques that you used to

12 establish the time of -- the age of the persons at the time of death as

13 they are reported here in your findings? Thank you.

14 A. No. These were not my personal findings. They are information

15 that was provided by Mr. Baraybar, and the estimates were based on the

16 estimation of age using the epiphyses of the bones, the symphysis pubis,

17 and the fourth ribs. I included them in my report purely to provide

18 background information regarding the age of some of the victims.

19 Q. Thank you. We had the opportunity recently to have Mr. Baraybar

20 here and he explained in detail what you just mentioned, the technique

21 used to establish the age of the victims.

22 I would like to ask you now to look at paragraph 7 now in the

23 English, and also paragraph 7 in the Serbian version. And where you say

24 that there were no complete bodies at the Brana -- the dam locality. And

25 now we go to paragraph 7, where it says:

Page 7390

1 "There were parts of 46 individuals in the grave. Because of the

2 separation of the body parts, these were collected in 91 body bags. This

3 is in the report by Professor Wright. None of the bodies were complete.

4 And it obviously cannot be guaranteed that the body bags are from

5 separate individuals. Because the individual bodies could not be

6 reconstructed, I have given a cause of death for the body parts in each

7 body bag rather than each individual. It is possible that a divided

8 individual, for example, separate head and torso, might be given more

9 than one cause of death."

10 In view of what is written here, and earlier we've seen that the

11 number of persons was established and the cause of death, but when we are

12 talking about the cause of death, the cause of death was determined for

13 body parts and not for individuals, can you please explain what the

14 number of --

15 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Tolimir is asked to repeat the rest of his

16 question.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, at the moment we are not receiving

18 interpretation. The last sentence was not heard by the interpreters.

19 The transcript stopped with the sentence:

20 "... the cause of death was determined for body parts and not for

21 individuals. Can you please explain what the number of --" and there it

22 stops. Can you repeat your question, please?

23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24 Q. How did you come -- I repeat, how did you then come to the data

25 about the total number of individuals and the cause of death? Thank you.

Page 7391

1 A. I think the dam site represents one of the more difficult sites

2 that we dealt with. The bones were extremely badly damaged. They were

3 very badly disarticulated and the bodies were very decomposed. I think

4 I've indicated in this information that in this particular site, even

5 though we had approximately 46 individuals, we could only really give a

6 cause of death in four of them as gun-shot wounds, and that 81 of the

7 body bags had an undetermined cause of death. This is largely because

8 the bodies were so badly broken up.

9 Q. Thank you for clarifying that.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now show paragraph 5 on

11 page 2. Thank you.

12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13 Q. In this paragraph, the following is stated:

14 "Ligatures of rope were found on the -- in the grave site."

15 My question is: What is the reason that the items were not

16 investigated in the morgue but that they were returned to The Hague? And

17 can you please tell us whether these items were returned and was there an

18 expert report written on them? And I read from paragraph 6:

19 "There was twine ligatures found in the grave similar to others

20 found at LPO 2 and CRO 3 sites and a possible blindfold. These were sent

21 to The Hague and were not examined at the morgue."

22 Thank you.

23 A. Sorry, can I just back up?

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The last part was a quotation from number 6 --

25 THE WITNESS: Sorry, you mean paragraph number 6, not paragraph

Page 7392

1 number 5.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That was, I think, a misrepresentation at the

3 beginning.

4 THE WITNESS: Right. Yes, a number of the ligatures found in the

5 grave not definitely associated with the bodies were sent back to

6 The Hague and not sent to the mortuary. I examined these later on, when

7 I returned to The Hague, to ascertain whether or not they were similar to

8 the ligatures that we examined in Liplje and also some in CR 3,

9 Cancari Road 3. It was my opinion, looking at them, that they were

10 similar.

11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Thank you. Are you able to say on what basis you came to that

13 conclusion? Thank you.

14 A. The appearances of the twine used, the appearances of the knots

15 used.

16 Q. You did not precisely answer why the items were sent to The Hague

17 before being processed in the morgue. Should not the expert examination

18 have been carried out on the items in the morgue first before they were

19 sent to The Hague?

20 A. That would have been my preference. This was a decision made by

21 the people at the scene, to send them to The Hague not to the mortuary,

22 but that's why I carried out the later examination at The Hague.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you help us and tell us who made this

24 decision? Was it your decision to send them to The Hague?

25 THE WITNESS: No, it was not my decision. I'm not sure who made

Page 7393

1 that decision.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Judge Mindua has a question.

3 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes. Precisely, Witness.

4 When you say that the bodies are brought to The Hague, what does

5 this actually mean? Does this mean that these are brought to the OTP or

6 to the mortuary?

7 THE WITNESS: Sorry, we are not talking here about bodies but

8 about the ligatures that were found in the grave. The ligatures were

9 transported back to The Hague. It would have been my preference for

10 those ligatures to have been transported to the mortuary but that did not

11 occur. At the time the examination -- the -- at the time the exhumation

12 was occurring at the dam, I was still at The Hague.

13 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I misread

14 the transcript.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you to

17 Judge Mindua.

18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Can you please tell us, was this is a decision made by experts,

20 by pathologists, anthropologists, for the ligatures to be taken to

21 The Hague, because you said that you felt it would have been better to

22 have examined them there? Or was that somebody else who made that

23 decision? I assume that you are unable to tell the Judges exactly who

24 that was.

25 A. As I say, at this stage, I was still at The Hague and not in

Page 7394

1 Bosnia. I am not sure who made that decision, but I did indicate at that

2 stage to those managing the exhumation site that I would prefer to see

3 that sort of material.

4 Q. Thank you. Are you able to tell us who was heading the

5 exhumation work? Thank you.

6 A. The exhumation team was headed by Professor Richard Wright at the

7 time. However, I'm not sure whether the decision was made by him or by

8 the investigators in the case.

9 Q. Thank you. Did Richard Wright have experts who could have

10 carried out this task at the morgue down there in the graves, where the

11 other examinations were carried out? Thank you.

12 A. Professor Wright worked at the exhumation site. He did not work

13 at the mortuary. From memory, I believe that he did have some scene of

14 crimes officers at the site who could have carried out some examination

15 of these ligatures. But since I was not there at the time, I can't tell

16 you much more about it.

17 Q. Thank you. I apologise to the interpreters. Are you able to

18 tell us if at any point you saw the expert findings that the expert

19 people in The Hague were supposed to look at regarding those ligatures

20 that had been sent by the people who were working under the leadership of

21 Mr. Wright?

22 A. What expert findings?

23 Q. Thank you. Were they examined -- why were they sent to

24 The Hague? What was the purpose of that? Are you able to tell us?

25 Thank you.

Page 7395

1 A. I don't know why they were sent to The Hague. I did examine them

2 later at The Hague, but I would have preferred to examine them in the

3 mortuary.

4 Q. Thank you. Professor, are you able to tell us who other than

5 Professor Wright was authorised to send material directly to The Hague?

6 A. I was not in charge of the exhumation site. You'd have to ask

7 somebody else.

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. I understand you. I was just asking

9 about the position that could have made the decision in this case, but

10 I understand your answer when you say that you would have preferred to

11 have examined them on the scene.

12 And can we now see -- each one of your reports describes the

13 autopsy procedure. This is on page 5 in the Serbian, and page 4 in the

14 English. So each of your reports describes the autopsy procedure or the

15 protocol.

16 Were there differences in the autopsy procedures that were

17 applied during the examination of body parts from different grave sites,

18 or were the same procedures applied in all of the cases? Thank you.

19 A. As a general rule, the procedures were the same. However, in the

20 dam site, in Cancari 12, Cancari 3, all of the body bags were examined by

21 a pathologist. After these case -- after these sites, when we started

22 dealing with Hodzici Road, Liplje and Zeleni Jadar, we were dealing with

23 many more body bags, we had much larger teams working, and we were

24 starting to have concerns that we may not be able to finish the procedure

25 in time. As a consequence of this, a decision was made at the suggestion

Page 7396

1 of Mr. Baraybar, that some of the smaller body parts be examined

2 primarily by an anthropologist rather than the pathologist. It was

3 generally felt that the whole bodies gave us the most useful information,

4 and that the pathologists should spend their time dealing with the whole

5 bodies and the large body parts, while the small body parts could

6 initially be examined by the anthropologist.

7 Where the anthropologist felt that there was a significant injury

8 or where, for example, that part was a head, the remains would be -- then

9 also be examined by a pathologist to ascertain whether there -- what

10 injuries were present. But essentially so it meant that the

11 Hodzici Road, Liplje and Zeleni Jadar cases, some of the smaller body

12 bags were not actually examined by a pathologist unless the

13 anthropologist found a significant injury.

14 Q. Thank you. Can you now look at item 11. And in my copy it

15 states:

16 "The clothing was listed, labelled with a metal tag with the case

17 number, and placed in a container prior to washing."

18 My question is: Mr. Lawrence, are you able to tell us if the

19 clothing, before it was washed, was examined in any way? For example,

20 were there -- was it examined for traces of gunpowder or similar tests?

21 Thank you.

22 A. Yes. The body was examined -- sorry, the body was X-rayed fully

23 clothed and then examined fully clothed, before the clothes were taken

24 off for washing. Unfortunately, because of the large amount of

25 decompositional fluid and dirt, it was almost impossible to identify

Page 7397

1 gun-shot residue. I think there was only one case in the 883 bodies

2 where we -- where I saw anything that even remotely resembled gunpowder

3 residue, but even there, we were far from certain as to whether it was

4 gunpowder.

5 Q. Could you please tell us why the clothing wasn't subjected to any

6 other examination? Thank you.

7 A. It was -- at the time we were doing this examination, it was felt

8 that the clothing might provide one of the few means of identification of

9 a large number of cases. Under the circumstances, it was felt to be more

10 useful to clean the clothes in order to allow the families to identify

11 the clothing than it was to find gunpowder residue.

12 Q. Thank you. And did this affect the quality of your work, in view

13 of the required procedures? Thank you.

14 A. That -- that is hard to answer that question. I do not believe

15 so. I think it is unlikely that analysis of the clothing for gunpowder

16 residue would have changed our conclusions regarding this. However,

17 I accept that in a normal case of a well-preserved body, without

18 decomposition, that that examination would occur.

19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. Could you please now look at

20 paragraph 12?

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And can I have the next page in the

22 Serbian, in the e-court?

23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Paragraph 12 states:

25 "After or once the body was undressed, it was washed and

Page 7398

1 rephotographed. Where necessary, soft tissue was removed from the body

2 or bones and a careful examination for injuries was made."

3 My question is: Why was it necessary to remove soft tissue from

4 the body or bones? Thank you.

5 A. In a body that is intact, where the skin is complete, one can

6 normally tell where the gun-shot wound is without problem. Most of these

7 bodies did not have complete skin coverage because of the decomposition.

8 It was therefore necessary to dissect the tissue to see whether there

9 was, in fact, a bullet track in the soft tissue because the loss of the

10 skin made it difficult to identify the gun-shot wounds on the skin.

11 Q. Thank you. Did I understand you correctly? You established

12 whether there were any wounds or injuries only on the basis of the bone?

13 And that is also what you used to establish the cause of death? Did

14 I understand you correctly?

15 A. No. The wounds were established on the basis of examination of

16 the skin, the soft tissue, the bone and the X-ray examination of the

17 body.

18 Q. Thank you. Could an x-ray, then, help to establish the

19 trajectory of the bullet through the skin, the soft tissue, the flesh?

20 Why was it necessary to do this? I didn't understand it well. Thank

21 you.

22 A. Again, in a body that was fully -- was in a normal state, it

23 would be my practice to first of all X-ray to establish the passage of

24 the bullet; secondly, examine the skin to examine the entrance and exit

25 wounds; and then to carry out an internal examination to establish that

Page 7399

1 the entrance and exit wounds were connected in the way that they appeared

2 to be. It is my normal practice to carry out both an external and an

3 internal examination in all gun-shot wounds. It is also necessary to

4 carry out an internal examination to recover the projectile as well.

5 Q. Thank you, Dr. Lawrence, for this additional explanation.

6 I wanted things cleared up completely.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 12 in Serbian

8 and page 9 in English.

9 We need to see the passage with the subheading "peri-mortem

10 injuries". That's injuries that occurred around the time of death.

11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

12 Q. In your report, you divide these wounds into indisputably gun

13 fire; second, probable gun-shot wounds; and, three, certainly not or

14 possible gun-shot wounds.

15 Based on what did you divide wounds into these three categories?

16 A. Sorry, I'm just trying to find where you're referring to in the

17 English. Oh, sorry, yes.

18 Q. Sorry, I didn't turn on the microphone. You see above the table,

19 the numbers 1, 2 and 3? These lines contain the information I just read.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And my question was: On what basis did you determine this

22 gradation, whether a wound was definitely gun-shot, probable gun-shot or

23 possible gun-shot?

24 A. Again, in this particular site, we were dealing with quite

25 severely fragmented bones. There were some wounds where I was convinced

Page 7400

1 by the shape of the wound, the presence of the bevelling under the wound,

2 and the adjacent damage, that it was certainly a gun-shot wound.

3 There were other cases where I either had small fragments of

4 metal on X-ray adjacent to roughly circular fractures. These

5 I concluded -- I was uncomfortable to call them definite gun-shot wounds

6 but given the presence of the metal fragments and the nature, I thought

7 they were probably gun-shot wounds.

8 And then there were some where I wasn't certain. I thought it's

9 possible they might be. There were fractures that looked possibly

10 consistent with there may have been some metal fragments nearby but

11 I would be by no means certain that they are gun-shot wounds. And those

12 I would call possible gun-shot wounds.

13 Q. Thank you. Tell me, did you understand firearms to mean anything

14 that could fire or just rifle rounds? Did you include mortar shells and

15 other type of weapons?

16 A. Generally in these reports, I talked about gun-shot wounds,

17 shot-gun wounds, and shrapnel. In the instance that I was talking about

18 gun-shot wounds, I would not include ordnance such as mortars and

19 artillery.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think we must have our first break

21 now. And we will resume quarter past 4.00.

22 --- Recess taken at 3.50 p.m.

23 [The witness stands down]

24 [The witness takes the stand]

25 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.

Page 7401

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lawrence, before we left off, you used two

2 terms, one was "gun-shot" and the other "shot-gun." Could you please

3 explain the difference?

4 THE WITNESS: Yes. I usually restrict the term "gun-shot" to

5 rifled weapons, that is, weapons that make the bullet spin as it's fired.

6 These would be revolvers, handguns, rifles and so forth. And shot-guns,

7 where the barrels are unrifled and they fire small pellets of lead.

8 Those are the two terms that I use in regard to the kinds of gun-shot

9 wounds we are talking about. And that's what I meant by the distinction

10 between the two.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for this clarification.

12 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

14 Could I now ask e-court to display P942? Sorry, 924.

15 It's a report on the examination of mortal remains from --

16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear where.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's the locality Cancarski Put

18 number 12, carried out in August 1998, page 10 in Serbian and in English.

19 We need the passage titled, "Report."

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the record, the title of this report is

21 related to Cancari Road, site 12.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We can't see the

23 version in English on the screen, so it's difficult for the witness to

24 follow. Both are in Serbian. Could you show the witness the English

25 version, please? There it is. Paragraph 2 under subheading "Reports."

Page 7402

1 I will now be quoting from paragraph 2.

2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

3 Q. "Each autopsy is entirely the responsibility of the pathologist

4 performing the autopsy. There was discussion between pathologists and

5 the anthropologists on each case. I was present in the autopsy room for

6 most of the autopsies and was available at all times for discussion. The

7 opinions expressed in the report are entirely those of the pathologist in

8 charge of the case. This accounts for any apparent variations in

9 expression of findings or opinion.

10 "The anthropology team made formal reports of stature, sex and

11 age. The data upon which these opinions were based is contained in the

12 original notes of the appropriate anthropologist."

13 Now, when you mention "autopsy report," does that term comprise

14 the findings of the pathologist and the anthropologist both and are they

15 integrated into one report?

16 A. The autopsy report is the work of the pathologist. The

17 anthropologists prepared a separate report. However, the anthropologists

18 did give advice to the pathologists about their view on the injuries, and

19 that would have been integrated into the autopsy report prepared by the

20 pathologist.

21 Q. Thank you. Was the pathologist able to submit his findings if it

22 contradicted a finding by the anthropologist? And what was done in case

23 the pathologist and the anthropologist disagreed?

24 A. The pathologist had the final decision regarding the assessment

25 of the injuries. In the event that there was a disagreement between the

Page 7403

1 anthropologist and the pathologist, they would normally consult me, and

2 we would reach a consensus about what was said. If an agreement could

3 not be reached, the opinion expressed was that of the pathologist who did

4 the case.

5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

6 Since you said that the pathologist's findings were final and

7 authoritative, can you tell me what could then have been the cause of

8 such disagreement? Do you have an example? And was there one single

9 uniform model for making reports? Or was it possible that injuries were

10 described differently from report to report?

11 A. That's a multiple-part question. The pathologists varied in

12 their experience of dealing with boney injuries. And most of the

13 pathologists would listen to the anthropologists' opinions in these

14 cases. I can recall some discussions between myself and Mr. Baraybar in

15 relation to some of the injuries that would be classified as possible or

16 probable gun-shot wounds. For example, where you might have a defect

17 that didn't have all of the normal characteristics of a gun-shot wound

18 but might have some fragments of metal. Those are the sorts of things

19 that might occur. There were also occasional questions about whether

20 there was a blunt force injury, a fracturing, which was -- and whether it

21 was, in fact, a blunt force or whether it was -- occurred as a

22 consequence of a gun-shot wound.

23 There was no uniform -- the models -- the report that was

24 hand-filled out was a sort of a pro forma document that people filled in

25 the gaps. The pathologists for the most part worked for about two weeks,

Page 7404

1 and when they first came to work, I would sit down with them and go

2 through how we interpreted the wounds, what we would call a possible,

3 probable gun-shot wound, those sorts of things. So there was some

4 uniformity. However, there was considerable latitude for description,

5 and I encouraged the pathologists to write what they thought they saw.

6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now call up in e-court

8 page 22 in Serbian and in English. The part under the subheading,

9 "Shrapnel."

10 We see it in English. It's the second paragraph from below. And

11 the same in Serbian.

12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13 Q. You say halfway down the paragraph:

14 "The fragments looked unlike bullet core fragments and resembled

15 fragments of shrapnel from shells or mortar rounds recovered from around

16 Sarajevo. Field bandages," et cetera.

17 You mention mortar and artillery shells found around Sarajevo.

18 Why is this mentioned here? Is that a mistake in the report or is it a

19 reference to some prior experience of yours or maybe the pathologist who

20 did this?

21 A. No. Most of the pathologists who were dealing with these cases

22 would not have seen a large number of shrapnel-related injuries. Quite a

23 number of the gun-shot -- the bullets in the gun-shot wounds were

24 fragmented, and I considered it important to try and distinguish between

25 fragments of bullet and fragments of ordnance, shrapnel. Because of the

Page 7405

1 lack of experience in the pathologists, I obtained some examples of

2 shrapnel from around Sarajevo to give them an example of what it might

3 look like. What we routinely did was test the material with a magnet to

4 establish whether it was a ferrous material or not and also compare it to

5 these fragments obtained from Sarajevo for purposes of comparison. We

6 did not have a ballistics expert from the police present at the time, and

7 so I used the material from Sarajevo really as a reference sample.

8 Q. Thank you. In the first part you said pathologists or at least

9 some pathologists did not have sufficient experience. Could you explain

10 in greater detail what you meant by that? Because perhaps I missed

11 something or perhaps I did not understand.

12 A. Yes. The pathologists came from England, Scotland, Ireland,

13 France, Germany. Most of them had not seen substantial numbers of people

14 who had been injured with shrapnel because of their practice. They would

15 be familiar with gun-shot wounds but they would not routinely see many

16 shrapnel injuries. The only exceptions would probably have been the

17 pathologists from Northern Ireland who would be familiar with bombs.

18 Q. Thank you. This leads us again to the problem of the distance of

19 fire. If it's shrapnel, then it's easy to conclude that the weapon was

20 relatively far away; but if a rifle round was fired from 500 metres away,

21 or 50 metres away, or a thousand metres away, would the pathologists have

22 enough experience and skill to determine the distance from which a

23 firearm round was fired?

24 A. I think I have indicated in my report that assessment of range of

25 fire was pretty much a lost cause in these particular cases. I really do

Page 7406

1 not believe, given the state of the bodies, that we could realistically

2 tell very much about the range of fire at all.

3 Q. Thank you. Could you share with us your opinion on this: Would

4 the range of fire in these cases that you have worked on be then

5 considered undetermined? And that concerns 183 [as interpreted] cases,

6 as you said. Because it is important to us whether and how many people

7 were killed in combat and others were shot without participating in

8 combat. How could we determine the difference between the two groups?

9 A. Those are, again, a number of questions. If I can take them in

10 order, about all a pathologist can tell about range of fire is, firstly,

11 if the muzzle of the gun is in contact with the body; secondly, if the

12 weapon is -- the muzzle of the gun is between a centimetre and a metre.

13 Once it gets beyond that, the pathologist can't tell you anything about

14 the range of fire.

15 So I think it is correct, I would give the range of fire in all

16 of these cases as undetermined.

17 Now, in regard to -- I'm sorry, I'm -- sorry, I'm just trying to

18 answer the rest of your questions.

19 In regard to how could we tell the difference between people who

20 were killed in combat and others who were shot without participating in

21 combat, I have a number of propositions. The first is that if these

22 people were people killed in combat, why was such -- why was such trouble

23 taken to conceal these bodies and why were they transported so far from

24 the sites where they were initially killed? If they were combatants, how

25 do you explain the presence of the blindfolds and ligatures? If they

Page 7407

1 were combatants, how do you account for young children and very old men?

2 If they were combatants, how do you account for people who have got hip

3 replacements, spines so badly damaged that they would be incapable of

4 easy movement, people who have had operations to remove their larynx so

5 that they have what is called a tracheostomy in their throat? In my

6 opinion, these people are unlikely to be combatants.

7 The other thing I think in general terms in modern combat is that

8 one expects most of the fatalities to be due to shrapnel wounds and not

9 to gun-shot wounds, and so the percentage of gun-shot wounds in these

10 deaths is unusually high for modern combat. In addition, in

11 Cancari Road 12, I saw a number of people who were clearly injured and

12 who had bandages on, including one man who had shrapnel injuries in the

13 liver and in the right-hand, who had bandages on those injuries, who then

14 had a ligature on the wrist and had been subsequently shot. So I think

15 it is likely that this is an injured person who had been medically

16 treated and had then been killed. Again, I don't believe that these

17 people were combatants.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, may I interrupt you? In your last

19 question, you said, "Would the range of fire in these cases that you have

20 worked on be then considered undetermined? And that concerns 183 cases,

21 as you said." This is page 36, lines 1 through 3. I've tried to figure

22 out where you found this number of 183 cases. What is your reference for

23 that?

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you,

25 Mr. President. Mr. Lawrence said that he looked at 883 bodies that

Page 7408

1 underwent this entire procedure, and he said that in the previous

2 question, that in none of the cases the range -- was the range

3 determined, and based on that I asked my question, 883 cases. But

4 I asked for Mr. Lawrence's expert opinion, how best to proceed when

5 bodies were collected during clearing operations. So all the bodies were

6 collected, those who were killed in combat and those who were fired at

7 from close range, and placed in the same grave. Now --

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, sorry for interrupting you again.

9 You were recorded to have said 183 cases, not 883. And I wanted to

10 clarify if you were really using the term "183." But I think that was a

11 mistake. You were referring to 883. Is that correct?

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's correct, Mr. President.

13 I put that in my question that Mr. Lawrence has answered.

14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

15 Q. And my next question -- it should be the number 883. 883. And

16 my next question would be: If these points made by Mr. Lawrence are

17 theories, were these theories included in the description from the

18 localities that he worked on and can they help us determine how many

19 bodies in the common graves were killed in combat, from a distance of

20 300/400 metres, or as opposed to those who were killed at close range,

21 such as 2 metres, because he said that smaller differences could not be

22 really established, such as 1 centimetre, for instance, to 1 metre?

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Hasan? I saw you on your feet.

24 MS. HASAN: I was just going to seek clarification of a point but

25 I think we've resolved that now.

Page 7409

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Mr. Lawrence.

2 THE WITNESS: I think I've indicated that the pathologists were

3 not really in a position to assess range of fire in most of these cases,

4 not in any meaningful way.

5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Thank you. If these are the points that you've stated, I would

7 like to put some other questions, the ones regarding the idea of the

8 distance of the body from locality. For example, in the case of

9 asanacija, bodies could be brought from an area nearby or from a farther

10 removed area and placed in the same grave; is that correct?

11 A. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "asanacija."

12 Q. What I mean by that is after combat, and the completion of

13 operations, bodies are collected from the front and buried in a common

14 grave in order to prevent an outbreak of diseases and so on and so forth.

15 That's what I mean by the word "asanacija."

16 A. Right. Is that a question?

17 Q. My question is: Is it possible, then, to bury in the same grave

18 somebody who was killed above the grave, in the immediate vicinity of the

19 grave, or from the front, some 1.000 or 1500 metres away? That's the

20 question. Is it possible that such bodies could be buried together? And

21 this is a question which corresponds to your first theory.

22 A. Hypothetically, yes, of course they could include people from

23 them. I think the issue is the movement of the bodies from the primary

24 site to the secondary site often seemed to be quite significant

25 distances. For example, in the bodies that were -- the bodies that came

Page 7410

1 from the Kravica warehouse were then taken to Glogova and then taken to

2 Zeleni Jadar. These -- it seems to me surprising that these bodies would

3 be moved these sorts of distances if they were just combat fatalities.

4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. Many things are illogical to me as

5 well. This is why I'm asking you, in order to get an explanation. I'm

6 not asking because I'm looking for some kind of illogical matters in your

7 statement. I'm just asking about all the things that are not clear to

8 me.

9 The second thing you mentioned was that -- how to explain the

10 presence of ligatures. So I'm asking you now: Is it possible that

11 somebody with a ligature could be brought to this primary or secondary

12 grave and that they were killed with a ligature at a different location,

13 if bodies are being collected from the battle front?

14 A. I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand that question. Can

15 you repeat it, please?

16 Q. Thank you. You said, as your second proposition, how to explain

17 the presence of blindfolds, for example. I'm asking you now, is it

18 possible that somebody is killed or shot at a location that is different

19 from the location of the primary and the secondary grave, at a distance

20 of some 5.000 -- 500 or 1.000 metres away, and then later that they are

21 brought to the grave where also bodies are brought from other locations?

22 Thank you.

23 A. Yes, it is possible.

24 Q. Thank you. Now, I understand that you were talking about --

25 well, everything is possible. Is it possible, then, to have young

Page 7411

1 people, old people, and the sick and the wounded brought to the same

2 grave and so on and so forth, if the collection of casualties from the

3 battle front is underway? Thank you.

4 A. Yes. What I meant here was that I thought it was unlikely that

5 these young people and old people and sick people were -- and the wounded

6 people were combatants. Hence, the question comes up: How did they get

7 killed? It would not -- if they weren't combatants, they presumably

8 weren't killed during combat.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. I'm asking you, as an expert, because

10 we have a problem here. People were placed in the grave throughout the

11 whole battle front including those for which witnesses say were killed in

12 fighting between the two sides, from a greater distance, and then they

13 were buried together in various graves. So this is why I'm asking you

14 how we can tell between those who were killed at close range and who

15 were -- who were -- was killed from a greater distance. Thank you. I'm

16 asking you for your expert opinion.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Hasan.

18 MS. HASAN: If the question includes this fact, which it does,

19 this proposed fact, then the witness should have the benefit of the

20 reference for that fact to really be in a position to answer that sort of

21 a question.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, can you --

23 MS. HASAN: In particular the reference to graves from the -- in

24 the battle front.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you provide us with a reference, Mr. Tolimir?

Page 7412

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I put a

2 hypothetical question to the witness, and asked the witness, as an

3 expert, to tell us, because we do have some cases. I'm going to be

4 specific now. People who were killed in combat in the Zvornik area

5 during the breakthrough of the Muslim column were collected and buried

6 together with other casualties. Thank you. I didn't ask this for the

7 purpose of just asking, but I asked in order to get expert indications,

8 so that we can have an explanation by an expert. Thank you.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Hasan.

10 MS. HASAN: Just to be clear on the record that there is no

11 evidence of those assertions, and if it's simply that this is all just

12 hypothetical, then I think that should be clear.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you were referring to the Zvornik

14 area. If you say that people were killed in combat in this area during

15 the breakthrough of the Muslim column, then it's not a hypothetical

16 question. Now, I'm a little bit confused. You should make it clear if

17 you're putting a hypothetical question, or if you are referring to a

18 specific grave or a number of graves, then you should give a reference.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I stated a fact that

20 was stated here during testimony and footage about the breakthrough of

21 the column from Zvornik towards -- actually near Nezuk, and people said,

22 and you could see in the video footage, that there were about

23 2.000 killed and they were all buried in the same grave. And we have a

24 problem here because all those who were found on the battlefield are now

25 being counted as killed or executed and not those who died in fighting.

Page 7413

1 So now I'm asking Mr. Lawrence for clarification about this. I am asking

2 about testimony given by a particular witness. Ms. Hasan perhaps didn't

3 hear the name but now I'm referring to it and I'm also stating it for the

4 benefit of the Trial Chamber.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I didn't hear the name either. If

6 you can give a name, everybody would be happy.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I said about Ms. Hasan actually,

8 that she didn't mention her name when she was introducing herself, and

9 I think we are talking about the ways that casualties were created. I am

10 now seeking the clarification by this witness about possible ways in

11 which this could have happened. This was something that was mentioned in

12 the testimony of Mr. Janc. During his testimony I put certain questions

13 to him because he put all the victims that were found into the same

14 category. All the victims that were found in the same grave he would put

15 in the same category.

16 Thank you, Mr. President. It's not necessary even to have an

17 answer to this question, if the Prosecution doesn't want to. Thank you.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is not the right reaction.

19 Mr. Lawrence, you have listened to this dispute. Perhaps you can

20 help us with an answer that takes into account that this is a

21 hypothetical statement.

22 THE WITNESS: If I can return to the start of the question, as

23 I understand it, the issue that was being raised was it was important to

24 tell the range of fire to try and distinguish between combatants and

25 non-combatants. What I've indicated to you is I cannot tell you what the

Page 7414

1 range of fire is. So in that context, I do not have information which

2 would enable you to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants on

3 the basis of range of fire.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is it possible that combatants who were killed in

5 combat and those who were murdered end up in the same mass grave?

6 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's possible. One wonders if that were the

7 case, why one would conceal them if they were combatants, though.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Mindua has a question.

9 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness. To follow up on the

10 Presiding Judge's question, I have two questions. My first question:

11 Can you, as a pathologist, determine whether people who are buried in the

12 same mass grave come from two different sides [Realtime transcript read

13 in error "sites"]? People who have been buried during combat or because

14 they have been executed, do you think that people from the opposing side

15 could be in the same mass grave? You mentioned the clothing, you

16 mentioned the ligatures, and things like that. Are you able to determine

17 that? That's my first question.

18 THE WITNESS: First, let me make it clear that I did my work in

19 the mortuary. I did attend some of the exhumation scenes. I went to

20 Cancari 12, Cancari 3 and -- sorry, Liplje and Zeleni Jadar, but only on

21 one day and not while -- I did not attend most of the time.

22 Some of the issues in relation to whether the source of the

23 bodies could have been from multiple sites should possibly be put to

24 people who did their work at the scene, since they are probably in a

25 better position than I am to comment on it, but it is possible that a

Page 7415

1 grave could contain both combatants and people who had been executed.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: It wasn't two different

3 sites but two different sides.

4 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I believe you haven't quite

5 understood what I was saying because you mention sides. When I talk

6 about opponents, when I talk about the other side, I mean opponents in a

7 war, different armed groups.

8 THE WITNESS: Ah, sorry, I understand. The only comment I could

9 make about working out whether somebody was Serbian, Bosnian Serbian or a

10 Muslim would be the property that we found with the bodies. And all of

11 the items which suggested a religious context suggested that all of the

12 bodies that we could identify were Muslim. I guess it's possible there

13 could have been other people. I also believe that subsequently most of

14 these bodies have been identified as being Muslim people from Srebrenica

15 but I'm not directly knowledgeable about that. It was work that was done

16 after I worked for the ICTY.

17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. My second

18 question now. In your answer, you have already addressed my second

19 question. It's on the transcript, page 36, line 2 to 4. You mention

20 193 cases. Out of these 183 cases, were you able to determine that these

21 people belonged to the same armed group or whether some people came from

22 the opposite side or the enemy?

23 THE WITNESS: Ah, sorry, you mean 883 cases?

24 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, Dr. Lawrence.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes. Look, I -- if you look at the end of each of

Page 7416

1 the reports, I have indicated some additional identifying features. In

2 only a very small number of cases in the graves did we find any material

3 that might suggest that somebody was of Muslim faith. There was

4 relatively little information. But the information that we did find

5 indicated that the bodies that we saw were probably Muslim.

6 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Fine. I thank you for your

7 answer, Dr. Lawrence.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question.

9 JUDGE NYAMBE: Yes, I just want a clarification and following up

10 on Judge Mindua's question. At page 45, lines 6 to 8, you are

11 reported -- recorded as saying:

12 "And all of the items which suggested a religious context suggest

13 that all of the bodies that we would could identify were Muslims."

14 What sort of items would suggest that one is Muslim or not

15 Muslim?

16 THE WITNESS: If I can just refer to my notes here, we have -- if

17 I can refer you to the report on Hodzici Road number 3, at page 20.

18 MS. HASAN: That's Exhibit P926.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

20 THE WITNESS: As an example, page 20 there, I think.

21 MS. HASAN: Perhaps it will assist if you can just give us the

22 page number of your report and we will find the e-court number.

23 THE WITNESS: Yes, the page number is 20 in the report.

24 MS. HASAN: That would be e-court page 24.

25 THE WITNESS: If you can look at Exhibit -- one of the exhibits,

Page 7417

1 B11, we have verses from the Koran, which is just here. That sort of --

2 that was the material I was referring to that -- the only thing that we

3 saw that would indicate the religion of the victim.

4 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Mr. Lawrence, I didn't want to cause any kind of debate with my

9 last question. I don't dispute that all the victims were Muslims. All

10 I wanted to do was to talk about how distance is established because in

11 the part where you discuss shrapnel, where I said in the other part, 5924

12 [as interpreted], page 22 --

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please see that in e-court?

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you again referring to --

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P924.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. This is the document we have on the

17 screen at the moment. Sorry, that's a mistake. No, no. P924.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P924, page 22.

19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

20 Q. We can see the last paragraph, 22, where it says:

21 "The distance from range of fire can sometimes be established by

22 the presence or absence of muzzle abrasion, soot or abrasions caused by

23 unburned gunpowder, gun powder stippling on the body or clothing. Due to

24 the skeletonisation of the remains and the burial of the clothes, no

25 assessment of range of fire was possible."

Page 7418

1 All I was asking this is because it was not possible to establish

2 the distance of fire, and we have cases that were described before. So

3 all I wanted to ask you is to clarify for us, in cases where there is the

4 presence of gunpowder, and you said you only had one such case, so I'm

5 asking you about cases where there are no traces that you talk about in

6 this text, how do you establish the distance of fire? Thank you.

7 A. I have repeated this -- my answer several times. You can't.

8 Q. Thank you. I apologise because of these polemics that was not my

9 intention. My intention was to learn as much as possible from your

10 testimony in order to be able to follow the issues and problems that

11 occur during the trial, and I'm very grateful to you for providing

12 answers about things that were unclear to me. I would like to thank you

13 on behalf of the Defence. I would like to thank you for coming today.

14 As far as I'm concerned, my part of the cross-examination is finished.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence would

16 like to thank everybody, would like to thank everybody for their patience

17 and would like to thank the interpreters and everyone else. Thank you.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you again for your kind words, Mr. Tolimir.

19 Ms. Hasan, have re-examination?

20 MS. HASAN: I have no questions on re-examination.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lawrence, you will be pleased to hear that

22 this concludes your testimony. The Chamber would like to thank you for

23 your attendance here and now you are free to return to your normal

24 activities. Thank you again that you could make it to come to The Hague.

25 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President.