1 Monday, 31 January 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon to everybody.
6 Since this is the first hearing of this year, I would like to
7 express our expectation that we will have a good successful co-operation
8 and a fair and expeditious trial ahead. I wish everybody health and a
9 good work.
10 Before the next witness will be brought in, I would like to raise
11 briefly four matters.
12 The first is dealing with documents marked for identification in
13 relation to the decision, 92 bis. On the 27th of January 2011, the
14 Chamber received a list from the Registry assigning exhibit numbers to
15 all documents of pure, that means without cross-examination, 92 bis
16 Prosecution witnesses currently marked for identification.
17 The Chamber hereby admits the listed documents into evidence, and
18 asks the Registry to proceed accordingly.
19 The Chamber has been informed by the Registry that an
20 international -- that an internal memorandum assigning exhibit numbers to
21 these documents will be filed within the next couple of days.
22 The second matter deals with documents marked for identification
23 pending translation. The Chamber has received some information, some
24 days ago, about some Prosecution documents which have now their
25 translation. Mr. McCloskey?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours,
2 everyone. It's good to be back and I have the exhibit numbers of these
3 materials that have now been uploaded and I can read them so we get them
4 in the record.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: P00163, P00185, P00191, P00602, P01018, P01078,
7 P01149, P01150, P01151, and finally P01479.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. These documents are now in
9 evidence in this trial.
10 Mr. Tolimir and the Defence, the same duty is for the Defence.
11 Do you have an update, Mr. Gajic?
12 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. First of all,
13 good afternoon to everyone. The translations of the following exhibits
14 marked for identification have been uploaded: D132, D106, D103, D97, D95,
15 D93, and D91.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. These documents will be
17 admitted documents as well.
18 Now I would like to turn to another topic. Just before the
19 winter recess, an important and time-sensitive filing was, for various
20 reasons, misplaced and not filed in the case record as it should have
21 been. As a result, the Chamber did not receive the filing in a timely
22 manner. The Chamber takes this opportunity to remind the parties, and in
23 particular the Defence, and those assisting us in the courtroom, that
24 there is a well-known and long-standing procedure at this Tribunal for
25 the filing of documents. Such filings should not be left to chance but
1 should be submitted and received properly and with the utmost attention.
2 The fourth and last point -- I refer now to the notice of witness
3 scheduling and time estimates for direct and cross-examination.
4 I note that paragraph 1 of the annex to the order concerning
5 guidelines on the presentation of evidence and conduct of the parties
6 during trial, issued on the 24th of February 2010, directs the calling
7 party to file, by the 15th of each month, a list of witnesses scheduled
8 for the following calendar month and time estimates for the examination
9 of each witness.
10 The cross-examining party is required to file its estimated
11 length for cross-examination of those witnesses within seven days of that
13 This month, the Prosecution filed its notice on the 17th of
14 January, which is fine in light of the holidays. However, the Chamber
15 did not receive from the accused his time estimates for the
16 cross-examination of these witnesses until the 30th of January 2010, that
17 is yesterday. The timely receipt of these estimates is necessary for the
18 organisation of the witness schedule and to ensure that court time is
19 used in the most efficient manner possible. It is essential that the
20 accused file its notices on time each month.
21 The Chamber would like -- also like to address the filing of
22 weekly notices of witness schedules and time estimates. The second
23 paragraph of the annex of the order I just mentioned, the calling party
24 is directed to provide its weekly schedule of witnesses a week before the
25 week in which those witnesses are expected to testify. However, the
1 Chamber has become aware that the current practice in place has not
2 abided by this rule. Therefore, the Chamber proposes to alter the
3 direction such that the Prosecution would be required to file its weekly
4 witness notice by 4 p.m. on the Thursday before the week the witnesses
5 will testify, and the accused to provide his time estimate for
6 cross-examination of each of those witnesses the day -- the next day,
7 that means by Friday, 4 p.m.
8 Are there any submissions by the parties in this respect?
9 I don't see any.
10 Then an amendment of the said order reflecting this new guideline
11 will be filed shortly.
12 Now I don't see any other matters to be raised before the witness
13 is being brought in. Please, the witness should be brought in.
14 [The witness entered court]
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, Dr. Haglund.
16 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Welcome to the Tribunal. We are very glad that
18 you were able to come to The Hague. Would you please read aloud the
19 affirmation on the card which is shown to you now.
20 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
21 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
22 WITNESS: WILLIAM HAGLUND
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, please sit down.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey is examining you.
1 Mr. McCloskey.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. And as the Court will
3 recall, Dr. Haglund is a 92 bis witness so this shouldn't -- this will be
4 an abbreviated direct.
5 Examination by Mr. McCloskey:
6 Q. First of all, can you tell us your name and spell your last name?
7 A. William Dale Haglund, H-a-g-l-u-n-d.
8 Q. And what is your profession?
9 A. I'm a forensic anthropologist and death investigator.
10 Q. And have you received a Ph.D. in that field?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, we all know that you've had some tough issues with your
13 heart and we weren't sure if we were going to be able to get you here.
14 We're glad to see you as the President said. How are you feeling? Are
15 you going to be up for this?
16 A. I feel fine and I'm happy to be here.
17 Q. All right. Just let us know if there is anything we should know
19 Have you had a chance to look at your testimony in the Popovic
20 and the Krstic cases?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. And did you and I discuss an error that I will point out, it was
23 on -- in the Popovic case, page 8905 of 15 March 2007, that should come
24 up on the screen, but I think in a question early on by myself, it is
25 said, on page 12, and I'll wait a bit so you can see this, line 12 and
1 13, I'll just read it and if it comes up, it comes up, it's not crucial.
2 I think we've got it there. There we go. I asked you on line 12, okay,
3 and you've, I believe, described yourself as a forensic pathologist?
4 Now --
5 A. No.
6 Q. -- is that correct?
7 A. No. I know I'm not a pathologist. I wouldn't have done that.
8 Q. All right. So we can change that to as you have what have -- you
9 have just said, anthropologist, correct?
10 A. Yes, I think I see that in other places in that.
11 Q. All right.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I remind both speakers to pause between
13 question and answer because you are using the same language and we need
14 interpretation to different other languages, thank you.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY:
16 Q. And perhaps it was my mistake, but I'm not sure I've ever made a
17 mistake, so perhaps not, but so if you were asked the same questions you
18 were asked in those previous trials, would your answers basically be the
20 A. Basically, yes.
21 Q. All right. And Mr. President, I have a memorandum from the court
22 officer dated 3 November 2010, and it has -- it's a fairly extensive list
23 of reports, exhibits, testimonies from both his previous trials, which
24 are basically the basis for the 92 bis testimony. And we've reviewed it
25 and it is correct, and you'll see the last page of that, there are some
1 of his reports, there are four exhibits that came in for whatever reason,
2 they were shown to other expert witnesses and are already in evidence, so
3 if we could just take --
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No. I have to interrupt you. I was quite
5 concerned about this list. Last week in preparation of this trial today,
6 they were marked for identification with the witness Dusan Janc but were
7 not tendered at that point in time, these three forensic investigation
8 reports of witness Haglund. But the numbers are correct. They are
9 marked for identification up to now. Just to clarify the situation.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. I was concerned about
11 them also, and I apologise for that wrong information.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Microphone not activated]
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yeah, that's my --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: My microphone was not activated. I have to
16 repeat that. They were tendered through expert witness Baraybar, not
17 Dusan Janc.
18 Please go ahead.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Ms. Stewart informs me that according to her
20 e-court -- you are correct now. So that was initially our mistake and so
21 we would offer all these materials, I don't think there is any dispute,
22 into evidence pursuant to the rules.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The first one is the testimony in Popovic et al.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. That's on the first page of this memo.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes. And this is P1306 MFI'd.
1 Before we make a decision, Mr. Gajic?
2 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, may I recall that not
3 all the documents that are being admitted through this witness have been
4 translated into a language that the accused understands; i.e., we don't
5 have the Serbian translation. Some of the documents are affected and the
6 list clearly indicates which of the documents have translations and which
7 do not.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And which list do you find such an indication
9 that there is no translation yet?
10 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] If we have before us the list
11 normally sent by the OTP to the Registry and the parties, Prosecution
12 Exhibits for witness number 11, and the ERN numbers we will see that in
13 some of the documents lack translations; for instance, the document under
14 65 ter number 6649 does not have a Serbian translation. This is just an
15 illustration. As does not 6651, then 6652. Next, 65 ter 6648.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. I think I understood what you are
17 referring to in the Prosecution exhibits list, in the column with the ERN
18 numbers we have always in brackets the addition ENG, that means English,
19 and sometimes B/C/S T, for instance, 65 ter 00577 has such a comment.
20 I would like to ask you, Mr. McCloskey, does that mean these have a B/C/S
21 translation and the others indicated as ENG have no translation yet?
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: That is basically correct. And let me explain.
23 The first five exhibits underneath that second heading, you'll notice in
24 the far right-hand column they all have D numbers and these were bits and
25 pieces of articles that were all used by the Defence in the
1 cross-examination of Dr. Haglund that, for completeness, we wanted to
2 offer as exhibits. Ms. Stewart has asked those to be translated so we
3 hope to get those back. And the other material, and I do want to respond
4 to you that Mr. Gajic and I do have very good communication, we have
5 consulted and discussed with each other on a number of topics over the
6 break, and I think he would agree with me we have very good
7 communication, I don't recall that we have discussed this particular
8 translation issue. But when we see all of these reports by Dr. Haglund,
9 the body of the report, where he is making his conclusions, that material
10 is translated. It's been translated for years. But Dr. Haglund, who
11 started out in this field in 1996, he, unlike some of the other experts,
12 attached indexes and lists as well as autopsy reports to his report so
13 that when we offer in Dr. Haglund's report all this supporting material
14 to it comes with it; whereas, the other -- many of the -- and if not all
15 of the other experts identified all that material and it's been provided
16 to the Defence but it's not been part of the record because it doesn't
17 normally help us much in the trial, in the courtroom.
18 So we have never sent that material for translation, much of it's
19 untranslatable in any realistic sense because it's nothing but lists,
20 long list us of ligatures and artifacts and things like that. The other
21 documents that he attached, he attached all the autopsy reports that the
22 forensic pathologists used as well, and so we have many, many of those
23 reports that we have never sent for translation, just they are so
24 voluminous and there has never been any specific reason for us to do
25 that. Nor have I ever heard, as far as I can recall, any specific
1 request on the part of any Defence over the years, so I'm not aware of
2 their concern in that because it would -- it would be a real burden for
3 CLSS to translate this.
4 Now, if there are particular areas or autopsy reports that the
5 Defence is concerned with, we will of course join them and get them to
6 CLSS, but Dr. Haglund is not a forensic pathologist, though he, as you
7 heard before, as an anthropologist, his -- he worked with the
8 pathologists in the morgue to help them but he -- to assist everyone
9 initially he attached those to his record. No other autopsy reports of
10 John Clark and the other pathologists have ever been translated and I
11 don't recall there being a problem when Dr. Clark came in, so I would --
12 I may be mistaken but we are ready to work with the Defence on that, but
13 it's just one of those things that I don't really think is necessary but
14 I would like to hear from Mr. Gajic on that point.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Let's hear Mr. Gajic.
16 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, presumably both the
17 Chamber and the OTP are aware of the fact that Mr. Tolimir does not speak
18 English. Under our 94 bis filing, I don't recall the date of the filing,
19 we drew your attention to the problem of translation, i.e., that not all
20 the documents have their respective translations. This was a long time
21 ago, and ahead of Mr. Tolimir's cross-examination of any witness,
22 Mr. Tolimir needs to have the Serbian text of all the documents before
23 him. It is at times difficult for the Defence to have such voluminous
24 documents translated itself through its own resources, due to the fact
25 that some of the translations are lacking or are taking a long time to be
1 made. As for the first five documents on the list here, they are very
2 important documents. It is true that they were admitted as Defence
3 exhibits in other cases. However, this witness appears here under 92
4 ter. In other words, under the rules all the documentation admitted
5 pursuant to this rule has to have respective translations. Equally so,
6 whenever the Defence wishes to have documents admitted that exist only in
7 the Serbian version they are marked for identification until they receive
8 their translation. And lastly, of course, Mr. Tolimir would very much
9 like to have documents admitted into evidence which he can understand.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I suggest to proceed in the following way. First
11 we receive the transcript in the Popovic case, 65 ter 6647 as an exhibit
12 under the P number 1306. All the other documents listed in the list of
13 the Prosecution will be admitted, some of them marked for identification
14 pending translation. I will not read them out into the record.
15 Everybody knows which is only in English and which is already translated.
16 The Chamber would invite the parties to contact and discuss the matter
17 and to look into the documents, which of them are really necessary to be
18 translated for a fair trial, and in which cases there is no need for
19 that. And then we -- both parties should come back to the Chamber at a
20 later stage.
21 Not to save more time of the examination of the witness, Mr.
22 McCloskey, please continue.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sure we'll work
24 something out on that. So I will take a moment to read a summary of
25 Dr. Haglund and then some short, hopefully very brief, questions.
1 Dr. Haglund is a forensic anthropologist from the United States.
2 He has been conducting forensic investigations since 1993. In addition
3 to his extensive domestic experience, he has worked internationally,
4 including work for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
5 in East Timor, Somaliland, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Dr. Haglund also
6 worked for the ICTR in 1996 and was involved significantly in those --
7 some of those investigation exhumations. He also began work for the ICTY
8 in 1996 through middle of 1998 when he finished his final reports. He
9 was the senior forensic consultant for the OTP at that time.
10 As senior forensic consultant in 1996, Dr. Haglund led a team in
11 the excavation and exhumation of several mass graves associated with the
12 fall of Srebrenica, including the graves at Cerska, Nova Kasaba, Lazete
13 which we know to be the area of Orahovac, and Pilica. While Dr. Haglund
14 himself is not an archaeologist, he had archeologists on his exhumation
15 team working with him and advising him.
16 After exhuming human remains from graves, forensic
17 anthropologists, together with forensic pathologists, worked at the
18 morgue and examined and, when necessary, reconstructed victims' remains
19 so as to determine their sex and age as well as the minimum number of
20 individuals contained in each grave, by examining their bones.
21 Dr. Haglund and the forensic anthropologists also helped pathologists
22 identify injuries to skeletal remains, though Dr. Haglund did not spend a
23 lot of time at the morgue.
24 Dr. Haglund prepared reports setting out his team's findings in
25 respect of each of the grave sites and he enclosed the autopsy reports of
1 the forensic pathologists and many of the indexes to his reports.
2 During the course of their work, Dr. Haglund and his team also
3 documented items, including ligatures and blindfolds that they found with
4 the bodies in the graves. For instance, of the 33 victims found at the
5 Nova Kasaba grave sites, 27 of them had bindings around their arms. Some
6 of these victims were still in the kneeling position with their torsos
7 and heads bent forward and their hands tied behind their backs. The vast
8 majority of those victims at Nova Kasaba found in this position had
9 suffered gunshot wounds to the head. In the Pilica grave, Dr. Haglund
10 and his team recovered a minimum of 132 individuals. In the Cerska
11 grave, Dr. Haglund and his team recovered 150 individuals.
12 Back in 1996, there were some complaints against Dr. Haglund by
13 some of his colleagues in relation to his work on the Srebrenica-related
14 mass graves. The allegations were investigated by a panel of experts
15 whose findings are set out in the San Antonio oversight committee report.
16 Of the 17 professionals involved in the work with Dr. Haglund and
17 interviewed by the panel, 14 professionals were favourable to Dr. Haglund
18 and four had some complaints. One of the criticisms was that Dr. Haglund
19 worked too fast and brought too many bodies out of the grave in one day.
20 The panel reviewed these complaints and did not find any evidence of
21 wrong doing by Dr. Haglund or anything that he did or his team did that
22 jeopardised the scientific validity of his findings. However, the panel
23 did find that the forensic pathologists overseeing the work at the morgue
24 acted inappropriately when, in some cases, he changed the cause of death
25 in autopsy reports without consulting the pathologist who had conducted
1 the original autopsy. Dr. Haglund was aware of the process that the OTP
2 went through where it went around the world and provided all of the
3 original reports of the -- to the original pathologists for their review
4 and for their final conclusion on the cause of death.
5 Dr. Haglund testified as an expert in several ICTR cases,
6 including the case of the Prosecutor versus Georges Rutaganda. In the
7 final judgement of that case, the Trial Chamber set aside part of the
8 conclusions of Dr. Haglund based on their analysis of the testimony of
9 the Defence expert on the same subject.
10 Q. Now, Dr. Haglund, is there -- as you will recall we went over
11 those complaints in much more detail in your last testimony. Is there
12 anything regarding any of what I have read, especially those complaints,
13 that you want to add at this time?
14 A. Not at this time.
15 Q. All right. And so let me just take us very briefly, Pilica. The
16 Trial Chamber has been to the area where you were working. Can you just
17 describe briefly so they can get an idea of what was the size of that
18 grave, as you -- as you exhumed it?
19 A. The depression that -- indicated the grave was at 28 metres long
20 and 6 metres, I think 6 metres wide.
21 Q. Okay. And do you recall roughly how deep it was at its deepest
23 A. At the deepest point it was nearly 3 metres deep.
24 Q. And did you find any bodies in that hole?
25 A. Yes, at the extreme end of the grave, there were -- there was a
1 pile of an assemblage of remains, 132 individuals.
2 Q. Okay. And Cerska, were you the first one to really arrive and do
3 a full exhumation of the Cerska grave?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Can you just -- just very briefly, describe to the Court what you
6 did and what you found on that grave, just so they can get a little
7 feeling of it.
8 A. Do you want me to describe the situation there and --
9 Q. As you got there, just as best you can recollect, and then just
10 the size, the number of bodies?
11 A. The Cerska grave was on a gravelled road, going up a little
12 mountain area to the village of Cerska. The grave was at the side of the
13 road where an embankment, when they did the road they made a cut in the
14 road so that there was a steep area where earth had been removed to put
15 the road in, and then the continuing slope on the other side. There was
16 a gaping hole where soil and gravel had been removed from that cut, and
17 the bodies and the -- there were clusters of ammunition on that side of
18 the grave. On the other side of the grave, overlooking the slope, it
19 became evident that the killers had stood on the far side of the grave,
20 that the individuals that were being killed were lined up alongside the
21 grave and were shot from where the gravel had been taken place across the
22 way. They had been lined up, we saw clusters of cartridge casings that
23 were ejected from automatic weapons as the guns had been fired, and then
24 the people that had been shot had been -- had fallen over the edge or
25 were rolled over the edge, and then at that time the gravel was moved by
1 machine and then the bodies were covered up on that slope, about six
2 metres down and about 30 metres long, they were spread out along lines
3 apparently when they were shot.
4 Q. Can you give us -- you made some conclusions there. Can you tell
5 us before you go any further what are you basing your conclusion on that
6 it was, for example, this soil or this dirt was moved by machines over
7 the top of the bodies?
8 A. They had had the gouge in that area in order to remove that, it
9 had to reach high and they wouldn't have been able to do it by shovel.
10 They had to do it by machine.
11 Q. And you also concluded that the victims were shot. Can you -- do
12 you have any -- any factors that led you to this conclusion that you can
13 tell us about?
14 A. Well, certainly the cartridge casings that were clustered in
15 various clusters on the far side of the road, and when the gravel and
16 the -- and the fill, to cover up the remains, was removed, some of those
17 cartridge casings were also and included in the fill of the grave when
18 they covered the bodies. And then the pathologists determined from the
19 angles of shots, they knew that the shooters were lined up in a row, they
20 came to that conclusion, and they saw different directions of shots for
21 individuals. Individuals standing in one place would sort of in a spray
22 type, as it was, motion were shooting at the individuals, with somebody
23 from another position be shooting at them from another angle and so they
24 would have different angles in the shots.
25 Q. How about the remains themselves? Did you find any -- any
1 evidence in the grave -- in and around the remains that gave you any
2 indications of execution?
3 A. Well, the -- of the 149, there were gunshot wounds, there were 48
4 ligatures found in the grave. Some of them associated with the remains,
5 but -- and some of them on the remains actually them self, the hands or
6 arms were bound behind the backs, mostly with wire ligatures. And these
7 individuals were not in one place but they were found amongst other
8 bodies that didn't have ligatures in the same -- in the grave.
9 Q. All right. And can you tell us whether you were able to
10 determine whether this was a primary undisturbed grave or whether this
11 grave had been disturbed? These are terms that this Court is of course
12 at this point very well familiar with.
13 A. It was a primary undisturbed grave.
14 Q. How about Pilica? Were you able to make a determination on that?
15 A. That was a bit more complex. The grave for the most part of
16 it -- a very large grave, only on one end of the grave, the far end of
17 the grave, from where the digging had been started to make a ramp down
18 into the grave, there was only that one pile with some of --
19 disassociated remains that were recovered from a couple other places but
20 most of them intermingled with the pile of individuals there. And
21 amongst the pile there was also a vegetation that was consistent with the
22 vegetation that was by the road coming in from the farm and to the area
23 of the grave, and that could have been caused by the bodies shot in the
24 field and maybe a front end loader or machine like that would scrape up
25 the bodies. As they scraped up the bodies, they would picked up portions
1 of sod and grasses from the area where the individuals were shot, and as
2 they picked them up in that way, then the pushing bodies with the front
3 end loader to get this expanse of bodies picked up, they would be cutting
4 some of them in pieces and separating some of the body parts. And so
5 when these were in the grave, we found pieces of sod, we found some
6 disarticulated bodies, some bodies that were still complete, et cetera,
7 mixed up in one pile.
8 Q. Did you -- were you able to form a conclusion whether or not that
9 Pilica had been disturbed in the sense that had it -- you saw other
11 A. Well, having been moved into the grave, to me it wasn't that as
12 clear as the Lazete grave, and maybe a lot of the soil itself that would
13 have been contaminated by human bodies decomposing and leaking into the
14 substrate, we didn't find that, only in the area where the pile of bodies
15 was, the assemblage of the victims. That doesn't mean it was not
16 disturbed, but I didn't have the information that would allow me to -- to
17 say that concretely. It seemed more consistent to me at that time that
18 the disarticulation, et cetera, was -- was due to the bodies being placed
19 in the field and then scraped up by machine, but that was still an open
20 thing. I didn't feel I should -- I would just wait and see what happened
21 with other exhumations.
22 Q. And did you ever have a chance in those early days of 1996 to
23 take part in any exhumations of secondary graves?
24 A. No. No. I had no -- no.
25 Q. All right. And you mention that Lazete in your view was a
1 secondary -- was disturbed and the Trial Chamber has heard quite a bit of
2 evidence on it, you've testified previously on that so I won't go into
3 that, but I do want to ask you about one thing. The Trial Chamber has
4 heard from a forensic -- I believe he was an archaeologist that I'm sure
5 you know, Fredy Peccerelli?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And his exhumation of a grave at Lazete, the one that is closest
8 to the railroad tracks?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. I think it was referred to you as Lazete 2B. Can you tell us,
11 did you -- did you exhume Lazete 2B in 1996?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And did you get all the bodies out of it, as far as you knew when
14 you were there doing it?
15 A. Yes, I knew that at least one individual was there. It was a
16 time -- indeed, if you recall, that was a big long trench where bodies
17 were dumped in separate piles, and the part -- at the time it was a very
18 torrential rainy season, the grave was about three metres deep, the sides
19 of the grave were collapsing, and it was a danger to the workers in the
20 field and I determined that we should stop the exhumation at that time.
21 People would know there were remains in there, recorded that, and that it
22 could be returned to at some other future time when the weather wasn't as
23 dangerous for security of the individuals working in the grave.
24 Q. And one last topic that I think you perhaps -- you're perhaps one
25 of the only people that can really talk about, and that is the security
1 situation on the ground in 1996. We are more familiar with the situation
2 as it is today, but can you tell us what kind of security threat, if
3 there was one, what kind of security you had, just give us a feel for
4 what -- what you were up against in those days, just briefly.
5 A. In the area where the -- of the Tuzla area of where the autopsies
6 were performed, it was relatively safe. The scientists could drive their
7 vehicles to and from Tuzla to where the examination area was. It was
8 next to a military base also. In the Republika Srpska --
9 Q. Let me interrupt you. When you say military base, which
11 A. It was a -- what they called it then, it was an American military
13 Q. So it was NATO?
14 A. It was a NATO base, excuse me.
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. In the Republika Srpska, the workers were -- had to stay at a
17 NATO base, and when we -- nobody drove -- they were not allowed to drive
18 alone anywhere. They -- in the mornings, before the team went to the
19 scenes, Bradleys were sent to the scene -- the team to, for instance in
20 Cerska, to guard the road entering into the road up to the village of
21 Cerska and alongside which was the Cerska grave.
22 Q. When you say Bradleys, again --
23 A. These are small tanks, small -- various -- well, small, small
24 military tanks. And then when the -- the workers were taken and the
25 scientists were taken to the grave site. They went in a convoy with two
1 Humvee vehicles in front with 55 calibre machine-guns and two of them in
2 the back and that's the only way they could travel to get to and from the
3 gives, and the soldiers would stay all day to guard the graves, and --
4 however, there was a problem with the security, and there was a mention
5 in the -- what -- can I remember the -- oh, I'll remember in a second.
6 But there was a problem, according to the Dayton agreement, excuse me, of
7 the -- NATO did not have to guard the graves. They had many, many other
8 priorities, they didn't have the resources to set people on grave, to
9 guard the graves, but the Dayton agreement said that they needed to
10 protect the workers for ICTY, working on the graves. So the first
11 evening we -- they had -- of the ICTY had hired some guards on the grave
12 in the morning and that was just the first day we were there and we
13 were -- the dogs were going through and do -- we had to do ordnance.
14 Looking for ordnance, we wouldn't put anybody on a grave until we'd -- we
15 were using dog teams for the most part and they would go through very
16 efficiently through the grave to see if there was any unexploded
17 ordnance. That was completed the first day, with -- initial mapping and
18 the grave was not open, but the individuals that had been left at the
19 grave were not there in the morning. They had been threatened by a local
20 population and they got afraid and they left.
21 So the second day, towards the afternoon, when our workers and
22 myself would have to go back to the army base, I refused to leave the
23 grave, and I was told that there were many correspondences between
24 Brussels and between the NATO leaders of the military -- of NATO command,
25 the -- where we were staying at the military base, and they finally
1 decided that they would leave soldiers there to guard us throughout the
2 night, and so myself, John Gerns, and Jose Pablo who were ICTY employees,
3 two of us would stay there every night through the time that we did that
4 grave and we were guarded by NATO troops.
5 Q. Did you get any visible air support in any way?
6 A. Yes. In the initial time we would have Harrier flyovers at
7 various times during the day.
8 Q. And did you have any assurance from day to day whether you would
9 be able to actually go back to the -- to the grave to conduct your work?
10 A. No. It was a pretty uncertain time because there would be
11 incidents in the Republika Srpska that made travelling in that not as
12 easy, and the military would concentrate on those areas and they didn't
13 have -- wouldn't have had time to deal with us.
14 Q. Thank you, Dr. Haglund. I don't have any other questions.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. McCloskey. I have to
16 come back, I'm sorry for that, to the documents we have admitted into
17 evidence or marked for identification, that was only related to the
18 documents starting with P1307 through P1334.
19 Then in the memorandum of the Registry we have four additional
20 documents with some problems, the first of them, the first three of them,
21 are part of your list you provided the Chamber with. The first P number
22 is wrong. It should read P1071 instead of 1017. That is also received
23 like the two additional ones, 1072 and 1073. Then there is listed
24 P01221, and that is in effect the same as the document P1359 in the next
25 internal memorandum of the Registry of the 12th of November 2010. This
1 document has two different numbers but is the same. That should be
2 figured out and the Registry should remove one of them, if I am not
4 In your list, there is P13 -- no, sorry. You have listed the 65
5 ter number 06653. That is not admitted into evidence at the moment
6 because you didn't use it with this witness, and it was not used in the
7 prior trial.
8 I hope I was able to make it clear, this is P1360 MFI.
9 Mr. McCloskey?
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. The memo I had
11 didn't have that last one on it, but I thank you for clarifying that.
12 The other internal memo you referred to that -- apparently there is a
13 list of the Krstic testimony twice, we didn't get internal memo but
14 I thank you for correcting that and we just need that Krstic testimony in
15 only once. And I thank the Court's efforts for sorting this out, and we
16 will continue to make sure that we sort this out so that you're not
17 having to.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You didn't use the document P01360. This is an
19 article titled, "Scientists Quest for Justice" with this witness. This
20 is not admitted yet.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, we don't need that. Leave that where it is,
22 thank you.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. That clarifies the situation.
24 Mr. Tolimir, now it is time for your cross-examination. Please
25 go ahead.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I would
2 like to greet everybody. May peace be unto this house and may this day
3 in court and the final judgement reflect God's will and not my will.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I would like to great Dr. Haglund, welcome here, and also I wish
7 you a safe journey home once this is over. I would like to start from
8 the last issue that you mentioned. You said that in certain situation
9 you needed air support and also on land you needed guards to guard you
10 while you were working. Could you tell me exactly on which location
11 these measures were necessary?
12 A. The planes, I had nothing to do with. The military did that.
13 But that was only at the Cerska grave that I'm aware of that happened.
14 On all other graves, we had the accompaniment of a NATO contingent for
16 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us why were these guards necessary in
17 Cerska? Thank you.
18 A. Well, as I think it's demonstrated that the first guards at the
19 first grave the first night we were working in the field, they were of --
20 by local residents, they were threatened by local residents enough to
21 scare them away from being at the grave site.
22 Q. Thank you. Are you aware of the fact that in Cerska, there is no
23 other population except Muslims? That place where you worked, did you
24 notice any Muslim settlements or Serb settlements there?
25 A. We never stopped at any of those settlements. We just drove
1 straight to the grave, so I'm not familiar with what groups were there.
2 Q. Thank you. However, just a minute ago you said that the guards
3 were attacked while guarding the place. So if there was no local
4 population there, who else could have attacked them in your estimate?
5 A. I never said that they were attacked. I said they were
6 threatened. How that happened, I do not know. They were not there but
7 they had informed some of the military, before they left, that they had
8 been threatened, they were leaving. That's all I know.
9 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me, did you speak to any of those
10 individuals who declared that they had been threatened in Cerska, and do
11 you know exactly who made those threats and in which way?
12 A. I'm not aware of that, no. I do not know.
13 Q. Thank you. A moment ago, page 20, line 24, you said that the
14 International Tribunal hired some people to act as guards. Do you
15 remember that you said that a moment ago during the direct examination?
16 A. They hired some people to guard the grave in the evenings, yes,
17 and then subsequently, they used their own people to guard the graves in
18 the evenings.
19 Q. Thank you. So those guards were there, why exactly? Because
20 they hired them or because there was a real need to have guards at the
21 locality where you worked?
22 A. It's absolutely, it's -- it has to do with the chain of custody
23 and the chain of evidence. Once a grave is opened, then it's liable to
24 be interfered with, at least that's always a problem with the Court and
25 the Defence, they are going to attack you if you have not been in charge
1 of that grave in one way or secured that grave for the complete time that
2 you've been there working, and that was necessary. Otherwise your
3 evidence would not stand up in at least in American courts I know, and
4 I sort of went towards the -- that -- the ideas that I have learned and
5 had utilised in the United States, and so they have to have somebody
6 there at all times.
7 Q. Thank you. A moment ago you said that you left one grave site.
8 Can you tell us where was it? You mentioned that you left the grave
9 because of the weather conditions, so can you tell us was that particular
10 grave site under guard until you returned?
11 A. The grave was covered up again with drive-bys by the military and
12 we could have told if it was at some times -- it wasn't until two years
13 that that grave was -- the other remains were removed. At the time I was
14 there, we collected information that you'll see in the reports, but we --
15 we left the remains in there at the bottom of that grave, at least the
16 one that we knew was there, because it was just too dangerous for people
17 to work in the grave.
18 If I might clarify, I'm sorry, but the grave did receive those
19 drive-by looks at the grave to see if it had been disturbed, but the
20 subsequent exhumation of the grave showed that the archeologists did not
21 see any disturbance of how -- from the time that since we had left the
22 grave the way it was. When they removed the remains, they saw the same
23 things that we did in the bottom of the grave and they -- when they found
24 that one individual and they found some others beside it.
25 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that it was only an assumption that
1 there could be a threat to the people who worked on the graves, or was
2 there a real danger as a cause to engage both NATO and air support and
3 all these things that you mentioned? Thank you.
4 A. It was the -- in respect to the chain of custody that we had to
5 guard the grave as we were working on it. As far as the protection and
6 ensurance of security for the teams, that was a NATO decision.
7 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, was it very expensive to pay for all
8 these forces giving all this security, protecting the crew that was
9 performing the expert work on the locality? Thank you.
10 A. That -- they did that work, I have no idea how expensive it was.
11 I imagine it cost them, but they didn't let it interfere with their
12 duties at the -- other duties they had to do; for instance, when there
13 was an election, I believe, at that time they asked us to not work those
14 days so that they could use their troops to make sure that the election
15 went along in a satisfactory and peaceful manner.
16 Q. Can you tell us which year, which period?
17 A. This is 1996, would have been from -- it was -- we were there
18 from July through late August or September.
19 Q. Thank you. On page 13, during the direct examination,
20 Mr. McCloskey said that the pathologist changed the cause of death and
21 you confirmed it. Can you elaborate on this? Thank you.
22 A. I wasn't aware there was a change until I was told that, and that
23 was after the exhumations pretty much were finished. That was only the
24 director of the -- representing the Physicians for Human Rights. His
25 changes were made. The changes that he made were -- many pathologists
1 come from different areas and they would -- the cause of death was
2 different. Some of them would say there are five gunshot wounds to the
3 head, and other people would say it's multiple gunshot wounds that caused
4 the deaths, and I think what Dr. Kirschner was trying to do was saying in
5 order for putting these things, reports and stuff together, to say
6 multiple gunshot wounds, his problem was that he didn't apparently talk
7 to some of the pathologists and that was -- that was changing their
8 reports and that was not a proper thing to do. I was not involved with
9 that, so ... I was not aware that it was going on, and it wasn't my place
10 because Dr. Kirschner was officially in charge of the autopsy procedures,
11 et cetera.
12 Q. Thank you. A moment ago, you mentioned the Medecins Sans
13 Frontieres or Physicians for Human Rights. So can you tell us what were
14 they doing there and what was their role during exhumations? Thank you.
15 A. The Physicians for Human Rights was asked by Dr. Goldstone
16 because of their experience internationally in doing this kind of work
17 and humanitarian work and identifying individuals, if they could put
18 together a team of volunteers, they were not paid. They got a little,
19 minor subsistence allowance, and so they, and basically I knew most of
20 the people that were working in the area and I picked out the people that
21 came, and what they did so as much a volunteer because they weren't
22 really being paid. When ICTY started sending people in, and then they
23 started paying them wages. And I'm not sure I clarified the -- an answer
24 to your question. I think I've forgotten part of it, but they were there
25 at the behest of the Tribunal, essentially, because it was known that
1 they were probably the best group to do something like that because they
2 had experience.
3 Q. Thank you. Now that you mention this, can you also tell us who
4 was the founder of this organisation, Physicians for Human Rights?
5 A. That was a group of physicians from, I believe in Boston, I'm not
6 too sure who founded, the individual that founded it. You would be able
7 to find out on their website, I'm sure, but I'm not aware.
8 Q. Can you tell us who would pay the subsistence to those volunteers
9 during which period and from which source?
10 A. I'm not aware of their financial things, but they were given
11 money by various human rights groups and the -- they got some money from
12 a group in Belgium, I know, and various other contributions. They --
13 they survive on contributions and getting grants for particular projects
14 and that.
15 Q. Thank you. So besides this financing, can you also tell us, did
16 they have any formal or informal connections with official institutions
17 of the United States, since you told us that their headquarters was in
19 A. Do you mean with government organisations? Is that what you're
21 Q. Thank you. Yes. That's what I said. Both official and
22 unofficial institutions there.
23 A. Of -- they did not deal with government institutions. Moneys
24 that came to that project for the exhumations came from non-governmental
25 entities, not from the government. That was very explicit in their
2 Q. Thank you. Can you also tell us whether the majority of similar
3 organisations is financed in the same way, that is from the
4 non-governmental sector, and then they also receive some donations, and
5 you certainly, as an American, have some personal experience about it,
6 could you also tell us what is the way in which they procure their
7 financing? And does that mean that they were better paid than you people
8 working for the International Tribunal?
9 A. I'm not aware of the financial connection that the groups like
10 the Argentinians and the Guatemalans have, I have no idea. I'm aware of
11 the individuals that have worked with me, but I'm not aware of their --
12 their financial arrangements and that.
13 Q. Thank you. A moment ago, you said that they were invited by a
14 certain physician or more precisely, Dr. Goldstone. I don't want to make
15 any mistakes about it, but I want to ask you the following: If he
16 invited them, how could it be that they performed the exhumation of mass
17 graves? That's a job where only experts should be engaged in, experts
18 who can be responsible for the job that they do. Thank you.
19 A. Dr. Goldstone asked the Physicians for Human Rights to pick out
20 the team. He did not pick out team members. And we had worked with
21 human rights groups throughout the world and the most experienced at that
22 time for skeletal remains in mass graves -- because we don't have many
23 mass graves in the United States, we had individuals from I think at
24 least 15 different countries. We tried to pick out the experts that we
25 thought were most -- most useful. We had one Argentinian, I think three
1 Guatemalans, I had somebody from Peru, various human rights groups, and
2 those human rights groups really didn't have a great deal to do with the
3 governments. That's what they were -- they were doing -- they were doing
4 work that the government -- they were doing remains and recovering
5 remains and trying to identify them that the government, the previous
6 government, had killed, so they didn't have a really good relationship
7 with the government. They weren't -- I don't think they were getting
8 money at that time from governments. But I'm not sure.
9 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us who is this Dr. Goldstone that you
10 mentioned? And what was his role in relation to you and the teams that
11 performed their work there, that performed exhumations? Thank you.
12 A. Well, he was the -- in charge of ICTY, as far as investigations
13 go. He was a Supreme Court judge from South Africa.
14 Q. Thank you. Did he impose the teams on you, Mr. Goldstone and the
15 International Tribunal, or did you have a free hand to choose them
16 according to their competence? Thank you.
17 A. When I take -- undertake a job, then basically no one tells me
18 who I can hire and what kind of expertise I need and what I need to do.
19 I know what to do. No, I had no -- no prodding, no -- from anybody, in
20 choosing the teams, no interference by the Tribunal at all.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have now in e-court P1071?
23 It is one of the reports -- it says on the front page, Dr. William
24 Haglund, senior forensic adviser of the ICTY and the organisation
25 Physicians for Human Rights. Thank you. Okay. We can see it now.
1 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I would like to ask you the following, if you can give us your
3 answer. When in this report you mention organisations for human rights,
4 can you tell us, during the exhumations in Bosnia that you took part in,
5 which function did you have within Physicians for Human Rights?
6 A. I work with the Tribunal not for Physicians for Human Rights. I
7 had done some work for them prior to 1996, but I was an employee of the
8 United Nations.
9 Q. Thank you. And how much time had elapsed between your working
10 for them and in Bosnia? And what were the locations that you worked on?
11 A. Mostly Honduras.
12 Q. Thank you. Later on, when you finished exhumations in Bosnia,
13 did you have any connections with the Physicians for Human Rights?
14 A. From -- I recall when I first started. From mid-1998 through,
15 I think, 2000, I was the director of their international forensic
16 investigation department.
17 Q. So can we say, then, that you knew them well, both before you
18 worked in Bosnia and after, when you continued your work with them?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I can see here, in the report, that you were senior forensic
21 adviser of the Tribunal. So my question is: Were you the senior
22 forensic adviser of the Tribunal or of the OTP of the Tribunal?
23 A. Senior forensic adviser.
24 Q. Can you tell us were you senior forensic adviser of the Tribunal
25 or of the Prosecutor's Office?
1 A. I was -- I would presume that I work with the Prosecutor's Office
2 for that. That's who I related to for the most, yes.
3 Q. Thank you. So can I then say that you were an adviser of the
4 Prosecutor's Office based on your answer? Or should I question you
5 further on in this regard?
6 A. In regards to the exhumation, yes, I was the adviser, for the --
7 for the exhumation work on the team that I led.
8 Q. Thank you. Well, can you then tell us who was your immediate
9 superior, which person or body from which you received your tasks? For
10 instance, where you had to go, what you had to do and similar things.
11 A. In 1995, I did assessments for both Rwanda and for -- for ICTY.
12 At that time, in Rwanda, I assessed graves to see what they were like,
13 how kinds of -- you know, there were latrines, there were caves, there
14 were buried remains, remains on the surfaces, remains in latrines, and I
15 had to go through and pick out graves that had not been disturbed that
16 would have the most evidence, and then I gave them a listing of those,
17 and based on the trials that they were prepared to proceed on, that was
18 how the decision would be made. I would suggest what I thought would be
19 the best grave, and usually they would accept that and that's how they
20 were chosen. In 1995, when I finished in Rwanda, I was asked to come by
21 the ICTY, and if I would do some assessments for them. And I did that at
22 that time also.
23 Q. Thank you. I understood that. My question, however, was: Who
24 gave you the tasks? Who told you what to do in the localities, such as
25 Cerska, Lazete, and other places?
1 A. Well, the protocols for autopsy were written by the --
2 Dr. Kirschner, and the protocols for the exhumation, et cetera, those
3 were -- those were from me, and the examination of skeletons, that came
4 from me. I wasn't told by anybody what we needed to do to complete an
5 exhumation or the examination of remains. I was familiar with those
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, would that be a convenient time for
8 our first break?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'm going
10 to continue after the break.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
12 Mr. Haglund, we must have our first break now and we will resume
13 at quarter past 4.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir. Please continue.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Haglund, we stopped just as I was about to ask you who it was
20 who gave you tasks as to which locations you should attend. So first of
21 all, who gave you the task to go to Bosnia and specifically to Cerska,
22 et cetera? Or was it a matter of your own choice? Thank you.
23 A. It was a matter of being requested to do it. It was my choice to
24 do so. I'd like to clarify one thing, if I may, from our last part of
25 the testimony. I sat down in the waiting room and I felt like maybe
1 I was acting as a dictator or something, but I had a wonderful group of
2 people, some experts had more expertise in certain areas than I did, and
3 I'd work with many of them and I trusted them very well. And as well,
4 ICTY. And I had not worked with lot with them, but the people that
5 worked for me, they had had good suggestions and they had information
6 that I didn't have and I listened to them. It's just that I was -- you
7 probably have been in the same position, you have to make the final
8 decision, but we are dependent upon the great workers we work with and
9 the information they'd have often times to help us make our decisions.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Haglund. Please tell us, before leaving for
11 Bosnia, did you come to the Tribunal here and, if so, who did you meet
12 with and who told you what your tasks in Bosnia would be? Thank you.
13 A. I came to the Tribunal before I went to Rwanda, because of the --
14 the head of the -- Dr. Goldstone was actually in charge of Rwanda as well
15 as ICTY, as far as the investigations were going.
16 Q. Thank you. Does this mean that before leaving for the former
17 Yugoslavia, you first got in touch with Dr. Goldstone?
18 A. No, I came to the -- here to talk to the -- the only -- the head
19 investigator -- for the head investigator for -- but this individual was
20 the head for two organisations -- for Rwanda, and I don't know if it was
21 here but he was staying here, not in Rwanda at the time. So I was -- it
22 was interesting -- and I needed to come and be more familiar with the
23 situation down there and of what I might expect as far as living,
24 et cetera, and that, and who I needed to speak to in Kigali, Rwanda, the
25 capital, where the investigation unit was.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, do you recall the name of this head
3 THE WITNESS: Off-hand, do I not recall it, no.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Haglund, tell us, had you known the head of investigations
8 from before, and did you know what his authority was and what his duties
9 were, since he was in that other place? Thank you.
10 A. I'd never met him before, but he was involved with investigations
11 going on in Rwanda. I never saw him in Rwanda.
12 Q. Did you meet him in the former Yugoslavia? Thank you.
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you contact him at any point after your departure from
15 Rwanda? Thank you.
16 A. No. By then I think they had a separate investigation head in
17 Rwanda and in ICTY.
18 Q. Thank you. On your arrival in the territory of the former
19 Yugoslavia, who received you and who gave you tasks relating to specific
20 locations? Thank you.
21 A. In late 1995, when I came back from Rwanda and was asked to look
22 at some grave site, I went with Jean-Rene Ruez and team 6, who were
23 looking for information in -- in Republika Srpska on mass graves and
24 things like that, and interviewing people, et cetera.
25 Q. Thank you. Let us look at page 8 of your report, if we can have
1 it shown, that's P1071, the document we see on our screens. We are
2 interested in paragraph 2, where you say:
3 "In the course of a subsequent investigation, on the 29th of May
4 1996, through the mediation of Jean-Rene Ruez, a grave site was uncovered
5 in Cerska."
6 Can you find that at all?
7 A. It was discovered at that time, yes, what they thought was a
8 grave, yes.
9 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me what sort of a relationship you had
10 as chief anthropologist with the head of investigations, Jean-Rene Ruez,
11 in relation to the Cerska site? What was it that you did in the process
12 of exhumations?
13 A. Well, they were not exhumations. He was never -- he never came
14 to a site when we did exhumations. That was done in 1996. It was more
15 an exploratory visit to see if we could find the graves. In fact, we
16 drove up and down that road to Cerska and we never discovered the site of
17 the grave. It was discovered after a time that I had not been there. So
18 I never saw that particular grave until I went to do the exhumation.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. McCloskey, you were on your
21 feet, I'm sorry.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Because of problems with the right page of the
23 document but now we have the right one on the screen.
24 Judge Nyambe has a question for Mr. Haglund.
25 JUDGE NYAMBE: Yes, Dr. Haglund, I wonder if you can assist to
1 clarify this. At page 21, no, at line 21, page 36, you have stated that
2 it was discovered after a time that I had not been there. What exactly
3 do you mean?
4 THE WITNESS: Apparently, team 6 knew that there was a grave in
5 that area, but the -- apparently the individual that told them where it
6 was wasn't able to tell them the exact place, and so it had to be
7 somewhere on that road between where the road left the highway and
8 several kilometres up the mountain side where the village of Cerska was.
9 But driving up and down the road, it was -- the grave was not found at
10 the time that I was there. We did not recognise the area where the grave
12 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Nyambe.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Haglund, perhaps my question wasn't clear enough. To what
17 extent did you co-operate with Ruez in the course of exhumations and
18 examinations of exhumed bodies and artifacts? Let me be quite precise.
19 I wasn't interested in your personal relationship but your professional
20 relationship. Thank you.
21 A. He had nothing to do with the exhumations or the autopsies or the
22 protocols that went into them and the work that I did and the team
23 members that I had. He was never around and it was my area to make final
24 decisions on and I did that with my -- the people that worked with me,
25 the forensic scientists.
1 Q. Thank you. In the last sentence of paragraph 3, it reads:
2 "These investigations were carried out by experts from Physicians
3 for Human Rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
4 Yugoslavia under the auspices of the ICTY."
5 Can you tell me which investigations are you referring to here in
6 relation to these two institutions? Thank you.
7 A. It was for the -- there was one forensic evidence individual who
8 collected evidence at our scenes, and there was a photographer, I think
9 from Belgium, might have been from the Netherlands, that took some of our
10 photographs for us. There were only a few, maybe one more, I can't
11 recall this right off-hand, that was on -- that worked with our team.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And in order to understand your answer correctly,
13 this photographer and the other people you are referring to, they worked
14 for the Physicians for Human Rights; is that correct?
15 THE WITNESS: I believe they worked -- they probably were paid by
16 the -- by ICTY or donated by the government, whichever country they came
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But again, I think Mr. Tolimir were asking you
19 about the relation between the organisation Physicians for Human Rights
20 and the ICTY, indeed, in my understanding this sentence in your report is
21 not quite clear, "The investigations were carried out by experts from
22 Physicians for Human Rights and International Criminal Tribunal for the
23 former Yugoslavia."
24 THE WITNESS: Okay.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The interrelation between these two entities and
1 your relation to these people, this is of interest.
2 THE WITNESS: Okay. The Physicians for Human Rights, of course,
3 accepted the invitation to have experts sent. We determined for the most
4 part the experts. They paid for that part, a subsistence allowance while
5 they were there, and then they would communicate if there was any
6 problems or anything that they needed. They -- to my knowledge, they may
7 have requested maybe things done by the Tribunal that they couldn't
8 afford to do or something. I don't know really. But as far as help and
9 experts, as far as members of the team, for the most part that was a
10 Physicians for Human Rights obligation.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Were these experts of Physicians for Human Rights
12 normal members of your team which you headed?
13 THE WITNESS: Well, there never had been a team like this put
14 together before, an international team, so I'd worked with some of the
15 individuals in Croatia in 1993, from Argentina mostly and Latin America,
16 and got to know them, and that was a human rights project also, working
17 for the commission that came in to look at the Vukovar situation and
18 other possible problems with the war.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I interrupt you? My question was: Was their
20 relation to you the same as of the other members of the team to you, as
21 the head of this group of experts?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes. I was the head of them. They sent them to
23 me, the Physicians for Human Rights sent the experts as far as the
24 anthropology and archaeology and the majority at the scene were -- they
25 sent them to me at my request. I requested them, particular individuals.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And during that time they worked in this team,
2 they had only obligations for the team and to you but not any obligation
3 for reporting to Physicians for Human Rights or something like that?
4 THE WITNESS: No, no, no.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: They got the task only from you?
6 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, for your
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. I have this question for Mr. Haglund: What sort of authority did
12 the Physicians for Human Rights have as opposed to the authorities vested
13 with the ICTY staff in relation to the exhumations conducted before the
14 bodies and artifacts were, in fact, exhumed?
15 A. Are you asking what relationship? I'm not quite certain. Could
16 you clarify that a bit? I'm -- it's probably me but --
17 Q. Can you clarify this for me: You state in your report, when
18 talking about the Physicians for Human Rights -- well, without going into
19 greater detail, what sort of an organisation it was? That's to say, you
20 don't specify in great detail what sort of powers the Physicians for
21 Human Rights had as an organisation, and you as an anthropologist. Thank
23 A. Well, the forensic programme was just one part of PHR's work.
24 They were the ones that originally put together the -- it's the -- the
25 extra legal arbitration and summary of executions that was in 1991, that
1 was a manual suggesting the best things to do and what you could do when
2 you're doing exhumations, and the United Nations had later adopted that.
3 They also worked on terror and they wrote a very famous publication on
4 that which they got the Nobel Prize for. They worked in different
5 countries to assist families who were searching for missing individuals.
6 They have a very -- very many human rights subjects that they deal with.
7 The forensics was one.
8 Q. Thank you. On page 39, lines 1 through 13, of the transcript,
9 you said that the Tribunal was asked to supply certain things, perhaps
10 this was misinterpretation, but which court of law did you have in mind
11 there? Thank you.
12 A. Mostly probably ICTY, I imagine. I'm not quite sure what the --
13 Q. Thank you. And which particular body of the ICTY did you have in
14 mind? Was it the Chambers, the OTP, or any other structure within the
15 ICTY such as the Registry? Thank you.
16 A. I think it was mostly doing financial things, it was probably
17 with the Registry. I believe it was mostly to do with financial.
18 Q. The request that they supply them with certain things that you
19 referred to on page 39 of today's transcript, did it have to do with
20 moneys, with funds?
21 A. Well, it had to do with the use of the funds and, for instance,
22 one of them was -- I had specific reference books I wanted to have at the
23 sites -- I mean at the -- where we were working, usually in the lab -- in
24 the autopsy area, and so they would order things for us that we requested
25 or not. One of the things, when we first set up -- okay, I think
1 that's -- so it would be maybe things like that. I wasn't really in
2 touch with their interactions with -- with ICTY except it was something
3 like the books I wanted. Otherwise, I -- as long as we got the resources
4 that we needed to do our work, then that didn't matter to me. And then
5 they may have shared some kind of power over the funding, it may have
6 been shared amongst the Tribunal and Physicians for Human Rights. It
7 wasn't that way in -- in Rwanda. They'd had received the money to
8 themself, but I'm not really sure about the financial things that went on
9 and those kinds of administrative things that went on between Physicians
10 for Human Rights and the Tribunal. I just honestly don't know that.
11 Q. Thank you. Does this mean that you did not have, as part of your
12 team, these Physicians for Human Rights, and that they did not receive
13 their tasks as to what they were supposed to do from you but, rather,
14 from the ICTY, to whom they were related? Thank you.
15 A. No, no. That's wrong. As I've said before, they worked for me,
16 as far as the decisions that were made once we got to a site and started
17 doing the work. They did not work for ICTY. They were actually sent
18 there by Physicians for Human Rights, and I was the person in charge of
19 them. The major direction I received from ICTY or the major information
20 I received from ICTY were locations of graves, and then from there on,
21 then we did what we needed to do in regard to the graves.
22 Q. Thank you. What we can see here is that they had this special
23 channel with the ICTY or so it transpires from your answers, that it
24 wasn't through you that they would exercise their rights and obligations.
25 Is that right? Thank you.
1 A. Are you saying that Physicians for Human Rights had to check with
2 ICTY to -- I'm not quite sure where that's going. As a human rights
3 group, they were not going to take any orders from anybody that would
4 interrupt or be against their charter for what they did as far as human
5 rights were concerned.
6 Q. Thank you. In your -- in one of your replies a little earlier
7 you said that they had certain financial problems and that they dealt
8 with them via the Tribunal, and that's why I asked you what Tribunal that
9 was. So did they resolve these matters through you by way of your
10 mediation or did they have direct contact with the ICTY? Thank you.
11 A. They would have dealt with ICTY, not with me.
12 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that Physicians for Human Rights had
13 direct contacts with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
14 rather than going through you? Thank you.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we have received many answers in
16 that respect from the witness. He made it very clear that the
17 administrative matters were dealt between the entities and not with him,
18 and the work itself was managed by the witness. I think we are in a
19 circle at the moment. You should try to go ahead with your questioning.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I felt
21 that these questions were relevant, and I have not really received the
22 answer because I never really got an answer as to the delineation between
23 the jurisdiction or the powers or the work that was being done by the
24 Physicians for Human Rights and the ICTY. But I will move on.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Now, witness, could you tell the Trial Chamber, please, when you
2 say -- when you mention co-operation with the ICTY, what part of the ICTY
3 did you have most co-operation with? Was it with the OTP, with the
4 Office of the Prosecutor, or Jean-Rene Ruez or some other bodies of this
6 A. It would be the Office of the Prosecutor, the Office of the
8 Q. Thank you. It was important to clear this up for the transcript.
9 During exhumations, did you work together with
10 Mr. Peter McCloskey, for instance, who at the time, as we know, was a
11 legal adviser in Mr. Jean Ruez's team?
12 A. I didn't know who he was. No, I had not met him.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: And --
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey?
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we have a foundation for the facts that
16 Mr. McCloskey was even employed with the ICTY at the time of the
17 exhumations in 1996? I mean, he's assuming facts not in evidence, he's
18 misstating what the facts are. If he wants to ask questions about it,
19 that's fine. But he's misstating things repeatedly, suggesting that the
20 OTP is somehow different from Jean-Rene Ruez. This kind of confusing
21 misstatements and multi-part questions are not getting us anywhere.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Witness, would you please now take a look at page 10 of this
1 report that's P1071; and specifically the second paragraph in Serbian,
2 and the third paragraph in the English version, which reads as follows --
3 could the witness please take a look? Autopsy examinations of victims,
4 that's the second paragraph in Serbian, began on July 31st, 1996, and
5 lasted through August 22nd, 1996.
6 "Autopsies were carried out at a temporary morgue established at
7 a war-damaged clothing factory on the outskirts of the town of Kalesija,
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina. Autopsy examinations were carried out under the
9 direction of Robert Kirschner, director of the international forensic
10 programme of Physicians for Human Rights. Finalisation of cause and
11 manner of death, as well as editing of final autopsy reports was
12 facilitated by ICTY legal adviser Peter McCloskey."
13 And it was on the basis of this that I put the question a minute
14 ago when I asked you whether you worked with Mr. Peter McCloskey, and
15 I didn't mean to imply anything by that. Could you please answer my
16 question now?
17 A. I did not work with Mr. McCloskey on this issue. Basically what
18 I was stating is that basically because there had been some questions
19 about Dr. Kirschner signing the certificates that Mr. McCloskey
20 facilitated carrying these various autopsy reports from various doctors
21 around the world, and he facilitated by carrying them in a locked brief
22 case and carrying them around to different parts of the world and showing
23 them to doctors and saying is this what you wrote? Is this what you want
24 to be on this cause of death? He was just giving it to them so that they
25 could rethink or whatever they wanted to do in case it was ever
1 questioned that Dr. Kirschner's potential changes would be on those
2 documents. That's my understanding at least of what he did.
3 Q. Thank you. But you state here very clearly:
4 "Finalisation of cause and manner of death, as well as editing of
5 final autopsy reports, was facilitated by ICTY legal adviser Peter
7 Am I correct? Is that what it states there in your report?
8 A. That's what it states, but he didn't make any decisions on his
9 own. He facilitated what the pathologists would mean as a change or that
10 it was okay and he facilitated them getting to see those documents. He
11 did not change anything himself. He made sure that the proper
12 information was on there, that the original pathologist who signed that
13 particular report, that their information was there. He facilitated
14 those things. He did not do them himself. It's like you hire a carrier
15 to take something for you, they don't change things that you have, they
16 just deliver it. That's basically what he was doing. He was the
17 delivery person.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question.
19 JUDGE NYAMBE: I wonder if you can also clarify for me the exact
20 procedure as who determined the manner of death and the cause of death?
21 Is it the person who prepared the report or was it Mr. McCloskey?
22 THE WITNESS: It was the individual pathologist that did the
23 reports. That was their report.
24 JUDGE NYAMBE: So then why was it necessary for Mr. McCloskey to
25 go all over the world looking for these experts to finalise the cause
1 of -- and manner of death?
2 THE WITNESS: It was because Dr. Kirschner had been blamed for
3 changing some of the causes of death, and it was necessary that that be
4 checked out to make sure that these are the causes of death that the
5 pathologists had on their reports, and in order to maintain chain of
6 custody of this evidence which were autopsy reports, somebody had to
7 accompany those things everywhere they went.
8 JUDGE NYAMBE: How was Dr. Kirschner blamed for changing some of
9 the causes of death and in what respect?
10 THE WITNESS: Basically I think I mentioned this previously but
11 when doctors do their reports, they will -- they will itemise the wounds
12 of a person that they had that contributed to the cause of death, like
13 maybe shot to the head, shot to the body, shot to the neck, or whatever.
14 And what Dr. Kirschner I think was trying to do was to try to put that
15 information in a report, you would come out with, for instance, 150
16 different things to try to tell you about, so he actually tried to
17 categorise this of cause of death and it happens in -- in medical
18 examiners' and corners' offices throughout the United States, also they
19 may change something. The director of the project may change something,
20 but they don't do that without asking the permission of the person that
21 did the autopsy, and apparently Dr. Kirschner may have not asked some of
22 the individuals for their permission before he changed a gunshot to the
23 head, a gunshot to the thorax, three gun shots to the leg, he just put
24 multiple -- multiple gunshot wounds. Otherwise, in order to explain that
25 information in a report, you would have to say this person had one
1 gunshot wound to the head -- there were five people who had a gunshot
2 wound to the head, but if they didn't have a gunshot wound to the neck
3 also, you would also have to say in a separate statement, this person --
4 three people died of a gunshot to the head and a gunshot wound to the
5 neck, and it would get very, very complicated. He was trying to simplify
6 things that covered what the cause of death was, but he was trying to
7 make is simpler so that it would be easier to put together in a report
8 such as this. I think that's what he was trying to do.
9 JUDGE NYAMBE: Just one last question, was Dr. Kirschner one of
10 the doctors working under you?
11 THE WITNESS: Dr. Kirschner, no. He was a pathologist. I am not
12 a pathologist. And as far as the autopsies and that were concerned, the
13 pathologists, basically I did not interfere with them only to provide
14 support and the equipment and that that they may have needed and supplies
15 and supply them with the anthropologists, but the autopsy is a matter of
16 the pathologists, not the anthropologists or whatever.
17 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you for your answers.
18 THE WITNESS: You're very welcome.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Could you please define for us the term "cause and manner of
24 A. It varies, the manner of death is a category in which deaths are
25 placed. It's a general category. In the United States, and that's
1 the -- what I use, deaths are either caused by natural causes, they can
2 be caused by suicide, they can be caused by accident, they can cause by
3 homicide, or they may be undetermined. That's the manner of death. It's
4 a collective category -- very simplified categories that you put causes
5 of death into.
6 And then if the -- then the cause of death is the actual injury
7 that participated the death of the individual, so if it was a gunshot
8 wound or stab wound or blunt trauma or being run over intentionally by
9 somebody in an automobile, that would be homicide.
10 Q. Thank you. Now that you've explained the difference between
11 manner of death as opposed to cause of death, could you tell us why it
12 was necessary for someone to do an overview of this - and a person who is
13 not a pathologist or an expert - and that person would then have the
14 final word in the report, because you say here that he facilitated and
15 assisted a lot in finalisation of cause and manner of death. Thank you.
16 So you're speaking here very directly about conclusions drawn.
17 Thank you.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, that's a confusing. We can't tell
20 from the question who he's talking about.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, are you talking about Dr. Kirschner?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Please take a look at the last sentence that I quoted a little
25 earlier on page 10, that we have before us on the screen.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, just very simple question, were you
2 referring to Dr. Kirschner or to somebody else?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honour, I'm not
4 referring to anyone specifically. I'm just quoting from this report
5 prepared by Mr. Haglund and that's in the last sentence of this paragraph
6 where it says, "Finalisation of cause and manner of death, as well as
7 editing of final autopsy reports, was facilitated by legal adviser
8 Peter McCloskey." He says very specifically there who helped in the
9 drawing of these conclusions and how. Thank you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I have to stop you at this point in
11 time. If you look at the answer, Dr. Haglund has explained very well the
12 role of Mr. McCloskey. You were asking now, this line 8 and the
13 following on page 49:
14 "Now that you have explained the difference between manner of
15 death as opposed to cause of death, could you tell us why it was
16 necessary for someone to do an overview of this - and the person who is
17 not a pathologist or an expert - and that person would then have the
18 final word in the report..." and so on and so on.
19 Now you are referring to Mr. McCloskey. It was very clear from
20 the explanation of the witness that Mr. McCloskey didn't have anything to
21 do with finalisation of these reports, summarising, and having the final
22 word in the report. This is really a misstatement. Please carry on and
23 bear that in mind.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We'll bear that in
1 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I would now like to refer the witness to paragraph 2 in Serbian,
3 paragraph 3 in English, and specifically the last sentence. Could he
4 just tell me whom he was referring to here where he said that that person
5 helped in the finalisation of cause and manner of death as well as
6 editing of final autopsy reports? Thank you. So who was it who helped
7 in the finalisation? Was it Dr. Kirschner or somebody else? Could you
8 please tell us? Thank you.
9 A. Dr. Kirschner was out of the picture. The individual
10 pathologists were the ones that made these changes. I'm not sure what
11 else you ask, I'm sorry. I'm --
12 Q. My apologies if I was imprecise. Now I will ask you very
13 directly: Whom are you referring to in this last sentence where you say
14 that that person was of great assistance in the finalisation of cause and
15 manner of death as well as editing of final autopsy reports? Thank you.
16 A. What is the -- actually, the paragraph we are looking at? I'm
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is in fact the third paragraph, the last
19 sentence. You are dealing --
20 THE WITNESS: The [overlapping speakers] preparation --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You are dealing long time already now with, but
22 Mr. Tolimir, I don't find the words "a person who was of great
23 assistance." It is not in this sentence. If you are referring to this
24 sentence -- the last sentence, with the -- which starts with,
25 "Finalisation of cause and manner of death," then you should quote
1 correctly. Rephrase your question and carry on, please.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Did you use the word "help" in the last sentence?
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Facilitate in English or
6 in our language.
7 A. Well, I don't have "help" in there, I have "facilitate."
8 "Facilitate" just implies support in making something happen. And that
9 he didn't make the things happen, he just facilitated that other people
10 could make decisions, not him. He just brought papers to them so that
11 they could look at them, hold them.
12 Q. Thank you. Why, then, is it not stated in so many words in the
13 report? Could you tell us, please? Thank you.
14 A. I think it's adequately stated. I don't know how else I would
15 put it.
16 Q. Thank you. In view of your answer, could you please define for
17 us the phrase "editing of final autopsy reports?" What exactly does that
18 mean? Can you tell us, please?
19 A. When the pathologists looked at their causes of death, if there
20 was a change that they said needed to be made -- if there was -- many,
21 many of the pathologists, as a cause of death, would put multiple gunshot
22 wounds, okay? And that's the way Dr. Kirschner had changed a few of
23 those autopsies. They wanted to make sure that, if gunshot wound was not
24 the cause of death, how was it stated in their original determination of
25 cause of death? And so if it said, "Gunshot wound," multiple gunshot
1 wounds, then that was just fine, but they would have to edit it if
2 Dr. Kirschner had made a change, and so then the pathologist might say,
3 well, three gunshot wounds to the head or ten gunshot wounds to the head.
4 That's the editing, and the pathologists did that.
5 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us now, please, once an autopsy report
6 is prepared, who has the authority to make any alterations to the facts
7 or conclusions as contained in the report?
8 A. Well, the whole issue we have been talking about is if somebody
9 else makes a change to an autopsy report, and -- and the original
10 pathologist who wrote that autopsy report, in order for that change to be
11 made, they have to confer and talk with the original pathologist and they
12 have to agree on it, and so it's the original pathologist that has the
13 authority to do that.
14 However, sometimes it may be considered that a change might be
15 made so the pathologists talk about it. And if there is a change made
16 and they agree on it they make the change, if not they don't, but the
17 point is that Dr. Kirschner apparently did not ask all the pathologists
18 what changes might be made. So the autopsy reports had to be taken back
19 to the pathologists to confirm that this is the correct thing that they
20 wrote, and if it wasn't, then they edited -- the pathologists would edit
21 or change it to what they had originally put down in their paper. What
22 essentially is being said is the same thing, basically, people died of
23 gunshots wounds, it was just the difference in the number of gunshots
24 wounds and the place of the gunshot wounds versus the term -- a general
25 term of gunshot wounds, multiple gunshot wounds.
1 Q. Thank you. Can you tell the Trial Chamber whether Dr. Kirschner
2 destroyed the original reports provided by the pathologists and
3 anthropologists where they stated what the cause of death was, and then,
4 whether he produced a new report? Has that ever been established? Thank
6 A. Well, I think that was the point, this particular page, he
7 changed it so we would have to put a different page in there, but all
8 the -- the pathologists had copies of their original reports so they knew
9 what they said, so whether he destroyed things or tossed them away, I'm
10 not really certain about that. These are autopsy pathologists areas, and
11 I'm not the person to be involved with that.
12 Q. Thank you. Did any pathologist provide a statement to the effect
13 that his findings were altered, as relating to the manner and cause of
14 death? Thank you.
15 A. That's something I would not be aware of. I do not know.
16 Q. Thank you. Why, then, do you claim that Dr. Kirschner actually
17 changed those reports and findings?
18 A. I was informed of that, when this --
19 Q. Thank you. Did you mention that in your report, who you were
20 informed by and in what manner, of this?
21 A. No, I did not.
22 Q. Thank you. Can you explain the use of the term "editing" here?
23 Editing of the conclusions -- editing of the final autopsy report, my
25 A. Editing, I guess, would be in this context, when I guess, it
1 would be any changes made to that document, if it was made -- if a change
2 was made, it was edited, and that's what the pathologist who originally
3 signed the autopsy reports, if they changed it from what the standing
4 document would be, and if there had been a change made that he wasn't
5 aware of, he would put it back in the wording of his own, and that -- my
6 understanding of editing, that's -- that's what editing is. You change
7 something, you correct spelling, you change wording, you change -- they
8 changed the wording back to what they originally said.
9 Q. Thank you. Can you now state for the record who normally drafts
10 the autopsy report and who is responsible for the accuracy of information
11 contained therein? Thank you.
12 A. Well, usually it would -- what happens in an office or that the
13 autopsy report, these were actually pages with areas to -- the protocols
14 that you could answer what was necessary for the autopsy, and that would
15 be -- that information would be passed on to somebody on the computer and
16 they would write down what the doctor said and then the doctor would get
17 a draft of that back and then they would go through it and make sure that
18 everything was what they wanted, and then that would be the -- the
19 document would be then reconfirmed after the editing by the pathologist
20 the first time and make sure that it was everything that the doctor
21 wanted, and then that would be the standing of -- of document. Actually,
22 what we did in the field is that they wrote directly on to the document
23 in their own handwriting what these things were.
24 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that the pathologists drafted autopsy
25 reports and that they are responsible for the information contained in
1 the reports?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Can we have in e-court P1307? That's the report by the oversight
4 committee established pursuant to request by the OTP and which was
5 convened in San Antonio from the 14th to 19th of November 1997? Thank
6 you. We have it on the screens. This is the membership of the
7 committee. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what were the reasons to
8 convene this oversight committee of anthropologists and pathologists?
9 Thank you.
10 A. It was a -- the endeavour was to make sure that the process of
11 what Dr. Kirschner did was right or wrong and what should be done about
12 it, and there were complaints against myself, and they were -- they
13 examined those complaints on the basis of whether these complaints had
14 anything to do with the quality of the forensic information that the team
15 had given. Some three or four of the team had complaints.
16 Q. Thank you. Can you now tell us what were the criteria to choose
17 the anthropologists and pathologists that participated in the work of
18 this oversight committee?
19 A. The choice of those was made by ICTY. I did get some calls about
20 whether I knew some of these people and if I knew them they thought that
21 any of these -- if I was, you know, friendly with these people that they
22 shouldn't have them on the committee, and I'd say, well -- they would
23 say, "What about this anthropologist?" And I say, "No, I -- he's a very
24 good friend of mine." And they say, "Well, we can't use him." And I
25 said, "Well, yeah, don't." I mean -- so they wanted to get people that,
1 you know, were as far from me as dealing with me in that and knowing me
2 and et cetera, the -- so that they would have as people that just didn't
3 work, you know, they evaluated the work and the personal aspect probably
4 couldn't be blamed of being involved in this decisions.
5 Q. Thank you. You can see here on the screen the list of the
6 members of the oversight committee. You can see that the first five
7 individuals hail from North America, four from United States, where you
8 are also from, and the fifth is from Canada. Then we can see a little
9 further below, that there were two members from the UK. However, the two
10 members from the UK were not present and did not sign any of the
12 So my question for you is as follows: Do you know what was the
13 reason that those two members from United Kingdom did not participate in
14 the work of the oversight committee? And why did they not sign the
16 A. I have nothing to do with the -- this report and how it was put
17 together and who chose who and what. I haven't -- that is, I am separate
18 from that. I was the person being looked at as an investigated
19 basically, and I have no power over this -- this and why people didn't --
20 the question is a good question but it's not certainly one to be
21 addressed to me.
22 Q. Thank you. So then can you answer this question: Why is it that
23 the preliminary briefings and later debriefings were performed by the
24 people from the ICTY; Peter McCloskey and Jan Kruszewski?
25 A. I think that's a question for you to ask ICTY and not myself. It
1 was certainly their evidence to protect.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you are saying in your question why
3 is it that the preliminary briefings and later debriefings were performed
4 by the people from the ICTY. I don't see anything in this document --
5 I only see that they were present at the briefing and debriefing. But
6 the briefing and debriefing were performed by the two members? I don't
7 see that. Please clarify that.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, I'm going
9 to reformulate my question.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Do you know that present at that meeting were Mr. McCloskey and
12 Mr. Kruszewski while they were not members of the oversight committee?
13 Thank you.
14 A. I do not know. They could have had these -- I mean, one thing
15 they could have done is talked to them over the telephone. They didn't
16 have to be present to get their opinions. I have no idea.
17 Q. Thank you. But can we see in your report who participated in the
18 work of the oversight committee?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go on to page 2 of this
22 document. Thank you.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Can you read the last paragraph? Especially the part where it
25 says, and I quote:
1 "The entire panel is in agreement that there will be no audio or
2 video taping, nor would any outside parties be present during the
4 My question is as follows: Is it true that during all the
5 interviews performed by the oversight committee, the representatives of
6 ICTY, McCloskey and Kruszewski were present? Are you aware of that?
7 Thank you.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to hear the answer first and then
10 I give you the floor.
11 THE WITNESS: When I was interviewed it was only the panel.
12 I wouldn't be surprised if the group was there to inquire of
13 Dr. McCloskey, not to have him a representative of the committee, but I
14 don't know about that for sure.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey?
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: I just -- I have no problem with the answer. I
17 had forgotten that, of course, that Dr. Haglund had been present, and as
18 to his own personal experience with this panel, that's absolutely
19 appropriate. What I was objecting to is him -- is to continue questions
20 about what this panel is doing that are completely outside the knowledge
21 of this witness, but of course as it has to do with Dr. Haglund being
22 interviewed by the panel, that's absolutely appropriate. So I would
23 withdraw the objection.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
25 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. McCloskey. Thank
2 you, Your Honour.
3 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Now, I would like Mr. Haglund to take a look at page 3.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have that on e-court,
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. This page mainly lists the objections that were addressed to the
9 work in exhumations and the technical processing of the graves. Can you
10 take a look at the following sentence, in the last paragraph, there was
11 also a potential, if not real conflict, between the UN and Physicians for
12 Human Rights personnel as well as variations on legal opinion for cause
13 and manner of death.
14 My question is as follows: Can you explain what conflict is that
15 and what were the differences in legal opinion for cause and manner of
17 A. I can answer the first part of the question. The conflict
18 between the UN and PHR means that apparently the UN had found out that
19 Dr. Kirschner had changed, had altered, some autopsy reports and that the
20 individual who had altered them was a person representing PHR. That's
21 the conflict, I would assume.
22 The second part of the question, I don't know if I can address.
23 Q. Thank you. Was this oversight committee in the position to
24 determine or to change the opinion on cause and manner of death? Was
25 anybody able to change that text that was written and determined by the
1 pathologist and anthropologists? Thank you.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey?
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection to the multi-part of these questions.
4 It's very difficult to follow multi-part questions, especially in this
5 report. So if he could limit it to one at a time, I think it would be
6 much more appropriate.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, I think both questions have the
8 same content. It's just a repetition of the first question.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: What I meant, Mr. President, was built into the
10 question, determine -- determine something and -- determine or change.
11 Determine is one thing. Change is another. And then he keeps going on
12 and asks the questions in a different way. We are not going to get
13 answers to those when he asks questions like that. It's too difficult
14 for the witness in my view, for any witness.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, last year we have heard so many
16 questions, in fact, combined questions, of many kinds. This one is a
17 quite simple one and I think this witness is capable to answer this
18 question and to tell us about determining the cause of death and change
19 of the determination of cause of death.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, and I will just make one more
21 observation and then I will sit down, and I -- pardon me, I don't mean to
22 be arguing with you, and I absolutely agree with you that this is an
23 intelligent, capable witness and he can do his best to sort this out, but
24 if we go through the transcript and we see all the questions that have
25 been asked by General Tolimir and the answers, we will not see answers to
1 all the questions. It just is not there. I know these topics, I know
2 the questions, and I know the answers. The witness is not answering all
3 of them. And it's not his fault. And that's just the way it is, that's
4 the way the record reflects. I know this because I know the information.
5 It also is part of my legal culture, these kinds of
6 multi-questions would never be allowed where I come from, it's because
7 the witnesses cannot answer all the questions and I see the record. I
8 can go back for you and show all the questions that are not being
9 answered, and it's no one's fault, it's just in my view you can't throw
10 that many questions at a witness and have him answer it. And later on
11 what happens is when an adversary starts arguing from the record, they
12 pick and choose and they criticise the witness for not answering
13 something, or they pick an answer to part of the question and use it for
14 the other part that was not answered. And that is my final point on that
15 matter, Your Honours, and I understand we agree to disagree, and that you
16 are the Judge, and I won't say anything further. Thank you.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, your principal observation is
18 absolutely fine. Everybody would agree to that, but it is the wrong
19 example you picked up. Therefore, to shorten this discussion, I would
20 like to ask the witness: Was this oversight committee in the position to
21 determine or to change the opinion on cause and manner of death? That
22 was the first question. Please provide us with an answer.
23 THE WITNESS: No.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now, the next question: Was anybody able to
25 change that text that was written and determined by the pathologists and
1 the anthropologists?
2 THE WITNESS: No, not without their permission.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
4 Judge Nyambe has a question.
5 JUDGE NYAMBE: Following up on your last answer to Judge
6 Fluegge's question which was, "No, not without their permission," was
7 anybody able to change the text that was written and the determination by
8 the pathologists and anthropologists with or without their permission?
9 THE WITNESS: They would have to have the permission of the
10 individual that did the work, not that they were the only ones,
11 pathologists would be the ones to change things and without getting
12 the -- their permission, those things should not be changed. They did
13 the autopsy. Other people didn't.
14 JUDGE NYAMBE: I think I have to just ask you again: Was any
15 pathologist or anthropologist asked and gave permission to change the
17 THE WITNESS: The issue is a pathologist's reports. I wouldn't
18 be surprised if Dr. Kirschner talked to some of the pathologists and
19 seeing if they would permit the change. He probably explained why and
20 they probably did, but we had 33 different pathologists that summer, and
21 some had come for -- these are doctors that had very busy -- we picked
22 out the best pathologists we could find, and these people are very busy.
23 If they can get away for two weeks from their regular work, that's hard.
24 Some people could get in longer, but -- and they were only there for a
25 certain time, so all those people weren't available at the time
1 Dr. Kirschner was putting together this report. So he may have slipped
2 his memory or he just didn't ask them, but if they were there he would
3 have probably discussed it with, I would think, but that I do not know.
4 I was not in that part and I wasn't involved with the signing of the
5 certificates, but the people would have -- the bottom line is people
6 would -- anybody else besides the pathologists that wrote that report,
7 they would have to have the permission of the doctor that did it. Did
8 that [Realtime transcript read in error "happen"] help?
9 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you for your answer.
10 THE WITNESS: Okay.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think the last question of the witness was not
12 "did that happen" but "did that help"?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Haglund, it is not my intention to comment the work of one or
16 the other side of the pathologists or anthropologists or others. I'm
17 only interested in one thing. Is the opinion on the cause and manner of
18 death a legal opinion or an opinion of the medical profession? That is
19 the only thing that I'm interested in. Thank you.
20 A. I don't know if I can answer that question, but I know in the
21 United States that the autopsy report is entered as a -- as evidence
22 based on what they say. The certificates that a doctor signs in the
23 United States are legal documents, the cause of death, and that is put on
24 the death certificate - I know many countries don't have those - but in
25 that sense, it's, I think, a legal -- I believe it's a legal document.
1 So the final resolution of the report, on the cause and manner of death
2 is put on actually a death certificate. That's -- that happens in the
3 United States. So I don't know what it is -- I don't know what these
4 documents are legal or illegal or -- they are not illegal but if they are
5 legal or not, I don't know, in many other countries. And we had people
6 from all over the world.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I assist again? I think there was a
8 misunderstanding. Mr. Tolimir were asking you, is the opinion on the
9 cause and manner of death a legal opinion or an opinion of the medical
10 profession. He was not talking about documents but the opinion.
11 THE WITNESS: Okay. I don't know if -- I don't know if it's
12 classified as a legal opinion or not. I really don't know. It's a
13 medical opinion based on facts that they see in the autopsy. It's
14 probably not in that sense a legal document, although it's used in the
15 legal system to determine trials and outcomes of trials, et cetera, but
16 that I really don't know the answer to.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir?
18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Haglund, that's exactly what I wanted to hear from
20 you, whether this has a legal import, that's one thing, and the other
21 thing is whether it also has some legal consequences. So thank you for
22 your explanation. Maybe you could add whether this opinion has some
23 legal consequences in relation to your activities.
24 A. Yes. It has consequences. That's why we are here in court.
25 Q. Thank you. Can we now have page 6? Under "responses" we can
1 find the following and I quote:
2 "There was no clear agreement as to who was responsible for what.
3 We felt that in large part that was due to the fiscal and administrative
4 dichotomy between the UN Tribunal and Physicians for Human Rights, which
5 apparently had never been explained to the working scientists in the
6 field or the morgue."
7 And then it goes further on, saying that there was no clear
8 agreement among you, Dr. Haglund, and Dr. Kirschner. My question is as
9 follows: Since they mention fiscal and administrative problems, can you
10 explain to me and to the Trial Chamber in rather concrete terms, what
11 were those administrative and fiscal problems that influenced your work
12 in the field? Thank you.
13 A. I think we've already talked about the fiscal -- if you're
14 talking about financials -- finances, et cetera. The administrative
15 dichotomy, I'm not really sure what they were -- I could only make
16 guesses of what they were. I think you would have to ask these people
17 what they were saying. I can read it just like yourself and I have
18 questions on this document, I don't agree with everything in it, but
19 I did not write it and I do not know the thoughts behind it -- all of
20 them, anyway.
21 Q. Thank you for your explanation.
22 So can I take your answer to mean -- can the Trial Chamber take
23 your answer to mean that in your opinion the main problems were of the
24 administrative and fiscal nature, or the main problems were the problems
25 of the level of expertise of the persons involved in the work at the
1 locality? Thank you.
2 A. In looking at this, I'd like to readdress the former question if
3 I can a little bit.
4 Q. Thank you. Go on.
5 A. The relationship between myself and Dr. Kirschner was relatively,
6 I think, known. In the autopsy area, the pathologists were in charge
7 of the pathologists and the other workers that worked for them, be they
8 anthropologists or autopsy technicians or whatever. So in the lab they
9 did know that the pathologists were in charge. However, Dr. Kirschner
10 was absent a great deal of the time, as you see this, and so that would
11 -- may be confusing to people who was their boss at that time. And that
12 was part of the pathology things. So this confusing because often times
13 you were -- when one person left, when Kirschner would leave then he
14 might leave somebody else in charge, but then that person would leave and
15 leave somebody else in charge so that continuance of -- may not have
16 always been obvious to people who came in new and then didn't understand.
17 So -- between myself and Dr. Kirschner, I just looked at him as a
18 pathologist of -- and I knew that that was his area of expertise, and
19 that the individual pathologists, that that was their area of expertise.
20 That was not mine, and so ... does that help? Or does that answer your
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We will see if that helped. We have to continue
23 after the second break. We adjourn now and will resume quarter past
25 --- Recess taken at 5.47 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 6.18 p.m.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir. Please go ahead.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. For witness's travelling purposes we were asked to state if we
6 are going to finish cross-examination today. I believe that we will, in
7 order to accommodate these requirements, we will withdraw some of the
8 planned questions.
9 That's the position of the Defence.
10 Can we have P1307, page --
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the number of the
13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Again, we are discussing the report made in San Antonio --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir could you please repeat the number of
16 the page. The interpreters didn't catch the number.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I wanted to have page 9
18 of P1307, which is the San Antonio report and we have it on our screens
19 now, thank you.
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
21 Q. We have the questions listed here that were put to all the
22 participants in this meeting of the oversight body. And I'm interested
23 in the questions under 9 and 10. I'm quoting:
24 "To whom was authority delegated in the absence of Dr. Haglund?"
25 And 10:
1 "To whom was authority delegated in the absence of
2 Dr. Kirschner?"
3 Can you please answer these questions for us? Thank you.
4 A. In my absence from an exhumation Jose Pablo would be the person
5 taking my place.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That is referring to Mr. Baraybar; is that
8 THE WITNESS: That's correct, that's correct.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
10 THE WITNESS: And as to Dr. Kirschner, he was supposed to assign
11 someone when he left to take over his place.
12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Thank you. Do you know who it was supposed to be? If not, thank
14 you anyhow.
15 A. There were various people, depending upon who was there.
16 Q. Thank you. Dr. Gallagher also participated in the work of this
17 committee. Do you know her?
18 A. She is not a doctor. I think she has a master's.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 5 shown in
22 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
23 Q. I'm sorry for misquoting her title. But you do know the person,
24 that's the only thing I --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, yes, that was the problem. The
1 witness wanted to answer your question but you were in discussions with
2 your legal adviser, so we should give the floor to the witness so he can
3 answer the question if Ms. Gallagher also participated in the work of
4 this committee. Do you know that?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, she was one of the persons interviewed,
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Let me quote some of her words. Dorothy Gallagher saw problems
11 in the field and in the lab. She stated that Dr. Kirschner changed
12 autopsy reports and instructed her to do so while processing the reports.
13 In the field, Dr. Haglund dictated too much speed in exhumation. The
14 result was commingling and failure to associate body parts.
15 Are you familiar with this statement of hers?
16 A. I see it, yes. I'm familiar with the statement, yes.
17 Q. Thank you. Did you try at a later stage in the morgue to
18 associate various body parts in order to remedy the problem referred to
19 herein by Dr. Gallagher? Thank you.
20 A. That was her perception of a problem, so yes, we would always try
21 to -- to incorporate partial parts of bodies and skeletons and broken
22 bones as much as we could. I don't agree with her statement, and neither
23 did the majority of the rest of the crew, but there were about four,
24 I think, comments that were questioning me, and this is one of them.
25 I don't agree with it.
1 Q. Thank you. Did the oversight committee establish that
2 Dr. Kirschner modified autopsy reports and advised Dr. Gallagher to do
3 the same? Thank you.
4 A. I was not aware of him advising Dr. Gallagher to -- not --
5 Dorothy, Ms. Gallagher, thank you so much, to change things. I wasn't
6 aware of that.
7 Q. Thank you. But did she make the statement as I've read it in
8 item 13?
9 A. I see the same statement you do. It's attributed to her. I ...
10 Q. Thank you. Please look at item 14. Can we have your comments on
11 what the Chilean anthropologist, David Del Pino said, and I'm quoting:
12 "Operations were halted when Dr. Haglund was away. Clothing was
13 discarded at Haglund's command, even though some contained
15 A. We have it -- okay. Have two separate questions. Well, things
16 certainly didn't halt if I left Jose Pablo Baraybar in charge when I was
17 gone. And so that's -- that's his perception. He was a very slow,
18 meticulous worker used to doing archaeology work and it didn't sometimes
19 work out with what we were doing, I think, that was his opinion.
20 And as far as the clothing, you'll see in my report that this is
21 in Pilica, and by that time I realised a return of clothing by the
22 Bosnians, they would accept clothing when we returned the remains to
23 them, but they didn't want clothing that wasn't associated with the body.
24 And I think this had to do with just a couple trousers and a pair of
25 pants that were separate away from the remains in the grave. And as you
1 can see from my report, that I did -- we did search those for any
2 identification documents, any sort of artifacts, anything that would be
3 in them, all of the pockets were empty, there was nothing there. So
4 I left them in the grave knowing that nothing could be done with them
6 Q. Thank you.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have page 5 -- or
8 rather, I'm sorry, paragraph 5 of the San Antonio report in order for us
9 to see what Dr. Clyde Snow [phoen] stated? Thank you.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. We can see paragraph 5 now, and I'm quoting:
12 "He states that sloppy science was done. He felt at times it was
13 Dr. Haglund versus the UNTAES, U-N-T-A-E-S, and mentioned the many bodies
14 removed in one day. Dr. Snow stated that, in his opinion no more than 20
15 bodies should have been exhumed in a single day. He felt Dr. Haglund
16 showed very poor judgement and that it was lucky nothing had blown up as
17 a result of the procedures used."
18 Can we have your comments, please? Thank you.
19 A. Well, he's a very esteemed forensic anthropologist and at one
20 time was a very good friend of mine, and Dr. Snow is of really -- I don't
21 know if he had any experience with graves with partially decomposed
22 remains and saponified remains where you had complete bodies, but I know
23 he was very good at dealing with skeletal remains and he'd -- working
24 with the Argentinians and South Americans for a long time. I'd like to
25 explain what moves -- when you can remove a body and what sometimes
1 it's -- you have to take -- if you have a skeleton and it's separate
2 bones, you have to clean off every bone, find them, you know, over 25 in
3 each hands, same way with the feet, you got 100 little pieces of bone,
4 that takes meticulous care and time to do that. This was not the -- it
5 was not the situation in the former Yugoslavia, for the primary graves,
6 okay? And that means, once you've cleaned off the surface where bodies
7 are lying, once you've mapped them, which we did with electronic device
8 called a Total Station where an individual could stand with an electronic
9 device and somebody would hold up a staff with the markers on it of how
10 deep it was, they could click off the positions of the bodies - the
11 positions of the bodies we do with the head, the shoulders, where the
12 elbows are, where the hands are, where the hips are, where the knees are,
13 where the end of the feet are -- you could probably do that in two to
14 five minutes, period. But when they were doing the original work in
15 Argentina and Latin America, they didn't have those transits, they didn't
16 have those that -- and they had to measure everything. It would take a
17 very long time to do that so that further slowed down the process for
18 them. It made our process very fast. And the -- we were able to
19 document, take out a complete individual's remains relatively quick.
20 Now, it makes a difference whether it's a pile or they are spread
21 out and when, for instance, when if you're working in a latrine, there is
22 only one anthropologist that probably can get in it or in a well because
23 they are a very small place. If you're working in a place like the
24 Cerska grave where you have the remains spread over a large area you can
25 deploy teams of two anthropologists/archeologists and you can have ten
1 teams in there working at the same time so that makes a difference. So
2 there is a lot of difference in the speed and -- it's not what I want to
3 call it speed, but the efficiency of being able to take out remains
4 dependent upon their condition of the amount of decomposition, of how
5 they were arrayed in the grave, et cetera, so I don't agree with that,
6 but people are entitled to their opinion.
7 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us briefly how many bodies were exhumed
8 from the graves you worked on daily?
9 A. How many bodies were removed? Well, on the first day we would
10 come, none would be removed; on the second day come, none would be
11 removed; on the third day come, we probably maybe have some of -- it got
12 down to the remains or found where some of those are. You have to clean
13 out a big enough area so that you really know who is under what other
14 person, who is on the top of them, who is intermingled with them, if you
15 have partial remains and that, so that's a question you can't answer it,
16 as the -- as the exhumations continue then you have varying rates of --
17 it depends, it just depends upon if a grave is flooded in the morning or
18 if it's not flooded, you have to -- so that's a question I cannot answer.
19 There is no formula to answering that question.
20 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us if there were separate reports
21 written by anthropologists and pathologists or were they compiled as a
22 single report? Thank you.
23 A. They were compiled, the -- the reports of the pathologists would
24 reflect the information that the -- they were collecting for the autopsy
25 and that would be reflected in the autopsy report so they did not write
1 separate reports, and neither did they write separate report -- we would
2 have, let's see, 100 times 450 reports if we did something like that, and
3 that would be a chaotic situation. No, they didn't write separate
4 reports. The pathologists -- the pathologists did but the
5 anthropologists and archeologists did not. They made their notes and
6 that and we put that all in one area if they made notes, but -- which
7 they didn't.
8 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us who oversaw autopsies as they were
9 being conducted? Thank you.
10 A. The pathologist doing them.
11 Q. And who supervised the work being done in the morgue?
12 A. The pathologists. It should have been Dr. Kirschner all the time
13 but he was gone a lot, so he appointed other people to do that.
14 Q. Thank you. Can we now call up page 43 in Serbian and 32 in
15 English? And to save time, let me ask you right away. On this page
16 you're referring to -- we are talking about P1072, corpses of vultures,
17 and you said that they could have been the result of those. Thank you.
18 So can you please explain what sort of problems you had to -- on the
19 sites themselves with regard to vultures or animals on the grave site?
20 Thank you.
21 A. Scavengers is a generic term for animals that would eat or move
22 bones or tissues. There were no vultures involved. On two occasions,
23 probably a neighbourhood dog or possibly some wild canid, it would be a
24 canid with long teeth, moved some bones and -- and that was reconciled
25 the next day and you see that in my report. They didn't remove any bones
1 from the site, to my knowledge, but they did remove some -- they did move
2 some remains that we'd had -- we had tarps -- tarps over and rocks, got
3 under and pulled on something, so you saw the leg maybe sticking out or
4 something like that. But that was the only disruption we had in terms of
5 scavengers. This happened in the evening when the -- they would -- it
6 was guarded but it's dark, and, you know, you don't have everything lit
8 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at P1071, page 65 in English, and 70
9 in Serbian. It's a table wherein it is stated that in case Cerska 1801
10 driver's licence, a map, and military orders were found on the person in
11 the grave site -- on the grave site. Do you know what sort of military
12 orders this involved?
13 A. No, I do not know, but we had a translator at the autopsy -- in
14 the autopsy area that translated that for us that's what it was. I put
15 it in the report.
16 Q. Can you tell us if the orders and the documents you found were
17 preserved as part of the general documentation? Thank you.
18 A. That, I think, probably would have been preserved, I'm not sure.
19 Many of the documents on bodies of the -- the identification documents
20 and that were turned over to the group that was trying to identify these
21 people and trying to match up -- there was another PHR project that
22 started out, a family outreach so they could start making a database with
23 the interviews with the families to see if people had broken arms or
24 broken legs or something at some time and how tall they were and the
25 condition of their teeth was and that, and they took those kinds of
1 documents, most of the documents were identification documents, and but
2 if it was a document like this, I'm sure the ICTY would have gotten it.
3 Q. Thank you. The document says that these were military orders.
4 We are very much interested in those because a number of inferences can
5 be made from it. Is there a way of gaining access to these, if you know?
6 Thank you.
7 A. That would be a question to ask ICTY.
8 Q. Thank you. It would probably be up to those who are guarding the
9 documents. And can you tell us, please, who are the ones charged with
10 guarding all the artifacts retrieved from the graves? Thank you.
11 A. In the autopsy building, took one room and had a metal door with
12 big locks attached to it, and then we had particular spaces to put the
13 recovered documents, indication of religion or whatever, and all the
14 things we collect from the body, and they were put in that deposit, and
15 then Mr. Gerns would go through the documents he thought that the
16 Tribunal would use and that would be returned -- that would be taken to
17 the Tribunal, and then the other documents would be released to the
18 families, usually identification documents and letters and pictures of
19 families, et cetera.
20 Q. Thank you. I'm interested in the maps and military orders. Does
21 it indicate to you, as an expert, that the bodies had not been searched
22 by those who killed them? Had this been the case, the orders and
23 identification papers and the rest would probably have been seized. Is
24 that right? Thank you.
25 A. I have no information on whether bodies were searched, but you
1 can see by the report that many people had a lot of documents on them.
2 They had a lot of -- a lot of things in their pockets and letters and
3 things like that. It appears to me that -- I don't know. All I can tell
4 you is what documents we got. I don't know what other people did before
5 we got the bodies. I just -- the bodies are my friend. I don't know
6 anybody else.
7 Q. Can you now take a look, the third row from the bottom, where it
8 says Osmo Muminovic, and can you now read out what follows after that?
9 A. "Driver's licence, identification, and car."
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak into the
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, certainly. "Driver's licence, identification
13 card, military orders."
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Thank you. Thank you. I am interested in military orders and
16 documents. As far as the Defence is concerned, the cross-examination is
17 finished, and I want to thank you, Mr. Haglund, for the answers that you
18 gave me. I also asked some questions that I, as a layman, was curious
19 about because there was a number of discrepancies found by different
20 committees and it was my natural curiosity to ask what was then the
21 truth. I think it was a normal thing to do.
22 I wish you a safe journey home and a joyous stay in Europe. May
23 God bless you. Thank you.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Tolimir.
25 Mr. McCloskey, your re-examination, please?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I have no questions for
2 Dr. Haglund.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Judge Nyambe has an
4 additional question.
5 Questioned by the Court:
6 JUDGE NYAMBE: At page 75, you state, lines 9 -- starting with
7 lines 9:
8 "Many of the documents on bodies investigation documents, and
9 these were basically saying were turned over to the group that was trying
10 to identify these people and trying to match up..."
11 Do you know which group this was?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, it was the representative of the Bosnian
13 government that were taking control of the bodies and have done
14 exhumations in their own country, and these were the people that were
15 actually dealing with identifications, so it was basically over to the
16 Bosnian government.
17 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Dr. Haglund, you will be pleased to hear that
19 this concludes your examination here in this trial. The Chamber would
20 like to thank you for your attendance and the way you were able to
21 provide us with your knowledge and expertise. Thank you very much again,
22 and we wish you a safe travel home and all the best for your health.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you for your patience and your good questions
24 and guidance.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much and now you are free to leave
1 the courtroom and the Tribunal.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have ten minutes left but as there is no --
4 I think we shouldn't start with the next witness because I would like to
5 issue an oral decision of the Chamber and then there are only a few
6 minutes left. If the witness is still waiting, he should be released.
7 On the 25th of January, the Prosecution filed its urgent
8 Prosecution motion to convert witness number 135 from a viva voce witness
9 to a Rule 92 ter witness. In its response filed in English on the 28th
10 of January, both last week, the accused opposes the motion and requests
11 that the Chamber hear the witness viva voce.
12 As a preliminary matter, the Chamber notes that this witness is
13 scheduled to testify this Wednesday, the 2nd of February, and that means
14 the day after tomorrow, and therefore wonders why the Prosecution has
15 waited so long to make this request. The late timing of which has no
16 doubt led to its urgent status.
17 Turning to the merits, the Chamber notes that the Prosecution's
18 motion, in effect, asks the Chamber to reconsider its 92 bis decision of
19 7th of July 2010 in which the Chamber denied the Prosecution's motion for
20 the witness's evidence to be admitted pursuant to Rule 92 bis.
21 The Chamber considers that the Prosecution's current motion
22 contains no new arguments in support of admitting this witness's
23 testimony pursuant to Rule 92 ter, except that admission would be in
24 accordance with the Chamber's guidance to the parties on the 29th of
25 November, in which the Chamber reminded each party of the importance of
1 presenting their case as expeditiously as possible.
2 The Chamber considers that its reasons for preferring to receive
3 Witness 135's evidence viva voce are clearly presented in paragraph 118
4 of its 92 bis decision of the 7th of July and it will not, therefore,
5 repeat those reasons here.
6 In sum, the Chamber has found that the inconsistencies contained
7 in the proposed evidence constitute an overriding interest in the
8 witness's testimony being heard viva voce. The Chamber, having found
9 that there are no circumstances which would justify reconsideration of
10 its 92 bis decision, therefore, denies the Prosecution's motion.
11 This concludes the Chamber's ruling.
12 And this concludes the hearing of today.
13 We adjourn and resume tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this courtroom.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.53 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day of
16 February 2011, at 9.00 a.m.