Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9097

 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?


Page 9098

 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

Page 9099

 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

12     filing.

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

Page 9100

 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.


Page 9101

 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

18     about.

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

Page 9102

 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

19     same?

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

Page 9103

 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.

Page 9104

 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

Page 9105

 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

Page 9106

 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

Page 9107

 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.

Page 9108

 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

Page 9109

 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

Page 9110

 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

22     point?

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

Page 9111

 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

Page 9112

 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

Page 9113

 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

Page 9114

 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

10     graves?

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

Page 9115

 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

Page 9116

 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

10     military?

11        A.   It was a -- what they called it then, it was an American military

12     base.

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

Page 9117

 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

Page 9118

 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

Page 9119

 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

 3     mistaken.

 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.


Page 9120

 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

15     security.

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

Page 9121

 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

Page 9122

 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

Page 9123

 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

Page 9124

 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

Page 9125

 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

18     Boston.

19        A.   Do you mean with government organisations?  Is that what you're

20     saying?

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

Page 9126

 1     charter.

 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

Page 9127

 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.

Page 9128

 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?

Page 9129

 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?

Page 9130

 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

 6     things.

 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

Page 9131

 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.

Page 9132

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Sir, do you recall the name of this head

 2     investigator?

 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

Page 9133

 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

Page 9134

 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

11     was.

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.

Page 9135

 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

17     from.

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

Page 9136

 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.

Page 9137

 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

 9     assistance.

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

22     you.

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

Page 9138

 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

Page 9139

 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.

Page 9140

 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]

Page 9141

 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

 5     Tribunal?

 6        A.   It would be the Office of the Prosecutor, the Office of the

 7     Prosecutor.

 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

Page 9142

 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

Page 9143

 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

 6     McCloskey."

 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

Page 9144

 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

Page 9145

 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

23     death"?

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

Page 9146

 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.

18        A.

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.

Page 9147

 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

25     mind.

Page 9148

 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

17     confused.

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

Page 9149

 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

Page 9150

 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.

Page 9151

 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

 5     you.

 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

24     apologies.

25        A.   Editing, I guess, would be in this context, when I guess, it

Page 9152

 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

Page 9153

 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,

Page 9154

 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

11     findings.

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

15     report?

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

Page 9155

 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:

Page 9156

 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

 3     interview."

 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.

Page 9157

 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,

 6     please?

 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

16     death?

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

Page 9158

 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

Page 9159

 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

Page 9160

 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

16     report?

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

Page 9161

 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.

Page 9162

 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

Page 9163

 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

Page 9164

 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

21     question?

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

24     6.00.

25                           --- Recess taken at 5.47 p.m.

Page 9165

 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

12     page.

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:

Page 9166

 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

 7     correct?

 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

21     e-court?

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

Page 9167

 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,

 6     yes.

 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.

Page 9168

 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

14     identification."

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

Page 9169

 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

 5     anyway.

 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

Page 9170

 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

Page 9171

 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

Page 9172

 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

Page 9173

 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

 7     up.

 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

Page 9174

 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

Page 9175

 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

11     microphone?

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?


Page 9176

 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


Page 9177

 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

Page 9178

 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.